|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 16, 2021 22:45:08 GMT -5
I see a parallel between Cryonics and getting the covid "vaccine". It is just at a different level of financial possibilities. Imagine that the government would pay for Cryonics, even without a media hype campaign of fear, hope, coaxing into guilty feeling. There'd be hoards of volunteers. There'd be talk about inequitable access of the minorities, yada-yada. I think cryonics is more like an older, now obsolete version of transhumanism. Think about it, why would you want to freeze your body when you can just clone it, grow a perfectly new one? Since they think your identity is just a memory, which is stored in the brain, and since brain activity can be easily monitored and translated into bits and bytes, they think they can download the content of your memory (and therefore your entire identity, the disembodied you so to speak) onto a hard drive and then transfer it to a new body - non-human, human or hybrid. Also, in the process of copying memory, they think they can delete parts of your life story that you wished you wouldn't remember, like some traumatic experience as a child. And voila! You're a fresh new fully healthy body again plus with a squeaky clean and enhanced identity. Watch Replicas and you'll get the idea. It's a good movie, because it raises a lot of questions - technical, philosophical and ethical. Also, watch The Island, with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. Then think again about what Musk is suggesting. The proponents of transhumanism think that it will great better humans in the sense of enhanced capabilities and enhanced experiences. The critics of transhumanism think it will do the opposite, it will actually take the human component out of humans. I understand. Surely, I care as much about my physical body as I care about the dream bodies I leave behind every time I wake up, or morph into another dream. In spite of that, I work out every morning, I watch my diet, I take supplements, I don't want to get the covid "vaccine". I am kind of detached both as interest and emotionally of many of the humanity centered current debates. If my thoughts and beliefs play a such big role into creating what I experience, then what I perceive happening is, as I mentioned in an earlier post, like looking at Rorschach inkblots and interpreting them. At some outer-level, we all look at the same inkblots (internally shared), but see different things, and act accordingly. I remember watching a couple of the movies you mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 16, 2021 23:11:03 GMT -5
I agree with your arguments. It is just that for me, who neither liker nor dislikes Musk, it was fascinating to see him looking for a solution to a big, existential problem, finding it (in his view), and being happy about it. At his level, he is even somebody who could push his idea further. I appreciated his out of the box thinking, and the practicality of not thinking to avoid something unavoidable, accepting it and trying to deal with it. Surely, a solution as Musk suggested is outside of my sphere of interest, as I believe that each one of us already lives in a self-created reality. The problem of human civilization is a false problem in a multiverse which covers all probabilities. It's not out-of-the box thinking if you are familiar with transhumanism. In that sense, there's nothing revolutionary about Musk in the same sense that the cars he sells run on batteries that need recharging (which is a hundred year old technology, real Tesla technology wouldn't require any recharging). So I'm not really seeing a reason for his current celebrity status. He is really good at marketing though. I think even Scott Adams is in awe of Musk's persuasion skills. Also, you only need a solution if there is an actual problem. If there is no actual problem, then promoting a solution would be akin to promoting an agenda. And personally, I just don't see human civilization at the brink of extinction. There may be ups and downs, even cataclysms, but as both ancient history and myth tell us, while individual humans were facing extinction thru-out history, the human race itself never was. So I'm just not sharing his narrow perspective of the world and therefore not his concerns arising from such a narrow perspective. Which means I don't have any use for the 'solutions' he offers to his imaginary 'problems'. But that's just me again. Others may feel differently about this and see Musk as a beacon of hope in a world at the brink of total destruction. But as ZD and I already mentioned, the perspective of the world and life these techies promote is inherently flawed. So don't be surprise if their 'solutions' are not working out as planned or if these 'solutions' create a plethora of new problems that then need to be solved again. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 16, 2021 23:49:56 GMT -5
