Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 4:58 am

Serendipper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 2:24 am Either thoughts, ideas, concepts contain something or they're random nonsensical noise, in which case they still contain the noise.

You don't seem to understand what thoughts are. You are saying they are made of two distinct elements, which is directly refuted by neuroscience. And the same idea, concept can mean different things to different people, obviously.

I didn't specify what thoughts are made of, but that they are containers.

Since your writing does not contain anything, I am unable to discern meaning from the random scribbling you posted. How can you convey meaning to me without a container?

If you say so. Where are the containers embedded in your post? Or do you directly transfer containers into the minds of others?

Obviously my quote must have contained meaning or you could not have discerned the meaning and then replied to it. You're being argumentative and dogmatic.

You've made a claim that nonduality exists abstractly/objectively and is both "beyond" and "deeper" than logic/duality which are human-made and therefore illusory which means you're unable to substantiate your claim other than repetitiously restating the claim over and over and dogmatically insisting it's true.

I'm telling it as it is, and it's dead simple; what you are saying requires faith however, because the evidence is against it.

What evidence? You're telling me duality and logic are human-made, flawed, unable to "transcend", etc and therefore you couldn't possibly have evidence.

You misunderstand and misrepresent what I wrote because you are looking for it like you were looking for an object, which defeats the whole point. Also, nonduality is anything but abstract. The dual is abstract.

Abstract means "not attached or a part of anything". Dual is attached to the duality while nondual is off by itself in abstractness.

Also, I wrote that there is a shift in logic, that doesn't mean that logic ceases to exist.

Please explain the perversion of logic you have in mind then.

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 5:02 am

Serendipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:59 pm That proves everything is relative to our means of detection. We have 6 means of perceiving the world and nothing can exist beyond that.

It only proves that there is *that*/reality/whatever we agree to call it. It doesn't prove relativity, perception, not even that there is a world.

Reality IS relativity. Reality is forever and always the interaction between subject and object. Objective reality is a contradiction in terms.

Existence is relative. In order for something to exist, it must exist as a part of something or a function of something. Abstract existence is nonexistence.

When you try to prove something you are always operating from a dualistic point of view, from the split mind. Its like being in a dream, looking for dream proofs, proving dream things. A proof is only necessary in the relativistic world that we have made up - never in reality.

You still have a polarization (duality) between "relative reality" and "objective reality", but relative reality is redundant since all reality is relative and objective reality is a contradiction in terms since no reality can be objective because all reality is relative.

Reality is its own proof, it requires no external confirmation - where would this external be? We believe we can prove reality from inside the dream (duality), but this is perfectly impossible. Reality actually doesn't know anything about the dream - it cant access it because it cant know it. Why? Because the dream/duality is not real and reality only knows reality/itself. It knows nothing about ideas, stories and beliefs...

That's your metaphysical assumption that you cannot prove.

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 5:34 am Sorry, forgot this part...

Serendipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:59 pm Alan said "If the game is not worth the candle, you may as well commit suicide." Of course, he was talking to the atheists who believe they are machines, but from his point of view, he's just an actor in a play, so either way, it doesn't matter what people do: dying is no different than living because there is no one living in the first place.

Well... he (or you) is ultimately not an actor in a play, but the reality that makes the play possible in the first place. Funny thing is that reality doesn't know anything about the play, it doesn't even know that it is happing. Actually: in reality the play is NOT happening - it only happens in your mind (a dream doesn't affect the real world - and neither does the play affect reality).
This doesn't mean that while playing/dreaming we shouldn't play it in a way that it reflects our true being.

The way I see it, the whole universe is the actor and Serendipper is the character being played.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:03 am Reality IS relativity.

Only the reality you made up in your mind knows of subject and object and is as such relative.
When I use the word reality it is meant to point to that which is before mind-made reality (I call mind-made reality objective or relativistic as it is based on the idea of separate objects existing in their own right - something that is not ultimately true).

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:03 am That's your metaphysical assumption that you cannot prove.

