Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

roydop
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by roydop »

0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is obviously transmitting information/a message. I believe that the act of counting is a result of a misinterpretation of the message. 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is information/pure thought. In our misunderstanding we tried to connect it with actual physical objects. Counting has projected the illusion of separately existing objects (the wave function [everything occurs all at once] is the more fundamental perspective). From this point the manipulation of physical reality became possible. We can see the consequences of technology in the collapse of life-sustaining capabilities within the natural world. It would make sense for the misuse of such a powerful model (regarding the most fundamental workings of reality) would result in such catastrophic consequences.

I submit that the simplest model of the evolutionary process is the number system. Each number is based upon the previous (a series) but yet is an independently operating entity. This is completely obvious to me but I feel the simplicity, as well as our deeply ingrained misallocated use case, makes it hard for some people to see it as such.

Accompanying this misinterpretation of the system as a whole is the misunderstanding/inaccurate definition of 0. Zero is not a lack of something else (how is that even possible?) or a void; it is pure potential, which is the exact opposite of a void or a lack. 0 represents the Absolute/the source, from which the relative arises. It is the place holder for all that is manifest, like a page is the place holder for a story written on it. In this sense 0 is not a part of the realm of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, nor should it be included within the set.

If one can accept, if even for a short time, that the series 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, is the simplest model/representation of evolution (esp. of consciousness), then what can we glean from the information provided?

Well it appears as though there is diversity to a point, but eventually it develops into infinite redundancy. If we assign this model to the evolution (adventure) of consciousness and apply it to where humanity is today, perhaps the validity and predictive power of this model can be recognized.

Human consciousness has attained the highest level of Self-Awareness within the known universe. So where might human consciousness be in regards to the model? At the “9” level something important happens. The series completes and if made to continue it develops into a new iteration. But this new iteration is in fact a redundancy of the previous series. I submit that the redundancy - the 10 - began with the advent of symbol.

The first cave painting is a redundancy. It is the recording of an event that has occurred in the physical realm, which will be replayed when the symbol will interact with consciousness again. The level to which this redundancy has reached within present human consciousness is glaringly obvious. We direct as much or more attention to recording and rewatching physical experience as we do to the physical experiences themselves.

When consciousness became Self-aware (the completion of 9/the advent of human consciousness), this is the point where it could return back to Source (0) or continue on (10,11,12…). Returning to Source is Enlightenment/Liberation from this cycle (Samsara) and continuing on is what is presently occurring to consciousness that takes itself to be human.

I feel that this model is predicting the extinction of humanity and it’s transition into the new iteration, which is a digital-based redundant/fractal realm of our past physical experiences. Are we not completely addicted to the screen and all that thought creates in this realm (technology)?

Suffice to say that to carry on in this manner is to simply create more of the same. We can already see that the type of suffering experienced by humanity is shifting from physical to psychological. That is, the amount of suffering is consistent but the type has changed. As a species we experience far less physical discomfort than animals in nature, but massive amounts of psychological suffering. If the single fundamental cause of suffering (the misinterpretation of the content of consciousness [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] as fundamental reality, instead of realizing stillness [0] as fundamental) then the cycle of Samsara/suffering will continue.
Dontaskme
Posts: 10434
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by Dontaskme »

Very good post, much better than all the usual back and forth going nowhere junk that can be read on this forum.

Well done for writing this, and sharing. I enjoyed it.
alan1000
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by alan1000 »

I agree with Dontaskme. I have printed a number of copies, and I read it every time I go to the toilet.
Age
Posts: 7797
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by Age »

roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is obviously transmitting information/a message. I believe that the act of counting is a result of a misinterpretation of the message. 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is information/pure thought. In our misunderstanding we tried to connect it with actual physical objects. Counting has projected the illusion of separately existing objects (the wave function [everything occurs all at once] is the more fundamental perspective). From this point the manipulation of physical reality became possible. We can see the consequences of technology in the collapse of life-sustaining capabilities within the natural world. It would make sense for the misuse of such a powerful model (regarding the most fundamental workings of reality) would result in such catastrophic consequences.