I think cryonics is more like an older, now obsolete version of transhumanism. Think about it, why would you want to freeze your body when you can just clone it, grow a perfectly new one? Since they think your identity is just a memory, which is stored in the brain, and since brain activity can be easily monitored and translated into bits and bytes, they think they can download the content of your memory (and therefore your entire identity, the disembodied you so to speak) onto a hard drive and then transfer it to a new body - non-human, human or hybrid. Also, in the process of copying memory, they think they can delete parts of your life story that you wished you wouldn't remember, like some traumatic experience as a child. And voila! You're a fresh new fully healthy body again plus with a squeaky clean and enhanced identity. Watch Replicas and you'll get the idea. It's a good movie, because it raises a lot of questions - technical, philosophical and ethical. Also, watch The Island, with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. Then think again about what Musk is suggesting. The proponents of transhumanism think that it will great better humans in the sense of enhanced capabilities and enhanced experiences. The critics of transhumanism think it will do the opposite, it will actually take the human component out of humans. I understand. Surely, I care as much about my physical body as I care about the dream bodies I leave behind every time I wake up, or morph into another dream. In spite of that, I work out every morning, I watch my diet, I take supplements, I don't want to get the covid "vaccine". I am kind of detached both as interest and emotionally of many of the humanity centered current debates. If my thoughts and beliefs play a such big role into creating what I experience, then what I perceive happening is, as I mentioned in an earlier post, like looking at Rorschach inkblots and interpreting them. At some outer-level, we all look at the same inkblots (internally shared), but see different things, and act accordingly. I remember watching a couple of the movies you mentioned. FWIW, I don't see you as a transhumanist or even a solipsist. You come across as rather balanced in that regard.  When I first encountered transhumanism in my teens, it seemed like an exciting idea, especially the spare parts thing, haha. So it really is a fascinating topic. But later I felt there was something inherently missing in that philosophy. Something didn't seem right. Today I know what's wrong with it, of course. But I wasn't really aware of the solipsism connection until Laughter mentioned it. So I'm learning something here, too. I think the Rorschach blot analogy is only valid if we are on the same level. Then we look at (roughly) the same but may come to different conclusions nevertheless. Very often in these discussions about non-duality though, people are speaking from fundamentally different levels. From the personal perspective (intellect), the impersonal perspective (prior to intellect) is not accessible, and so it can only be assumed, which essentially is akin to being a myth because it cannot be verified from that perspective. Which means someone having a reference for a perspective prior to the intellect can literally see what the one who is only limited to the perspective of the intellect can never see. But since the personal is included in the impersonal, the one with the impersonal reference can still see what the one with only the personal reference sees. So some people only can talk on one level, others can talk on more than one level. And when people just switch levels (or context) without warning, it can get confusing for those who only know one context. You'll see that a lot on Zen koans. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 17, 2021 0:03:31 GMT -5
I agree with your arguments. It is just that for me, who neither liker nor dislikes Musk, it was fascinating to see him looking for a solution to a big, existential problem, finding it (in his view), and being happy about it. At his level, he is even somebody who could push his idea further. I appreciated his out of the box thinking, and the practicality of not thinking to avoid something unavoidable, accepting it and trying to deal with it. Surely, a solution as Musk suggested is outside of my sphere of interest, as I believe that each one of us already lives in a self-created reality. The problem of human civilization is a false problem in a multiverse which covers all probabilities. It's not out-of-the box thinking if you are familiar with transhumanism. In that sense, there's nothing revolutionary about Musk in the same sense that the cars he sells run on batteries that need recharging (which is a hundred year old technology, real Tesla technology wouldn't require any recharging). So I'm not really seeing a reason for his current celebrity status. He is really good at marketing though. I think even Scott Adams is in awe of Musk's persuasion skills. Also, you only need a solution if there is an actual problem. If there is no actual problem, then promoting a solution would be akin to promoting an agenda. And personally, I just don't see human civilization at the brink of extinction. There may be ups and downs, even cataclysms, but as both ancient history and myth tell us, while individual humans were facing extinction thru-out history, the human race itself never was. So I'm just not sharing his narrow perspective of the world and therefore not his concerns arising from such a narrow perspective. Which means I don't have any use for the 'solutions' he offers to his imaginary 'problems'. But that's just me again. Others may feel differently about this and see Musk as a beacon of hope in a world at the brink of total destruction. But as ZD and I already mentioned, the perspective of the world and life these techies promote is inherently flawed. So don't be surprise if their 'solutions' are not working out as planned or if these 'solutions' create a plethora of new problems that then need to be solved again. (wiki) I heard the term, I may have even read its definition, but I didn't think about it. If I look only to the above definition, and don't think in terms of creating a reality that would "indistinguishably simulate" the human civilization, I can look to the above goals from the "reality creation" point of view, as props that would allow people to really believe in the enhancement of their capabilities, and consequently create enhanced versions of the human body. So, as it is more difficult to believe that one can increase much their physical and mental abilities, they would rather believe that they can create the artificial enhancements to achieve that purpose. I hope I formulated my thoughts clearly enough, as it is a fine nuance. It is similar to getting healed because you believe that the placebo you took was a helpful medicine. I believe there is no objective reality, so you can enhance anything you believe you can, (only) however you believe you can. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 17, 2021 0:28:18 GMT -5
