Are all models wrong?

[seeds]

And secondly...

Really? You’re not endorsing...

(promoting, pushing, peddling, sanctioning, trying to sell)

...the concept of nondualism?

I think your words suggest otherwise.

What I am endorsing is to live, here, now - as it is directly experienced and not as it is thought to be.

You kind of sound like Richard Alpert (aka, Ram Dass) whose book - Be Here Now - was very popular many decades ago. Now I am not suggesting that there’s anything wrong with that, I’m just saying that the idea of “living in the now” is nothing new.

I am endorsing reality, not the conceptual construct we have invented.

That’s a pretty ironic statement coming from someone who not only doesn’t seem to know or care what “reality” actually is, but also appears to be totally immersed in a conceptual construct called Advaita Vedanta, a philosophy that was invented by the Hindus long ago.

I am proposing people should not spend as much time "in their head" / caught up in thought, but rather in the now - smell the roses, don't just describe/judge the smell.
Thats really all I am proposing.

If that was indeed “all” you were proposing, then that would be lovely.

However, couched within the folds of your proposal (like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing) is nothing but pure nihilism.

It’s funny how your calm and amiable tone obscures such a dark feature of your philosophy.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

In order to preserve your belief system, you have completely ignored one of the biggest problems in all of reality.

As a hardcore nondualist (with your blinkers firmly in place), you have failed to offer any explanation whatsoever as to who or what it was that grasped the fabric of reality and shaped it into the nuts and bolts workings of the universe.

There really is no need to explain...

No, of course not.

There’s absolutely no need to explain why we find ourselves suspended in a vast spatial dimension in the midst of trillions upon trillions of fusion dynamos (suns) and their accompanying planets.
Likewise, there’s no need to explain how those suns and planets came into existence as an essential prerequisite condition to our minds coming into existence.
And lastly, there’s no need to explain how it is possible that life...

(life? what the heck is that?)

...could effloresce from the fabric of one of those planets and coat its surface with unique individualizations of personal consciousness.

No, there is no need to explain any of that (or a million other mysteries).

Why?

Because if you will just suck on this big pacifying teat called nondualism and accept its tenets, you won’t have to worry or think about any of that stuff.

- at the end, every explanation has to be left behind anyway. I am thus very happy to dismantle any belief system, even the non dual one.
See, what I like about non dualism is that it actually provides a framework to do just that - to destroy belief...

Ah, I see, so your intention is to destroy any and all belief systems that embrace a hopeful outcome for humans and replace them with yet another belief system (nondualism) that embraces oblivion and the idea that human life has no ultimate and eternal purpose.

Got it. Good plan.

Again, your merry tone belies a darker truth.

Help me to understand how if all 7.7 billion humans on earth had a “direct experience” of nonduality (non-separation), how would that be beneficial to us? How would that change anything as far as our everyday lives and interactions are concerned?

What would change if "7.7 billion humans on earth" would actually embrace the moment? If their precious ego would diminish? I think the world would actually change a lot!

Instead of offering such a vague prediction, how about you provide us with some actual details.

In other words, give us some specific examples of how the world would actually change.
_______

[AlexW]

I’m just saying that the idea of “living in the now” is nothing new.

Of course not - but this doesn't mean a lot of people have put it into action.
And as long as they don't, I think it is worth repeating the message.

If that was indeed “all” you were proposing, then that would be lovely.

However, couched within the folds of your proposal (like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing) is nothing but pure nihilism.

I have never said that life (which is also a concept) is without meaning, purpose or value - it has the meaning, purpose and value that one awards it according to ones own, individual beliefs and ideas - which is perfectly fine.
Reality, on the other hand, is neither meaningless nor meaningful - it is beyond all conceptual limitations/valuations and knows nothing of our thought up conceptions.
Now you can stick your head into the sand and ignore the obvious, insist that reality has to have a deeper meaning, believe that the smell of a rose has to have meaning, purpose and value, or you simply enjoy the smell without adding all these conceptual trimmings - up to you...

There’s absolutely no need to explain why we find ourselves suspended in a vast spatial dimension in the midst of trillions upon trillions of fusion dynamos (suns) and their accompanying planets.
Likewise, there’s no need to explain how those suns and planets came into existence as an essential prerequisite condition to our minds coming into existence.
And lastly, there’s no need to explain how it is possible that life...

(life? what the heck is that?)

...could effloresce from the fabric of one of those planets and coat its surface with unique individualizations of personal consciousness.

No, there is no need to explain any of that (or a million other mysteries).

Why?

