Reality is a Mind - Materialists need to contemplate

[Inliytened1]

17 minutes ago, The observer said:

 

The collapse of all duality means that time is an illusion. Are you directly conscious of consciousness right now? Are you directly conscious of the tree falling right now? These two questions must have the same answer. Otherwise, you're using a double standard.

Time is an illusion as is the tree.  Duality is an illusion.  But illusion is reality (the reality of form)  pure formlessness is Truth.   Thats why when "you" "die" "you" will melt into pure formlessness or Absolute Infinity.

[allislove]

14 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Time is an illusion as is the tree.  Duality is an illusion.  But illusion is reality (the reality of form)  pure formlessness is Truth.   Thats why when "you" "die" "you" will melt into pure formlessness or Absolute Infinity.

Nicely put ?

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Aquarius said:

 

Beautifully written k insights that I loved to read, thanks @Inliytened1

@dimitri??

 

[High-valance]

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

 

This Point about Walking through walls can totally be made sense of within a mind-only framework. The key to understanding this lies in the distinction made in philosophy between the phenomena and the noumena.

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by High-valance

[Nahm]

@James123

It’s depicted within a whole circle, the perimeter. In actuality, you. 

[High-valance]

2 hours ago, Member said:

I'm talking about the physical reality/present moment, not about the fundamental reality. We can't experience everything at once because we are finite. That's why classical physics still work for our macroscopic world. If there are no particle interactions then there is nothing and thoughts would make no sense. Maybe you will give this video a try when you have time, of course if you want to.

We also work according to the physical laws of nature, what makes you think that you're not made of matter? I don't need proof that things are solid as long as I'm not able to walk through walls lol. So current scientific explanations make perfect sense. If you have any other better explanation, then I would like to hear it. Thoughts don't create reality, as far as I can tell.

The key to understanding the walking through walls thing lies in the distinction made in philosophy between the phenomena and the noumena. Meaning the distinction between our experiences of reality and reality itself, or the things in reality themselves.

According to materialism reality itself is unconscious matter outside mind. But in a mind-only frameworks the noumena is only mental goings on, from which our personal consciousness that we identify with is dissociated. This explain why we can't walk through walls or do other such things that the world does not comply with.

And the thing about particles. In a mind-only framework particles are just what the noumena as trans-personal mind look like and presents itself on the screen of perception. Somewhat analogous to pixels on a screen.

And as has already been pointed out by others but I'll put a little differently: there's no evidence for a materilist reality of matter outside consciousness. That is a theoretical abstraction, a concept in mind/consciousness. It's a theoretical inferance, not itself an observation. 

[The observer]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Time is an illusion as is the tree.  Duality is an illusion.  But illusion is reality (the reality of form)  pure formlessness is Truth.   Thats why when "you" "die" "you" will melt into pure formlessness or Absolute Infinity.

Yes. Now just realise that you are saying the same thing that I was saying only in different words.

That's how understanding is metaphorical. And that's how the tree exists independent of your awareness/perception.

[Member]

2 hours ago, The observer said:

Because; what is matter? How can I think I am made of something which is not? What is matter, really? This is the core assumption that creates the whole problem.

Then what are you? Are you just a thought, or a chain reactions happening between bits of matter/consciousness transforming in a space-time reality? If you think that you are just a thought, then I guess I'm just having a pseudo interaction with a fictional character. I doubt that's the case tho.

2 hours ago, The observer said:

What does science have to do with not being able to walk through walls? Science basically says we can't walk through walls because we can't walk through walls, and then it creates some other ways of saying the same thing... Scientists simply use different ways for expressing the same information. Literally like translating to multiple different languages, no more no less.

When you think that reality is made of matter, that right there is a thought creating reality. In reality, there is no such thing as matter. You're imagining it. Unless you can point to it, it doesn't exist except in thought.

What I said was that I need no proof that the walls in my room are solid. This awareness comes from my direct experience with the matter itself, through bodily senses, sight, perception, sound, thoughts etc. And the current scientific explanations provide enough evidence/data that work, I did not find other satisfying explanations yet.

If you don't think matter is real, then the tree exists only in your imagination. Period. What answer would you expect to hear if everything is just paradigm?

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Just study Quantum Mechanics.  Study modern physics and Einstein's relativity.   Can get some good ones from the Great Courses or the Teaching Company.   Then listen to Leo's videos on Absolute Infinity,  what is perception.  The idea that reality has any physical substance will be completely debunked for you.   But be careful what you wish for.  To discover directly that you are made of nothing and that this is a hallucination is disturbing.

Please watch the video from my previous post. There are different interpretations, nothing is certain. That doesn't mean that matter is a hallucination.

