A cave man’s notion of reality is more truer than a scientist’s

[How to be wise]

I realised this a few minutes ago. A caveman spends less time thinking about reality than a scientist. So a caveman believes only what he sees. A scientist on the other hand believes in planets and space and cells and chemicals, all of which do not exist. That’s because thinking always takes you further away from the truth. A caveman, who believes what he senses, is also not fully correct, but he has less ‘wrong ideas’ about reality than the scientist. So it will be easier for the caveman to reach enlightenment than the scientist, because the caveman has less beliefs about reality, and so is more connected to the absolute. If you found any holes in this theory, I’d like to hear it. But if this theory is true, then it would have been a lot easier to reach enlightenment in the past than now because of modern science and all of its beliefs.

[Flammable]

4 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

Planets and space and cells and chemicals does exist.

I think @How to be wise  meant they do not exist in direct experience, but rather as thoughts in your mind.

[martins name]

Cave men usualy belive in magical spirits. SD stage purple. But I sill think you might be right that scientists are even more lost.

[Barry J]

It depends on how many books on spiral dynamics the caveman has read and whether the scientist is vegan or just vegetarian

[Rilles]

1 minute ago, Barry J said:

It depends on how many books on spiral dynamics the caveman has read and whether the scientist is vegan or just vegetarian

LOOOOL??

[ajasatya]

@How to be wise true scientists know that they don't speak of Truth. they know that they're creating models for Reality. and their job is to create models that can predict phenomena with as much accuracy as possible.

you're probably projecting your own frustration onto scientists. instead, i recommend that you get in touch with competent scientists and have a little talk about the philosophy of science. or try to do a scientific research and publish your results. you'll learn much more about science that way than by speculating about the way that scientists think.

this may clarify things for you. notice that we're always talking about models and measuring how accurate our models are. this is why you're able to use a blender, drive a car or use a smartphone.

 

[Nondescript]

If I would've read or heard about enlightenment or awakening before I had my unprovoked spontaneous mystical experience I would have completely disregarded it as fantasy. I am more way more scientist than caveman in my way of thinking. Concrete, analytical, noncreative, etc.  I wasn't looking for anything when I found nothing and everything at the same time. ,,i was just driving down the road. Unlike people who prepare for this and strife for it, I was clueless. 

 

Just my particular experience. Though the logic of what OP is saying makes perfect sense. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Nondescript

[How to be wise]

@ajasatya but how many of those ‘true’ scientists are out there. Most scientists actually believe that there hands are made of particles, that beyond the sky there are planets, all of which are not true. When the caveman looks at his hand, he sees what he sees. A normal scientist will see that his hands are made of particles, and there are red blood cells running through his hand. So who is more correct, the caveman or the scientist. The answer is that the caveman is more correct, because he has far less beliefs about what he is seeing rather than the scientist. The caveman doesn’t believe in particles and molecules, and in that he is correct. There are no particles inside your hand. If a scientist knows that they are just models, then that’s good.  But I’m talking about the majority of scientists who see it as reality.

1 hour ago, Flammable said:

I think @How to be wise  meant they do not exist in direct experience, but rather as thoughts in your mind.

Exactly!

@Mikael89 You’re wrong!

Edited September 27, 2018 by How to be wise

[ajasatya]

3 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

Most scientists actually believe that there hands are made of particles, that beyond the sky there are planets, all of which are not true.

those are not scientists. those are just random people who became attached to scientific models as their religion. the scientist is in the lab making experiments, measuring magnitudes and publishing his results.

also, you cannot say that those are false. you just can't say that they're true unless you've had the direct experience of them. until then, those are neither false or true.

a question for you. what is science?

[SoonHei]

1 hour ago, Mikael89 said:

Planets and space and cells and chemicals does exist.

you can have an infinite causal chain as you keep zooming into these cells/chemicals and all... 

take that in for a second, infinite - never ending

a is made up of b

b is made up of c

c is made up of d

...

x is made up of y

y is made up of z

z is made up of a1

a1 is made up of b1

...

x767613 is made up of y767613

y767613 is made up of z767613

z767613 is made up of a767614

...

to INFINITY & BEYOND!

so yeah... sure... all these unnamed "sub-atomic" particles "exist"  

 

Anywhere you look, I AM

Reality will intelligently "construct" itself (It will Become) as you explore it deeper and deeper or higher and higher without bound or end.