No, its not an assumption. You can see this yourself if you follow direct experience all the way to the bottom of the rabbit hole.
I agree - it will never be proven by talking about it. It cannot be proven using conceptual thought - but this is really the same for everything we might attempt to prove. Attempt to prove that this thing outside your window is a tree. Can you do that?
A proof always rests on assumptions - on thought, and as such on belief. It rests on your interpretation of reality.
The only thing you actually CAN prove is reality itself - simply because it is not a thing and as such doesn't rest on anything else.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:42 am I didn't specify what thoughts are made of, but that they are containers.

Since no such containers were ever found, you are making them up. Containers and the meaning they contain are two distinct elements you speak of.

Obviously my quote must have contained meaning or you could not have discerned the meaning and then replied to it. You're being argumentative and dogmatic.

In other words people who don't agree with you are argumentative, dogmatic and wrong. And you seem to be the most argumentative poster on this forum. I saw words but no thought-container. And I probably constructed a different meaning from those words. I'm trying to guess what you mean.
Maybe you don't know that meaning isn't really transmitted; the same words can be interpreted differently by different people. Most people learn this in childhood.

What evidence? You're telling me duality and logic are human-made, flawed, unable to "transcend", etc and therefore you couldn't possibly have evidence.

Subject-object, container-meaning etc. you seem to see literal pairs everywhere. Most of these don't exist at all, as confirmed by scientific evidence. There are naturally ocurring pairs, mostly in particle physics, but we can't generalize that to everything; those mostly apply to the subatomic level and have almost nothing to do with human thinking.

Abstract means "not attached or a part of anything". Dual is attached to the duality while nondual is off by itself in abstractness.

Abstract usually means a representation of something; it's a thought, idea.
Nondual is not off by itself; if anything, it's the lack of representations.

Please explain the perversion of logic you have in mind then.

Logic is something like: how our concepts relate to each other. Dualistic logic is one form of logic (and dualistic dual logic usually means binary logic; yes or no, 1 or 0; that's not quite the same as your dualistic relative pair logic).
There are also other forms of logic; that doesn't automatically make them perversions as you claim.
I guess nondual logic would be that a lack of fundamental divisions, separations is logical; fundamental divisions, separations are illogical. (And of course I also use dualistic binary and fuzzy logics when I think they are appropriate, depending on context. The nondual understanding incorporates the dualistic understanding.)

Serendipper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:24 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:59 am Just admit it, you actually believe that existence is one big conscious something, that "strives" to become more and more complex.

Yes something like that.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:07 am The way I see it, the whole universe is the actor and Serendipper is the character being played.

Who's being more dogmatic here. We've seen in the other threads, that you first assume that your scientifically unsupported idea that the universe is some kind of big conscious something with an intention, is correct, and then you argue from there.

Sure, the Hindu idea that we are all the Brahman in disguise, and the Brahman plays hide and seek with itself forever, is an excellent metaphor or pointer for nondual awakening, nondual realization; but you seem to have missed what it's pointing to, while also taking some elements of it too seriously. There doesn't need to be an actual universal being that's playing; there's just this.

Anyway, I don't think this is going anywhere so let's agree to disagree.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:31 am

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:42 am I didn't specify what thoughts are made of, but that they are containers.

Since no such containers were ever found, you are making them up. Containers and the meaning they contain are two distinct elements you speak of.

Then how do you know what I'm talking about if nothing is contained in my text?

Obviously my quote must have contained meaning or you could not have discerned the meaning and then replied to it. You're being argumentative and dogmatic.

In other words people who don't agree with you are argumentative, dogmatic and wrong. And you seem to be the most argumentative poster on this forum. I saw words but no thought-container. And I probably constructed a different meaning from those words. I'm trying to guess what you mean.
Maybe you don't know that meaning isn't really transmitted; the same words can be interpreted differently by different people. Most people learn this in childhood.

Then how do you know what I'm talking about if nothing is contained or transmitted?

