Are all models wrong?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by uwot »

AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:13 am
uwot wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:50 pm The difference is that you interpret this as apples neither exist, nor don't exist, which to me is meaningless.
Yes, ultimately meaningless (or rather: neither meaningless nor meaningful).
Yer being a bit slippery with your terms. Or maybe I didn't make myself clear. It doesn't ultimately 'mean' anything whether apples exist or don't. I'm not really bothered which, because it wouldn't necessarily make any appreciable difference, but in my simple little world, they either exist, or they don't. That apples neither exist, nor don't exist is incoherent.
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:13 amWell... I am convinced that there are no apples in DE (at least I have not found any as of yet).
Which I have agreed to.
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:13 amI am also convinced that there are apples in the conceptual map of DE.
Thus apples exist as a concept, but not as a separate, independently existing thing.
Ya see, I still think it is possible that they do.
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:13 am... if there is no conceptual thought present then no (conceptual/language based) memory is being formed that one could remember. Thus, our first memories normally date back to the time when we form our first conceptual thoughts.
I don't think that follows. I remember stuff from before I had much in the way of concepts or language, and a lot of my memories are what you would call direct experience.
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:13 amIts the same in deep meditation - thought stops - one is present, aware, but doesn't really remember anything conceptual about this state pf pure presence.
Right, but do you remember meditating, or is it simply a way to erase a portion of your existence?
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:13 am
uwot wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:50 pm Having investigated, rigorously and at length, I do not 'believe' that apples exist. I think it is a perfectly functional working hypothesis
I fully agree
Not if you believe that "apples exist as a concept, but not as a separate, independently existing thing."
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:13 amHave we shown that all models are wrong?
No. 'Apples exist' is one model, 'No they don't' is another. I don't think we have proven either of those wrong. Perhaps we simply have different concepts of 'model'.
Skepdick
Posts: 5030
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:30 am Not if you believe that "apples exist as a concept, but not as a separate, independently existing thing."
The over-simplification (the essence) of "apple" exists as a concept. The referent for the concept is an incredibly complex interaction of quantum particles and we have no way (as yet) of describing its wave equation in any human language.

So if we are to say that "things" are "quantum phenomena", their "separateness", or "independent existence" is still dubious on the grounds of the observer effect.

The universe, vicariously through humans, observing/describing itself and asserting the existence of its own contents is a pretty mind-bending notion.
uwot
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:41 amThe over-simplification (the essence) of "apple" exists as a concept. The referent for the concept is an incredibly complex interaction of quantum particles and we have no way (as yet) of describing its wave equation in any human language.
As I understand it, that is the sort of interpretation that AlexW describes as neither true, nor not true, but yeah, it gets my vote.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:41 amSo if we are to say that "things" are "quantum phenomena", their "separateness", or "independent existence" is still dubious on the grounds of the observer effect.
One of the main issues is whether an 'observer' needs to be sentient.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:41 amThe universe, vicariously through humans, observing/describing itself and asserting the existence of its own contents is a pretty mind-bending notion.
It is, but it would be tricky to demonstrate that wave functions collapse without a human observation.
Skepdick
Posts: 5030
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:40 pm One of the main issues is whether an 'observer' needs to be sentient.
By Occam's razor it's easier to formalise one vague term (observer) than it is to formalise two vague terms (sentient observer).

The latest thinking on the measurement problem is very much that of Chaos theory: sensitivity to initial conditions. The initial condition of the
measurement apparatus (its quantum state) affects the readings it produces as it interacts with a quantum system. if we are to get around this, we need to buy into super-determinism (which is the same concept as the 'God' idea, but we won't call it that because... words and people).

But it gets better: super-determinism pisses off 'falsifiabilists' (I just coined that). It sure will be a fun philosophy to defend against theists AND scientists.
uwot wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:40 pm It is, but it would be tricky to demonstrate that wave functions collapse without a human observation.
It's less tricky with quantum computers. Monte Carlo sampling

We simply say that the 'collapse' (measured position) of the wave for any given measurement is coincidental. So we measure it 10000 times and take the mean.
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

uwot wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:30 am I don't think that follows. I remember stuff from before I had much in the way of concepts or language, and a lot of my memories are what you would call direct experience.
Yes, sure, these memories exist, but that these memories are "my mums face" or "my brown and white dog Lucky" are interpretations that have been added on later. The initial "memory" is not more than a snapshot of a more or less random/meaningless configuration of colours, sounds, tastes...
uwot wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:30 am Right, but do you remember meditating, or is it simply a way to erase a portion of your existence?
Its similar to being "in the zone" as sports people call it. You simply do things without constantly thinking about it, without the internal commentary/monologue (which is pretty much useless 99% of the time).
To me, meditation is not only sitting still and being silent (even I do enjoy this kind of meditation as well), it is about life, its about being consciously alert here/now, without the need to interpret every "decision" or activity that is being undertaken - and even if decisions are judged and activities are being filled with meaning, these processes can be seen/observed without the need to constantly identify with the "one" that is apparently affected by these meaningful concepts.
To me, this is not a "way to erase a portion of my existence" but rather a way to live life without having to worry about the existence (and especially all these pesky little needs) of what we might call "ego".
uwot wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:30 am Not if you believe that "apples exist as a concept, but not as a separate, independently existing thing."
Well... maybe I have misinterpreted your statement:
"Having investigated, rigorously and at length, I do not 'believe' that apples exist. I think it is a perfectly functional working hypothesis"