Because if you will just suck on this big pacifying teat called nondualism and accept its tenets, you won’t have to worry or think about any of that stuff.

If you feel the need to explain the workings of the universe, go ahead... no problem with that. But be aware that all your explanations will soon be superseded by "better"/more precise explanations and these explanations will be superseded again and so it goes on and on forever...
Why? Because that is the nature of an explanation - it is not final, not absolute truth. The smell of a rose, on the other hand, is as it is, no matter if you believe you can explain the universe or not... If you believe you have finally made it, you know it all... would that change the here and now? No! Not in the slightest tiny little bit - the smell of the rose doesn't care about your great explanations - reality doesn't care about it either... only "you" do - and seven billion other thought up "egos" out there...

Ah, I see, so your intention is to destroy any and all belief systems that embrace a hopeful outcome for humans and replace them with yet another belief system (nondualism) that embraces oblivion and the idea that human life has no ultimate and eternal purpose.

No, far from it - as I stated previously, I don't intend to introduce any new belief system. I would rather have people actually investigate this moment, this direct experience and come to their own conclusion.

Instead of offering such a vague prediction, how about you provide us with some actual details.

In other words, give us some specific examples of how the world would actually change.

What do you think would happen if people took themselves less seriously? If they actually understood that their precious ego is actually not as important as they thought it is? If they would see and understand that separation is not more than a conventionally agreed upon idea?

Cant you imagine how this world would change for the better?

Why do you think Adam and Eve, after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, had been exiled from the Garden of Eden? (which is, as I see it, nothing else but the here and now - reality itself)
They have been - and still are - looking for more and more knowledge, more and better explanations, and by doing so, they don't see the Garden anymore - they only see their explanations and interpretations...

[Atla]

Proper nondualism is just the correct philosophical framework, we can address the elephant in the room once we have a philosophical framework to address it in.
But expecting nondualism to solve the issue by itself, is like expecting substance dualism to solve the issue by itself, it's a category error.

So when we do address the elephant, arguably the most reasonable starting point is combining nondualism with some variation of the multiverse hypothesis (and with one more thing I won't mention here). That's where philosophy really takes off.

Seeds is just butthurt btw because there is a way better philosophical guess out there than his idea of a cosmic deception orchestrated by God + humans being very special.

[Dontaskme]

Ah, I see, so your intention is to destroy any and all belief systems that embrace a hopeful outcome for humans and replace them with yet another belief system (nondualism) that embraces oblivion and the idea that human life has no ultimate and eternal purpose.

SEEDS, You are so far off the truth seekers path when you state Nonduality is a belief system when it's NOT... and that is why all you can do to counteract YOUR OWN BELIEF echoed back to you as a ''bleak projection'' full of darkness and fear. A projection that is blinding you from the actual truth. Get this truth, a human being has no more purpose than that of a cockroach or a blade of grass. This nondual knowledge has got absolutely nothing to do with Nihilism. How can that which is EVERYTHING infinitely for eternity ever be compared with nonexistence?
How can nonexistence exist?

Also, it seems that you like to ignore certain other people who engage in this discussion, especially those who do not fit with your own model of reality the way you see it which you are more than entitled to have. But it can make you appear to have a closed mind, with a condescending arrogant ignorant know- it- all attitude. The point is Nondualists already know this knowledge is not new, we are not trying to plug something that is totally unheard of here, there is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing in this message that other people don't already KNOW.

If there is even just ONE WAY OF SEEING REALITY, it's too many...so even if one way can exist, then that must include all others ways as well, because to claim there is a way, implies there are many ways. If just ONE person has the truth, then we all have the truth, else where did the ONE person get it from? See, how simple this is?

Of course Nonduality is nothing new, it's been around since the day of when Jesus walked, who himself taught Nonduality to the masses. The reason it is nothing new is because it's the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth since the dawn of time. Time to get off your soapbox fool.

Here's a poem for you..

THE TRUTH
Once Satan and his demon sidekick were walking down the street, closely watching a man 20 yards ahead who was on the verge of realizing the Supreme Truth. The demon grew worried, and began to nudge Satan, but Satan looked quite calm. Sure enough, the man did, in fact, soon realize the deepest spiritual Truth. Yet Satan still did nothing about it. With this, the demon nudged Satan harder and, getting no response, finally blurted out, “Satan! Don’t you see? That man has realized the Truth! And yet you are doing nothing to stop him!” With that, Satan cunningly smiled and announced, “Yes, he has realized the Truth. And now I am going to help him organize the Truth!”

.

[seeds]

I’m just saying that the idea of “living in the now” is nothing new.