It's not out-of-the box thinking if you are familiar with transhumanism. In that sense, there's nothing revolutionary about Musk in the same sense that the cars he sells run on batteries that need recharging (which is a hundred year old technology, real Tesla technology wouldn't require any recharging). So I'm not really seeing a reason for his current celebrity status. He is really good at marketing though. I think even Scott Adams is in awe of Musk's persuasion skills. Also, you only need a solution if there is an actual problem. If there is no actual problem, then promoting a solution would be akin to promoting an agenda. And personally, I just don't see human civilization at the brink of extinction. There may be ups and downs, even cataclysms, but as both ancient history and myth tell us, while individual humans were facing extinction thru-out history, the human race itself never was. So I'm just not sharing his narrow perspective of the world and therefore not his concerns arising from such a narrow perspective. Which means I don't have any use for the 'solutions' he offers to his imaginary 'problems'. But that's just me again. Others may feel differently about this and see Musk as a beacon of hope in a world at the brink of total destruction. But as ZD and I already mentioned, the perspective of the world and life these techies promote is inherently flawed. So don't be surprise if their 'solutions' are not working out as planned or if these 'solutions' create a plethora of new problems that then need to be solved again. (wiki) I heard the term, I may have even read its definition, but I didn't think about it. If I look only to the above definition, and don't think in terms of creating a reality that would "indistinguishably simulate" the human civilization, I can look to the above goals from the "reality creation" point of view, as props that would allow people to really believe in the enhancement of their capabilities, and consequently create enhanced versions of the human body. So, as it is more difficult to believe that one can increase much their physical and mental abilities, they would rather believe that they can create the artificial enhancements to achieve that purpose. I hope I formulated my thoughts clearly enough, as it is a fine nuance. It is similar to getting healed because you believe that the placebo you took was a helpful medicine. I believe there is no objective reality, so you can enhance anything you believe you can, (only) however you believe you can. I think that "transhumanism", while different, is still somehow similar to ideas embraced by some New Age movements, and by some Religions, that prophesize big shifts in the human condition, en masse. It is an atheistic approach (atheism is faith based too). Little all those guys know that actually we create our own realities ...  |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Apr 17, 2021 2:55:10 GMT -5
I found interesting the angle Musk was thinking about the idea of a "simulated reality". He wasn't thinking as much in terms of possibility, as he thought it a given, considering the "hockey stick" of the technological progress. He was thinking in terms of the reasons and practicality of doing that. And he was happy he found it. Considering that statistically sooner or later there'll be some catastrophic event that will wipe out the human life, either at Earth level or at cosmic level, the only way to preserve human civilization, would be " to create simulations that  are indistinguishable from  reality", that will run after human biological life got wiped out. Considering that statistically it is likely that such an event already happened, and the likelihood that historically there could've been a civilization more advanced than we are (able " to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality"), he estimated the probability of these to not have happened to " one in billions". I found his thinking remarkable, definitely out of the box, which explains the success of the endeavors he is involved in. He wasn't futilely thinking about how to avoid the unavoidable, he was thinking in terms of how to deal with the unavoidable in the best way. " Life is like a box of Rorschach inkblots. You never know what anybody's gonna see". Look at us! But isn't there some flawful logic there in what he is proposing? That virtual reality, an entire civilization in a virtual reality is totally dependent on the physical hardware that projects it and sustains it. And that hardware needs to run on something and someone needs to run it. There's an entire physical infrastructure to these synthetic virtual (non-physical) worlds. This reminds me of the common misconception that people think the internet is just this soup of data that is surrounding us in the ether which we are just magically tapping into with our wifi devices. People forget that the internet is nothing without the physical infrastructure that sustains it, the physical servers with physical hard drives that need a lot of