To me, this sounded like you understand that things are never directly experienced by a separate entity (you), but that the conventional belief in things being experienced by a separate subjective self is not more than a "handy" way of interpreting experience - especially when there is a the need for language based communication.
If there would be no conceptual, dualistic communication - no language as we know it - there would be no need to extract and label parts of experience and turn them into "things". Life would simply flow without having to worry about the existence of things.
uwot wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:30 am No. 'Apples exist' is one model, 'No they don't' is another. I don't think we have proven either of those wrong. Perhaps we simply have different concepts of 'model'.
But this is not about just the one model: "Apples exist" being right or wrong - its about models in general.

Thus I said previously:
All models are neither right nor wrong. They are simply an interpretation, and these interpretations are right or wrong only within a certain, specific conceptual framework. Once the framework changes the model will have to change or it will become invalidated (based on the new framework).

If our conceptual framework is something like "The world is made of independently existing, separate things" then the model "Apples exist" is most likely right.
If, on the other hand, our conceptual framework states: "There is only non-dual consciousness - there are no independently existing, separate things outside the conceptual map we (thought) have erected" then the model is wrong (which doesn't mean that we cannot make use of the concept "apple").

Now... these frameworks are of course also models... Models that other models build upon. Thus, to answer if a specific model is right or wrong one would have to go back to the foundation - the primary model that is being used. The primary model that most of humanity employs could be labelled: "The model of separation and relativity" - it is a model that suggests that separate things exist in their own right and that they stand in certain, defined relations to each other.

But direct experience challenges this model - no separation can be found in DE - and as DE is the only way we can experience really anything, why should we doubt it? Does it really make sense to ignore the basic facts and trust an invented interpretation more than what one really sees, hears, smells, tastes and feels... Isn't it a form of madness to consistently experience unity but believe that separation is actually the basis of our existence?

Now, to say that ultimately a model is neither wrong nor is it right, is based upon the understanding that direct experience itself is neither wrong nor is it right. The taste of an apple is only right or wrong once we invoke a model/judgement regarding the taste; before we apply the model, the taste simply is as it is - meaningless, free of judgement, here/now.

At the end, a model will only be as good as its basic foundation - it cannot (or rather should not) be used to state absolute truths if these truths are not already present in the foundation. Yes, a model can introduce new, relative truths, but just as the relative is a child of the absolute (and not the other way round) so is the model (thought) a child of direct experience.
seeds
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by seeds »

AlexW wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:34 am ...The primary model that most of humanity employs could be labelled: "The model of separation and relativity" - it is a model that suggests that separate things exist in their own right and that they stand in certain, defined relations to each other.

But direct experience challenges this model - no separation can be found in DE - and as DE is the only way we can experience really anything, why should we doubt it?...
At no time can we ever “directly experience” the inner subjective dimension of another person’s mind.

Regardless of the unity you may feel between yourself and the material phenomena of this universe as you enter into some sort of meditative state, that unity is confronted by an impenetrable dividing line that separates the physiological contents of your mind from the physiological contents of uwot’s mind, or my mind.

Furthermore, the only thing that we can “directly” experience is that of our own personal thoughts and dreams.

In other words, the eye of your mind can directly see, feel, hear, taste, and smell the phenomena that are constructed from the living fabric of your very own personal (inner) being,...

...however, everything else of this universe comes to you “indirectly” as it is filtered through the brain via the information converting processes of the physical features of your body that correspond with each of your individual (mind-based) senses.
AlexW wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:34 am ...Does it really make sense to ignore the basic facts and trust an invented interpretation more than what one really sees, hears, smells, tastes and feels... Isn't it a form of madness to consistently experience unity but believe that separation is actually the basis of our existence?
Again, you cannot experience a literal unity between your mind and uwot’s mind. They are, in essence, two autonomous dimensions of reality that are each owned and operated by a sovereign and “separate” agent.
_______
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

seeds wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:30 pm At no time can we ever “directly experience” the inner subjective dimension of another person’s mind.
Agree - but not even you experience this "inner subjective dimension" of your mind.

Why?
Because "mind" is nothing but thought - there is no separate entity "mind" that one could experience.
All one ever experiences is one thought, then another, and another.