Of course not - but this doesn't mean a lot of people have put it into action.
And as long as they don't, I think it is worth repeating the message.

Fair enough.

If that was indeed “all” you were proposing, then that would be lovely.

However, couched within the folds of your proposal (like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing) is nothing but pure nihilism.

I have never said that life (which is also a concept) is without meaning, purpose or value...

You don’t need to openly utter the words: “life has no ultimate purpose for humans.”

Why?

Because your belief in the purposelessness of human life is clearly implied in your interpretation of nondualism:

Nondualism has none of that - all form is ultimately empty - there is no body or separate soul in existence that could survive physical death in the first place. Thus there is also no personal afterlife, no heaven where we will meet our ancestors.

And btw, life isn’t a “concept.” No, our feeble theories as to what life truly is, are concepts. Indeed, the very idea that “life is a concept” is a prime example of a concept (theory, model, hypothesis, etc.).

Instead of offering such a vague prediction, how about you provide us with some actual details.

In other words, give us some specific examples of how the world would actually change.

What do you think would happen if people took themselves less seriously?...

I don’t know, AlexW, that’s why I am asking you to provide us with some specific examples.

...If they actually understood that their precious ego is actually not as important as they thought it is? If they would see and understand that separation is not more than a conventionally agreed upon idea?

Cant you imagine how this world would change for the better?

That all sounds real nice in the form of the misty thought bubble you are positing.

However, the problem is that you keep excluding from your scenario the fact that in the process of accepting nondualism and dissolving their precious egos, that billions of God-believing humans will, in essence, be required to become materialistic atheists who must now blindly accept the absurd notion that the vast order of the universe is a product of chance.

But I guess all of that is written in the extremely fine print of the contract, right?

Furthermore, your assertion that...

...separation is not more than a conventionally agreed upon idea.

...is pure and utter nonsense.

The entire way in which the universe presents itself to our senses is based upon separation. Without separation we literally could not have come into existence.

So you need to stop with the ridiculous hogwash of posing separation and duality as being some kind of enemy of the people.

And lastly, to address this:

Cant you imagine how this world would change for the better?

I didn’t ask you to ask me what MY personal imaginings might be. I asked you to give us some “specific (fully-explicated) examples” of what YOU think would change in the world if everyone embraced the concept of nonduality.

Nevertheless, I will say that so far, based on what I am inferring from your hazy prediction, I cannot help but picture a version of an image from the cover of one of the Jehovah’s Witness’ Watchtower/Awake magazines. It is an image that depicts a child and a lamb playing with a lion, as a bunch of “Stepford” adults pick fruits and berries in the background – all set to the music of John Lennon’s “Imagine.”

And then reality reasserts itself as I then picture life in our societies and cities and the actual dirty and gritty means by which billions of humans must constantly work to feed and sustain themselves and their families.

The point is that in the process of simply trying to survive on earth, almost no one has the leisure time (nor the inclination) to do some kind of philosophical battle against their own natural and common sense awareness of the obvious separation between themselves and the phenomenal features of the universe.

If it is indeed true that at the deepest level of reality there is only “oneness”...

(as is suggested in the philosophies of Plotinus, or Spinoza, or nondualism, or even quantum theory)

...that’s fine. But such a truth (even if you have directly experienced it as you say you have) is utterly useless to us up at our operative level of existence.

As far as I can tell, aside from a contentious debate on a philosophy forum, the only thing that such a truth will get you in this world (assuming it is accompanied with $1.50) is a ride on the city bus.

However, I will try to be open minded about it if you will provide us with some of those “specific examples” I‘ve been requesting.
_______

[AlexW]

Because your belief in the purposelessness of human life is clearly implied in your interpretation of nondualism

I said (before you picked my sentence apart so it fits your purpose):
I have never said that life is without meaning, purpose or value - it has the meaning, purpose and value that one awards it according to ones own, individual beliefs and ideas - which is perfectly fine.
Reality, on the other hand, is neither meaningless nor meaningful - it is beyond all conceptual limitations/valuations

Now, maybe you really don't understand what has been said or you simply don't want to understand... which is it?

And btw, life isn’t a “concept.” No, our feeble theories as to what life truly is, are concepts. Indeed, the very idea that “life is a concept” is a prime example of a concept (theory, model, hypothesis, etc.).

Anything that can be expressed in language is a concept - thus also the word "life" is a concept. Or do you disagree?
On the other hand, what the word "life" points to is not a concept - to me, it is "reality" itself (and yes, the word "reality" is also only a concept that holds a range of different meanings for each of us).

