What's Your Spawn Count?

[AndylizedAAY]

On 10/21/2022 at 5:27 AM, Leo Gura said:

From now on I'm ranking ya'll based on your respawn count.

25 respawn minimum.

If you can't clear the bar, come back after you've respawned a few more times.

@Leo GuraIt doesn't make sense why people should automatically be banned based on their spawn if @Leo Gura's goal is to help people become more conscious. Shouldn't people with lower spawn count be focused on? I mean, unless they are disrespecting the forum, I don't think that they should be banned.

[AndylizedAAY]

@Leo GuraIf you don't believe in souls, how come consciousness can conjure up astral projection? There has to be some explanation for why some people inuite that there is more to life and why others don't. How do you explain spawn count without the idea of souls? How do I know if I am the soul or if I have one?

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, AndylizedAAY said:

@Leo GuraIt doesn't make sense why people should automatically be banned based on their spawn if @Leo Gura's goal is to help people become more conscious. Shouldn't people with lower spawn count be focused on? I mean, unless they are disrespecting the forum, I don't think that they should be banned.

iT wAs a jOke, mAn

[LSD-Rumi]

15 hours ago, Kross said:

There are times when I feel it's like 10,000 and there are times when it feels like it's 4.

Same. 

[King Merk]

I’m on respawn number 151 rn

One day I’ll catch all 1,000,000 like Leo and be a true master 

[thisintegrated]

On 22/10/2022 at 5:53 AM, Meliodas said:

sadhguru comes from a wealthy doctor family , and his grandfather was like the richest dude in his village

Irrelevant to the the point.  There are many people like Sadhguru where there naturally shouldn't be.  Sadhguru sometimes mentions how he can can simply look at a random person and they both suddenly "feel" each other's "energy" or "quality of consciousness", and are in shock of each other.  Like meeting a fellow "awakened one".  Even Leo talks about this in his Turquoise video, iirc.  People can be at a level where they just radiate their Turquoiseness, where people start to gather around them from the energy they radiate.  Simply having grown up in "the right kind of environment", as Carl was suggesting, isn't enough to account for this, 

 

On 22/10/2022 at 11:39 AM, Carl-Richard said:

I have no idea why you would equate memory to brain chemistry or intellect, but anyway

I didn't.  I was making the point that matters of the physical alone aren't enough to account for everything we see.

 

Quote

I'm saying that claims about past lives is one reason why you would invoke the concept of the soul.

Yes, but again that doesn't mean anything.  Experiences are just that.

 

Quote

You mentioned cases where differences in personality are seemingly not explained by genes or environment (which I think has some problems, e.g. identical twins will never have a completely identical environment).

I wasn't suggesting that souls are the reason for these differences, but that they could be one, in theory.  It's an "unknown" why some people just don't seem to "fit" in a family, or are particularly drawn to some random/specific thing in their career or whatever.  It being unknown means there are, for certain, variables which we haven't accounted for, meaning we can't rule out souls being one such variable.

 

Quote

What other reasons exist? And I'm asking for specific observations, not grand narratives like Tom Campbell's worldview, Hinduism or Christianity.

Specific reasons?  You mean like ones we've measured with our modern day equipment?  Well there is some indirect empirical evidence of this, by the monroe institute, such as proof of dimensions outside our own, which validate Robert Monroe's and Tom Campbell's accounts of their direct experiences, many of which suggest and/or confirm the existence of soul-like forms and their fundamental/ubiquitous nature across all realms of existence.  But all that exists is your experience, so if it's not your experience it's not your truth and is impossible to really verify.  If an alien knocked on your door, or if a famous scientist proclaimed that souls exist, none of that would really mean anything.

Edited October 23, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

39 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

I didn't.  I was making the point that matters of the physical alone aren't enough to account for everything we see.

The phenomenological experience of episodic memories is not physical.

 

39 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Yes, but again that doesn't mean anything.  Experiences are just that.

But all that exists is your experience, so if it's not your experience it's not your truth and is impossible to really verify.

Which one is it?

 

Isn't the experience of past life memories an obvious first option for deploying the soul concept?

Edited October 23, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[thisintegrated]

51 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The phenomenological experience of episodic memories is not physical.

