OnePointTwo

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    48

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by OnePointTwo

  1. Posted · Edited by OnePointTwo

    20 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    So it's the best explanation that materialists can come up with ...but you  disagree with it as it doesn't actually explain anything, right ?

    I won't forget the look on my Grandfather's face when I said I didn't believe in the big bang. He looked like he wanted to hit me, but my father was standing there. Even when I explained that I didn't believe it because I didn't know enough, he kept shouting at me about Einstein and science and telling me I'm foolish. This is the guy who's first name is my last name. Suffice to say it hurt me deeply.

    Well, now I've done my research, thought deeply through it, and yes, I think the big bang is the origin of the universe and perfectly consistent with nonduality. I can explain why but it will take energy on my part.

    Quote

    I know what entropy is . Its the principle that in any closed system..the particles trend to move to the most chaotic state .

    Cool, I'll give my explanation then. One second.

  2. Posted

    Even if we were all floating orbs of light in the aether, there would be a brightest and dimmest orb, furthest from the centre, oldest, youngest, most loved, least loved. If you want a universe with none of that, it will be a single being in a universe of pure matter. There would be no literature, no knowledge of itself, no intelligence, it would be ................ BORING.

  6. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

    He is trying to communicate a feeling that when he looks at other people, the feeling of them having a "personhood" is weakening, which is a direct result of his own feeling of personhood also weakening. "Other" is always constructed together with a "self", and saying that "other people are imaginary" or "I'm imaginary" are just different ways of communicating the same thing: that the duality of self & other is collapsing.

    I understand now. Thanks Carl-Richard!

  7. Posted

    27 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

    "You" aren't real.

    Ok, I'm a bit out of my depth. Can you please deconstruct what Godishere said? "this person is about to tell me they are imaginary". I want to understand where that is coming from.

    17 minutes ago, axiom said:

    Reasoning is the experience of separation.

    Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by experience of separation.

  9. Posted · Edited by OnePointTwo

    10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

    Egocentrism places ego above other. Not the same as saying there is no other.

    But what is the reasoning behind the leap from "I make up stories about others" to "nobody else is real"? We are trying to become less biased right? Believing others are going to tell you they are imaginary is pretty self-biased.

  11. Posted

    You have to watch this: Your Art Skill May Not Matter Soon (And What To Do About It)

    Your mind will try to emotionally block out what he is saying (all of the most liked comments are people that completely missed the message, don't read them). I know I would feel the same if someone told me AI would replace software developers. Just listen. Get a big glass of water, sit in a bright area and listen to what he is saying.

    Okay, watched it? Did it make you feel sick or hopeful? If anything, you are lucky, because you will be one of the first people to adapt to the world of AI. You should know that something big is approaching. Artificial general intelligence.

    Once AGI arrives, life will completely change. It will feel like Pandora's box has been opened. We will wonder how life was ever as simple as it is now. Cherish every day.

  13. Posted

    11 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

    The God realization awakening is when you realise the mechanics of how reality works. Since reality is infinitely complex, god realization is infinitely deep. Keep watching Leo and he'll keep being like 'I just had a deeper awakening that surpasses all my previous awakening'.

    I'm curious about the god consciousness. Does it allow you to think at a higher level? For instance, could you have thoughts as far above human level as human thoughts are above frog level? Is it more taxing and time consuming to think like that?

  16. Posted · Edited by OnePointTwo

    16 minutes ago, Holykael said:

    God is willing everything into existence as is. It could will everything differently instantly as well. God is doing whatever it wants and this is the result.

    There have to be rules to existence, otherwise everything would be white noise, static. And whenever there are rules, there will be positions which could be considered good or bad.

    Imagine you're playing a game of chess, and your opponent puts the knight into a position where it has no escape; that's pretty dire for the knight, it's doomed to die as soon as it moves. But if there was a way to prevent your pieces from ever being taken, the game wouldn't work, nobody would play chess, and it would cease to exist. Similarly, if you could prevent people from being born into an unfortunate life, existence wouldn't work.

    There are some basic rules to existence, which is what science has been able to discover. What science has no clue about, are the positions and tactics of the game. The question is, will you learn the tactics and fight for good, or spend all of your time paralyzed by the possibilities?

  17. Posted · Edited by OnePointTwo

    32 minutes ago, Holykael said:

    God is selfish, it withholds the abundance of infinity from its creation.

