Why you are a materialist in disguise (crypto-materialist)

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Exactly.  Let's say you became lucid in one of your dreams at night.   Would this mean you would automatically be able to break the physical laws of the dream? No! Of course not! The physical laws of the dream were put in place to keep the universe of the dream intact.  Now..can you transcend them in some mystical way?  Yes once you have become lucid all possibilities are on the table.  But it is not a free pass and doesn't automatically mean you  an override the physical laws.  This is because there are certain limits that have been put in place (the ego) to assist in the enjoyment of the dream.   These rules aren't easily bypassed.

But you can be wrong about those rules and laws.

You brush off certain claims about the content and the possibilities of the dream based on what kind of reasoning? Based on reasoning that is subject to be wrong.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

But you can be wrong about those rules and laws.

You brush off certain claims about the content and the possibilities of the dream based on what kind of reasoning? Based on reasoning that is subject to be wrong.

Sure.  You have to first study physics.  The laws of the dream.  But think of like this.  Is light a wave or a particle. Well it depends.  The double slit experiment reveals that it can be either depending on how the experiment is conducted.  You are the one collapsing the wave.  Just like Schrodinger's cat.  Is it in the box before you open it? No.  So do the laws exist before you experience them or see them? No.  Reality unfolds just like a video game.  Frame by frame. The current frame IS all of it wrapped up in one.

[zurew]

37 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

No.  So do the laws exist before you experience them or see them? No.  Reality unfolds just like a video game.  Frame by frame. The current frame IS all of it wrapped up in one.

Thats a claim that you can be wrong about (reality can be a dream and your claim about how it unfolds or how it suppsoe to unfold can be wrong), but even if you are right about that particular thing thats compatible with all kinds of new age shit that you currently reject.

Im also sure that none of you have any good response to the problem of induction - so even if you are right about the inherent limitations of the laws of physics from that wouldn't follow that 1 second from now , the laws wont change.

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats a claim that you can be wrong about (reality can be a dream and your claim about howit unfolds or how it suppsoe to unfold can be wrong), but even if you are right about that particular thing thats compatible with all kinds of new age shit that you currently reject.

Im also sure that none of you have any good response to the problem of induction - so even if you are right about the inherent limitations of the laws of physics from that wouldn't follow that 1 second from now , the laws wont change.

And what if they did? I'm not arguing that fact.  Rules are meant to be bent, broken, and everything in between.  My point is that it is a dream and as the dreamer you are currently slave to the dream.   You can't fly if the dream made you a squirrel. 

[zurew]

16 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

My point is that it is a dream and as the dreamer you are currently slave to the dream.   You can't fly if the dream made you a squirrel.

And  you can be wrong about the laws of the dream and the limitations of the current dream.

What do you appeal to when you reject the new age claims? Because most of you don't use any sophisticated kind of reasoning to argue about the relative, most of you try to appeal to the absolute and use that to reject new age stuff that are about the relative (which is a move that doesn't make any sense).

 

Whats very peculiar and whats being questioned by Carl (as I understand it ), is that some of you have curiously adopted a materialist frame for the relative. Interestingly for some kind of particular reason, the laws of this particular dream supposed to be 100% aligned with what a materialist would claim.

What kind of tools and thinking and reasoning do you use to check what kind of dream you are in right now and what kind of properties this particular dream has?  - because as much as you guys like to talk about the limitations of science - when you try to trash physicalists on a philosophical level - all those criticisms are applied to you when you make a claim about the relative, because you use and rely on that scientific frame.

Edited 18 hours ago by zurew

[Inliytened1]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

 

Whats very peculiar and whats being questioned by Carl (as I understand it ), is that some of you have curiously adopted a materialist frame for the relative. Interestingly for some kind of particular reason, the laws of this particular dream supposed to be 100% aligned with what a materialist would claim.

 

Look! Study the dream! This is where Einstein shines.  Leo shines by showing you it's a dream.  And then he hands it to Einstein.  You guys think that the two are related? Only that God designed it!  What's inside the dream and whether or not it works has nothing to do with the fact that its a dream.   In fact..forget the whole dream thing.   If it was a physical universe would you be asking the same questions?

Edited 18 hours ago by Inliytened1

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

It it was a physical universe would you be asking the same questions?

No, because doing and studying physics with a materialist metaphyiscs in mind, vs doing and studying physics with a non-materialist metaphysics in mind changes a lot when it comes to  what kind of inferences and implications one draws from studying the patterns.

Edited 18 hours ago by zurew

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

No, because doing and studying physics with a materialist metaphyiscs in mind, vs doing and studying physics with a non-materialist metaphysics in mind changes a lot when it comes to  what kind of inferences and implications one draws from studying the patterns.

Ok..ill give you that..the two eventually intertwine. That's what led to quantum mechanics.  But the point is that it doesn't change the content.   Structure vs content is what we are concerned with here.  The content will be the same.  Ultimately if you study the content hard enough it will lead you to the structure. 

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

@Carl-Richard The gist of it, in my view: you assume, deep down in your experience, that it is not possible for you to become absolutely conscious, therefore your focus and concern is mostly restricted to exchanging one belief system for another. Hence why I shared the video. It's got to do with the way you tend to approach these topics, and what that "says" about where your mind goes. It's essentially trying to think your way to what's true.

