Edvard

Member
  • Content count

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Edvard

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Norway
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

551 profile views
  1. Okey, fine enough. But I don't assume anything. That's what I do if I just accept your claim that mutations are intelligent. Does complex and counter-intuitive = intelligent? I don't even know what you mean by intelligent. It could certainly be right, but obviously my understanding is not deep enough. And any scientist can do research, so because you have read something about this doesn't automatically make you right. We could still talk about potential intellectual fallacies, if they exist, or your reasoning behind your claims. And you don't claim to intuit or believe this -- you actually claim to know it... which means that somewhere you read something that made it extremely obvious, you had an insight, or even an experience. But if experience alone did it, then it's only a matter of increasing consciousness and not discussing it intellectually, but you are discussing it intellectually, so there has to be an obvious intellectual understanding about it somewhere - given that you know it. And then we're also playing with the definition of knowing here... But look forward to your video on this.
  2. You can't get much more ambiguous and unclear than this. I'm onboard with Einstein here, that if you can't explain something simplisticly (preferrably so a four year old gets it), you don't really understand it yourself. Seems like you've somehow picked a side by rationalizing because you thought something you've read criticizing science sounded plausible. And, «the laws of information theory». Your not trying to use some logical («iiiik») theory some scientist came up with, are you? I'm just telling you how it appears to me...
  3. So how did you figure this out? How to research that mutations may be intelligent and paranormal phenomena? Mutations is a process, so it can't be it you refer to as intelligent. Or do you mean that it's intelligent because God made everything? And by that everything is intelligent. What regarding mutations are intelligent? The DNA? Or everything? And, you know, intelligent is a word. So what do you mean by that word?
  4. We're all experiencing consciousness directly right now. Most of us are just experiencing it from a limited view point, so to speak. Contemplation can also do wonders, IMO. I don't think any experience could reveal to you the WHY of anything, which your question stresses, only the WHAT IS. The why, or how, is for the limited human mind to contemplate. And that can only be done by the form (or God through the form, if you will). So when you're asking these types of question, at least I wouldn't expect a direct experience insight to the why, although that could help, of course. But as I said, we do experience consciousness right now (or better stated; we are consciousness right now), so it kind of becomes a question of interpretation and intuition, or logic.
  5. Point is, you realize it is nothing. When turning inward and becoming aware of your unconscious reactions to the different sensations and experience it as itself rather than for you (as the surviving entity you think you are). To become pure awareness without seeing the world from a survival perspective, or through the lens of concepts. Problem is that there is really no word or concept that ultimately describes what consciousness or awareness actually is, just because they are not it. Maybe there is nothingness without awareness or consciousness... but not now. Now is now, even if there was nothing, there would still be now. But now is not you, or me... let me try this: one could say that consciousness is absolutely nothing. Who said that consciousness is something? Only we, humans did. What if it's the basement for everything, being it "nothing" or "something". We tend to assume that consciousness is something that is added on top of nothing, without thinking that maybe it is the basis for everything, including nothing; that consciousness is more fundamental than "nothing at all", itself. Like I said, awareness can't be eliminated, because it is just now. That's what it comes down to; now. Take it away, and it would still be now. Now can't be eliminated.
  6. It's kind of hard to explain this, but the way I see it is that one can't not be conscious. Imagine that there is nothing at all - which really is what you are in essence (which enlightenment reveals), but there would still be an awareness there. That awareness is the real you, and that awareness has to be there, because that includes everything (I'll try to come back to it). It's true, you don't exist as anything but that awareness, which you may call God, and that was always there at all times, and is eternal. What Eckhart Tolle may refer to as "the Now", which is eternal, saying you are the light of consciousness. What else could there be? There is nothing at all, but that nothing is paradoxically you... or, the space of consciousness that again includes everything. And in some mysterious sense it created everything that happens in that consciousness - by what seems to be infinite imagination, so to speak. But still, what we "experience" in our lives is not that consciousness. That is not you. Only the one thing that it happens