|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 26, 2022 7:19:04 GMT -5
I'm not convinced about that. It's about the nature of the manifest, and the path that takes. Well you haven't refuted that it's playing with definitions and in so doing you're actually making my point, because the question of "what manifests?" is founded on what the manifestation is manifesting to. If there was someone there to sense it there'd be no question. It's just a concrete version of "is there an objective reality?". The concrete version has the benefit of an answer free of endless mobius-mentation.  Thanks for this. A mobius strip is a picture of: Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. It appears that there are 2 sides. But if you walk the whole strip, there is only one side. And you can even cut it into two pieces, if you cut it down the middle, and back to your original cut (same path as walking), and it will still be in only one piece. That still blows my mind. Walking the mobius, you start-out in the quantum world, the "other side" is the manifest universe. (sdp just thinking out loud, which can be dangerous)...ignore that man behind the curtain... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 7:21:01 GMT -5
Yeah but the Japanese girls were funner to watch that this fat dude.  I cannot argue with such transcendental logic. Impeccably airtight. I bow. 😋 ok then guess I'll have to find a ham sandwich to argue with. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 7:21:41 GMT -5
Well you haven't refuted that it's playing with definitions and in so doing you're actually making my point, because the question of "what manifests?" is founded on what the manifestation is manifesting to. If there was someone there to sense it there'd be no question. It's just a concrete version of "is there an objective reality?". The concrete version has the benefit of an answer free of endless mobius-mentation. Thanks for this. A mobius strip is a picture of: Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. It appears that there are 2 sides. But if you walk the whole strip, there is only one side. And you can even cut it into two pieces, if you cut it down the middle, and back to your original cut (same path as walking), and it will still be in only one piece. That still blows my mind. Walking the mobius, you start-out in the quantum world, the "other side" is the manifest universe. (sdp just thinking out loud, which can be dangerous)...ignore that man behind the curtain... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 26, 2022 7:22:08 GMT -5
Yes, this is how I see it (laughter will disagree). The universe is Bohm's Explicate Order, the unseen part of the iceberg is Bohm's Implicate Order. The Implicate Order is the quantum field/zero point field/superposition. The universe is stable locality FAIAP. I accept that the seen universe has-been stable for about 13.8 billion years. Relativity deals with the seen world, QM with the unseen (generally speaking). In the double slit experiment, we are switching from the ordinary world to the quantum world. But it's not all about consciousness observing. It's merely about making a measurement. QM is very odd in that it deals with probability. It has to deal with probability because in superposition (not-looking in the double slit) the quantum ~phenomenon~ IS everywhere all at once. It's like a fly in a futbol stadium, the quantum fly is everywhere at once. All QM can do is make it's best guess where we will be able to catch the fly, in a net so to speak. This is what probability is. When we are not-looking, the fly is everywhere. When we catch the fly (look, in the double slit) we collapse the wave function and have the fly in a net, we get a bullet pattern. It's all in a very real sense a ~mechanistic~ process, it doesn't really involve consciousness. It's just a matter of look, or not-look. If you want to know why there is a stable universe, look at quantum computing. The problem in quantum computing is keeping the Q-bits in superposition. You basically have to keep them from *touching* any part of the, any classical part of the computer. Why? because when the Q-bit touches any part of the seen universe, it collapses the wave function, before we are ready to, before we have an answer to our question. IOW, the ordinary state in the ordinary universe, is collapse the wave function. In an ordinary computer, any one bit is either 1 or 0, on or off essentially. In a quantum computer a Q-bit is 1 and 0 simultaneously. A quantum bit, is both "on and off" simultaneously. Richard Feynmann figured this out, basically invented quantum computing, the theory. (That's my best recollection, I think he was the first). OK, now what is the why-quantum computing is so difficult? I went into this a little because it in an on-going debate between sdp and laughter. If you want to understand all this better, investigate decoherence. Decoherence is why we have a stable Explicate Order universe. When the quantum world 'touches' the classical-big world of stuff, it decoheres, it *joins* the Explicate universe. Looking, in the double slit experiment, is like taking a photo-finish photograph in the Kentucky Derby. Not-looking, we don't know who won the race (if it's too close). Now, it is very mysterious why either looking or not-looking changes everything. But I think the answer will turn out to be, simple. We are somehow just not forming the question correctly, yet. Been telling you for years now that Bohm's theory is premised on hidden variables and was put to rest by the test of Bell's theorem. This is one of those rare instances where the creation of new questions by answering an old one actually can facilitate the pausing of the endless mind spin. I understand hidden variable have been disproven. I also understand the Implicate Order, exists. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 26, 2022 7:25:35 GMT -5