I don't see any ultimate conflict between mind and Mind. Between complex thoughts, there can be profound moments of silence. But you're right, I'm currently prioritizing mind. That is intentional. My entire existence on the forum was initiated by a non-dual awakening that I couldn't handle. I started using my mind in an act of desperation. And then I decided pursuing science was a way to "grow up before waking up". And five years later, here I am, using the forum as a way to sharpen my mind by expressing my thoughts as clearly as I can. And if I had stopped doing that, I would probably not be here as often.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I'm not sure i understand.  So I'm a crypto-materialist because I've realized that reality is a dream but I still enjoy observing the physical laws that exist within the dream?  

Sorry if my question sounds dumb I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from

You can be an enjoyer of "physical laws" without being a materialist or crypto-materialist. It's just whether or not you believe there is something more than the mere physical going on. Essentially, do you believe psychic phenomena are at least plausible (and are not always explainable by physical mechanisms)? As a starter, "physical mechanisms" would be whatever a standard physicist, biologist or chemist would consider "real" in their area of study (e.g. atoms, molecules, five sensory organs).

Edited 13 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You can be an enjoyer of "physical laws" without being a materialist or crypto-materialist. It's just whether or not you believe there is something more than the mere physical going on. Essentially, do you believe psychic phenomena are at least plausible (and are not always explainable by physical mechanisms)? As a starter, "physical mechanisms" would be whatever a standard physicists, biologist or chemist would consider "real" in their area of study (e.g. atoms, molecules, five sensory organs).

No.  The actual substance of reality is nothing.  Thats what renders it non-material.  So it completely aligns with science.  Thats why i said earlier that the two- structure and content actually align. 

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Sincerity said:

I agree with the 3 points you listed in the definition of the „crypto-materialist”.

However, I believe your above rebuttal of this „crypto-materialist” stance is flawed. The „mental/energetic reality” and the „physical reality” are completely intertwined, perhaps two sides of the same coin. An action in physical reality corresponds with a change in the energetic level. In order to affect someone (eg. communicate with them), an action of communication must be performed, while at the same time the change in energetic reality is taking place. In short, the physical is NOT ruling the mental, which is the „irony” you were suggesting. They are one.

How do you explain cardiac arrest NDEs where the brain has for all intents and purposes zero metabolic activity? Where is the physical mechanism there? How do you explain OBEs? Where is the physical mechanism?

 

9 hours ago, Sincerity said:

In my view, making the effort to affect things mentally while doing nothing in physical reality is delusion. If you wanna change the world - take action, speak out. If you wanna communicate with someone, just fucking talk to them, or call them on the phone. That’s how it works. Consider this situation: You want to talk to someone. Now: what energy/motivation would push you to A) just pick up the phone and talk to them and then B) to try to make some kind of effort to communicate telepathically. These 2 don’t have the same energy behind them. One is natural and working in alignment with the dynamics of reality, mental and physical. The other is delusional, perhaps trying to force something that isn’t true, reject the physical, which is a block in the mental. At least that’s how I see it.

I can elaborate on my position in some ways if you’re interested - regarding the above, but also the other points.

My general personal experience of psychic phenomena is that they happen to me. I generally do not set an intention for them to happen. I think this is how it generally happens for most people. Even for "psychics", their control is limited. Once your ego becomes too involved, you lose sensitivity to these phenomena. It's no surprise supposedly nobody has won the James Randi challenge (but even there, apparently Randi has refused many to participate).

 

Here is an interesting experimental study on telephone telepathy (by my man Rupert Sheldrake). Try to find a physical explanation for this:

Quote

Many people claim to have known who was calling before they picked up the telephone, or to have thought about someone for no apparent reason, who then called. We carried out a series of experiments to test whether or not people really could tell who was telephoning. Each participant had four potential callers, and when the telephone rang had to guess who was calling before the other person spoke. By chance the success rate would have been 25%. In a total of 571 trials, involving 63 participants, the overall success rate was 40%, with 95% confidence limits from 36 to 45%. This effect was hugely significant statistically (p = 4 x 10-16). [...]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252380718_Experimental_Tests_for_Telephone_Telepathy

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

No.  The actual substance of reality is nothing.  Thats what renders it non-material.  So it completely aligns with science.  Thats why i said earlier that the two- structure and content actually align. 

I don't feel like you answered my post.

[Joshe]

I think you have a good point @Carl-Richard. And I’d wager money no one can provide sufficient reasoning to justify their disbelief. Given that reality is itself magical, and given the prevalence of anecdotes regarding such phenomena, as well as testimony from integrous spiritualists, as well as experiencing very suspicious phenomena myself, I’d be a fool to close myself off to such possibilities.  

There’s a lot of putting stage green, new-agers, and woo-woo hippies down. When one gains momentum in this activity, for example, by embarking on a study to explore the delusions of new agers, it makes them more likely to presuppose all that flows from new-agers is non-sense. So if they haven’t been able to verify it themselves, they hastily cast it into the delusional bin. And we get sloppy groupthink from the top-down. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Joshe

[Someone here]

My reputation here has always been that I'm neither a materialist nor idealist .I oscillate back and forth between the two. I keep changing my metaphysical worldview every other day like changing pair of clothes. I'm a metaphysical chameleon. Consciousness is fundamental but without a brain inside your skull you go wasted so let's not get absolutely insane here. At the same time this very thought is consciousness. Conscious of brain or brain of consciousness?  That's the question.