Also, a thought does not belong to a "you" - its rather the case that "you" is a thought. Thus there is no such thing as "person’s mind".
The "person", the "you" - all these likes and dislikes, judgements and beliefs - is not more than a collection of conditioned thought.
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:30 pm Regardless of the unity you may feel between yourself and the material phenomena of this universe
I don't feel "unity" - I simply don't feel "separation".
You don't either - you just don't seem to know that this is the case.
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:30 pm unity is confronted by an impenetrable dividing line that separates the physiological contents of your mind from the physiological contents of uwot’s mind, or my mind
There is no "impenetrable dividing line" in direct experience.
The line is imaginary, it exists in the map (in thought) only - never in reality - never in direct experience.
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:30 pm Furthermore, the only thing that we can “directly” experience is that of our own personal thoughts and dreams.
Pinch the skin on your arm. Feel that?
Was this sensation a thought? Or maybe a dream?
Do you have to think to feel it?
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:30 pm In other words, the eye of your mind can directly see, feel, hear, taste, and smell the phenomena that are constructed from the living fabric of your very own personal (inner) being,...
First find this entity "mind", then we can discuss if it has an eye.
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:30 pm Again, you cannot experience a literal unity between your mind and uwot’s mind.
Agree - simply because there are no such separate entities.
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:30 pm They are, in essence, two autonomous dimensions of reality that are each owned and operated by a sovereign and “separate” agent.
Again, first find this "mind" - and/or the "agent" - then see if there are any such "autonomous dimensions of reality".

To me, the above are just fancy words.
Nothing of what you stated can be directly experienced - its all thought up. Its all a fancy map that you have invented to describe "reality", but you completely overlook the simplicity of what is actually real here and now.

It could be compared to a book... A book, this square block of paper, contains letters in a certain configuration - similar to the synaptic configuration of a brain - holding vast amounts of data.
When reading the book there is a direct experience of seeing black symbols, of fingers on paper, the sound of pages turning - and then there is the story that evolves and plays in/as thought. The book itself knows nothing of the story, it is simply real, here/now - whereas the story is purely imaginary. It may be exciting, thrilling, sad or happy, it may contain a host of characters, all loving, killing, living and dying - but the real, direct experience knows nothing of that. It is simply here/now, minus all the dreamt up stories that seem to be the essence of the book.
Now what is real? What is the essence? The story or the book?
seeds
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:30 pm At no time can we ever “directly experience” the inner subjective dimension of another person’s mind.
AlexW wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:32 am Agree - but not even you experience this "inner subjective dimension" of your mind.
Nonsense!

As one simple and obvious example, whenever I fall asleep and dream, I am experiencing the inner-dimension of my mind.
AlexW wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:32 am Why?
Because "mind" is nothing but thought - there is no separate entity "mind" that one could experience.
All one ever experiences is one thought, then another, and another.
Clearly, you and I have a different interpretation of what the word “mind” means.

To me, my mind is not a thought.

No, it is an extension of my personal being that functions as a spatial arena in which my thoughts (and dreams) are rendered and displayed (similar to the way that the suns and planets are rendered and displayed in the spatial arena of the universe).
AlexW wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:32 am Also, a thought does not belong to a "you"...
More nonsense.

If “you“ (and your mind) did not exist, then neither would the vast galaxy of your personal memories and personal imaginings (thoughts) exist.

Pardon my awkward syntax, but your personal, lifelong accumulation of memories and dreams (again, “thoughts“) belong exclusively to your “you” and to your you alone, and they only exist because your you exists.
AlexW wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:32 am ...its rather the case that "you" is a thought. Thus there is no such thing as "person’s mind".
The "person", the "you" - all these likes and dislikes, judgements and beliefs - is not more than a collection of conditioned thought.
So then, according to you (oh the irony), the idea of “you” is just a conditioned thought.

However, you also stated the following:
AlexW wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:32 am All one ever experiences is one thought, then another, and another.
The question is: what is the nature of this “one” of which you speak? – a “one” that you say “experiences” thought?

Is it not synonymous with the “you”?

And if so, should it not also be categorized as being a thought?

In which case, how in the world does a mere thought have an “experience” of another thought, then another, and another?
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:30 pm Regardless of the unity you may feel between yourself and the material phenomena of this universe...
AlexW wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:32 am I don't feel "unity" - I simply don't feel "separation".
You don't either - you just don't seem to know that this is the case.
I am not only well aware of the non-separation between the phenomenal features of objective reality, but I have also tried to point it out to others by means of my incessant referencing of quantum entanglement and the holographic-like “oneness” of the informational underpinning of the universe.

So I agree with you that there is no separation between the “material” features of the universe (at least not at the quantum level).

However, the problem is that just like most of the non-dualists I butt heads with, you are taking the (Advaita?) concept of non-separation a step too far by assuming that it applies to our minds.

The common trait I have noticed when it comes to the proponents of hardcore nondualism is that they never seem to have given any critical thought to what “ultimate reality” would actually be like if there was no separation between conscious agents and their accompanying minds.
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:30 pm ...unity is confronted by an impenetrable dividing line that separates the physiological contents of your mind from the physiological contents of uwot’s mind, or my mind.
AlexW wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:32 am There is no "impenetrable dividing line" in direct experience.
The line is imaginary, it exists in the map (in thought) only - never in reality - never in direct experience.
Talk is cheap.