#InfiniteIntelligence #II

@Mikael89

[MM1988]

The scientists models are far more accurate. A cavemen would assume the earth is flat.

[bejapuskas]

@How to be wise Maybe there is a hole in that the cavemans perspective is sooo thin he cannot actually get further.

[Rilles]

@MM1988 A caveman would assume the world is a cave. 

[SoonHei]

17 minutes ago, MM1988 said:

The scientists models are far more accurate. A cavemen would assume the earth is flat.

truth is that it is both flat, round, square, anything else

it will change based on your POV

truth is relative

it is all relative

@MM1988

Edited September 27, 2018 by SoonHei
added pic

[lmfao]

@How to be wise the problem I have in trying to express my thoughts on what you've written is that the concept of "truth" is very slippery and cannot be pinned down. The way I see it, from the perspective of "absolute infinity" all of reality is one happening and everything inside of this happening is true. But to reach this perspective you have to see through your inner thoughts as just another part of the happening, which creates a paradox when trying to use thoughts to describe enlightenment. 

Other than that, I agree with the gist of what you're communicating. Just remember that not all scientists are ignorant. 

 

[How to be wise]

@ajasatya Planets and cells are just as true as saying that a pink elephant is floating on space, because they’re all just thoughts in your mind. Beyond thoughts, you can never experience a planet or particles, because they don’t exist outside your thoughts! All of science does not exist outside your thoughts, so clearly they’re false. The difference between science and ‘earth is flat’ type of thinking is that science is more useful to ‘make things appear to happen’, but all are in the dream. Science is a tool to manipulate the dream, but it’s still part of the dream. Looking at your hand and not thinking about it is more closer to the truth. 

@Mikael89 My parents don’t exist. There is no past or future, which is the only place they can exist in. I’m quite surprised that you made it this far to Actualized.org and you’re still insisting on the material paradigm. Science is useful, but not true. That’s it. 

@MM1988 They are both as true. And the caveman doesn’t think that the Earth is flat, because he doesn’t even know that there is a Earth, or even a planet! And good for him, he can do without those false concepts.

@bejapuskas Yes the caveman still has some concepts unfortunately, because it’s necessary to survive, but it’s much less than the scientist’s, and much more in line with his direct experience.

@Outer To be honest, I’m not so sure that it will be easier for him to become enlightened because of his values, but he is definitely more in tune with reality than the scientist (who would have thought!)

@lmfao By truth, I mean direct experience without your story about it. We are all experiencing the absolute (awareness), but the problem is that we tell our story about what it is, and we create a world and people and ‘objective reality’, so the less stories you’re telling about your direct experience, the more in tune you are to awareness. And the caveman shockingly beats the scientist.

[ajasatya]

@How to be wise Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

c'mon, you can do better than wikipedia...

[How to be wise]

@ajasatya Wikipedia is following the materialistic paradigm. Are you in that paradigm as well.

[bejapuskas]

@How to be wise  Isnt this a classic example of things going in circles? The caveman might actually be more lost than the scientist, reality shouldnt be something you can articulate.

[How to be wise]

@bejapuskas It depends on the caveman’s attitude. If he is willing to do self-inquiry, then he is far closer to the truth than the scientist (who needs to undo all of his scientific ideas).

@Mikael89 Haha! I would’ve thought that just a few weeks ago. I would think to myself: “if I’m staring at my mom right now, then clearly she exists, because I can see her right now.” But a few weeks ago, whilst doing The Work, I suddenly became conscious of how even when you’re staring at something in that moment, it’s still just a thought in your mind. I was alarmed, and spent the next few minutes laughing. How about taking up The Work yourself so you can experience this? You can never reach there with words.