electric power and the data that goes thru undersea cables from continent to continent. So once you cut those cables or switch of all power to those servers the internet is gone. So people often forget the infrastructure behind that virtual reality and how vulnerable this all is. It can be turned off with a flip of a switch. So I think what he is proposing is a lot more worrisome than some kind of cataclysm that can wipe out a civilization which he's projecting from an unknown past into an unknown future. The virtual realities these people get so excited about are infinitely more vulnerable than this planet. It's having things upside down, actually. Because in the real world, the non-physical sustains the physical. In the tech world, however, the physical sustains the non-physical (virtual). Which brings us back to the question about real and false. That which exists in its own right is real, that which doesn't exist in its own right is false. So in the actual world, the non-physical would be real and the physical false. In the virtual world, the physical would be real and the virtual be false. Now, what Musk is suggesting to treat them as equal. And that's flawful logic. And when you think about it, what are these virtual technologies trying to emulate/simulate? It's the inner senses. So instead of using our god-given inner senses and explore other worlds, we get plugged into a machine that give us a lesser version of our natural senses (inner and outer) and makes us totally dependent on the hardware and software that runs these virtual worlds. Sounds like a terrible bargain to me. So why would someone think that's the coolest idea ever? maybe because they have no clue who they really are or they have a different agenda. IMO, it's a rather sad vision of the future what he's proposing there, having us fully dependent on technology. that's not upgrading or enhancing humans, it's downgrading and crippling humans, maybe even degrading humans by making them equivalent to a combination of machines or software. Isn’t Transhumanism exactly why all this ‘plandemic’ is about? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 17, 2021 6:15:55 GMT -5
Yep. The hi-tech guys and gals are totally clueless concerning the nature of reality, awareness, what it means to be a human or what it means to be any other kind of living thing. Many of them want to be frozen upon death, so that they can be revived in the future after science figures out how to make them eternal. If they could get out of their heads for a while, they might discover that what they are is already eternal! Yes, there are a lot of flawed premises to be found in that philosophy. It starts with assuming that they have a life. First mistake. Then they apparently assume that they only have one such life. Next mistake. Then they assume that such one life is the sum total of atoms and molecules and DNA plus an extra layer of bits and bytes. Another mistake. And they assume further that the body is just like a car, and similar to car tuning where you add or replace certain parts to make it run more efficient, they think they can do body tuning and get a similar effect. That's one of the weirdest mistakes. I probably could go on, but really, as you say, all it takes is to realize that instead of having a life, that they are life. And that there's no end to life. Transhumanist problem solved. One of the highest stakes hands of identity poker I played - essentially the last - was "I am Consciousness". A subconscious assumption about how consciousness emerges from the physical seems to me a very common state of mind. A glorious and auspicious confusion is the likely result of cutting that loose, without allowing the intellect to monkey-branch to some new tree to rest on. For me it was surprising, first getting conscious to the ineffability of the question, and even then, even knowing that there was no idea that could answer it, I kept noticing this subconscious hitch, this hiccup, this recurring pattern of mind. The pattern that is convinced of the lie. The last few months - finally - there was no intellectual component to the questioning. It was just "what is this??", whenever I noticed a self-referential movement, with the mind otherwise quite quiet. This is why I rezz with the "not-knowing" pointing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 17, 2021 6:32:42 GMT -5
I understand. Surely, I care as much about my physical body as I care about the dream bodies I leave behind every time I wake up, or morph into another dream. In spite of that, I work out every morning, I watch my diet, I take supplements, I don't want to get the covid "vaccine". I am kind of detached both as interest and emotionally of many of the humanity centered current debates. If my thoughts and beliefs play a such big role into creating what I experience, then what I perceive happening is, as I mentioned in an earlier post, like looking at Rorschach inkblots and interpreting them. At some outer-level, we all look at the same inkblots (internally shared), but see different things, and act accordingly. I remember watching a couple of the movies you mentioned. FWIW, I don't see you as a transhumanist or even a solipsist. You come across as rather balanced in that regard. When I first encountered transhumanism in my teens, it seemed like an exciting idea, especially the spare parts thing, haha. So it really is a fascinating topic. But later I felt there was something inherently missing in that philosophy. Something didn't seem right. Today I know what's wrong with it, of course. But I wasn't really aware of the solipsism connection until Laughter mentioned it. So I'm learning something here, too. I