If you think that you are capable of directly experiencing the inner-dimension of another person’s mind, then you should be able to tell me or uwot something extremely private and personal about our innermost thoughts and memories.

I’ll even give you a hint: I am thinking of a specific set of circumstances surrounding a particular gift I received for Christmas as a child. Please describe the memory.

No offense intended, AlexW, but at this point I expect nothing but non sequiturs, deflections, and a continuation of your mistake in taking nondualism a step too far.

Prove me wrong.
AlexW wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:32 am To me, the above are just fancy words.
Nothing of what you stated can be directly experienced - its all thought up. Its all a fancy map that you have invented to describe "reality", but you completely overlook the simplicity of what is actually real here and now.
Define and describe what you mean by “real.”
AlexW wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:32 am It could be compared to a book... A book, this square block of paper, contains letters in a certain configuration - similar to the synaptic configuration of a brain - holding vast amounts of data.
When reading the book there is a direct experience of seeing black symbols, of fingers on paper, the sound of pages turning - and then there is the story that evolves and plays in/as thought. The book itself knows nothing of the story, it is simply real, here/now - whereas the story is purely imaginary. It may be exciting, thrilling, sad or happy, it may contain a host of characters, all loving, killing, living and dying - but the real, direct experience knows nothing of that. It is simply here/now, minus all the dreamt up stories that seem to be the essence of the book.
Now what is real? What is the essence? The story or the book?
It never ceases to amaze me how a nondualist can deny the existence of the “thinker” of thoughts (as in there is no “you”) while insisting that it is not possible that thought itself could actually be owned and manipulated by anyone,...

...who then immediately tries to support their argument with a thought experiment that requires them (an obviously existent thinker) to grasp the essence out of which thought is constructed and shape it into a unique and highly detailed story in order to make a point.

I cannot imagine a more convincing demonstration of how to self-refute one’s own position.
_______
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm Clearly, you and I have a different interpretation of what the word “mind” means.

To me, my mind is not a thought.

No, it is an extension of my personal being that functions as a spatial arena in which my thoughts (and dreams) are rendered and displayed
Ok... then maybe we shouldn't call it "mind" but "consciousness"?
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm Pardon my awkward syntax, but your personal, lifelong accumulation of memories and dreams (again, “thoughts“) belong exclusively to your “you” and to your you alone, and they only exist because your you exists.
Really... don't you think it might be possible that all these thoughts simply arise without a separate "you" owning them? Without a thinker controlling/thinking them..?

If not, then please tell me what defines this "you". What is it exactly? Is it a thing, a separate entity, that can be experienced (or can you only think about it)?

Also, if there were such a separate controlling "you", then why do "you" not just decide to only think happy thoughts, to never be sad again and live a perfectly happy life?

When you look out the window and see certain objects, a car, a tree, a bird... can you decide not to think "nice tree", or "annoying car"?
And if you do decide not to think a certain thought ever again - are you, from now on, safe from this very thought?
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm So then, according to you (oh the irony), the idea of “you” is just a conditioned thought.
Yes. Where do you think this persona called "seeds" comes from? You haven't always been this person, right? When you were born there was no "seeds" - or at least you didn't have the slightest idea who/what you are. Over the years you have learned to be a person, you have acquired beliefs, judgements, likes, dislikes... if you would erase this acquired knowledge from your memory, then what is left of "you"?
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm The question is: what is the nature of this “one” of which you speak? – a “one” that you say “experiences” thought?

Is it not synonymous with the “you”?

And if so, should it not also be categorized as being a thought?

In which case, how in the world does a mere thought have an “experience” of another thought, then another, and another?
If you actually investigate you will find no "one" (and also no "you") that experiences thought (or really anything).
There is only the direct experience itself - pure conscious presence - thats all.

And yes, the "you" - or "I thought" - is only a thought. And you are perfectly right in that a thought can not have an experience - it is "being experienced", it arises in consciousness - but never to consciousness, but rather AS consciousness.
Its like a wave doesn't arise to the ocean, but AS the ocean itself.
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm However, the problem is that just like most of the non-dualists I butt heads with, you are taking the (Advaita?) concept of non-separation a step too far by assuming that it applies to our minds.
Well... what I am assuming is that it is only thought that introduces the concept of separation in the first place (or really any concept).
I am saying that reality, as it is directly experienced here/now, is perfectly whole, boundless, and that it is only our agreed upon, conventionally accepted conceptual wrapper (the map of reality we belief in) that introduces separation, relativity, objectivity...
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm The common trait I have noticed when it comes to the proponents of hardcore nondualism is that they never seem to have given any critical thought to what “ultimate reality” would actually be like if there was no separation between conscious agents and their accompanying minds.
"Ultimate reality" is always here, now. Look! What do you see? You see reality, what else do you think you can see?