I submit that the simplest model of the evolutionary process is the number system. Each number is based upon the previous (a series) but yet is an independently operating entity. This is completely obvious to me but I feel the simplicity, as well as our deeply ingrained misallocated use case, makes it hard for some people to see it as such.

Accompanying this misinterpretation of the system as a whole is the misunderstanding/inaccurate definition of 0. Zero is not a lack of something else (how is that even possible?) or a void; it is pure potential, which is the exact opposite of a void or a lack. 0 represents the Absolute/the source, from which the relative arises. It is the place holder for all that is manifest, like a page is the place holder for a story written on it. In this sense 0 is not a part of the realm of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, nor should it be included within the set.

If one can accept, if even for a short time, that the series 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, is the simplest model/representation of evolution (esp. of consciousness), then what can we glean from the information provided?

Well it appears as though there is diversity to a point, but eventually it develops into infinite redundancy. If we assign this model to the evolution (adventure) of consciousness and apply it to where humanity is today, perhaps the validity and predictive power of this model can be recognized.

Human consciousness has attained the highest level of Self-Awareness within the known universe. So where might human consciousness be in regards to the model? At the “9” level something important happens. The series completes and if made to continue it develops into a new iteration. But this new iteration is in fact a redundancy of the previous series. I submit that the redundancy - the 10 - began with the advent of symbol.

The first cave painting is a redundancy. It is the recording of an event that has occurred in the physical realm, which will be replayed when the symbol will interact with consciousness again. The level to which this redundancy has reached within present human consciousness is glaringly obvious. We direct as much or more attention to recording and rewatching physical experience as we do to the physical experiences themselves.

When consciousness became Self-aware (the completion of 9/the advent of human consciousness), this is the point where it could return back to Source (0) or continue on (10,11,12…). Returning to Source is Enlightenment/Liberation from this cycle (Samsara) and continuing on is what is presently occurring to consciousness that takes itself to be human.

I feel that this model is predicting the extinction of humanity and it’s transition into the new iteration, which is a digital-based redundant/fractal realm of our past physical experiences. Are we not completely addicted to the screen and all that thought creates in this realm (technology)?

Suffice to say that to carry on in this manner is to simply create more of the same. We can already see that the type of suffering experienced by humanity is shifting from physical to psychological. That is, the amount of suffering is consistent but the type has changed. As a species we experience far less physical discomfort than animals in nature, but massive amounts of psychological suffering. If the single fundamental cause of suffering (the misinterpretation of the content of consciousness [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] as fundamental reality, instead of realizing stillness [0] as fundamental) then the cycle of Samsara/suffering will continue.
All of this can be explained, and elaborated on, better so that it could and would make sense to everyone.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3057
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by RCSaunders »

roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is obviously transmitting information/a message. I believe that the act of counting is a result of a misinterpretation of the message. 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is information/pure thought. In our misunderstanding we tried to connect it with actual physical objects. Counting has projected the illusion of separately existing objects (the wave function [everything occurs all at once] is the more fundamental perspective). From this point the manipulation of physical reality became possible. We can see the consequences of technology in the collapse of life-sustaining capabilities within the natural world. It would make sense for the misuse of such a powerful model (regarding the most fundamental workings of reality) would result in such catastrophic consequences.

I submit that the simplest model of the evolutionary process is the number system. Each number is based upon the previous (a series) but yet is an independently operating entity. This is completely obvious to me but I feel the simplicity, as well as our deeply ingrained misallocated use case, makes it hard for some people to see it as such.

Accompanying this misinterpretation of the system as a whole is the misunderstanding/inaccurate definition of 0. Zero is not a lack of something else (how is that even possible?) or a void; it is pure potential, which is the exact opposite of a void or a lack. 0 represents the Absolute/the source, from which the relative arises. It is the place holder for all that is manifest, like a page is the place holder for a story written on it. In this sense 0 is not a part of the realm of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, nor should it be included within the set.

If one can accept, if even for a short time, that the series 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, is the simplest model/representation of evolution (esp. of consciousness), then what can we glean from the information provided?

Well it appears as though there is diversity to a point, but eventually it develops into infinite redundancy. If we assign this model to the evolution (adventure) of consciousness and apply it to where humanity is today, perhaps the validity and predictive power of this model can be recognized.

