For the Free Thinker

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

In my view this God IS reason and law, and beyond it too, as in what is far beyond our human comprehension. Yes it is unexplainable. That's what the philosophers talk about -- the reality that is beyond our brain perception that we cannot know/understand through thought.

Any kind of loop theory, although I don't know what it is, doesn't sound too far away from a universe without beginning and end. Can you explain in a few sentences? I have attention problems, so hit on the key points, not an article, cause I couldn't handle that.

Well, you remember Einstein's retrocausality and anterocausality. Causal loop theory basically says that the end of the universe is also the begining. From the point of the big bang the universe expands outward, eventually to collapse on it's self and start the cycle over again. I'm not totally buying into it being the same time continuum looped, but at least the physical matter.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, you remember Einstein's retrocausality and anterocausality. Causal loop theory basically says that the end of the universe is also the begining. From the point of the big bang the universe expands outward, eventually to collapse on it's self and start the cycle over again. I'm not totally buying into it being the same time continuum looped, but at least the physical matter.

Where do you stand on the holographic universe stuff?

angelica

premature post

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Where do you stand on the holographic universe stuff?

It's certainly possible to assume that a line can never be chopped up to it's smallest pieces. The same way particles can never be demoted to a single tiniest particle. But as far as the universe being an illusion, I don't see any evidence for that.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's certainly possible to assume that a line can never be chopped up to it's smallest pieces. The same way particles can never be demoted to a single tiniest particle. But as far as the universe being an illusion, I don't see any evidence for that.

I'm talking more along the line that what we see is a product of what our brains are predisposed to see, rather than what is there. In that sense it is an illusion. I would think that would fit within your determinism stance. We see what we've been programmed to see.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'm talking more along the line that what we see is a product of what our brains are predisposed to see, rather than what is there. In that sense it is an illusion. I would think that would fit within your determinism stance. We see what we've been programmed to see.

Absolutely, however, we also have sensory organs that allow us to perceive the universe as it really is. I think it's a far stretch simply to assume that even our sensory perceptions or lack there of are illusions. I think to say everything is an illusion, is to say we know nothing.

As Michael Shermer said "Jump off a building and see if you can make it through the grounds tendency." or something like that. Refuting "What the BLEEP's" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

gue_barium

soulsinging wrote:

man, i miss being on the junior high debate team...

Why have debate when you can have comedy?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Absolutely, however, we also have sensory organs that allow us to perceive the universe as it really is. I think it's a far stretch simply to assume that even our sensory perceptions or lack there of are illusions. I think to say everything is an illusion, is to say we know nothing.

As Michael Shermer said "Jump off a building and see if you can make it through the grounds tendency." or something like that. Refuting "What the BLEEP's" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

It exists in the context that it exists. Just like when you were 1 year old, what you understood about your surroundings--your worldview--was dependant on the variables of that context. Those variables and your impressions of them were entirely real and 100% valid as a view of reality. But from your perspective now, you might understand how "real" is a matter of perspective, given your view has (hopefully) dramatically increased, with amazing consequences due to that increase. The world around you--the natural laws--have always been the same back then, and now. Yet concepts like "real" are very relationship oriented--relating to the variables.

I'm well aware of and seriously respectful of natural law, since I'm not fond of negative consequences.

angelica

Oh, and specifically related to your subjective variables and your subjective ability to process and understand the unchanging 3-d laws.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Oh, and specifically related to your subjective variables and your subjective ability to process and understand the unchanging 3-d laws.

It's certainly interesting to note that children do not really have spiritual experiences. It isn't until we are older and contemplating our purpose and our deaths that we have such experiences.

An interesting study into prayers, showed that patients in surgery that knew others were praying for them had slightly more complications, however, there was virtually no difference in the outcome of the surgeries.

I agree with a lot of what "What the BLEEP?" was teaching, especially in terms of us creating our own subjective realities, and the addictiveness of emotional states. Though I think that only applies to adults. Children perceive their world through causal inference, models and teaching. If a Child perceives God, it's because God was taught to them.

angelica

Bohm: Well let's come back to the nonmanifest implicate order of consciousness. In the nonmanifest order, all is one. You see, there is no separation in space and time, In ordinary matter, this is so and it's equally so or even more so for this subtle matter which is consciousness. Therefore, if we are separate it is because we are sticking largely to the manifest world as the basic reality, where the whole point of the manifest world is to have separate units. I mean relatively so anyway, separate but interacting and so on. Now, in nonmanifest reality it's all interpenetrating, interconnected in one. So we say deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This, we say, is a virtual certainty because even matter is one in the vacuum; and if we don't see this it's because we are blinding ourselves to it.

Weber: And, therefore, you are saying it's we who construct space and time, really, in the Kantian sense and beyond Kant even?