think the Rorschach blot analogy is only valid if we are on the same level. Then we look at (roughly) the same but may come to different conclusions nevertheless. Very often in these discussions about non-duality though, people are speaking from fundamentally different levels. From the personal perspective (intellect), the impersonal perspective (prior to intellect) is not accessible, and so it can only be assumed, which essentially is akin to being a myth because it cannot be verified from that perspective. Which means someone having a reference for a perspective prior to the intellect can literally see what the one who is only limited to the perspective of the intellect can never see. But since the personal is included in the impersonal, the one with the impersonal reference can still see what the one with only the personal reference sees. So some people only can talk on one level, others can talk on more than one level. And when people just switch levels (or context) without warning, it can get confusing for those who only know one context. You'll see that a lot on Zen koans. From my experience intellect can be put on an indirect notice of prior-to, and even a conscious acceptance of the limits of intellect is possible. This is one of the multiple meanings of Plato's cave allegory, and if I hunted I could likely find well-known intellectuals expressing that acceptance. For Heisenberg, I wouldn't have to hunt. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 17, 2021 6:34:39 GMT -5
But isn't there some flawful logic there in what he is proposing? That virtual reality, an entire civilization in a virtual reality is totally dependent on the physical hardware that projects it and sustains it. And that hardware needs to run on something and someone needs to run it. There's an entire physical infrastructure to these synthetic virtual (non-physical) worlds. This reminds me of the common misconception that people think the internet is just this soup of data that is surrounding us in the ether which we are just magically tapping into with our wifi devices. People forget that the internet is nothing without the physical infrastructure that sustains it, the physical servers with physical hard drives that need a lot of electric power and the data that goes thru undersea cables from continent to continent. So once you cut those cables or switch of all power to those servers the internet is gone. So people often forget the infrastructure behind that virtual reality and how vulnerable this all is. It can be turned off with a flip of a switch. So I think what he is proposing is a lot more worrisome than some kind of cataclysm that can wipe out a civilization which he's projecting from an unknown past into an unknown future. The virtual realities these people get so excited about are infinitely more vulnerable than this planet. It's having things upside down, actually. Because in the real world, the non-physical sustains the physical. In the tech world, however, the physical sustains the non-physical (virtual). Which brings us back to the question about real and false. That which exists in its own right is real, that which doesn't exist in its own right is false. So in the actual world, the non-physical would be real and the physical false. In the virtual world, the physical would be real and the virtual be false. Now, what Musk is suggesting to treat them as equal. And that's flawful logic. And when you think about it, what are these virtual technologies trying to emulate/simulate? It's the inner senses. So instead of using our god-given inner senses and explore other worlds, we get plugged into a machine that give us a lesser version of our natural senses (inner and outer) and makes us totally dependent on the hardware and software that runs these virtual worlds. Sounds like a terrible bargain to me. So why would someone think that's the coolest idea ever? maybe because they have no clue who they really are or they have a different agenda. IMO, it's a rather sad vision of the future what he's proposing there, having us fully dependent on technology. that's not upgrading or enhancing humans, it's downgrading and crippling humans, maybe even degrading humans by making them equivalent to a combination of machines or software. I agree with your arguments. It is just that for me, who neither like nor dislikes Musk, it was fascinating to see him looking for a solution to a big, existential problem, finding it (in his view), and being happy about it. At his level, he is even somebody who could push his idea further. I appreciated his out of the box thinking, and the practicality of not thinking to avoid something unavoidable, accepting it and trying to deal with it. Surely, a solution as Musk suggested is outside of my sphere of interest, as I believe that each one of us already lives in a self-created reality. The problem of human civilization is a false problem in a multiverse which covers all probabilities. The Boring Company is a more down to earth example of what you're responding to. (pun very much intended) |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 17, 2021 8:45:00 GMT -5
From my experience intellect can be put on an indirect notice of prior-to, and even a conscious acceptance of the limits of intellect is possible. This is one of the multiple meanings of Plato's cave allegory, and if I hunted I could likely find well-known intellectuals expressing that acceptance. For Heisenberg, I wouldn't have to hunt. True, but that requires a certain degree of maturity. If that isn't the case, then the danger I see there is peeps declaring victory too soon, like our friend Jed M. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 17, 2021 9:07:04 GMT -5