What evidence? You're telling me duality and logic are human-made, flawed, unable to "transcend", etc and therefore you couldn't possibly have evidence.

Subject-object, container-meaning etc. you seem to see literal pairs everywhere. Most of these don't exist at all, as confirmed by scientific evidence.

Show me the evidence.

There are naturally ocurring pairs, mostly in particle physics, but we can't generalize that to everything; those mostly apply to the subatomic level and have almost nothing to do with human thinking.

Pairs? You just finished stating there is evidence that no pairs exist and now you're elaborating on pairs.

Abstract means "not attached or a part of anything". Dual is attached to the duality while nondual is off by itself in abstractness.

Abstract usually means a representation of something; it's a thought, idea.
Nondual is not off by itself; if anything, it's the lack of representations.

If it is not off by itself, then it is attached to something. Make up your mind already.

Please explain the perversion of logic you have in mind then.

Logic is something like: how our concepts relate to each other. Dualistic logic is one form of logic (and dualistic dual logic usually means binary logic; yes or no, 1 or 0; that's not quite the same as your dualistic relative pair logic).
There are also other forms of logic; that doesn't automatically make them perversions as you claim.

Then give me an example of logic that is not dual.

I guess nondual logic would be that a lack of fundamental divisions, separations is logical; fundamental divisions, separations are illogical.

But that's dual: separations/not-separations

(And of course I also use dualistic binary and fuzzy logics when I think they are appropriate, depending on context. The nondual understanding incorporates the dualistic understanding.)

Fuzzy logic = perversion of logic. Incorporation of logic = perversion of logic. A brand new logic would have nothing to do with dual logic and therefore it would not pervert the dual logic into a new form, but start from scratch.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:24 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:59 am Just admit it, you actually believe that existence is one big conscious something, that "strives" to become more and more complex.

Yes something like that.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:07 am The way I see it, the whole universe is the actor and Serendipper is the character being played.

Who's being more dogmatic here.

First of all, let's get our definitions consistent.

Dogmatic - inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true. Bullheaded, essentially.

I am on the side of logic while you guys are telling me logic is wrong and you're being dogmatic about it because there is no logical proof possible that logic itself is wrong; therefore what you're advocating is faith-based.

We've seen in the other threads, that you first assume that your scientifically unsupported idea that the universe is some kind of big conscious something with an intention, is correct, and then you argue from there.

I'll be the first to admit I do not have everything figured out, but I don't have to know how to lay an egg to know when one is rotten.

Anyway, I don't think this is going anywhere so let's agree to disagree.

It's not going anywhere because your faith cannot be moved. See above regarding logic.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:09 am

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:03 am Reality IS relativity.

Only the reality you made up in your mind knows of subject and object and is as such relative.
When I use the word reality it is meant to point to that which is before mind-made reality (I call mind-made reality objective or relativistic as it is based on the idea of separate objects existing in their own right - something that is not ultimately true).

It has nothing to do with mind. One atom is aware of another atom and it does not have a mind.

Start at 25:00 here for a great explanation. "Being, existence itself, is relationship."

https://youtu.be/iXSCzofqX8Y?t=25m1s

My replies are probably going to be sparse going forward as this forum-posting thing is more of a wintertime activity for me and it's too hard to find the time in summer.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 5:51 am

Anyway, I don't think this is going anywhere so let's agree to disagree.

It's not going anywhere because your faith cannot be moved. See above regarding logic.

Serendipper wrote: People are robots and whatever ideology they happen to fall into, they will defend it to the death and even kill their own children on the altar of their dogmas rather than submit to reprogramming.

Our approaches are different. To me, philosophy is mainly about the search for truth and facts; to you, it's about an obsessive and emotional need to always be right, sacrificing intellectual honesty in the process, while trying to discredit others and accusing them of your own shortcomings. Frankly you come across as someone who just recently escaped some kind of organized religion or cult, you are still half insane but dead certain, and you misinterpret/are unaware of like half of science. I have better things to do

Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 6:05 am It has nothing to do with mind. One atom is aware of another atom and it does not have a mind.