However, the problem is that you keep excluding from your scenario the fact that in the process of accepting nondualism and dissolving their precious egos, that billions of God-believing humans will, in essence, be required to become materialistic atheists who must now blindly accept the absurd notion that the vast order of the universe is a product of chance.

This is a very strange interpretation... you couldn't be much more off the mark if you tried

The entire way in which the universe presents itself to our senses is based upon separation. Without separation we literally could not have come into existence.

If you actually investigate your direct experience you will find absolutely no separation - if you, on the other hand, investigate what thought has to say about it, then you will ONLY find separation. In thought you will find separate things, all labelled and interpreted, whereas in direct experience there are no separate things, no borders and no labels.
You will also not find a universe presenting itself to a separate "you" - the "you" exists only in/as thought.

So you need to stop with the ridiculous hogwash of posing separation and duality as being some kind of enemy of the people.

I am not saying that separation is the enemy - it is a handy tool indeed -, but if you forget that separation is actually not more than a conceptual layer wrapped around non-dual reality, then you end up caught in a dream world where the non-dual essence seems to be lost and all and everything stands in opposition to yourself - this is how life turns from joy into a sad and lonely existence...

Have you ever heard about the “terrible twos”?
It's a "normal" developmental phase experienced by young children that's often marked by tantrums, defiant behaviour, and lots of frustration. Why do you think this phase is happening pretty much at the same time when children develop a sense for language as well as self consciousness?

The point is that in the process of simply trying to survive on earth, almost no one has the leisure time (nor the inclination) to do some kind of philosophical battle against their own natural and common sense awareness of the obvious separation between themselves and the phenomenal features of the universe.

But it is not at all natural to think as the majority of humanity does. It is a way of thinking that has been forced upon us since the day we were born, and the world as it is today is the reflection of these ideas and beliefs that we have been forced to accept.
Why do you think there are so many people with psychological problems, why do you think nobody is really happy (no matter if rich or poor)? Isn't this a very good indication of something being substantially wrong with how we actually live our lives?

If it is indeed true that at the deepest level of reality there is only “oneness”...

(as is suggested in the philosophies of Plotinus, or Spinoza, or nondualism, or even quantum theory)

...that’s fine. But such a truth (even if you have directly experienced it as you say you have) is utterly useless to us up at our operative level of existence.
...
However, I will try to be open minded about it if you will provide us with some of those “specific examples” I‘ve been requesting.

If you actually live life here and now, without constantly referring to a "self" that is doing this or that, that might benefit from certain actions, that should avoid doing something, that is afraid of something that might happen in the future, that is regretting something that has happened in the past... etc... etc... then the outcome is a basic sense of happiness and joy in whatever you do and, to me, this is not useless at all.

If people were actually joyful, happy, not just because they received a promotion, not just because they won in the lottery, but because life itself is happiness, and they would not see themselves as being separate from it, then people would be more likely to get along, they would be kinder (to themselves and thus to others) - they would actually regain their humanity, which is, to me, a very nice example of what would actually change in this world should people embrace not only the idea of non dualism, but actually live it.

[Dontaskme]

The point is that in the process of simply trying to survive on earth, almost no one has the leisure time (nor the inclination) to do some kind of philosophical battle against their own natural and common sense awareness of the obvious separation between themselves and the phenomenal features of the universe.

And just like a very young infant suffers the agony of being separated from it's loving mother/father parent, so too does the conditioned 'separate self' suffer the pangs of separation from the universe in which it is inseparable.

A separate self imposed upon it against it's own will, like what Alex pointed out with the ''terrible twos'' analogy which was an excellent point....A 'separate self' that has been deeply ingrained into the believing brain since the child was born.

Those who are wise enough will start to question the ''who'' that is apparently believed to be this separate suffering one? ...but that inquiry will only take place when the ''sufferer'' has had enough of the suffering. People are free to self inquire into the real nature of their existence any time they want, the option is always there. The data is all around us everywhere, nothing is hidden or excluded from the truth.

Of course it's counter intuitive to what has been deeply ingrained through the artificial human programming of belief systems. But to say things like...''.... almost no one has the leisure time (nor the inclination) to do some kind of philosophical battle against their own natural and common sense awareness of the obvious separation between themselves and the phenomenal features of the universe....'' is utter crap, do you think that saying things like that will help humanity? it's no different than the nondualist saying their is no separate self.

Your comment is so hypocritical of you, are you too blind to see the errors of your own words. Also, you need to stop putting words into other peoples mouths that they did not say or think, and also stop projecting your own negative bullshit ideas and words like ''enemy'' onto others who have never even used that word.