Bohm:Yes, space and time are constructed by us for our convenience although they are created in such a way that when we're doing it right, it really is convenient. The word convenient is based on "coming together", "convene", to come together. Now, our conventions are convenient, and that is not purely subjective, they actually fit the reality of matter. So conventions are not just an arbitrary choice made to please us, to gratify us, but rather they are conventions which are convenient, which fit matter as it is. And now, we are saying space and time is a convenient order for a certain range of purposes.

Weber: In the manifest?

Bohm: In the manifest.

Weber: But you're saying it has no place in the non-manifest.

Bohm: It is not the fundamental order. It's only place in the nommanifest...it has a place, but only as a relationship. It has a certain place but it is not the fundamental place.

Weber: It's this n-1 and n-2 that you spoke about earlier?

Bohm: Yes that's right.

Weber: But in actuality, in the nonmanifest, you say mankind's consciousness or mind is one. And you mean this quite literally, not metaphorically or poetically.

Bohm: No, it is one consciousness, and you can see as evidence of this that the basic problems of mankind are one. You see they're the same: namely fear, jealousy, hope, confusion, you know the problem of isolation and so on. If you go around you will see that deep down all the problems are the same.

Weber: So it's a universal stratum of some sort.

Bohm: Yes, we may say that these problems originate in the consciousness of mankind and manifest in each individual. You see, each individual manifests the consciousness of mankind. That is what I say.

Weber: Because he is, in a way, that consciousness.

Bohm: He is that manifestation.

Weber: And as he perceives himself, in the manifest, he's isolated himself out, he's made himself an abstraction.

Bohm: Yes, if he says that manifestation is independently existent, it's like saying the cloud exists on its own apart from the air.

Weber: Or the particle without the whole ocean, the whole background?

Bohm: Or the ink droplet without the whole background.

Weber: So the individual, as he thinks of himself, is but the overt manifestation just as the chair is, of that underlying background?

Bohm: Yes, as the chair is, and the mountain, because they're a manifestation of the deeper energy, a deeper order, a deeper reality which is not manifest.

Weber: And you're saying this is not mysticism, it's good physics.

Bohm: Well, I'm saying that it's more consistent with physics than any other view that I know.

Weber: If one really were to take this seriously in one's daily life, how differently would one interact with another human being?

Bohm: Well it would be a tremendous change, but you see, to do this we have to get clear of the recording in the brain of this other view which has been deeply recorded in the material structure of the brain. We could call that the corruption of mankind, that the brain and the consciousness and deeper levels, not only in the manifest levels of the brain but the nonmanifest, that there has been left this pollution, which is this whole view which leads to all this violence, corruption, disorder, self-deception. See, you could say that almost all of mankind's thought is aimed at self-deception, which momentarily relieves pressures arising from this way of thinking, of being separate, and it produces pressures. When a person is under pressure, any thought that comes in to relieve that pressure will be accepted as true. But immediately that leads to some more pressure because it's wrong and then you take another thought to relieve that thought.

Weber: It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Bohm: Yes, and that has been the major way. If you watch how international negotiations go on you see no truth whatsover there. It's entirely the result of pressures: fear, gain, greed, compromise, trade-offs, pressures to achieve and what not. You accept as true any statement that will relieve that pressure. And then in the next statement that's overturned and people will take another one....It happens in families obviously. People are compelled in the family to state things which the pressure of the family says are true. It happens in organizations, in institutions.

(from "The Holographic Paradigm and other Paradoxes", a compilation of interviews and other tidbits. Interview with physicist David Bohm.)

Ahnimus

I have a few big questions.

Newborns instantly show emotion, fear being a big one. Is that something a newborn manifests and why? If it's an illusion.

How should we treat our fellow men if life is an illusion. If we are all of one consciousness then death does not exist, and looking out for one's self is also looking out for one's mate. There is no individuality and no free-will.

Why do we manifest an egocentric, cruel, viscious reality, if the nonmanifest reality is so much greater?

Finally, how does this correlate to physics at all?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I have a few big questions.

Newborns instantly show emotion, fear being a big one. Is that something a newborn manifests and why? If it's an illusion.

I don't see our capacity for assessing our environment as an illusion. The key is, when we move beyond our programmed limited patterns, we learn to use our emotional intelligence in life affirming ways that don't create the common delusion and falsehood most people labour under.

How should we treat our fellow men if life is an illusion. If we are all of one consciousness then death does not exist, and looking out for one's self is also looking out for one's mate. There is no individuality and no free-will.

I understand we are each possessed with Will that precedes what we are. This will is purposeful. Each exact moment of each illusion is a virtua-meaningful-experience. For a purpose. Good, bad, or indifferent. When we go beyond the programming and align with our ground state, we align with our purpose. We recognize other is ourselves. We do best to learn to be as honest and authentic as we can. Otherwise, we literally only hurt ourselves. For example, we hurt ourselves because we are all one, but to our petty small-minded self, when we hurt other, we literally hook ourselves into a 3-d experience where the outcome is pain or some form of discordant experience for us, that causes stress and discomfort. Until we are conditioned otherwise, or fall out of the game of life some other way, through maladpation. Death is very real in our experience. From a deeper view, it can be seen as an illusion.