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Time is an illusion as is the tree.  Duality is an illusion.  But illusion is reality (the reality of form)  pure formlessness is Truth.   Thats why when "you" "die" "you" will melt into pure formlessness or Absolute Infinity.

There could be infinite realities where "you" could be that tree and the tree could be "you" watching it. That doesn't reject the existence of that tree.

18 minutes ago, High-valance said:

And as has already been pointed out by others but I'll put a little differently: there's no evidence for a materilist reality of matter outside consciousness. That is a theoretical abstraction, a concept in mind/consciousness. It's a theoretical inferance, not itself an observation. 

The definition of consciousness is highly debated but I tend to take the panpsychist approach and say that everything has a degree of consciousness (self awareness is another thing). To me, all the matter is conscious and exists in multiple forms that are interconnected. These interactions create our space time reality. So I don't reject matter because it creates my reality. Even if I dream stupid coconuts healing my body, they're still part of my reality so I'm not rejecting that either.

[High-valance]

44 minutes ago, Member said:

The definition of consciousness is highly debated but I tend to take the panpsychist approach and say that everything has a degree of consciousness (self awareness is another thing). To me, all the matter is conscious and exists in multiple forms that are interconnected. These interactions create our space time reality. So I don't reject matter because it creates my reality. Even if I dream stupid coconuts healing my body, they're still part of my reality so I'm not rejecting that either.

What i mean by consciousness is what in philosophy of mind is called phenomenal consciousness, roughly defines as 'an entity is conscious if and only if it is anything it is like to be that entity, some subjective way it feels like or appears for the entity. Alternatively, (and this gets at the same thing i'm trying to Point to) consciousness is 'that which experiences'.

Regarding what I take to be a panphsycist view: While I Think that's better than materialism, it still is infering something that is not mental or something that is not mind/consciouness. Why is this necessary? In a dream at night you don't say that objects of the Dream world are themselves conscious, so why would we say that in the waking state? It seems unessesary? We might say that the inanimate universe as a whole corresponds to mental goings on, but not that the atoms on the screen of perception of which the appearance of the inanimate universe is comprised are themselves conscious/minded (assuming that this is what you're suggesting).

If we can make sense of our shared basic and not so basic observations of reality in terms of only one thing (mind), then why postulate a second (matter outside mind of which its constituent parts supposedly are conscious? By way of analogy: When looking at the horizen you don't say that there is a shadow Earth beyond it, but rather just more Earth. In a similar way, why say that beyond our minds is a whole different type of thing (matter outside mind)? It seems unessesary.

Here is a video of an articulation of a mind-only view of reality in case it is of interest.

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by High-valance

[James123]

@Nahm thank you  

[Aquarius]

3 hours ago, Nahm said:

@James123

It’s depicted within a whole circle, the perimeter. In actuality, you. 

Wow. 

[The observer]

@Member You have got a long ways to go.

And I am SpongeBob 

[Someone here]

Proposition :    " if I'm not perceiving something that means  it doesn't exist." 

. Let's test that experientially. Here's a wall in front of me..i can't walk through it.. It exists.  I close my eyes and try again to walk through it.. I'm not perceiving it yet it's still there and I can't walk through it. 

  Let's examine this from a pragmatic point of view. Let's see how  well aligned you are with your beliefs. If a lion attacks you.. You can just close your eyes or look elsewhere and you won't perceive it anymore and (according to you) it should literally stop existing and you will be safe.   Have the open mind to actually try these experiments to discover what's the true relationship between perception and existence. 

Don't argue or theorize about it. Actually go and do it( especially the second one) and report back your results!. 

@Inliytened1

Edited May 19, 2020 by Someone here

[High-valance]

10 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Proposition :    " if I'm not perceiving something that means  it doesn't exist." 

. Let's test that experientially. Here's a wall in front of me..i can't walk through it.. It exists.  I close my eyes and try again to walk through it.. I'm not perceiving it yet it's still there and I can't walk through it. 

  Let's examine this from a pragmatic point of view. Let's see how  well aligned you are with your beliefs. If a lion attacks you.. You can just close your eyes or look elsewhere and you won't perceive it anymore and (according to you) it should literally stop existing and you will be safe.   Have the open mind to actually try these experiments to discover what's the true relationship between perception and existence. 

@Inliytened1

The phenomenal experience of feeling and hearing the wall are themselves perceptions. Merely closing one's eyes doesn't actually eliminate all perception, considering that we have 5 senses. So that doesn't really contradict the proposition. 

I'd suggest that if you're not experiencing the wall through any of the 5 senses then it does not exist as a wall with colors and certain ways it feels. Our sense experience is a representation of the so called 'external universe', but the external universe does not itself have those human-associated experintial qualities and textures such as sounds,colors and so on. That is a representation. It is a representation of trans-personal mental states. In other words, there is the noumena (the thing itself), but the noumena is itself phenomenal/mental, but while phenomenal/mental, not of the qualities in terms of which we experience the world.