..yet they're generally accounted for by physical processes understood by modern science, whereas what I was referring to is not.

If I said "Sadhguru radiates a divine essence that inspires awe and is felt by his mere presence or gaze alone", how exactly do you think a scientist would go about measuring this?

 

Quote

Isn't the experience of past life memories an obvious first option for deploying the soul concept?

No, not in the specific way you're asking.  If you simply have a dream or see visions of another life that in no way suggests you were seeing your past life.  But if it's an experience of literally spending years on alien planets, living in other dimensions and building long-term relationships with inter-dimensional aliens who teach/show you how reality works, then those experiences might override whatever you're told in the physical.

Edited October 23, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

7 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

..yet they're generally accounted for by physical processed understood by modern science, whereas what I was referring to is not.

Does cognitive science describe physical processes? Freudian psychoanalysis? Jungian psychology?

 

9 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

If I said "Sadhguru radiates a divine essence that inspires awe and is felt by his mere presence or gaze alone", how exactly do you think a scientist would go about measuring this?

You're talking about an experience of Sadhguru, which when it comes to science, the natural go-to option is a research psychologist. A research psychologist could use qualitative methods (e.g. interviews and thematic analysis), or quantitative methods (e.g. neural correlates, physiological correlates, surveys). Talking about the brain is just one of many options.

 

17 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

No, not in the specific way you're asking.  If you simply have a dream or see visions of another life that in no way suggests you were seeing your past life.  But if it's an experience of literally spending years on alien planets, living in other dimensions and building long-term relationships with inter-dimensional aliens who teach/show you how reality works, then those experiences might override whatever you're told in the physical.

What if the memories are very consistent and thorough, e.g. you can count back all the lifetimes you've had for the last 3000 years in chronological order?

[thisintegrated]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Does cognitive science describe physical processes? Freudian psychoanalysis? Jungian psychology?

I have no idea how this is relevant.  If someone's good at math, their whole family's brains and DNA can be examined and an explanation for why they're good at math can be found.  But if someone's obsessed with flying planes from a young age despite nothing in the environment or DNA to cause this, then it may be worth looking into alternate explanations.  

To answer your question, no I don't think MBTI/Big5/etc. describes one's math abilities, athletic ability, etc.

 

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're talking about an experience of Sadhguru, which when it comes to science, the natural go-to option is a research psychologist. A research psychologist could use qualitative methods (e.g. interviews and thematic analysis), or quantitative methods (e.g. neural correlates, physiological correlates, surveys). Talking about the brain is just one of many options.

That's just silly.  Not sure if you're just trolling at this point.  You honestly think a Blue psychologist is gonna come to an accurate conclusion as to why Sadhguru has such an effect on people with just a glance?  Or why a blind man might suddenly feel something when in his presence?

 

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What if the memories are very consistent and thorough, e.g. you can count back all the lifetimes you've had for the last 3000 years in chronological order?

Changes nothing.  Psychic people can in theory have no problem accessing any bit of information that exists.  And it is known that such cases are often put there by the LCS to awaken people to the wider reality.  How common is the belief in reincarnation/ghosts/aliens/etc.?  Extremely common.  Why?  Because sightings/reports are just about common enough to spread rumours and ideas, but not so common that it breaks the illusion of reality having rules and making sense to conventional science.

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

I have no idea how this is relevant.  If someone's good at math, their whole family's brains and DNA can be examined and an explanation for why they're good at math can be found.  But if someone's obsessed with flying planes from a young age despite nothing in the environment or DNA to cause this, then it may be worth looking into alternate explanations.

Yeah, I have no idea why you're tying memory down to the physical processes.

 

6 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

That's just silly.  Not sure if you're just trolling at this point.  You honestly think a Blue psychologist is gonna come to an accurate conclusion as to why Sadhguru has such an effect on people with just a glance?  Or why a blind man might suddenly feel something when in his presence?

I only gave some examples for how science doesn't necessarily have to deal with physical processes.

 

7 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Changes nothing.  Psychic people can in theory have no problem accessing any bit of information that exists.  And it is known that such cases are often put there by the LCS to awaken people to the wider reality.  How common is the belief in reincarnation/ghosts/aliens/etc.?  Extremely common.  Why?  Because sightings/reports are just about common enough to spread rumours and ideas, but not so common that it breaks the illusion of reality having rules and making sense to conventional science.