But then there comes thought and states: "I see a tree."
When investigating this direct experience - reality - and when actually looking for these apparently separate objects, an "I" that is doing the "seeing" of a thing labelled "tree" - then you will always come up empty.
These separate objects are not present in "seeing" - all you actually ever really see is colour. You have never seen a separate thing... yes, we recognise certain patterns of color and label them "tree", but this is an "afterthought" - a map of reality - not the direct experience itself.
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm If you think that you are capable of directly experiencing the inner-dimension of another person’s mind, then you should be able to tell me or uwot something extremely private and personal about our innermost thoughts and memories.
You are misunderstanding me. All I am saying is that these "innermost thoughts and memories" are actually what you call the "you" - they are "you" (or rather: they contain the belief that there is such a "you" that actually owns these memories).
What happens when you loose all these memories? Are you still you? No! The persona is wiped out, "dead", but the real you (not the thought up you) is still there. You still exist, you still see, smell, feel... even without all these memories, right? You wouldn't know that there is an "I seeing a tree" - but the colours, the sounds, the sensations are still present - not as separate things, simply as pure presence/consciousness itself.
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm Define and describe what you mean by “real.”
Pinch your arm. Feel that?
Listen to the world. Hear that?
Thats what I mean with "real".
This direct experience has no limitations, it is actually boundless - it is only once we interpret the experience that it turns into an "objective experience". (of course thinking doesn't actually change it - it doesn't matter how many borders one draws onto the map - the terrain will forever be unaffected, whole).
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm It never ceases to amaze me how a nondualist can deny the existence of the “thinker” of thoughts
Well... as you seem to have found this "thinker of thoughts", can you please describe this entity in some detail?

How exactly is this entity known/experienced?
Can it be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, felt? Or can it only be thought of?
uwot
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:29 pmThe latest thinking on the measurement problem is very much that of Chaos theory: sensitivity to initial conditions. The initial condition of the
measurement apparatus (its quantum state) affects the readings it produces as it interacts with a quantum system.
Well chaos has been an issue since the three body problem was recognised. Quantum states are that problem with bells on, because we are not dealing with point sources, and there are effectively an infinite number of them.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:29 pmif we are to get around this, we need to buy into super-determinism (which is the same concept as the 'God' idea, but we won't call it that because... words and people).
God? Why do you say that?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:29 pmIt's less tricky with quantum computers.
The thing is that unless the system you are examining is the quantum computer itself, there is no way to input the collosal amount of data without seriously affecting the quantum states of the computer. Maybe you can work out a way around that, but it's way above my skillset.
seeds
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm To me, my mind is not a thought.

No, it is an extension of my personal being that functions as a spatial arena in which my thoughts (and dreams) are rendered and displayed...
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:38 am Ok... then maybe we shouldn't call it "mind" but "consciousness"?
You can call it whatever you wish.

However, the problem arises when you imply that my mind (my “consciousness”) is not separate from your mind (your “consciousness”).
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm So then, according to you (oh the irony), the idea of “you” is just a conditioned thought.
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:38 am Yes. Where do you think this persona called "seeds" comes from? You haven't always been this person, right? When you were born there was no "seeds" - or at least you didn't have the slightest idea who/what you are. Over the years you have learned to be a person, you have acquired beliefs, judgements, likes, dislikes... if you would erase this acquired knowledge from your memory, then what is left of "you"?
What would be left of me after all of my accumulated thoughts and memories have been stripped away would be the initial and utterly unique “I Am-ness” that was somehow formed and awakened into existence through the physical birthing processes.

Of course this is all just speculation, but I suggest that if it is even remotely possible that our lives do not end with the death of our physical body, then it will be that mind-based “I Am-ness”...

(what seems to be a focalization of pure awareness with a personal identity that was somehow drawn-forth and sculpted from the very essence of life itself)

...that will continue to exist and acquire a completely new understanding of what it (and reality) is truly all about (as opposed to this illusion we are presently experiencing).
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm The common trait I have noticed when it comes to the proponents of hardcore nondualism is that they never seem to have given any critical thought to what “ultimate reality” would actually be like if there was no separation between conscious agents and their accompanying minds.
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:38 am "Ultimate reality" is always here, now. Look! What do you see? You see reality, what else do you think you can see?
No, AlexW, what we are presently seeing is, again, an illusion – an illusion that fools us into thinking that only the illusion exists – an illusion that fools us into thinking that it somehow created itself by sheer chance – an illusion that even our physicists say is made up of approximately 99.9999999 percent empty space.