Yes, there are a lot of flawed premises to be found in that philosophy. It starts with assuming that they have a life. First mistake. Then they apparently assume that they only have one such life. Next mistake. Then they assume that such one life is the sum total of atoms and molecules and DNA plus an extra layer of bits and bytes. Another mistake. And they assume further that the body is just like a car, and similar to car tuning where you add or replace certain parts to make it run more efficient, they think they can do body tuning and get a similar effect. That's one of the weirdest mistakes. I probably could go on, but really, as you say, all it takes is to realize that instead of having a life, that they are life. And that there's no end to life. Transhumanist problem solved. One of the highest stakes hands of identity poker I played - essentially the last - was "I am Consciousness". A subconscious assumption about how consciousness emerges from the physical seems to me a very common state of mind. A glorious and auspicious confusion is the likely result of cutting that loose, without allowing the intellect to monkey-branch to some new tree to rest on. For me it was surprising, first getting conscious to the ineffability of the question, and even then, even knowing that there was no idea that could answer it, I kept noticing this subconscious hitch, this hiccup, this recurring pattern of mind. The pattern that is convinced of the lie. The last few months - finally - there was no intellectual component to the questioning. It was just "what is this??", whenever I noticed a self-referential movement, with the mind otherwise quite quiet. This is why I rezz with the "not-knowing" pointing. The highest should be identifying as parabrahman, beyond being and non-being, that even trumps "I am consciousness". Just hafta ask Andrew, hehe. In that identity poker sense, Niz did everyone a great disservice when he said he is even beyond God and consciousness and how the world is akin to a stain. Or maybe it was just a mistranslation, because that is an odd statement. But people peeps are going to take that literally and run with it, no doubt. Not-knowing is fine. Just don't turn it into some kind of absolute knowing by letting it become a rigid mental position. This would be my main criticism of the not-knowing proponents. They are absolutely certain that they can't be certain. And they don't just stop there. They are also absolutely certain that others can't be certain either. In fact, they are certain no one ever can be certain, ever. Even though they can't be certain if there even are other perceivers, let alone (in case there are being other perceivers) how they then would perceive. But they are absolutely certain that in case they are perveivers that they must be as limited as they are in their perception and degree of certainty. And this is where the not-knowing dogma crosses into the absurd (maybe we should call it 'abcertainty') when they feel absolutely certain about what another can or cannot realize. That's where ESA comes into play. You remember how they declared CC an impossibility, right? They can't be sure if you are even a perceiver, but they are absolutely certain that what you've realized can't actually be the case. Oy vey! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 17, 2021 10:12:08 GMT -5
One of the highest stakes hands of identity poker I played - essentially the last - was "I am Consciousness". A subconscious assumption about how consciousness emerges from the physical seems to me a very common state of mind. A glorious and auspicious confusion is the likely result of cutting that loose, without allowing the intellect to monkey-branch to some new tree to rest on. For me it was surprising, first getting conscious to the ineffability of the question, and even then, even knowing that there was no idea that could answer it, I kept noticing this subconscious hitch, this hiccup, this recurring pattern of mind. The pattern that is convinced of the lie. The last few months - finally - there was no intellectual component to the questioning. It was just "what is this??", whenever I noticed a self-referential movement, with the mind otherwise quite quiet. This is why I rezz with the "not-knowing" pointing. The highest should be identifying as parabrahman, beyond being and non-being, that even trumps "I am consciousness". Just hafta ask Andrew, hehe. In that identity poker sense, Niz did everyone a great disservice when he said he is even beyond God and consciousness and how the world is akin to a stain. Or maybe it was just a mistranslation, because that is an odd statement. But people peeps are going to take that literally and run with it, no doubt. Not-knowing is fine. Just don't turn it into some kind of absolute knowing by letting it become a rigid mental position. This would be my main criticism of the not-knowing proponents. They are absolutely certain that they can't be certain. And they don't just stop there. They are also absolutely certain that others can't be certain either. In fact, they are certain no one ever can be certain, ever. Even though they can't be certain if there even are other perceivers, let alone (in case there are being other perceivers) how they then would perceive. But they are absolutely certain that in case they are perveivers that they must be as limited as they are in their perception and degree of certainty. And this is where the not-knowing dogma crosses into the absurd (maybe we should call it 'abcertainty') when they feel absolutely certain about what another can or cannot realize. That's where ESA comes into play. You remember how they declared CC an impossibility, right? They can't be sure if you are even a perceiver, but they are absolutely certain that what you've realized can't actually be the case. Oy vey! That 2nd paragraph reminds me of this one time (in megathread band camp) when I threw down with andy in a competition about who had the mostest positionless position. That was some of the most fun (deliberately)-manic-writing I've ever done. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 17, 2021 10:22:42 GMT -5