When Sadhguru says he spent many lifetimes preparing to build the Dhyanalinga, 1. do you believe him, and 2. is that a sufficient reason for deploying the soul concept?

[thisintegrated]

11 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yeah, I have no idea why you're tying memory down to the physical processes.

Because it has a physical counterpart, unlike some of the alleged potential effects of reincarnation which have absolutely no physical counterpart.  Reincarnation memories can be explained without reincarnation.  The effects I was talking about cannot, unless you can offer a suitable alternative explanation.  Like I said, physical explanations aren't good enough, and reincarnation seems like the best one anyone has ever brought forward.  In my initial post I explained how it's not a bad explanation, and not as crazy as it sounds.  Souls/reincarnation make so much sense that it could be argued you should try to disprove them before even needing to prove them.

Edited October 23, 2022 by thisintegrated

[thisintegrated]

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I only gave some examples for how science doesn't necessarily have to deal with physical processes.

Pretty sure MBTI types will show correlations in brain scans.

 

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

When Sadhguru says he spent many lifetimes preparing to build the Dhyanalinga, 1. do you believe him, and 2. is that a sufficient reason for deploying the soul concept?

I don't believe or disbelieve him.  In one parallel reality or another I'm sure he's telling the truth.  And if I choose to I can make it true for my own reality, just like if I put enough intent into it, I could "discover" he's actually a charlatan and a scammer and child rapist or whatever's within my power.

Edit:  For anyone confused by this, as long as there's uncertainty for what he is within my reality, there's wiggle room in deciding the unknown details about him.  It's all a matter of probability.

Edited October 23, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Because it has a physical counterpart, unlike some of the alleged potential effects of reincarnation which have absolutely no physical counterpart.

When you bring to mind an episodic memory, there will be a certain pattern in the brain which correlates with that, but the same will be true when you bring to mind the fact that you like planes (which is a semantic memory). Surely then, the fact that you like planes does have a "physical counterpart", just like the fact that the memory of a past life has a physical counterpart.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Pretty sure MBTI types will show correlations in brain scans.

There you have it: correlations between something physical and something non-physical. Congratulations, you got it  Memories, like most things, have a mental part, and they have a physical part. I was talking about the mental part.

 

5 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

I don't believe or disbelieve him.  In one parallel reality or another I'm sure he's telling the truth.  And if I choose to I can make it true for my own reality, just like if I put enough intent into it, I could "discover" he's actually a charlatan and a scammer and child rapist or whatever's within my power.

Granted Sadhguru is speaking the truth and granted that all these other gurus who claim to have experienced countless past lives which track chronologically with history are also speaking the truth, I think you would agree that "soul" is a good term for explaining that phenomena. That's all.

[thisintegrated]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

When you bring to mind an episodic memory, there will be a certain pattern in the brain which correlates with that, but the same will be true when you bring to mind the fact that you like planes (which is a semantic memory). Surely then, the fact that you like planes does have a "physical counterpart", just like the fact that the memory of a past life has a physical counterpart.

Plane = has a physical explanation

Past life = has a physical explanation

episodic memory = has a physical explanation

 

Sadhguru's effect on people = has no physical explanation

Unexpected personality traits = has physical explanation, but still not conclusive as non-physical effects have physical manifestations.

Tom Campbell's experiences = has no physical explanation sometimes, sometimes does

[thisintegrated]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Granted Sadhguru is speaking the truth and granted that all these other gurus who claim to have experienced countless past lives which track chronologically with history are also speaking the truth, I think you would agree that "soul" is a good term for explaining that phenomena. That's all.

Fair enough.  But it's important not to confuse the effects with the causes.  People may have the effects of a soul without souls actually being real or a fundamental part of reality.  The collective unconscious could've easily generated the effect of souls just like in the past people prayed to the "sun god" and it actually worked, and the sun god perhaps even literally manifested in the flesh when enough people believed in him.  But that's still different from the laws of physics which are harder to change, and so the sun god wasn't "actually" real, just like reincarnation might not be real and only something we create temporarily.  Or souls could be real, and be a fundamental part of the fabric of this limited reality like the laws of physics, but still not real when you zoom out to the full extent of God.