The offer of what could be termed transrational could help subsume and objectively compare any previouosly assumed dualistic interpretations of rational and irrational. It might promote backing up and getting a slightly larger view of WIBIGO, however slightly. The 'don't know' is relative, but the 'last step back' is a doozy.  Yes, for me, the total absence of confidence, the absence of a position for mind to take....was just a doorway (or maybe a 'gate' to use more spiritual terminology). The 'last step back' was the magic bit (magic, but also ordinary). It wasn't a case for me of this happening just once. It was repeated over and over again (not really by 'choice'). I don't know, maybe my apparent brain had to adjust over time. Maybe apparent neural pathways had to change. I had a ton of attachments to release. Just speculating. In a sense, I still go back and forward through that doorway, I just don't really notice it anymore, it's sort of blurred into one. Nice. Thanks for sharing that bit, man. We share a common rememberance of the repeated over and over again. If I went back to what I remember as the 'first one', I was still young enough to be in my pajamas, standing in the backseat of the our Vista Cruiser station wagon (car), and my brother and mother were still doing their things before we took him to kindergarten. I can still recall staring into the, then, rising morning sun in the east. My mind was transfixed on how the optically dancing circles of the sun's light were playinig out. I was wondering if there something that was 'communicating/sensing/touching/whatever/ as the light. I disappeared into that moment only to snap out of it in something of a daze, and into a dreamy feeling of all the movement that had arrived. There were others throughout childhood, but this was something of this that I recognized much later in life as things started crashing, and there were windows into that sense of timelessness and eternity breaking through. I'm getting poetic here, but it is a childlike innocence of with no barriers. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 26, 2022 7:31:49 GMT -5
It might be legitimate to refer to 'my consciousness' even in the absence of that associated. The problem of 'my consciousness' is when it is considered to be an isolated and separate consciousness. I often use awareness and consciousness interchangeably but in this instance awareness is universal but consciousness is particular to the individual. Personal consciousness as Ego/I is when awareness becomes individuated and focussed as the personal. I have, too, and then, depending on who/what context I'm interacting with, I might express Awareness as a stillness in which Consciousness is movement.... kinda like a fundamental duality. Yeah, from the get-go, we have to see how the language is being used to 'encode' (output) and 'decode' (input) in communication, and that's the tango. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 7:32:02 GMT -5
Been telling you for years now that Bohm's theory is premised on hidden variables and was put to rest by the test of Bell's theorem. This is one of those rare instances where the creation of new questions by answering an old one actually can facilitate the pausing of the endless mind spin. I understand hidden variable have been disproven. I also understand the Implicate Order, exists. Bohm's function of the entirety of all information is a facial absurdity. How would you ever express it in terms of what it was expressing? IOW: inherently unknowable. But mathematicians have been objectifying "infinity" since L'Hôpital. Go check out the absurd mess of the current state of that particular art. I never said the endless mind spin doesn't have practical implications.  (see what I did there?) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 7:32:32 GMT -5
Yes, for me, the total absence of confidence, the absence of a position for mind to take....was just a doorway (or maybe a 'gate' to use more spiritual terminology). The 'last step back' was the magic bit (magic, but also ordinary). It wasn't a case for me of this happening just once. It was repeated over and over again (not really by 'choice'). I don't know, maybe my apparent brain had to adjust over time. Maybe apparent neural pathways had to change. I had a ton of attachments to release. Just speculating. In a sense, I still go back and forward through that doorway, I just don't really notice it anymore, it's sort of blurred into one. Nice. Thanks for sharing that bit, man. We share a common rememberance of the repeated over and over again. If I went back to what I remember as the 'first one', I was still young enough to be in my pajamas, standing in the backseat of the our Vista Cruiser station wagon (car), and my brother and mother were still doing their things before we took him to kindergarten. I can still recall staring into the, then, rising morning sun in the east. My mind was transfixed on how the optically dancing circles of the sun's light were playinig out. I was wondering if there something that was 'communicating/sensing/touching/whatever/ as the light. I disappeared into that moment only to snap out of it in something of a daze, and into a dreamy feeling of all the movement that had arrived. There were others throughout childhood, but this was something of this that I recognized much later in life as things started crashing, and there were windows into that sense of timelessness and eternity breaking through. I'm getting poetic here, but it is a childlike innocence of with no barriers. very cool. Seems like a few folks here had transcendent experiences when young, I know satch has talked about samadi when he was a kid. Wonder if there's a bit if a connection/theme i.e spiritual adults had early transcendent experiences. Not true for me though, I had an amazing childnghood in many ways, the only real challenge were intense phases of anxiety and neurotic thinking (hypochondria). Any kind of spiritual experience would have freaked me out lol. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 7:38:30 GMT -5
