|
|
Post by karen on Oct 28, 2010 16:08:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 29, 2010 15:00:15 GMT -5
These cosmic simulation arguments are very close to the good old cartesian paranoia, but they are more plausible because instead of just being possible (and never really being close to dodging Occam's Razor, or even bothering to dodge OR), a cosmic simulation actually has a degree of probability given that we already are capable of running very complex simulations. One thing is for sure: if we ever manage to build a simulation similarly complex to our universe, then the likelyhood that we live in a simulated reality ourselves would skyrocket.
But none of it really matters that much. "Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is." (Wittgenstein)
|
|
|
|
Post by oneiopen on Oct 30, 2010 2:10:23 GMT -5
Very interesting, karen. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
mits
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by mits on Oct 30, 2010 12:55:37 GMT -5
Didn't Richard Rose say that the world was a physical illusion - albeit a real one. And I remember reading The Books By Jed Mckenna where he would say the world was a Hologram similar to the Holodecks on Star War or was it Star Trek.
Boggles the mind as to why two prolific spiritual teachers would argue that the word is an illusion. Well if the world is an illusion then "I" must be imaginary - a dream so to say but as of yet I can't find any evidence for it at the moment
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Oct 30, 2010 14:21:04 GMT -5
The subjective world in which I find myself is 100% an illusion. It's a model created by my brain to mimic something it senses. (I still fall for it most the time though)
I often wonder if these scientist are projecting the limitations of their subjective world onto some imagined empirical world.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 30, 2010 16:07:31 GMT -5
Didn't Richard Rose say that the world was a physical illusion - albeit a real one. And I remember reading The Books By Jed Mckenna where he would say the world was a Hologram similar to the Holodecks on Star War or was it Star Trek. Boggles the mind as to why two prolific spiritual teachers would argue that the word is an illusion. Well if the world is an illusion then "I" must be imaginary - a dream so to say but as of yet I can't find any evidence for it at the moment Mit: I suspect that what these teachers meant is that the world, AS ORDINARILY CONCEIVED, is the illusion. Does a "wrist" exist? It's existence is totally dependent upon whether we choose to imagine that it is a separate thing with boundaries separating it from other things. The illusion is exposed when we try to locate the boundaries. Clearly, the boundaries exist only in the mind, but we practice imagining those boundaries so often that we forget that what we are dividing/imagining, psychologically, is seamlessly whole. A "wrist" is seamlessly connected to an "arm" which is connected to a "a set of lungs" which is connected to "air" which is connected to "the stratosphere" which is connected to "space" which is connected to "stars" ad infinitum. When the mind becomes silent (quits imagining), the unity underlying all "thingness" shines forth. The moment we open our mouth to talk ABOUT the world, we have to leave the real thing behind. What can be said if we want to talk about that which can't be talked about? All we can do is point and say "Look, look!" It is neither an illusion nor not an illusion, but don;t take anyone's word for that. Look for yourself. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 30, 2010 18:55:59 GMT -5
A "wrist" is seamlessly connected to an "arm" which is connected to a "a set of lungs" which is connected to "air" which is connected to "the stratosphere" which is connected to "space" which is connected to "stars" ad infinitum. When the mind becomes silent (quits imagining), the unity underlying all "thingness" shines forth. What gets me these days is that this friggin thing doesn't even have a size. It's neither big nor small, it's not nothing and not exactly something. It just constantly kicks the crap out of a mind.  |
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 30, 2010 18:58:50 GMT -5
The subjective world in which I find myself is 100% an illusion. It's a model created by my brain to mimic something it senses. (I still fall for it most the time though) An illusion relative to what? We worked through a similar problem before with Enigma and the conclusion was that when I and he look at some ordinary object we perceive the same (colour, shape, texture, smell etc). Sure, always, and it's a wonderful thing. In this projection the limitations become objectified, one can then look at them and therefore understand and transcend the limitations. History of science is the history of the transcendence of imagined limitations. |
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Oct 30, 2010 19:04:17 GMT -5
A "wrist" is seamlessly connected to an "arm" which is connected to a "a set of lungs" which is connected to "air" which is connected to "the stratosphere" which is connected to "space" which is connected to "stars" ad infinitum. When the mind becomes silent (quits imagining), the unity underlying all "thingness" shines forth. What gets me these days is that this friggin thing doesn't even have a size. It's neither big nor small, it's not nothing and not exactly something. It just constantly kicks the crap out of a mind. IT has no beginning,IT has no end. IT is everything, It is nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by karen on Oct 31, 2010 11:17:40 GMT -5
The subjective world in which I find myself is 100% an illusion. It's a model created by my brain to mimic something it senses. (I still fall for it most the time though) An illusion relative to what? We worked through a similar problem before with Enigma and the conclusion was that when I and he look at some ordinary object we perceive the same (colour, shape, texture, smell etc). Relative to some imagined empirical world. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 31, 2010 11:53:51 GMT -5
I would put it this way: "what is" is, but what we imagine is imaginary. What a wrist IS is infinite, but what we imagine as a wrist--a separate finite thing-- is an idea. Most of us live in a surreal mixture of the real and the imaginary, but with sufficient silence it becomes possible to distinguish the difference. When ideas cease, both self and other disappear.
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Nov 1, 2010 10:46:51 GMT -5
|
|
mits
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by mits on Nov 2, 2010 13:36:49 GMT -5
Isn't it possible that enlightement is just an illusion - that is if the world is a hologram? Makes sense dosen't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by nasentbuddhist on Nov 4, 2010 20:44:43 GMT -5
This question was put forth by Rene Descartes many years ago and in more recent years by Hilary Putnum in his essay "Brains in a Vat" which inspired the Wachowski's, creator of the movie the Matrix, who studied him in their college years. To read Putnam's essay visit. evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/putnam05.htm |
|
|
|
Post by souley on Nov 6, 2010 17:04:38 GMT -5
If the world is an illusion, what is then real? I think this is a strange question.
The world is probably not the western materialistic thing made up of buildings blocks etc, but that doesn't make it an illusion. Douglas Harding argues that everything is mental, that you can't draw a line between consciousness and some kind of material. Probably a bunch of other guys agree with that, and so do I.
But if everything is mental, or everything is consciousness, there are no distinctions to be made any more. If there are no distinctions the world is what it is. It is not an illusion, because then everything would be an illusion. An illusion does only exist in contrast to something real. The contrast that you are talking about here, is the normal western viewpoint of solid materials compared to something else. The world is not made of solid materials, but that does not mean that it is an illusion.
This is pretty much the same thing that zendancer is saying: The illusion is in all your definitions.
|
|
