Experience & Your Unreliable Consciousness

[O'nus]

Intro You probably consider this thread as a joke. You'll say, "why would anyone doubt my ability to experience things?". You live, you have senses, you know when you are able to sense sight, smell, sound, feel, and taste. Who am I to challenge your ability to do so? Too many people put too much trust into their senses. Is this a reliable thing to do? Even the most sturdiest of buildings and foundations require criticism ever now and then because of how foundational they are. What better foundation than your own senses? Primary Inspiration: TED Talks - Dan Dennett: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/d...ciousness.html Your Senses This is Meyer's loop. Objectively speaking, your eyes receive light from the outside world and bring them in to collect in your brain for interpretation. The greatest person to attack your senses was Descartes. This image was drawn by Descartes to show the mechanistic way of which our body works. We see light, it enters our mind, our mind interprets, and we react. Now, of course, the problem is that it is not until your interpret the images that you are able to distinguish what they are, where they are, etc. Example 1 Look at the moon or far away object X. You know what X is, what it may do or looks like, etc. However, if you lift your hand, you can "hold" it in your sight. But you know the moon is bigger than the inch between your finger and thumb. This is because you know of dimensions and distance, depth, etc. Your eyes can only process so much and this is the direct light given from this object that gives you that perception. In addition, your senses have fooled you numerous times. You have seen images in your dreams that felt real, look real, etc. but they are not real, are they? Of course, Descartes acknowledged the extrapolation of this to questioning reality, but we're not looking at that. We're just looking at the unreliability of our senses. You have seen things that are not part of this reality. Also, you may see a certain person wearing a hat when on second glance you discover they really were not wearing a hat. How many times did you not take the second glance to realize this? The examples are endless. You cannot explore every potential mistake in perceptual judgment, it just happens. Example 2 Furthermore, there is a blind spot in your eye. Given the right demonstration, you can see how there is actually a blind spot in your eye that your mind compensates for. See here: http://serviceworksconsulting.com/bl...lind_spot.html Furthermore, how many times have you had fruit punch that actually contained no fruit? There are artificial flavors out there that taste like fruits, but are they truly fruits? To test the idea of surveying responses, people will go out and ask "is this coke or diet coke" when, in fact, they are both coke. However, there is still a 50/50 split response rate (just the same as coin flipping) that some taste coke and some taste diet coke. The point here is that you have tasted things that were not actually what you thought they were. Example 3 Also, your audio ability is very susceptible to mistakes. Firstly, how many times have you heard the mistaking of lyrics in a song? Secondly, consider the McGurk Effect: http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html In this, we pay attention to both the actual sound we are seeing and considering how the person is forming the word and yet we make severe mistakes. Why is this? The point here is that you have made many audio mistakes. The list goes on. I think I have proven my point in this aspect. Your Consciousness But what about your deep internal thoughts? Can they be wrong? Well we know that our senses are not reliable, so what is left? What is left is our interaction with our body and our existence. As Dan Dennett's demonstration shows, there are many instances in which we are consciously sure of something. However, we can easily be wrong in almost any case even in our thoughts of experiencing something. Furthermore, there are countless cases demonstrating the importance of your brain to experience. Without your brain, you are unable to properly perceive and experience many things. Let us go through some examples: Agnosia: - Being unable to recognize familiar objects + Watch for him reaching for nothing! Prosopagnosia: - Unable to recognize faces (including their own!) Visual Agnosia Example: - Unable to recognize visual distinctions + The point here is to see whether or not you can see the difference. Many are incapable of this. The point in all of the above videos is to demonstrate that even when you are positive you experienced something, it is not always 100% true. Your consciousness and your experience are not entirely reliable. What do you think...? ~

[Xei]

There are three doors. One has a pot of gold behind it, whilst the other two have nothing behind them. You choose a door to be opened. Before it is opened, one of the doors that you did not choose is opened to show that there is nothing behind it. There are now two doors, one with the pot of gold behind, and one with nothing behind. You are given the choice of swapping from your original choice to the other door. Should you take this choice, and why?

[Cyclic13]

Don't ask me... Ask yourself...

[Howie]

Wow Where to start with such a thread? Nice sources O’nus Ever since I have began to lucid dream I have learned to question reality more. In turn I have found out it is so evasive, such an illusion. Things I see, what people have said, what I have done, or what I am doing are all, when examined, simulated bogus perceptions of truth. This sounds a bit exaggerated but I don't believe it to be. Of coarse every ones awareness is at a different level. Which brings me to what I think is really fascinating. What is the inevitable addition of other people into the equation. As we begin to realize that our own fabrication of reality is so obscure how do we even begin to postulate reality from our own assumptions? Just like a snowball that gets rolling as we misinterpret one thing, it manifests greater into something even more less of an actuality…. wouldn’t it?