within is consciousness. So again, awareness has to be there, was my claim, even if there is nothing at all (which it really is). Why? Well, the best way to realize it is to have an experience of it, but IMO it can also be understood intuitively and even logically (which @Leo Gura may disagree with?), but what enlightenment is, is that you basically eliminate all the things that appear in consciousness, all reactions, concepts, and by that eventually sensations too - what then is left is that pure awareness which was always there. The "content" of consciousness is revealed to be nothing. When one gets there, one could realize that that awareness can't be eliminated, because it is just now. That's what it comes down to; now. Take it away, and it would still be now. Now can't be eliminated. It is always now. I'm recognizing it's extremely hard to explain, but I tried.
  7. So what do you think «unconsciousness» is like, referring to my post? Maybe it helps to ask how there could not be conscousness, rather than how it could be.
  8. Because you can't be conscious of being unconscious; maybe the most simple of the explanations What do you think «no consciousness» is like? It won't be experienced, and that's the point. If there is such a thing that we could call time, infinite time = zero in unconsciousness. But if infinite time = 0, what happens afterwards? So, there's another paradox. Even at the time I «followed» some materialistic atheists, this was the thing I disagreed with them about the most. Even if there was such a thing as death, time doesn't pass for the dead ones. The aliveness will always be there, cuz if it isn't, the experience wouldn't be there. And that's not, eh... sustainable... could be the word. It is always now, cuz if it wasn't, it is not now. Or, think of it this way: what happens when you become unconscious on Earth? Experientially you wake up immediately after, because only the time before and after is the now in experience. The time in between is not now. This logic doesn't explain reality, but how I see it it explains why there is anything at all, why there is consciousness.
  9. Pretty much in the same boat. Am in my 2nd semester of a bcs in physics, and starting to doubt whether I really want this... but as now there's not really any other alternative for me. There are many paths I could resonate with to some extend. Now I'm trying physics, and it's hard. But now that I've chosen it I think I should finish the degree to get a bigger picture of the subject. I think the first semesters are the most theoretical and unmotivating ones, anyway, whatever I do I could regret. Dabbling around with a debt over my head without a plan is risky... anyway, one positive thing is that what you're doing is hard - which is good training. No matter what you do there could be some resistence, because everywhere in life there will be moments where you have to do things that aren't the most authentic, even in your most authentic field of mastery. I will probably do these three years in uni, and use the time to really think about what I want. And there are some important universal skills in physics - like problem solving, important for the future. Also, in times of uncertainty and resistence, I think that could be a great opportunity to practice unconditional happiness - trying to see every moment for what it is - we're not starving, we have shelter, trying to stay really present. If you could be happy in these circumstances, there would later be nothing to fear, you could go pursue whatever you dream of, all in, cuz you know you are happy no matter what happens to you ;). Not saying it's easy, but the truth is we have all we really need, and consciousness in of itself is amazing. Just being conscious of this opportunity, and practicing it I don't think is a dumb thing.
  10. If you watch Leo's video The Deep Problem Of Marketing, one could see some of the logic of this decision. Great insights don't come to you on a silver platter or spoon, you have to go out of you way to find them. And I don't think reputation has way too much to do with quality of a post + I suspect a lot of the reason why trolls troll is to get that dopamin hit of reputation points now and then, just a guess.
  11. I'm curious to what you regard to make it certain without reasonable doubt that the global warming that happens today is mainly caused by humans. What would you regard as compelling evidence for this? Given that 97 percent of all actively publishing climate scientist all over the world agree: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
  12. Capitalism is unfair, but often more productive. Communism is fair, but often less productive. Unless ego is dissolved altogether. In that case, one wouldn't care what system is, then really no system is needed, not even laws. I think most people, including me, will have a hard time not letting ego take over at least a little bit sometimes with the current system.
  13. Yea. And well, the ego doesn't like this idea. And I think that says a lot...
  14. By reality being whatever happens; thoughts, emotions, the ego as all kinds of different illusions.
  15. Except I didn't put God as a requirement of no free will. Just to make it clear: do you believe the self exists? Do you believe you exist? What do you think of when I say «dissolving the ego». And what do you then think is left?