Human consciousness has attained the highest level of Self-Awareness within the known universe. So where might human consciousness be in regards to the model? At the “9” level something important happens. The series completes and if made to continue it develops into a new iteration. But this new iteration is in fact a redundancy of the previous series. I submit that the redundancy - the 10 - began with the advent of symbol.

The first cave painting is a redundancy. It is the recording of an event that has occurred in the physical realm, which will be replayed when the symbol will interact with consciousness again. The level to which this redundancy has reached within present human consciousness is glaringly obvious. We direct as much or more attention to recording and rewatching physical experience as we do to the physical experiences themselves.

When consciousness became Self-aware (the completion of 9/the advent of human consciousness), this is the point where it could return back to Source (0) or continue on (10,11,12…). Returning to Source is Enlightenment/Liberation from this cycle (Samsara) and continuing on is what is presently occurring to consciousness that takes itself to be human.

I feel that this model is predicting the extinction of humanity and it’s transition into the new iteration, which is a digital-based redundant/fractal realm of our past physical experiences. Are we not completely addicted to the screen and all that thought creates in this realm (technology)?

Suffice to say that to carry on in this manner is to simply create more of the same. We can already see that the type of suffering experienced by humanity is shifting from physical to psychological. That is, the amount of suffering is consistent but the type has changed. As a species we experience far less physical discomfort than animals in nature, but massive amounts of psychological suffering. If the single fundamental cause of suffering (the misinterpretation of the content of consciousness [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] as fundamental reality, instead of realizing stillness [0] as fundamental) then the cycle of Samsara/suffering will continue.
This is an extremely prejudiced view which favors decimalites over hexidecimalites. Nothing becomes 10 until after F for hexidecimalites. It also insults the lowly binarites who reach 10 first, in fact, immediately after 1.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is obviously transmitting information/a message. I believe that the act of counting is a result of a misinterpretation of the message. 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is information/pure thought. In our misunderstanding we tried to connect it with actual physical objects. Counting has projected the illusion of separately existing objects (the wave function [everything occurs all at once] is the more fundamental perspective). From this point the manipulation of physical reality became possible. We can see the consequences of technology in the collapse of life-sustaining capabilities within the natural world. It would make sense for the misuse of such a powerful model (regarding the most fundamental workings of reality) would result in such catastrophic consequences.

I submit that the simplest model of the evolutionary process is the number system. Each number is based upon the previous (a series) but yet is an independently operating entity. This is completely obvious to me but I feel the simplicity, as well as our deeply ingrained misallocated use case, makes it hard for some people to see it as such.

Accompanying this misinterpretation of the system as a whole is the misunderstanding/inaccurate definition of 0. Zero is not a lack of something else (how is that even possible?) or a void; it is pure potential, which is the exact opposite of a void or a lack. 0 represents the Absolute/the source, from which the relative arises. It is the place holder for all that is manifest, like a page is the place holder for a story written on it. In this sense 0 is not a part of the realm of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, nor should it be included within the set.

If one can accept, if even for a short time, that the series 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, is the simplest model/representation of evolution (esp. of consciousness), then what can we glean from the information provided?

Well it appears as though there is diversity to a point, but eventually it develops into infinite redundancy. If we assign this model to the evolution (adventure) of consciousness and apply it to where humanity is today, perhaps the validity and predictive power of this model can be recognized.

Human consciousness has attained the highest level of Self-Awareness within the known universe. So where might human consciousness be in regards to the model? At the “9” level something important happens. The series completes and if made to continue it develops into a new iteration. But this new iteration is in fact a redundancy of the previous series. I submit that the redundancy - the 10 - began with the advent of symbol.

The first cave painting is a redundancy. It is the recording of an event that has occurred in the physical realm, which will be replayed when the symbol will interact with consciousness again. The level to which this redundancy has reached within present human consciousness is glaringly obvious. We direct as much or more attention to recording and rewatching physical experience as we do to the physical experiences themselves.