“Ultimate reality” may indeed always be here, however, if you actually believe that what you are presently seeing and experiencing is all there is to “ultimate reality,” then you are demonstrating the degree to which you are being fooled by the illusion.
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm If you think that you are capable of directly experiencing the inner-dimension of another person’s mind, then you should be able to tell me or uwot something extremely private and personal about our innermost thoughts and memories.
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:38 am You are misunderstanding me. All I am saying is that these "innermost thoughts and memories" are actually what you call the "you" - they are "you" (or rather: they contain the belief that there is such a "you" that actually owns these memories).
I did not misunderstand you. You clearly implied that all of the impenetrable dividing lines that separate one consciousness from another consciousness disappear during the process of direct experience. And now that I have brought up a situation that challenges that assertion, you are doing exactly what I predicted you would do, you are “deflecting” away from the issue.
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:38 am What happens when you loose all these memories? Are you still you? No!
Wrong - for I would still be me. I would still be that original, unique, and pristine “I Am-ness” (the “real” me) that awakened into existence at the moment of my birth.
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:38 am The persona is wiped out, "dead", but the real you (not the thought up you) is still there. You still exist, you still see, smell, feel... even without all these memories, right?
Good grief, what do you think I have been talking about all this time if not the “real you”?
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:38 am You wouldn't know that there is an "I seeing a tree" - but the colours, the sounds, the sensations are still present - not as separate things, simply as pure presence/consciousness itself.
Ah yes, and now we’re back to the nebulous nonsense of hardcore nondualistic reasoning that implies that ultimate reality consists of some kind of hazy and homogenous cloud (ocean) of “pure consciousness” that has no individual focal points of self-awareness [as in no “you(s)” and no “me(s)”].

Again, this is where nondualism takes a step too far.
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm Define and describe what you mean by “real.”
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:38 am Pinch your arm. Feel that?
Listen to the world. Hear that?
Thats what I mean with "real".
Again, AlexW, you’re under the thrall of an illusion that (as mentioned earlier) is made up of 99.9999999 percent empty space.

Your physical arm and the physical world are all part of an elaborate, holographic-like manifestation of reality that according to physicist and author Nick Herbert’s interpretation of Heisenberg’s ideas, is founded upon an underlying substance that is:

“...no more substantial than a promise...”
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm It never ceases to amaze me how a nondualist can deny the existence of the “thinker” of thoughts...
AlexW wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:38 am Well... as you seem to have found this "thinker of thoughts", can you please describe this entity in some detail?
How exactly is this entity known/experienced?
Can it be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, felt? Or can it only be thought of?
I would love to be able to describe for you the actual ontological status of your “consciousness”/your “real” you/your “I AM-ness.”

Unfortunately, the only way we could view our ultimate an eternal form - as it really is - would be after it is born out of our physical body (via death) and delivered into the context of “true reality.”

So yes, from our present perspective, it can only be “thought of” (imagined).

I mean, can a human fetus, suspended within the amniotic water of its mother’s womb, apprehend what lies on the other side of its mother’s abdominal wall?

I suggest that we are in a similar situation with respect to what lies on the other side of the wall of death.
_______
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am the problem arises when you imply that my mind (my “consciousness”) is not separate from your mind (your “consciousness”).
I did not imply that - what I am implying is that there is no separate entity that could have its own separate consciousness in the first place.
I am implying that this mind-based "you" is simply a set of beliefs - and a set of beliefs can not know anything, it cannot have/own consciousness.
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am What would be left of me after all of my accumulated thoughts and memories have been stripped away would be the initial and utterly unique “I Am-ness” that was somehow formed and awakened into existence through the physical birthing processes.
Ok... I am that I am (see: the encounter of the burning bush - Exodus 3:14)
But why do you think this is unique? Do you think this “I Am-ness” is different from form to form, from body to body?
I don't think so... It really cannot be different as there is no other concept present that could be applied to differentiate these “I Am-ness-es” (and also: concepts cannot really separate anything in the first place - they only define the idea of separation).
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am Of course this is all just speculation, but I suggest that if it is even remotely possible that our lives do not end with the death of our physical body, then it will be that mind-based “I Am-ness”...

(what seems to be a focalization of pure awareness with a personal identity that was somehow drawn-forth and sculpted from the very essence of life itself)