That 2nd paragraph reminds me of this one time (in megathread band camp) when I threw down with andy in a competition about who had the mostest positionless position. That was some of the most fun (deliberately)-manic-writing I've ever done. Ha! Positionless positions, I already forgot about that. No doubt, great comedic material there. Reminds me of this movie scene, a newly converted hippie being accused of being unhip... www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8RZqapwj3E |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 17, 2021 15:32:26 GMT -5
The highest should be identifying as parabrahman, beyond being and non-being, that even trumps "I am consciousness". Just hafta ask Andrew, hehe. In that identity poker sense, Niz did everyone a great disservice when he said he is even beyond God and consciousness and how the world is akin to a stain. Or maybe it was just a mistranslation, because that is an odd statement. But people peeps are going to take that literally and run with it, no doubt. Not-knowing is fine. Just don't turn it into some kind of absolute knowing by letting it become a rigid mental position. This would be my main criticism of the not-knowing proponents. They are absolutely certain that they can't be certain. And they don't just stop there. They are also absolutely certain that others can't be certain either. In fact, they are certain no one ever can be certain, ever. Even though they can't be certain if there even are other perceivers, let alone (in case there are being other perceivers) how they then would perceive. But they are absolutely certain that in case they are perveivers that they must be as limited as they are in their perception and degree of certainty. And this is where the not-knowing dogma crosses into the absurd (maybe we should call it 'abcertainty') when they feel absolutely certain about what another can or cannot realize. That's where ESA comes into play. You remember how they declared CC an impossibility, right? They can't be sure if you are even a perceiver, but they are absolutely certain that what you've realized can't actually be the case. Oy vey! That 2nd paragraph reminds me of this one time (in megathread band camp) when I threw down with andy in a competition about who had the mostest positionless position. That was some of the most fun (deliberately)-manic-writing I've ever done. Ah, now I'm all nostalgic for simpler times |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 17, 2021 15:46:25 GMT -5
Yes. Transhumanism strikes me as materialism on steroids, and what strikes me as conspicuously absent is that there's no 'true' sense of what it means to 'be human'. Although discussions about what it is to 'be human' don't readily slot into non-dual teachings and talks, I think anyone that explores non-duality, in the end, should end up with a deep and true sense of what it means to 'be human' (though it doesn't have to be non-duality specifically, I think anyone that goes deep into general spirituality should come away with a deeper sense of what it means to 'be human'). It's also why many in the world that lean towards atheism...or agnosticism, could be swayed by transhumanism. I suspect it's harder to convince cultures that are more ingrained in spirituality, or religion. Okay. I actually think we are drifting into pettifroggery, so if you move or delete, it's really okay. Yes, a virtual reality is still the physical reality. And it is a world scaled down to the limits of the intellect. That's why it is devoid of any meaning or purpose, something that tends to be characteristic for humans. Which means in the end, these virtual worlds will prove to be incredibly unfulfilling, exactly like those movies that promote such ideas. I've watched a lot of these movies. And while intellectually stimulating, emotionally and especially spiritually I find them to be rather draining. But that's just me. Some others may see that differently. Prometheus with Charlize Theron is another interesting one. It's about the origins of the human species. And how they envision - from their materialistic perspective on steroids, as you say - meeting our maker(s) would look like. Pathetic! Yeah, I'm not a film connoisseur, but watch a fair few, and I often find sci-fi a bit bleak and draining, largely because the assumptions that many of them start from are so questionable. Ex-Machina was an interesting film, I couldn't fault its assumptions, but I ended the film with a shudder and knew I would never watch it again.. I did enjoy Interstellar and Arrival. Haven't seen Prometheus, I just have a gut feeling I'm not going to enjoy it. Even those 'virtual reality' headsets I struggle to see the point in. I mean, I guess I do get it... when life is painful, we seek to distance ourselves and distract ourselves, and so in that sense, the headset makes sense, and is even fun. But there's something more glorious than ever these days about just watching a spider, or spending time with a pet, or sitting out on the grass. For me, it's definitely been the case that the increase in dystopia in the last year has increased my appreciation for what is natural and untouched by human anxiety. |
|