When consciousness became Self-aware (the completion of 9/the advent of human consciousness), this is the point where it could return back to Source (0) or continue on (10,11,12…). Returning to Source is Enlightenment/Liberation from this cycle (Samsara) and continuing on is what is presently occurring to consciousness that takes itself to be human.

I feel that this model is predicting the extinction of humanity and it’s transition into the new iteration, which is a digital-based redundant/fractal realm of our past physical experiences. Are we not completely addicted to the screen and all that thought creates in this realm (technology)?

Suffice to say that to carry on in this manner is to simply create more of the same. We can already see that the type of suffering experienced by humanity is shifting from physical to psychological. That is, the amount of suffering is consistent but the type has changed. As a species we experience far less physical discomfort than animals in nature, but massive amounts of psychological suffering. If the single fundamental cause of suffering (the misinterpretation of the content of consciousness [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] as fundamental reality, instead of realizing stillness [0] as fundamental) then the cycle of Samsara/suffering will continue.
Potentiality is the absence of actuality.

The absence of actuality is void.

Potentiality is void.
roydop
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by roydop »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 1:37 am
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is obviously transmitting information/a message. I believe that the act of counting is a result of a misinterpretation of the message. 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is information/pure thought. In our misunderstanding we tried to connect it with actual physical objects. Counting has projected the illusion of separately existing objects (the wave function [everything occurs all at once] is the more fundamental perspective). From this point the manipulation of physical reality became possible. We can see the consequences of technology in the collapse of life-sustaining capabilities within the natural world. It would make sense for the misuse of such a powerful model (regarding the most fundamental workings of reality) would result in such catastrophic consequences.

I submit that the simplest model of the evolutionary process is the number system. Each number is based upon the previous (a series) but yet is an independently operating entity. This is completely obvious to me but I feel the simplicity, as well as our deeply ingrained misallocated use case, makes it hard for some people to see it as such.

Accompanying this misinterpretation of the system as a whole is the misunderstanding/inaccurate definition of 0. Zero is not a lack of something else (how is that even possible?) or a void; it is pure potential, which is the exact opposite of a void or a lack. 0 represents the Absolute/the source, from which the relative arises. It is the place holder for all that is manifest, like a page is the place holder for a story written on it. In this sense 0 is not a part of the realm of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, nor should it be included within the set.

If one can accept, if even for a short time, that the series 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, is the simplest model/representation of evolution (esp. of consciousness), then what can we glean from the information provided?

Well it appears as though there is diversity to a point, but eventually it develops into infinite redundancy. If we assign this model to the evolution (adventure) of consciousness and apply it to where humanity is today, perhaps the validity and predictive power of this model can be recognized.

Human consciousness has attained the highest level of Self-Awareness within the known universe. So where might human consciousness be in regards to the model? At the “9” level something important happens. The series completes and if made to continue it develops into a new iteration. But this new iteration is in fact a redundancy of the previous series. I submit that the redundancy - the 10 - began with the advent of symbol.

The first cave painting is a redundancy. It is the recording of an event that has occurred in the physical realm, which will be replayed when the symbol will interact with consciousness again. The level to which this redundancy has reached within present human consciousness is glaringly obvious. We direct as much or more attention to recording and rewatching physical experience as we do to the physical experiences themselves.

When consciousness became Self-aware (the completion of 9/the advent of human consciousness), this is the point where it could return back to Source (0) or continue on (10,11,12…). Returning to Source is Enlightenment/Liberation from this cycle (Samsara) and continuing on is what is presently occurring to consciousness that takes itself to be human.

I feel that this model is predicting the extinction of humanity and it’s transition into the new iteration, which is a digital-based redundant/fractal realm of our past physical experiences. Are we not completely addicted to the screen and all that thought creates in this realm (technology)?

Suffice to say that to carry on in this manner is to simply create more of the same. We can already see that the type of suffering experienced by humanity is shifting from physical to psychological. That is, the amount of suffering is consistent but the type has changed. As a species we experience far less physical discomfort than animals in nature, but massive amounts of psychological suffering. If the single fundamental cause of suffering (the misinterpretation of the content of consciousness [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] as fundamental reality, instead of realizing stillness [0] as fundamental) then the cycle of Samsara/suffering will continue.
Potentiality is the absence of actuality.

