Reality is a Mind - Materialists need to contemplate

[The observer]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

I'm imagining it.

You didn't answer. Only repeated what I said originally.

Does the existential bind actually exist or not?

[Osaid]

@The observer

4 minutes ago, The observer said:

Alright, well, what is awareness? And how do you distinguish it from thought?

Anything that is perceived. You can become aware of thoughts, thoughts are awareness. But, they are just thoughts, not an actual tree falling. 

4 minutes ago, The observer said:

And what about this extrapolation? Why do you allow the mind to get away with it? Why the double standards?

Not too sure what you mean by this. I am not denying that thoughts exist. You can think of a tree falling, but that doesn't mean it actually fell, it's not like you thinking about the tree falling actually makes it fall.

[Member]

11 minutes ago, Osaid said:

@The observer Not too sure what you mean by this. I am not denying that thoughts exist. You can think of a tree falling, but that doesn't mean it actually fell, it's not like you thinking about the tree falling actually makes it fall.

If thoughts exist, does a brain exist?

[The observer]

6 minutes ago, Osaid said:

@The observer

Anything that is perceived.

In other words, awareness is perception.

Okay, how do you know that perception exists? Do you perceive it? Or do you think about it? What's the difference between thinking about something and perceiving it?

10 minutes ago, Osaid said:

@The observer

You can become aware of thoughts, thoughts are awareness. But, they are just thoughts, not an actual tree falling.

Where is the line between thought and awareness? How do you distinguish one from another?

12 minutes ago, Osaid said:

@The observer

You can think of a tree falling, but that doesn't mean it actually fell, it's not like you thinking about the tree falling actually makes it fall.

But still, it could mean that.

[Osaid]

28 minutes ago, The observer said:

What's the difference between thinking about something and perceiving it?

Both actions you are perceiving something. But, you're perceiving a thought, not an actual tree falling. You can perceive thoughts about a tree falling, but it doesn't mean an actual tree fell.

28 minutes ago, The observer said:

Where is the line between thought and awareness? How do you distinguish one from another?

There is no line, but you never became aware of a tree falling, you only became aware of the thought of a tree falling.

28 minutes ago, The observer said:

But still, it could mean that.

You're just imagining that, you never became aware of such a thing.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Osaid

[Osaid]

@Member A brain only exists if you become aware of it. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Osaid

[Verdesbird]

what is forgotten by idealist enthusiasts is tha laws of interaction from the mind to the ''outside''

how do we got telepaty?

how do we got healing?

how do we got levitation?

etc etc etc 

 

[Member]

18 minutes ago, Osaid said:

@Member A brain only exists if you become aware of it. 

Are you sure that brain is just a thought and not something physical? Why do you replace objective reality with thoughts?

[Osaid]

@Member Because everything is within awareness, it's not like you've ever experienced anything outside of awareness.

There is no brain in your direct experience right now, just the thought of one. That's literally what is there.

[The observer]

8 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Both actions you are perceiving something. But you're perceiving a thought, not an actual tree falling. You can perceive thoughts about a tree falling, but it doesn't mean an actual tree fell.

How do you know that? After all, you're imagining me. So, you're imagining both my perceptions and my thoughts.

But let's put that aside for a moment and assume that you are talking about your own experience.

12 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Both actions you are perceiving something. But you're perceiving a thought, not an actual tree falling. You can perceive thoughts about a tree falling, but it doesn't mean an actual tree fell.

Then how do you explain the tree on the ground while all other trees are not? Just because you haven't personally witnessed something doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. It could mean that it happened and it could equally mean that it didn't. Notice that there is thought involved here: 'because I haven't personally witnessed an event, then that means ...... (fill in the blanks)'.

25 minutes ago, Osaid said:

There is no line, but you never became aware of a tree falling, you only became aware of the thought of a tree falling.

Notice that you dismiss thought here but nevertheless allow it to make an explanation for why you can't actually know.