...that will continue to exist and acquire a completely new understanding of what it (and reality) is truly all about (as opposed to this illusion we are presently experiencing).
Who knows... but stating that there are billions such “I Am-ness-es” floating around looking for reincarnation is a bit of a stretch...
Wouldn't it be much more logical if there is only one “I Am-ness” which again is present in all form and - in humans - simply evolves into a full blown conceptual framework of personhood?
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am No, AlexW, what we are presently seeing is, again, an illusion – an illusion that fools us into thinking that only the illusion exists – an illusion that fools us into thinking that it somehow created itself by sheer chance – an illusion that even our physicists say is made up of approximately 99.9999999 percent empty space.
What exactly is "empty space"? Is it the same as "nothing"?
Have you ever experienced this "empty space"? Has anyone?
And what happens when scientist suddenly measure something within this nothing? Is it still nothing / empty space? Or has nothing suddenly turned into something..?
Don't you see that this only a mind game leading nowhere (or rather: to even more unanswered questions)?
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am “Ultimate reality” may indeed always be here, however, if you actually believe that what you are presently seeing and experiencing is all there is to “ultimate reality,” then you are demonstrating the degree to which you are being fooled by the illusion.
Why would "reality" need to hide itself away from being know? It wouldn't make any sense.
And if there is no way for humans (or any organism) to actually experience "reality" then why call it reality in the first place?
You could as well say that what you call "reality" is the illusion and not the other way round...
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am And now that I have brought up a situation that challenges that assertion, you are doing exactly what I predicted you would do, you are “deflecting” away from the issue.
I am not deflecting away from the issue - I am trying to make you understand that the setup you suggested ("read your mind and tell you your private thoughts") to prove your point, is perfectly useless. Consciousness does not work that way - direct experience doesn't work that way.
This discussion is between "seeds" (the thought based you) and "AlexW" and it is happening "in" reality / within consciousness. The separate entities, including this discussion, are thought based creations (and thus ultimately illusory) - but why do we (consciousness) play this game...? not sure... entertainment..? :-)
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am Wrong - for I would still be me. I would still be that original, unique, and pristine “I Am-ness” (the “real” me) that awakened into existence at the moment of my birth.
Yes, ok, agree - but there is also "something" there before the "I am" arrived - this is what you really are.
Ultimately the "I am" is also illusory - but its close enough anyway...
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am Ah yes, and now we’re back to the nebulous nonsense of hardcore nondualistic reasoning that implies that ultimate reality consists of some kind of hazy and homogenous cloud (ocean) of “pure consciousness” that has no individual focal points of self-awareness [as in no “you(s)” and no “me(s)”].
I have never said that "ultimate reality consists of some kind of hazy and homogenous cloud" - I said: pinch your arm - feel that? You have just experienced reality!
That this sensation is location in time and space, belongs to a separate "you" and is classified as "mild pain", is again only a conceptual interpretation. In reality there is no location, no time, no separate you experiencing - there is also no "self awareness" simply because there are no such separate entities outside of thought.
Self awareness is a misnomer - it should be called self thoughtful (or something similar) - being aware of any separate thing - including a self - is always based on thought - it is ultimately not real (just like any focal point is ultimately not real).
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am Your physical arm and the physical world are all part of an elaborate, holographic-like manifestation of reality that according to physicist and author Nick Herbert’s interpretation of Heisenberg’s ideas, is founded upon an underlying substance that is:

“...no more substantial than a promise...”
Sure... and the earth is flat...
These are all mind-games...
Do you think 100 years from now "Nick Herbert’s interpretation of Heisenberg’s ideas" will still be considered "valid"?
They are ideas - nothing else - and ideas will never be able to grasp/define "reality".
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am So yes, from our present perspective, it can only be “thought of” (imagined).

I mean, can a human fetus, suspended within the amniotic water of its mother’s womb, apprehend what lies on the other side of its mother’s abdominal wall?

I suggest that we are in a similar situation with respect to what lies on the other side of the wall of death.
OK... and all I am saying is that whatever can only be thought of / imagined (but not directly experienced) is ultimately NOT real.
It may be true or false based on the conceptual framework one employs, but in reality it is neither true nor false (simply because reality is not a thing that could be true or false).
It is the same with the "taste of an apple" or "the pinch of an arm" - the sensations are neither true nor are they false, no matter what one might think of them. There is nothing objective, relativistic or dualistic about them.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8547
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by Dontaskme »

AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:38 am
What happens when you loose all these memories? Are you still you? No!
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 amWrong - for I would still be me. I would still be that original, unique, and pristine “I Am-ness” (the “real” me) that awakened into existence at the moment of my birth.
Alex is not wrong.

Seeds is wrong.

The I AMness never awakens to it's birth of 'me' because the I AMness is birth and deathless. The I AMness NEVER tells itself it is 'me' born or it is 'me' that dies.
This 'personal me' is an illusion of language, aka knowledge, which is a finite appearance within the I AMness - that only informs the illusory nature of this I AM REality. Both the animate and inanimate ARE the I AMness.

The I AM is Infinite Consciousness that has no way of telling itself it is born or that it will die. Birth and Death are NOT an experience. How can you know yourself? You would have to split yourself up in two, the knower and the known...
Consciousness is this immediate Not-Knowing Knowing...ONENESS..not two.

The realm of birth and death is within the artificially constructed dream of separation belonging to no separate entity since separation is just a dream state (duality) already couched within the stateless nondual consciousness.

In the realm of language, words can appear to divide the infinite whole of reality into parts. But there is no actual ''Consciousness'' within the word 'you' or 'me' separating the 'you there' from the 'me here'...Words do not have their own consciousness, words are appearances of consciousness already couched within it apparently appearing as if consciousness is separating itself. This is the grand illusion consciousness plays with itself alone. In reality, no such separation is happening since that would be like consciousness trying to step outside of consciousness splitting itself into two halves. No such activity EVER HAPPENS

.
seeds
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am ...the problem arises when you imply that my mind (my “consciousness”) is not separate from your mind (your “consciousness”).
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:53 am I did not imply that - what I am implying is that there is no separate entity that could have its own separate consciousness in the first place.
I am implying that this mind-based "you" is simply a set of beliefs - and a set of beliefs can not know anything, it cannot have/own consciousness.
Yes, I get that. And that is precisely why I keep saying that the sort of hardcore nondualism you are promoting takes things a step too far.

When it comes to nondualism, I cannot think of a more useless and counterintuitive concept for humans to adopt and take seriously.

I mean, what exactly is it about nondualism that appeals to you?