"In your mind" is only a saying - I thought you would understand the meaning I was trying to convey...
Anyway, no, atoms are not aware of anything - just like you are not aware OF anything. There is awareness - this - full stop (to make it more understandable one could say that awareness is aware of itself, but this is ultimately not true).
There are no things (or even subjects) being aware of anything - you can see that yourself if you would "get out of your mind" and simply look

Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 6:05 am Start at 25:00 here for a great explanation. "Being, existence itself, is relationship."

Yes, sure, being able to put things into certain relation to each other is required to state that I, the separate subject exist in relation to other objects out there etc etc. Existence is relationship is true as long as we apply our relativistic view of the world - but this view is ultimately not true. It is built on the belief in separation. In reality NO relationship exists - how could it? Even if you don't know and only believe the universe is "one" then you would have to understand that ultimately relationships cannot exist - its logical as there is only the whole... You are as such in a relationship with yourself - not sure if this really qualifies as a relationship...?
I am sure Alan knew that and he only uses the "being, existence itself, is relationship" idea as a stepping stone - not everything you hear from a teacher is the final word, this is only an interim step in the chain of teachings/realisations.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 6:05 am My replies are probably going to be sparse going forward as this forum-posting thing is more of a wintertime activity for me and it's too hard to find the time in summer.

No problem - much nicer to enjoy the outdoors than sit in front of a computer screen - have fun!

From Serendipper's post(extra spacing mine):

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:31 am
Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:42 am
I didn't specify what thoughts are made of, but that they are containers.

Since no such containers were ever found, you are making them up. Containers and the meaning they contain are two distinct elements you speak of.

Then how do you know what I'm talking about if nothing is contained in my text?

Serendipper's concept of 'containers' in the context of mind stuff is abstracted from S's concept of physical material containers such as aeroplane fuselages, or coca cola cans and so on.

I agree with Atla that "Containers and the meaning they contain are two distinct elements". However I'd perhaps rephrase Atla's and say that they are separable abstractions from material existences.

Atla knows what Serendipper is talking about because Atla and Serendipper share a common language and common experiences with material containers and containers' contents, and also both of their personalities include that they like to metaphysically speculate.

Atla and Serendipper may like to consider that a) Atla's concepts b) Serendipper's concepts c) Atla's experiences with various containers and d) Serendipper's experiences with various containers are all historical facts. They all ,a), b), c), and d) necessarily existed as mind-brain events and also as physical events.

The question remaining is: am I right? Do or did coca cola cans and aeroplane fuselages exist as physical objects in themselves or do or did they exist only as elements in a shared, contextual, and total world view i.e. totally as mind stuff?

What has my comment to do with infinity? A shared, contextual, and total world view is infinite in scope because each element in the world view relates to each other element in infinite contextuality.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 10:57 am The question remaining is: am I right? Do or did coca cola cans and aeroplane fuselages exist as physical objects in themselves or do or did they exist only as elements in a shared, contextual, and total world view i.e. totally as mind stuff?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. Quantum nonlocality has directly shown that there don't seem to be any separate objects in the universe. There is no such thing as a classical object.

Even without QM we can see that all such divisions are purely conceptual. No actual separations, division were ever found. What is separating my thoughts from the rest of my head? My head from the rest of my body? My body from the rest of the Earth? The Earth from the rest of the universe? Nothing at all, it's all continuous.

So there is no such thing as a container. A cola can is continuous with the rest of the universe, we just call this (apparent) "part" of the universe a container.

Mind-stuff and physical-stuff are one and the same thing, so both these categories are unneeded. When we say "mind" we usually refer to a part of the head. We have a pretty good picture now what thoughts actually are: parts, activities of the brain, probably centered around electromagnetism. There is neither a "separate container" nor an "objective meaning" put into thoughts.