Edited October 23, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

39 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Sadhguru's effect on people = has no physical explanation

Based on his claims about being able to go many days without thinking a single thought, Sadhguru most probably lives with his Default Mode Network (DMN) mostly shut off, and people who come near him will empathically pick up on his state, and likewise their DMN will probably shut off as well. In this case, you would've explained Sadhguru's effect on people by referring to a neural correlate (the DMN), which is what you would call a physical explanation. 

Before you doubt the specificity of such a phenomena, remember that humans are highly capable of attuning to other people's mental states. If someone is angry or sad around you, you'll be able to pick up on that and synchronize your emotions with them (you'll get angry or sad). That specific emotion looks like something in the brain.

Only two days ago, during lunch at our school, there was organized a highly emotional talk about the ongoing issues in Iran. I didn't attend the talk. When the people who attended the talk entered the classroom and started talking, it only took about 5 seconds before I started to feel how upset they were (in fact, most of the students decided to attend an activist demonstration in the city the day after).

Edited October 23, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Fair enough.  But it's important not to confuse the effects with the causes.  People may have the effects of a soul without souls actually being real or a fundamental part of reality.  The collective unconscious could've easily generated the effect of souls just like in the past people prayed to the "sun god" and it actually worked, and the sun god perhaps even literally manifested in the flesh when enough people believed in him.  But that's still different from the laws of physics which are harder to change, and so the sun god wasn't "actually" real, just like reincarnation might not be real and only something we create temporarily.  Or souls could be real, and be a fundamental part of the fabric of this limited reality like the laws of physics, but still not real when you zoom out to the full extent of God.

As far as I'm concerned, past life memories, souls, the collective unconscious, the sun god and even the laws of physics, are all things we create temporarily (every time you think, i.e. in the form of a thought). I'm a pragmatist. It's all just useful fictions. I don't bother with making realist claims like "the soul is an actual object in reality". I just think that the soul concept is useful for explaining highly consistent and thorough accounts of past lives.

By the way, if you're indeed more of a realist than a pragmatist, I think this might be one reason why we talk past each other on things like MBTI and SD, or everything really. For example, I don't treat the brain as a kind of "base reality" (or that there even is such a thing), which is why I won't so readily tie something like "memory" to it in the way you seem to do. I don't treat it any more special than any other scientific mode of inquiry (e.g. a survey). It might be more reliable than other things, but that's about it.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[thisintegrated]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

As far as I'm concerned, past life memories, souls, the collective unconscious, the sun god and even the laws of physics, are all things we create temporarily (every time you think, i.e. in the form of a thought). I'm a pragmatist. It's all just useful fictions. I don't bother with making realist claims like "the soul is an actual object in reality". I just think that the soul concept is useful for explaining highly consistent and thorough accounts of past lives.

Except hierarchies are real, and everything isn't at the same scale/level.  Hierarchies are found everywhere in our world, and in the greater infinity as well.  Our world isn't unique.  One human isn't worth one cat, and one "cosmic mouse" isn't worth one human.  And there are many levels beyond the mouse as well.  These things may be "imaginary" but that doesn't make them any less real.  We exist within these hierarchies.

 

 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm a pragmatist

..lolwut

* dethrones @Carl-Richard *

 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

By the way, if you're indeed more of a realist than a pragmatist, I think this might be one reason why we talk past each other on things like MBTI and SD (or everything really). For example, I don't treat the brain as a kind of "base reality" (or that there even is such a thing), which is why I won't so readily tie something like "memory" to it in the way you seem to do. I don't treat it any more special than any other scientific mode of inquiry (e.g. a survey). It might be more reliable than other things, but that's about it.

What exactly do you mean by realist vs pragmatist?  Both are somewhat pragmatic and realistic.  Realists are generally conservative/reductionistic people, basically INTJs.  Pragmatists are just people who pay no mind to convention/precedent/tradition and solve problems the "best", most expedient way possible, but the most efficient approach is usually the Ni/reductionistic approach, so they end up being almost the same thing..