Furthermore (and more importantly), what does it say about our eternal destiny?

In other words, under the terms of the nondualism you are promoting, do we continue on after death in some new form and context, knowing that we are still alive? Or, do we enter into a state of oblivion as our individuated “droplet” of personal consciousness merges back into the proverbial ocean? Which is it?

Or how about the gargantuan (carpet soiling) elephant that stands in the middle of nondualism’s living room concerning who or what created the unfathomable order of the billions of galaxies of the universe?
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am What would be left of me after all of my accumulated thoughts and memories have been stripped away would be the initial and utterly unique “I Am-ness” that was somehow formed and awakened into existence through the physical birthing processes.
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:53 am ...why do you think this is unique? Do you think this “I Am-ness” is different from form to form, from body to body?
The uniqueness aspect of our situation applies to our personal identity.

In other words, there is absolutely no other living entity in all of reality that is you, other than you.

Even though it may be a fact that our foundational essence is the same (alluding to that earlier mentioned “ocean”), nevertheless, our droplets are “one-of-a-kind” (metaphorically akin to the alleged uniqueness of each individual snowflake).
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am Of course this is all just speculation, but I suggest that if it is even remotely possible that our lives do not end with the death of our physical body, then it will be that mind-based “I Am-ness”...

(what seems to be a focalization of pure awareness with a personal identity that was somehow drawn-forth and sculpted from the very essence of life itself)

...that will continue to exist and acquire a completely new understanding of what it (and reality) is truly all about (as opposed to this illusion we are presently experiencing).
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:53 am Who knows... but stating that there are billions such “I Am-ness-es” floating around looking for reincarnation is a bit of a stretch...
Who stated anything about reincarnation?

I don’t believe for one second that upon death, our spirits (souls, consciousnesses, “I Am-ness-es”) get caught up in some kind of reincarnation nonsense. No, to me that would be the metaphorical equivalent of a watermelon seed having to return into the pulp of the melon again after already exiting and sprouting on the outside of the melon.
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 am “Ultimate reality” may indeed always be here, however, if you actually believe that what you are presently seeing and experiencing is all there is to “ultimate reality,” then you are demonstrating the degree to which you are being fooled by the illusion.
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:53 am Why would "reality" need to hide itself away from being know? It wouldn't make any sense.
I suggest that the thing that is being hidden from us is that of the truth of our ultimate form and eternal destiny.

And to understand why it is being hidden, please read the post I wrote in an alternate thread titled, “Einstein and the Cosmic Man.” Here's the link: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22708&start=615#p336360
_______
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:33 pm When it comes to nondualism, I cannot think of a more useless and counterintuitive concept for humans to adopt and take seriously.

I mean, what exactly is it about nondualism that appeals to you?

Furthermore (and more importantly), what does it say about our eternal destiny?
Yes, sure, in a way you are correct - if one believes in the supremacy of the human species, in the importance of our destiny, of being taken seriously, of making the world a better place and whatever other idea might be in peoples' minds, then nondualism is pretty much the least appealing concept.
But if one is out to unearth truth no matter the "cost" - even it might question ones own cherished, personal self - then inquiry into ones existence (which, to me, is based on direct experience and only secondary on thought about this experience) will eventually lead you to the understanding that whatever we have been thinking up is actually not what is being directly experienced - it is, in an unusually strange way, pretty much exactly the opposite of what we think it is.
Now... this realisation leads to a new understanding, a new way of life, based on the realisation that the personal self, the "I", is a rather flimsy, but also demanding little figment of thought - but how greedy and self righteous can it be... the world as it is right now is a testament to this wrong identification with something that you are, ultimately, not... if people would see that this tree over there, that their neighbour, no matter the color of their skin, no matter their belief or car that they drive, is ultimately "I", my real self, then the world would truly be a "better place"... I know this scenario is unlikely to happen, it is much more likely that we kill ourselves off in some (accidental?) event of mass extinction, but hey, its one drop at the time that will effect change :-)

See the Gospel of Thomas [77]:
Jesus says: "I am the light which is on them all. I am the All, and the All has gone out from me and the All has come back to me. Cleave the wood: I am there; lift the stone and thou shalt find me there!"

The truth has been out for a long time, but people take things literally (how else should they take them if they don't know what they are?)... and thus they struggle on... on a search for something that is always already here, now.
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:33 pm The uniqueness aspect of our situation applies to our personal identity.

In other words, there is absolutely no other living entity in all of reality that is you, other than you.
Agree
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:33 pm I suggest that the thing that is being hidden from us is that of the truth of our ultimate form and eternal destiny.
Its not hidden from us - its the "us" (the idea of a separate "I") thats hiding it in the first place
Or rather: the personal "I" actually is the only wall that stands between the realisation that infinity is already the case. The funny thing being, this "I" is not even a wall, it has no substance at all - its just an idea, a belief... how funny is that :-)
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:33 pm And to understand why it is being hidden, please read the post I wrote in an alternate thread titled, “Einstein and the Cosmic Man.”
OK, I'll read it.
Post Reply