okay, noted. Makes sense. So then would it reasonable to put 'consciousness' into the appearance category as it pertains to the individual? I would not call consciousness an appearance. It's as if the sun is awareness and the reflected light from the moon is consciousness and the reflection of the moon in the lake is the object which is an appearance and which has become illuminated by the illumination the moon has borrowed from the sun. I see. Not sure if this question works for you but... if awareness is 'unquestionable' and the object/appearance is 'questionable', what category would consciousness go in? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2022 7:41:15 GMT -5
I would not call consciousness an appearance. It's as if the sun is awareness and the reflected light from the moon is consciousness and the reflection of the moon in the lake is the object which is an appearance and which has become illuminated by the illumination the moon has borrowed from the sun. I see. Not sure if this question works for you but... if awareness is 'unquestionable' and the object/appearance is 'questionable', what category would consciousness go in? But the object isn't questionable because it appears! You are consciousness so that is not questionable either. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 26, 2022 7:47:13 GMT -5
Nice. Thanks for sharing that bit, man. We share a common rememberance of the repeated over and over again. If I went back to what I remember as the 'first one', I was still young enough to be in my pajamas, standing in the backseat of the our Vista Cruiser station wagon (car), and my brother and mother were still doing their things before we took him to kindergarten. I can still recall staring into the, then, rising morning sun in the east. My mind was transfixed on how the optically dancing circles of the sun's light were playinig out. I was wondering if there something that was 'communicating/sensing/touching/whatever/ as the light. I disappeared into that moment only to snap out of it in something of a daze, and into a dreamy feeling of all the movement that had arrived. There were others throughout childhood, but this was something of this that I recognized much later in life as things started crashing, and there were windows into that sense of timelessness and eternity breaking through. I'm getting poetic here, but it is a childlike innocence of with no barriers. very cool. Seems like a few folks here had transcendent experiences when young, I know satch has talked about samadi when he was a kid. Wonder if there's a bit if a connection/theme i.e spiritual adults had early transcendent experiences. Not true for me though, I had an amazing childnghood in many ways, the only real challenge were intense phases of anxiety and neurotic thinking (hypochondria). Any kind of spiritual experience would have freaked me out lol. Would you say that some of the hypochondria was 'seeded' through the worry/anxiety of the unconsciously perceived mommapoppa dynamic? You don't have to answer if you don't want. Just curious since we talk about conditioning a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 26, 2022 8:40:06 GMT -5
I'm inclined to express the notion that, as is often the case, "Reefs is right" (but I will take it further): both form and emptiness are misconceptions .. and yet, the heart remains.  What heart? The Tin Man has no heart. We are Tin Men. A Tin Man is an individuated consciousness, a self created by thought.
The self is selfish. It can't be anything else. Trying not to be selfish is so lame. What a goddam fake.
Krishnamurti said that love is when the self is not. The "no self" state is an idea of zen.
Thus, the Tin Man aspires to become the Zen Man.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 26, 2022 8:42:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jul 26, 2022 9:06:28 GMT -5
Now I understand why peyote has become an endangered plant in some states.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 26, 2022 9:06:33 GMT -5
satch Avatar yesterday at 3:28am satch said: So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? Regarding the falling tree. What if I said, instead of not-knowing, from the personal perspective it can be said that it actually doesn't make a sound, but that is merely to say not in a 'particular' way. Yet there is evidence that points to the fact that at the same time it still does, but merely in the form of 'wave-function'. That way, if you get there after the event there is still momentary particular evidence of it having happened. Which allows for a measure of stability. Ergo, ultimately it neither does nor doesn't. Just musing. That's Schrodinger's cat in a different form. And complete TMT btw. Heisenberg's solution was that yes, the tree made a sound, and it was the entire Universe that heard it. He meant that in a very literal way, and he used a geiger counter instead of a tree. So he echoed a facet of Bohm's idea of implicate order, but Werner rejected the idea of "hidden variables". It took 25 years and Bell to prove that intuition correct. If you and me are individuated consciousness, where does that geiger counter resides? |
|
(see what I did there?) 