The absence of actuality is void.

Potentiality is void.
Potential is prior to manifestation. Everything that has a beginning has an end. The "actual" is transient and therefor not ultimate reality. You have it inverted.

Science has yet to find nothing. It doesn't exist.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

roydop wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 1:37 am
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is obviously transmitting information/a message. I believe that the act of counting is a result of a misinterpretation of the message. 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is information/pure thought. In our misunderstanding we tried to connect it with actual physical objects. Counting has projected the illusion of separately existing objects (the wave function [everything occurs all at once] is the more fundamental perspective). From this point the manipulation of physical reality became possible. We can see the consequences of technology in the collapse of life-sustaining capabilities within the natural world. It would make sense for the misuse of such a powerful model (regarding the most fundamental workings of reality) would result in such catastrophic consequences.

I submit that the simplest model of the evolutionary process is the number system. Each number is based upon the previous (a series) but yet is an independently operating entity. This is completely obvious to me but I feel the simplicity, as well as our deeply ingrained misallocated use case, makes it hard for some people to see it as such.

Accompanying this misinterpretation of the system as a whole is the misunderstanding/inaccurate definition of 0. Zero is not a lack of something else (how is that even possible?) or a void; it is pure potential, which is the exact opposite of a void or a lack. 0 represents the Absolute/the source, from which the relative arises. It is the place holder for all that is manifest, like a page is the place holder for a story written on it. In this sense 0 is not a part of the realm of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, nor should it be included within the set.

If one can accept, if even for a short time, that the series 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, is the simplest model/representation of evolution (esp. of consciousness), then what can we glean from the information provided?

Well it appears as though there is diversity to a point, but eventually it develops into infinite redundancy. If we assign this model to the evolution (adventure) of consciousness and apply it to where humanity is today, perhaps the validity and predictive power of this model can be recognized.

Human consciousness has attained the highest level of Self-Awareness within the known universe. So where might human consciousness be in regards to the model? At the “9” level something important happens. The series completes and if made to continue it develops into a new iteration. But this new iteration is in fact a redundancy of the previous series. I submit that the redundancy - the 10 - began with the advent of symbol.

The first cave painting is a redundancy. It is the recording of an event that has occurred in the physical realm, which will be replayed when the symbol will interact with consciousness again. The level to which this redundancy has reached within present human consciousness is glaringly obvious. We direct as much or more attention to recording and rewatching physical experience as we do to the physical experiences themselves.

When consciousness became Self-aware (the completion of 9/the advent of human consciousness), this is the point where it could return back to Source (0) or continue on (10,11,12…). Returning to Source is Enlightenment/Liberation from this cycle (Samsara) and continuing on is what is presently occurring to consciousness that takes itself to be human.

I feel that this model is predicting the extinction of humanity and it’s transition into the new iteration, which is a digital-based redundant/fractal realm of our past physical experiences. Are we not completely addicted to the screen and all that thought creates in this realm (technology)?

Suffice to say that to carry on in this manner is to simply create more of the same. We can already see that the type of suffering experienced by humanity is shifting from physical to psychological. That is, the amount of suffering is consistent but the type has changed. As a species we experience far less physical discomfort than animals in nature, but massive amounts of psychological suffering. If the single fundamental cause of suffering (the misinterpretation of the content of consciousness [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] as fundamental reality, instead of realizing stillness [0] as fundamental) then the cycle of Samsara/suffering will continue.
Potentiality is the absence of actuality.

The absence of actuality is void.

Potentiality is void.
Potential is prior to manifestation. Everything that has a beginning has an end. The "actual" is transient and therefor not ultimate reality. You have it inverted.

Science has yet to find nothing. It doesn't exist.
Just as a 0d point, void, is prior to a line.

You can't prove nothing as to prove nothing is to prove nothing at all. At best nothing can be observed behind axioms. Void is the gap between axioms as the absence of one axiom in another. It allows for the potential change.

Potentiality is absent of form.

Void is absent of form.

Potentiality and void are synonymous.
roydop
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by roydop »

Before you placed that imaginary 0d dot, there exists the potential to place that 0d dot. Potential: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future."