As per, you are barking up the wrong tree.

.

[Impenitent]

Why? What is the thing in itself, and in what way is it different from the thing itself?

all we have are immediate impressions and memories

predictions based on the constant conjunction of events provide no certainty

-Imp

But why does that mean that there's a thing-in-itself that's different from our various impressions of it? Our 'certainty' as to what it is makes no difference. (This reminds me of Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy', which they used to push at candidate philosophy students.)

you have access to your impressions... you see a person speaking to you, you hear the person speaking to you... was the person standing 5 feet in front of you? was the person on a television screen? was the person speaking in a language you couldn't understand?

you have access to your impressions... you have an impression of skippy... skippy understands the language that you couldn't...

you have access to your impressions... the content of the language that was impressed on your senses and interpreted (or not) was beyond your understanding...

you have access to your impressions... you have no access to skippy's impressions of the speech... you have no access to skippy's interpretation and understanding of the speech...

you have access to your impressions... are you denying that skippy is a thing in itself?

for an in-depth answer:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/

-Imp

[bahman]

Yes. Because you cannot model mind.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes. Because you cannot model mind.

What evidence is there for the existence of what we call the mind - a thing that can or can't be modelled?

The myth of abstract things runs deep and strong in philosophy and religion. But they're misleading metaphysical fictions - mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention. A dog chasing its tail needs to re-think the premise.

[Skepdick]

What evidence is there for the existence of what we call the mind - a thing that can or can't be modelled?

The myth of abstract things runs deep and strong in philosophy and religion. But they're misleading metaphysical fictions - mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention. A dog chasing its tail needs to re-think the premise.

"existence", "evidence", "explanations" and "models" are abstractions.

I think it's time you give up this "philosophy" thing. On the one hand you subscribe to the religion of logic, on the other hand you constantly contradict yourself.

You are as useless as practicing your religion.

[Eodnhoj7]

George Box claimed that ‘All models are wrong but some are useful’. But if that claim is true, then at least one model is not wrong – in which case, the claim is false.

The claim "All models are wrong but some are useful" is useful, even if it has exceptions, ergo It's self-affirming. One counter-example is not sufficient to overthrow a general principle.

Truth is subservient to utility. Utility is subservient to morality.

1 To clarify: Box probably didn’t mean all models are immoral. He likely used the word wrong to mean incorrect, inaccurate, imprecise, incomplete, imperfect – and so on. (Unbelievably, it seems necessary to point out that we can use the words right and wrong non-morally.)

Distinction without a consequential difference. Incomplete/inaccurate/imprecise/imperfect models lead to decision errors.

Decision-errors result in harm ergo all errors can be interpreted in a moral context: given the choice between making an error and NOT-making an error (read: risking harm) the moral choice is to NOT-make an error. Primum non nocere.

If humanity wasn't pre-occupied with far more important moral issues I am pretty sure we'd be nit-picking on the round-Earthers' erroneous beliefs out of moral boredom.

2 A model can be said to be wrong only if it makes sense to say it could be right. But what would a model, map or description that is right – correct, accurate, precise, complete or perfect – look like?

A "right" model will make zero predictive errors. Which is the same as arguing for omniscience/omnipresence.

The assertion "All models are wrong" is made from the exact same perspective/reference from which the assertion "All men are sinners" is made. It pre-supposes moral and epistemic idealism. Zero harm. Objective morality.

That goal is idealistic and practically unattainable because Utopia is unattainable. Everybody understands that.

But anything that moves us away from that goal is immoral.

Truth is not subservient to utility given that would require utility to be a truth thus a contradiction occurs.

All elements of utility require a non utility to exist. An example would be mud. It has no utility until it is turned into a brick. The utility of the brick is dependent upon the non utility of the mud.

[Skepdick]

Truth is not subservient to utility given that would require utility to be a truth thus a contradiction occurs.

That's only a problem if you are trying to avoid contradictions. I am not...

All elements of utility require a non utility to exist. An example would be mud. It has no utility until it is turned into a brick. The utility of the brick is dependent upon the non utility of the mud.

So what?

[Eodnhoj7]

Truth is not subservient to utility given that would require utility to be a truth thus a contradiction occurs.

That's only a problem if you are trying to avoid contradictions. I am not...

Contradiction thus becomes an element of truth and contradiction is no longer contradictory and ceases to exist.

All elements of utility require a non utility to exist. An example would be mud. It has no utility until it is turned into a brick. The utility of the brick is dependent upon the non utility of the mud.

So what?

Truth value is thus not subservient to utility.