You only became aware of the thought that you never became aware of a tree falling, and only became aware of the thought of the thought of a tree falling. See. We could go on like this forever. There is a meta insight here, and you guys are missing it. That's why you're still stuck in the dualistic mind.

37 minutes ago, Osaid said:

You're just imagining that, you never became aware of such a thing.

I hope one day you will get it and break out of your non-materialistic paradigm.

[Member]

5 minutes ago, Osaid said:

@Member Because everything is within awareness, it's not like you've ever experienced anything outside of awareness.

There is no brain in your direct experience right now, just the thought of one. That's literally what is there.

If everything is within awareness, then the tiniest particle should be aware in order to exist.

Reality doesn't need a reason to exist, it just simply is. Thoughts are not necessary.

[Member]

19 minutes ago, The observer said:

Then how do you explain the tree on the ground while all other trees are not? Just because you haven't personally witnessed something doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. It could mean that it happened and it could equally mean that it didn't. Notice that there is thought involved here: 'because I haven't personally witnessed an event, then that means ...... (fill in the blanks)'.

An observer doesn't change reality, all the possible worlds could exist in a quantum position (tree fell/didn't fell/you see the tree standing/on the ground). We are no different than a tree. We could be dead or alive or doing some weird shit in another reality. Nothing collapses, everything exists. We have no choice.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Member

[Osaid]

4 minutes ago, The observer said:

How do you know that? After all, you're imagining me. So, you're imagining both my perceptions and my thoughts.

Of course, we're talking about a hypothetical question here. There is no actual tree that fell, we're just pretending there is one for the sake of the question.

5 minutes ago, The observer said:

Then how do you explain the tree on the ground while all other trees are not?

That's just how the tree is. If you were there earlier you would have witnessed a tree falling, but in this case you only see its side effects because you weren't aware of any tree falling.

12 minutes ago, The observer said:

Notice that there is thought involved here:

I never said thoughts can't describe truth.  But that doesn't mean it isn't a thought.

I can become directly aware of something and then think about what I became directly aware of, but in the end it is still a thought, not the actual thing I became directly aware of. 

[Osaid]

 

20 minutes ago, Member said:

If everything is within awareness, then the tiniest particle should be aware in order to exist.

You're not aware of any particles right now

21 minutes ago, Member said:

Reality doesn't need a reason to exist, it just simply is

I never said otherwise

 

[Member]

4 minutes ago, Osaid said:

You're not aware of any particles right now

I never said otherwise

I am aware of particles lol, otherwise I wouldn't be able to experience anything at all.

[Osaid]

@Member Particles are too small for your eyes to see, you're only aware of particles as a concept in your head. 

[Member]

29 minutes ago, Osaid said:

@Member Particles are too small for your eyes to see, you're only aware of particles as a concept in your head. 

Physical world is made of particles, what are you talking about?

[Osaid]

 

4 minutes ago, Member said:

Physical world is made of particles,

The only reason you know this is because someone else saw particles and then told you that everything is made of particles, there are no particles in your direct experience right now for you to make that claim

[Leo Gura]

Guys, this topic is not one to speculate about.

Sit down and observe how your awareness works. Study your direct experience. Don't speculate.

This work is about carefully observing whatever is happening in your direct experience. You learn what's true by looking closely at what's right in front of you.

[The observer]

54 minutes ago, Osaid said:

I can become directly aware of something and then think about what I became directly aware of, but in the end it is still a thought, not the actual thing I became directly aware of.

And here's exactly the problem; According to your paradigm, if you aren't directly aware of the tree, the tree does not actually exist. So, how can you conclude that your thoughts that are derived from direct awareness are true? After all, they're just thoughts (memories), not the actual thing that you became directly aware of.

In other words, since the insight is not present right now in your direct awareness and is only present in your thoughts, how can you say that it is true?

You can’t have it both ways. You either have to admit that the tree exists regardless of your direct awareness and then you can say that your insights are true. Or, you can deny that the tree exists and deny your insights as well because all of it is just thoughts and thoughts are not to be trusted.