Why do we manifest an egocentric, cruel, viscious reality, if the nonmanifest reality is so much greater?

I don't know.

Finally, how does this correlate to physics at all?

This is the cutting edge philosophical level we are at at this point. Our systems are all interactive, and therefore as we learn new science paradigms it reflects in the philosophical ones and vice versa. As our science discerns new differentiations, our philosphies do also. Keep in mind that all science is strung together with theories also that stem from what our philosophical awareness can support.

Ahnimus

I performed a pseudo-experiment on this thread.

3 Truths and 1 Lie

My initial hypothesis was that people would convince themselves that placing the lie at place 1 or place 4, first or last, on the list would make the answer too obvious. So, probablistically, the answers would usually be either 2 or 3. As it turns out this held true for the entire thread, as short-lived as it was.

I only participated in a few, but I'll explain how I got my answers.

catefrances wrote:

i own a bible and read it
my razor blades came individually wrapped
i didn't have a shower this morning
i just burnt some CDs for a friend

So what I assumed here was that answers 1 and 4 are least likely. Answer 2 is something I can't imagine conjuring as a lie, so I figured it must be true. That left me with answer 3. Also considering that all the other answers are somewhat unusual, or out of the every day, while answer 3 seems too normal to be a lie. I figured this is what catefrances had "chosen" as the lie. It's much easier to turn an everyday thing into a lie, then it is to conjure something unusual and except it to be overlooked. If I had just guessed, I would have said answer 2 "my razor blades came individually wrapped".

CJMST3k wrote:

I like the movie The Green Mile
I like the movie Predator
I like the movie Casino Royale
I like the movie Gross Pointe Blank

For this one, I used a very simple statistical study. IMDB.com. I got the user ratings for all the movies and immediately eliminated answers 1 and 4, as they had high user ratings and was in accordance with my initial hypothesis. So, I looked up the plot outline for all the movies, stuck choosing between answers 2 and 3. I found answer 3 followed the same plot outline as answers 1 and 4, although it's user rating was relatively low. So I chose answer 2 and was correct. Had I just guessed, I would have said answer 1 cause it sounds lame.

I would suggest that CJMST3K has done something in their life they wanted a second chance for. Perhaps never got it. And also has a liking for James Bondish movies. Based on CJMST3K's perference in movies.

There are indications in every action that speak loudly about a person's psyche. Perhaps I am wrong about some things, but in general, probability was in my favor.

I don't mean this to be "deep" or whatever. Just pointing out how predictable people are in general. I thought about what I would have given as answers, and I couldn't come up with something that would be beyond this kind of analysis.

gue_barium

Jeanwah wrote:

My opinion concerning free thinking, and I love the idea of free thinking, is that there are no barriers, no limits. Free will, well, you have to have no barriers literally and metaphorically to act on free will, but free thinking is nothing but your open imaginative conciousness. Take a trip with your thoughts and be free. Of course it's important to be able to subtract yourself from what society, the media, and the gov't tells you also, since all of that clouds judgement.

I'm interested in your reason for bringing up barriers in the first place. I know that freedom is the absence of restraint and free will surely follows some sort of similar dictum, however, free thinking is just as it sounds...it isn't even constrained by imagination, if you can imagine that.

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

I'm interested in your reason for bringing up barriers in the first place. I know that freedom is the absence of restraint and free will surely follows some sort of similar dictum, however, free thinking is just as it sounds...it isn't even constrained by imagination, if you can imagine that.

Don't mean to put you on the spot or anything like that. I just thought your post was the most well-thought out of this whole thread.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

I don't see our capacity for assessing our environment as an illusion. The key is, when we move beyond our programmed limited patterns, we learn to use our emotional intelligence in life affirming ways that don't create the common delusion and falsehood most people labour under.

I understand we are each possessed with Will that precedes what we are. This will is purposeful. Each exact moment of each illusion is a virtua-meaningful-experience. For a purpose. Good, bad, or indifferent. When we go beyond the programming and align with our ground state, we align with our purpose. We recognize other is ourselves. We do best to learn to be as honest and authentic as we can. Otherwise, we literally only hurt ourselves. For example, we hurt ourselves because we are all one, but to our petty small-minded self, when we hurt other, we literally hook ourselves into a 3-d experience where the outcome is pain or some form of discordant experience for us, that causes stress and discomfort. Until we are conditioned otherwise, or fall out of the game of life some other way, through maladpation. Death is very real in our experience. From a deeper view, it can be seen as an illusion.

I don't know.

This is the cutting edge philosophical level we are at at this point. Our systems are all interactive, and therefore as we learn new science paradigms it reflects in the philosophical ones and vice versa. As our science discerns new differentiations, our philosphies do also. Keep in mind that all science is strung together with theories also that stem from what our philosophical awareness can support.

I've pooped once or twice since this began.