    This "abundance of infinity" is new to me. I can't recall infinity being used to mean that god can do anything at any moment. There is infinite detail and complexity in the universe, and our consciousness is infinitely deep and divine.

  18. Posted

    30 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

    Ask God for an explanation that would be much better than my explanation, and you can think of God as a radio station that is playing 24/7 within you, but you need to tune to its frequency, to make an analogy of it. Of course all these terms like vibration, frequency, etc are analogies, but they, I think, are pretty apt analogies that, perhaps, might help you also. 

    Brought this to mind

  19. Posted

    This was pretty hard to read. I'm sorry your existence is this way, and that there's been nothing so far in your life to spark a love of the universe. You definitely need therapy/healing, but I'm not going to assume you have access to it. What you might do is search for wonder and beauty. Here are a few media suggestions that I feel distil elements of beauty:

    • My Octopus Teacher - Cinematic documentary about a friendship between a man and an animal.
    • Planet Earth I or II - Classic nature documentaries.
    • Spirited Away and Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind - Japanese animated films
    • Close to the Edge by YES - Intriguing, mystical rock music
    • 2001: A Space Odyssey - Slow moving sci-fi movie. Seems boring on first sitting, give it 3 uninterrupted watches

    These are just some suggestions. Go out of your comfort zone and find what resonates with you. Visit temples, waterfalls, mountains, villages. If your upbringing has been as bad as you make it sound, some things will be invisible to you at first. None of this will make you happy, but it will hopefully bring light into your life.

  21. Posted

    15 hours ago, Identity said:

    This kind of questioning is trippy, because it’s like going meta on second order understanding whilst still being in the domain of the second order, lol.

    Here's a tricky question: How do you become a good movie critic? If it's by being completely objective, then your criticisms will be very shallow ... discussing the colours on the screen, the length of the movie, how loud the sounds were. If it's by reflecting on the quality of your criticisms, then you've created a paradox, because you have to first become a good critic of critics, which entails becoming a good critic of critics of critics of critics. If it's by being sober, then you are prohibited from drinking tea or coffee in the 10 hours before watching the movie. I'd say the way to be a good critic is by creating a consistent set of artistic standards, used for every movie, and by trying to be in the same mood when critically watching.

     

    Similarly, you can come up with a consistent set of principles for truth. If first order truths are a subset of second order truths, then you might think about the principles of first order before trying to specify second order. Here is my attempt based on very limited understanding.

    First order truths:

    1. Are basic forms that can be perceived by a consciousness. Basic form meaning a shape that provides a reduction of matter (e.g. box, sphere, spike, liquid, spiral, blue, high-pitched noise, sweet taste) or a conglomeration of basic forms (e.g. paper ball, cup containing clear liquid, ink fractal on plastic sheet, sounds with consistent rhythm and tone). If a consciousness never perceives a form, then it can't be said to be true.
    2. Are not processed by the ego. To keep us alive, the ego places weight and meaning on perception, distorting what you see. Our ego changes due to mood, but first order truths shouldn't change with our mood.

    If you believe these axioms (like how you believe the axioms of whole numbers or the periodic table) then a few things are implied. Axiom 1 implies that first order truths vary between beings; some people have perfect pitch, while others are tone deaf; some people are straight up blind. It also implies that first-order truths are not necessarily fixed. There is a theory that ancient people, with exactly the same eyes as us, could not see the color blue as vividly as we see it today. Some people who take psychedelics permanently discover new colours and patterns. 

    OK, I may as well construct axioms for second order truths as well.

    Second order truths:

    1. Are symbolic forms that can be perceived by a consciousness. Symbolic form meaning a shape that provides a reduction of basic forms (e.g. speaker, planet, needle, orange juice, staircase, midday sky, piano sound, taste of cane sugar) or a conglomeration of symbolic forms (e.g. scrunched up exam results, glass of Sprite on a TV commercial, polaroid picture of an old oak tree in my garden, acoustic cover of Time to Pretend). If a consciousness can't perceive a symbolic form, then it can't be said to be true.
    2. Are not internally projected: thought about without sensing. Many people have the ability to project visions, sounds, smells and tastes, sometimes without realising. For instance, your perception of having a head is a second order truth, but imagining the back of your head or different hair is a projection.

    I would go further and say there is a 3rd order "truth" that involves projections, ideologies, inductive logic and our beliefs about things we haven't encountered. I'd be interested to hear the objections to this view.

     

    Does defining things in parts like this help you to reason about them, or make you feel like you are imposing artificial constructs?