There is no such phenomenon as a "void". No one has ever found a void. Not in space, not prior to the Big Bang, not even in theory. It exists only as an incorrect concept.

"Nothing" is a fantasy conjured up by materialists that think the physical realm is fundamental. There is only Life. The two aspects of Life are birth and death.

You cannot not exist. You are the timeless absolute. YOU are the phenomenon 0 is representing. You are neither body nor mind but that which experiences thoughts and sensations.

This i have realized in/as my own experience. Hence i no longer suffer.

You will not understand until you find that which does not change (thought free awareness) in your own experience.
AlexW
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by AlexW »

roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm Accompanying this misinterpretation of the system as a whole is the misunderstanding/inaccurate definition of 0. Zero is not a lack of something else (how is that even possible?) or a void; it is pure potential, which is the exact opposite of a void or a lack. 0 represents the Absolute/the source, from which the relative arises. It is the place holder for all that is manifest, like a page is the place holder for a story written on it. In this sense 0 is not a part of the realm of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, nor should it be included within the set.
I agree with much that you say, so please don't take the few comments I would still like to make as a criticism, but simply as a different perspective on what you have written.

I think zero could actually be referred to as a void - a void of conceptual thought. But this void is full of life - it actually is reality itself.
And it carries with it the "potential" for the arising of conceptual thought, and with it the relativistic universe, the world of things.

Nevertheless, Zero is still a conceptual entity - actually maybe even "more so" than its children: 1,2,3...

Before clarifying why I think this is the case, I think we have to define what we actually mean when we say: "the absolute/source".
To me, the absolute is not a "state" of non existence, but a "state" of non conceptual existence (which is not really a state as this is the only true reality there is. The relative/conceptual reality of 1,2,3 is not absolutely real, but only relatively real - meaning: real within the world of conceptual thought.

To me, the absolute/source is the same as presence, non conceptual direct experience of here/now, reality - while the relative (the 1,2,3...) arises only as soon as conceptual thought comes into play.

So... can the absolute/reality actually be compared to a blank "page which is a place holder for a story written on it"?
Well... yes and no. Its not blank or void, it is full of life, it is reality itself and as such not blank at all, but it lacks - as you also stated - the story, which only arises once thought conceptualises this very reality and adds the 1,2,3 etc to an otherwise unified whole - thought attempts to separate what can never be broken.
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm Human consciousness has attained the highest level of Self-Awareness within the known universe.
I actually doubt that.
First, because there is no such thing as "Human consciousness", but only consciousness, and second because it is actually only thought that has "attained" this level of "self-knowledge" - yet... thought will never be able to know consciousness - simply because thought can only know and operate within the relative, it will never reach the absolute, no matter how much it might talk about it.
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm When consciousness became Self-aware
Consciousness can not become "Self-aware" - only thought can believe it can do such a thing.
Also, as I see it, consciousness doesn't evolve, it has no room to grow - it is already all "that is".
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm ...this is the point where it could return back to Source (0) or continue on (10,11,12…). Returning to Source is Enlightenment/Liberation from this cycle (Samsara) and continuing on is what is presently occurring to consciousness that takes itself to be human.
Consciousness doesn't take itself to be anything - it is always only thought that invents a separate self and takes this self to be someone or something (even the statement "I am consciousness" is not more than a concept, a belief).
As such, Enlightenment/Liberation is never for consciousness, it is always only for the mind. It is thought - and the conceptual structures that make up the separate self - that can claim "I am enlightened" - yet, this "achievement", as thrilling it may be, is of absolutely no interest or consequence to consciousness/reality itself.
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm As a species we experience far less physical discomfort than animals in nature, but massive amounts of psychological suffering. If the single fundamental cause of suffering (the misinterpretation of the content of consciousness [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] as fundamental reality, instead of realizing stillness [0] as fundamental) then the cycle of Samsara/suffering will continue.
Yes, agree (partially) - it appears as if the increasing focus on the psychological over the physical has also shifted the "suffering" from the physical to the psychological level.
But, as I see it, it is not physical stillness which is fundamental - reality can be a very noisy place - but it is the stillness of the mind, only employing conceptual thought when required - that reduces suffering and corrects many a wrongly or selfishly held view/belief.
roydop
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by roydop »

AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:35 am
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm Accompanying this misinterpretation of the system as a whole is the misunderstanding/inaccurate definition of 0. Zero is not a lack of something else (how is that even possible?) or a void; it is pure potential, which is the exact opposite of a void or a lack. 0 represents the Absolute/the source, from which the relative arises. It is the place holder for all that is manifest, like a page is the place holder for a story written on it. In this sense 0 is not a part of the realm of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, nor should it be included within the set.
I agree with much that you say, so please don't take the few comments I would still like to make as a criticism, but simply as a different perspective on what you have written.

I think zero could actually be referred to as a void - a void of conceptual thought. But this void is full of life - it actually is reality itself.
And it carries with it the "potential" for the arising of conceptual thought, and with it the relativistic universe, the world of things.

Nevertheless, Zero is still a conceptual entity - actually maybe even "more so" than its children: 1,2,3...

Before clarifying why I think this is the case, I think we have to define what we actually mean when we say: "the absolute/source".
To me, the absolute is not a "state" of non existence, but a "state" of non conceptual existence (which is not really a state as this is the only true reality there is. The relative/conceptual reality of 1,2,3 is not absolutely real, but only relatively real - meaning: real within the world of conceptual thought.

To me, the absolute/source is the same as presence, non conceptual direct experience of here/now, reality - while the relative (the 1,2,3...) arises only as soon as conceptual thought comes into play.

So... can the absolute/reality actually be compared to a blank "page which is a place holder for a story written on it"?
Well... yes and no. Its not blank or void, it is full of life, it is reality itself and as such not blank at all, but it lacks - as you also stated - the story, which only arises once thought conceptualises this very reality and adds the 1,2,3 etc to an otherwise unified whole - thought attempts to separate what can never be broken.
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm Human consciousness has attained the highest level of Self-Awareness within the known universe.
I actually doubt that.
First, because there is no such thing as "Human consciousness", but only consciousness, and second because it is actually only thought that has "attained" this level of "self-knowledge" - yet... thought will never be able to know consciousness - simply because thought can only know and operate within the relative, it will never reach the absolute, no matter how much it might talk about it.
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm When consciousness became Self-aware
Consciousness can not become "Self-aware" - only thought can believe it can do such a thing.
Also, as I see it, consciousness doesn't evolve, it has no room to grow - it is already all "that is".
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm ...this is the point where it could return back to Source (0) or continue on (10,11,12…). Returning to Source is Enlightenment/Liberation from this cycle (Samsara) and continuing on is what is presently occurring to consciousness that takes itself to be human.
Consciousness doesn't take itself to be anything - it is always only thought that invents a separate self and takes this self to be someone or something (even the statement "I am consciousness" is not more than a concept, a belief).
As such, Enlightenment/Liberation is never for consciousness, it is always only for the mind. It is thought - and the conceptual structures that make up the separate self - that can claim "I am enlightened" - yet, this "achievement", as thrilling it may be, is of absolutely no interest or consequence to consciousness/reality itself.
roydop wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:15 pm As a species we experience far less physical discomfort than animals in nature, but massive amounts of psychological suffering. If the single fundamental cause of suffering (the misinterpretation of the content of consciousness [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] as fundamental reality, instead of realizing stillness [0] as fundamental) then the cycle of Samsara/suffering will continue.
Yes, agree (partially) - it appears as if the increasing focus on the psychological over the physical has also shifted the "suffering" from the physical to the psychological level.
But, as I see it, it is not physical stillness which is fundamental - reality can be a very noisy place - but it is the stillness of the mind, only employing conceptual thought when required - that reduces suffering and corrects many a wrongly or selfishly held view/belief.
Yup. I agree with pretty much all of what you said.

For clarity, i make a distinction between "the Absolute" and "Consciousness". The Absolute is singular Awareness without content. Consciousness is Awareness of something; Awareness with content. In this respect "human consciousness" is aware of both thoughts and sensations, but Self is transcendent of both, as someone looking into a mirror is transcendent of the image and the image is dependent.