[Member]

3 hours ago, High-valance said:

What i mean by consciousness is what in philosophy of mind is called phenomenal consciousness, roughly defines as 'an entity is conscious if and only if it is anything it is like to be that entity, some subjective way it feels like or appears for the entity. Alternatively, (and this gets at the same thing i'm trying to Point to) consciousness is 'that which experiences'.

Regarding what I take to be a panphsycist view: While I Think that's better than materialism, it still is infering something that is not mental or something that is not mind/consciouness. Why is this necessary? In a dream at night you don't say that objects of the Dream world are themselves conscious, so why would we say that in the waking state? It seems unessesary? We might say that the inanimate universe as a whole corresponds to mental goings on, but not that the atoms on the screen of perception of which the appearance of the inanimate universe is comprised are themselves conscious/minded (assuming that this is what you're suggesting).

If we can make sense of our shared basic and not so basic observations of reality in terms of only one thing (mind), then why postulate a second (matter outside mind of which its constituent parts supposedly are conscious? By way of analogy: When looking at the horizen you don't say that there is a shadow Earth beyond it, but rather just more Earth. In a similar way, why say that beyond our minds is a whole different type of thing (matter outside mind)? It seems unessesary.

Thanks for sharing that video, it was interesting but I need time to reflect on the concepts - not that they are foreign to me but some of them didn't make sense. But I will watch it again in case I missed something. As for the matter outside mind, this is not my interpretation. It appears to be outside or separate but body and mind are basically the same to me. The chemical processes in the brain ARE thoughts or dreams or whatever, so I see no distinction between matter and subjective experience, though we obviously perceive matter in a finite space-time. My point is that we can't experience infinity as it cannot be perceived by the finite mind/being. So in order to exist, the infinity is split into these finite manifestations/forms of matter.

Quantum mechanics is a little bit weird but it doesn't imply that there is no matter, only that matter (let's call it Schrodinger's cat) exists in a superposition. If you're interested to hear a scientific explanation on the "many worlds" theory, please watch the video from my previous post as it could answer to the "tree" dilemma (obviously, it's just a theory that I subscribe to and nothing more).

Edited May 19, 2020 by Member

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, High-valance said:

The phenomenal experience of feeling and hearing the wall are themselves perceptions. Merely closing one's eyes doesn't actually eliminate all perception, considering that we have 5 senses. So that doesn't really contradict the proposition. 

I'd suggest that if you're not experiencing the wall through any of the 5 senses then it does not exist as a wall with colors and certain ways it feels. Our sense experience is a representation of the so called 'external universe', but the external universe does not itself have those human-associated experintial qualities and textures such as sounds,colors and so on. That is a representation. It is a representation of trans-personal mental states. In other words, there is the noumena (the thing itself), but the noumena is itself phenomenal/mental, but while phenomenal/mental, not of the qualities in terms of which we experience the world.

I think it's over right there. There's a duality between the represented and the thing that is being represented. For there to be perception there must be  a thing that's being perceived independently from the perceiver. Now this perception process is not perfect and it only gives edited representations of the external world but that's irrelevant to the fact that there exist that external world independent from the perception and the perceiver 

[Forestluv]

@Someone here You won’t awaken and expand by continually re-enforcing a pre-conceived paradigm from within that paradigm. 

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Someone here You won’t expand by continually re-enforcing a pre-conceived paradigm from within that paradigm. 

But I'm not starting from any paradigm here (at least in the last two posts). I'm just observing and discovering how my direct experience work. That's Leo's advice! And bringing forth my results.  That's what my direct experience is literally revealing.   Keep in mind there is no "conclusive" evidence for any particular paradigm and I'm well aware of that. Reality can  shift it's rules every single day to fit different paradigms and we might not know that or manage to stop it . That's why the only thing that we can rely on is direct experience. That's the one thing that we can all agree and be sure of.  

[High-valance]

11 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I think it's over right there. There's a duality between the represented and the thing that is being represented. For there to be perception there must be  a thing that's being perceived independently from the perceiver. Now this perception process is not perfect and it only gives edited representations of the external world but that's irrelevant to the fact that there exist that external world independent from the perception and the perceiver 

Well sure, there are all kinds of dualities, but they are self-dual and collapse in in an absolute perspective. The percieved and the perciever are one.  I'm suggesting that what is being percieved is not a mind-external environment, but rather a mental environment, numerically identical to the perciever of it.

[Member]

1 hour ago, The observer said:

@Member You have got a long ways to go.

And I am SpongeBob 

Not sure what would you expect to hear, an echo chamber of your own beliefs?

If thoughts or subjective experiences aren't an explanation, then why do you contradict yourself?