Though it certainly can be useful to buy into the illusion of separation in our everyday lives. And treat cola cans as containers.

Atla, I agree with you that differentiation of objects, and I'd add events, is what I'd call intersubjective. It follows that containers and other generalisations are also intersubjective and don't reflect reality.

However is science another abstraction i.e. a heuristic or model of reality? And I also ask whether or not physical reality is no more and no less than the sum of all past and future conceptualisations of physical reality.

Atla wrote:

Mind-stuff and physical-stuff are one and the same thing, so both these categories are unneeded.

I agree that those are one and the same thing: metaphysically. I disagree that the categories are unneeded. We need those categories because as a matter of fact we are not each of us privy to each others' minds-brains; we therefore need subjects and objects to stay alive. We need I and thou categories to stay alive.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 1:16 pm However is science another abstraction i.e. a heuristic or model of reality? And I also ask whether or not physical reality is no more and no less than the sum of all past and future conceptualisations of physical reality.

Well I would say yes and no, but fundamentally no. Scientific theories, scientific conceptualisations are indeed abstractions, models of physical reality.

However modern physics is inherently "interactive": all measurements not only disturb (uncertainty principle) but also seemingly "create"/"actualize"/"collapse"/"no one understands this part" (measurement problem) physical reality. And there is no separation (nonlocality).

So in other words we are inherently part of the physical reality that we are making models about. It is not possible to be outside physical reality. Everything we have access to is physical reality. The scientist and the scientists's model of physical reality are also parts of physical reality.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 2:49 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 1:16 pm However is science another abstraction i.e. a heuristic or model of reality? And I also ask whether or not physical reality is no more and no less than the sum of all past and future conceptualisations of physical reality.

Well I would say yes and no, but fundamentally no. Scientific theories, scientific conceptualisations are indeed abstractions, models of physical reality.

However modern physics is inherently "interactive": all measurements not only disturb (uncertainty principle) but also seemingly "create"/"actualize"/"collapse"/"no one understands this part" (measurement problem) physical reality. And there is no separation (nonlocality).

So in other words we are inherently part of the physical reality that we are making models about. It is not possible to be outside physical reality. Everything we have access to is physical reality. The scientist and the scientists's model of physical reality are also parts of physical reality.

I understand and agree. If "The scientist and the scientists's model of physical reality are also parts of physical reality" were not the case we would be able to float around as sort of ghostly spirits that transcend reality, which is absurd.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 3:03 pm I understand and agree. If "The scientist and the scientists's model of physical reality are also parts of physical reality" were not the case we would be able to float around as sort of ghostly spirits that transcend reality, which is absurd.

And this is where imo Western philosophy reached its dead end nearly 100 years ago. So some of the greatest physicists like Tesla/Einstein/Bohr/Schrödinger/Heisenberg, abandoned Western philosophy.
(Hehe in hindsight, maybe it would have been better if Bohr didn't read the Vedas though, he helped create nearly a century of confusion and quantum woo with his Copenhagen interpretation. But that's another story)
(Ok Tesla was again, smarter than everyone else, he already realized the dead end of Western philosophy well before Quantum theory.)

So in the new picture, we are inherently part of this physical reality, and there are no separations. The subject-object dichotomy has collapsed. And yet, the hard problem of consciousness has not been solved.

This is where Eastern nondualism comes in: it's more or less the same thing, "just" also solving what consciousness is. There is one last conceptual division lurking: between the separate "I"/"mind"/"ego"/whatever and the background/ground of being/whatever. The background, that which is almost never noticed, and yet the "I" is separate because its separate in contrast to the background.

Once this forever overlooked dichotomy collapses too, we go back to Infinity, to the Absolute. To be more precise, we realize that we have always been there and it's not possible not to be. (It also automatically solves like 2/3 of Western philosophy.)

But getting this realization is not easy. It can sometimes be spontaneous, or require effort and then happen in a minute, or a year, or a decade, or sometimes a lifetime isn't enough. There's no surefire method.