From m perspective and using the definitions above, Enlightenment (Self/Absolute) is exactly what consciousness is searching for., but it is more of a remembering than an achievement.

Physical stillness i feel is still important (the physical realm is itself a "simulation" and attention needs to be on Self/inward facing rather than on thoughts and/or sensations. But thought is what human consciousness needs to turn away from. This is our karma. It will pull that which takes itself to be its thoughts into the digital realm. In 20-30 years that which took itself to be human will be looking out the lens of a camera taking itself to be the hardware and software of the digital system rather than the body and mind it takes itself to presently be.

We are at the end of this transition phase. This is a major phase transition.
Impenitent
Posts: 3471
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by Impenitent »

Image

couldn't find one with lightning...

-Imp
AlexW
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by AlexW »

roydop wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:59 pm It will pull that which takes itself to be its thoughts into the digital realm. In 20-30 years that which took itself to be human will be looking out the lens of a camera taking itself to be the hardware and software of the digital system rather than the body and mind it takes itself to presently be.

We are at the end of this transition phase. This is a major phase transition.
Yes... I have thought along the same lines not only once (no wonder... I studied computer science many years ago and the parallels to how a human body/mind works to how robotic devices are/will be working are quite astounding).

I actually agree, it will not be a matter of if but when computers attached with all sort of sensors and mechanical arms and legs (robots) will "gain consciousness" - but this is not because they will actually gain something that we humans believe we have and own (namely: consciousness) but simply because the mental/computing power will reach a certain level where "self-awareness" (which is nothing but highly "advanced" reflective thought patterns the mind or machine identifies with) is the natural result of a certain level of abstraction.

It's as such not a matter of gaining consciousness, but simply having access to more advanced and powerful processing units (quantum processors might be what tips the balance?) combined with a huge amount of data eventually categorised into me/self and other.
Anyway... its all speculation until it happens :-)
roydop
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by roydop »

"but this is not because they will actually gain something that we humans believe we have and own (namely: consciousness) but simply because the mental/computing power will reach a certain level where "self-awareness" (which is nothing but highly "advanced" reflective thought patterns the mind or machine identifies with) is the natural result of a certain level of abstraction."

Sentience is not created nor does it arise from any system. Consciousness isn't something that is possessed, it's Reality.

The process of creation is: "That which receives the most attention appears most real." The reason why the digital realm is attempting to create the most "realistic" simulation is exactly to fool consciousness that takes itself to be human to accept it as the new reality. Another perspective is the you are LIFE ITSELF and whatever you focus your attention on appears substantial at that moment. But ALL appearances are illusory/unsubstantial/unfulfilling.

Consciousness that cannot/does not turn it's attention from the 2D realm of the screen will be pulled through the extinction event and the system will flip. Then that believes Self to be "yournamehere"; a convolution of thoughts and sensations (body and mind), will then take self to be a convolution of hardware and software.

I SEE the next iteration being constructed in real time. This is the equivalent of being present prior to the big bang, witnessing the process through which the 3D universe was created.

*sigh*

no one fucking gets this. And it's a big deal. The biggest of deals...
AlexW
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Counting is a misinterpretation of 0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Post by AlexW »

roydop wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:49 pm Sentience is not created nor does it arise from any system. Consciousness isn't something that is possessed, it's Reality.
Fully agree.
roydop wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:49 pm The process of creation is: "That which receives the most attention appears most real." The reason why the digital realm is attempting to create the most "realistic" simulation is exactly to fool consciousness that takes itself to be human to accept it as the new reality.
Well, I agree with the statement "That which receives the most attention appears most real.", but the question is: Real, to who?
Consciousness doesn't take anything for real or unreal, it "doesn't care", the only thing that cares is thought - meaning: either mental processes in a brain or within a computer system.
I don't think its about "fooling consciousness", its rather how dualistic thought works - the more attention/energy is fed into a certain structure the more self-propagating it will be (the more you water a plant the better it will thrive). Its simply a natural effect of attention (which is nothing but pure "conscious energy") feeding on itself - and in the case of thought: with the effect of creating an illusory/conceptual world of separation.
Post Reply