[O'nus]

Don't ask me... Ask yourself... I see you are still a complete moron when it comes to discussion. You are not addressing who you are speaking to so, just in case you are referencing me I have to reply. Firstly, the video and your comments are completely irrelevant. There is actually nothing being said besides, "You are you, ask yourself what's right and wrong, not me." That's nice, however, completely irrelevant. Do you also want to discuss pig shit? Stop doing drugs and pay attention. I am coming to the conclusion that you are addicted to LSD because you are acting like one - convinced you are one with the world and changing every damn topic to that and completely ignoring what everyone has to say. Ever since I have began to lucid dream I have learned to question reality more. In turn I have found out it is so evasive, such an illusion. Things I see, what people have said, what I have done, or what I am doing are all, when examined, simulated bogus perceptions of truth. This sounds a bit exaggerated but I don't believe it to be. Of coarse every ones awareness is at a different level. Which brings me to what I think is really fascinating. What is the inevitable addition of other people into the equation. As we begin to realize that our own fabrication of reality is so obscure how do we even begin to postulate reality from our own assumptions? Just like a snowball that gets rolling as we misinterpret one thing, it manifests greater into something even more less of an actuality…. wouldn’t it? Other people believing things is more often to incline us to a mass scale false "truth". Many will say this to be something like God but let's use a more practical example. At first, Mary's death was never described in the Bible. However, many just simply believed she ascended to heaven. This became tradition, many people believed it, and now it seems to be "true". ~

[Howie]

Other people believing things is more often to incline us to a mass scale false "truth". Many will say this to be something like God but let's use a more practical example. At first, Mary's death was never described in the Bible. However, many just simply believed she ascended to heaven. This became tradition, many people believed it, and now it seems to be "true". I hadn't thought of that on such a grand scale. I was referring more to day to day activity. Activity in ones everyday life. But that is a great point you make. If the present often shows itself as such a mystery then the past would just be a reflection of that and then exaggerated over time. A mass scale will always perpetuate events. As much as I like to engage in debatable discussion I really seem to agree with you on all front here O'nus. So one who is enlightened is supposedly one who perceives without duality. One with no hindrance of perception. Isn't that merely a false perception in itself? If nothing more than to having account for our own human faults and behaviors. Let's face it, as humans we have a lot of short comings and we certainly have a long way to go to perceive "truth" in its purist form. If that's possible. One who claims to be enlightened would be in effect claiming THEY are god like.

[DuB]

As much as I like to engage in debatable discussion I really seem to agree with you on all front here O'nus. I'm kind of in the same place as Howie. It's an interesting topic, but to a certain extent I feel like most of this is somewhat like common knowledge. Oh and Xei, that probability puzzle was discussed in the recent movie "21," so I think a lot of members here are familiar with it . Unless there was some underlying point you were trying to make...?

[Abra]

I've actually been thinking about propopagnosia lately. All this time on the internet might atrophy that part of the brain (unless we all wear masks with our avatars). So one who is enlightened is supposedly one who perceives without duality. One with no hindrance of perception. Isn't that merely a false perception in itself? "No hindrance of perception." Doesn't mean "no perception." We have evolved the senses for survival. Today, we do not need our senses to live (granted, that would almost always imply a vegetative state, but the discussion as to whether or not that is "living," is irrelevant). Without any instant threat to survival, we are free to pick which senses to focus on... But, that freedom is at birth, and we are helpless. That's not wrong, it is natural. There is then a process of learning (from everyone. Parents, friends, etc.). We learn everything that is practical, making associations between everything. Pink soft thing gives food. This process of learning must accelerate to be competitive. Scratches on paper are symbols, and symbols mean ______. Learning becomes automatic and unconscious, as we leave the world of senses and dive into the world of words. Your thoughts are in words. (Don't take my use of "words" too literally. It also means "social construct" and "automatic associations.") All too often, we question the words instead of the senses. Or worse, we accept the words without taking note of the senses. That's how we make our false schema, I think. It is prejudice in simplest form. If you hide all of the words (all words of the past) and leave only the senses, you have that freedom again. There are faults with the eye's design, I suppose, from seeing an objective truth, but at least this "truth" is without collective bias. This doesn't really relate to O'nus's optical illusions, but more to the subjective truth (the "virgin Mary went to heaven" example). If nothing more than to having account for our own human faults and behaviors. Let's face it, as humans we have a lot of short comings and we certainly have a long way to go to perceive "truth" in its purist form. If that's possible. I don't think we can perceive an objective truth. We can choose put faith in the collective truth, personal truth (this is the madness, delusions), or unhindered subjective truth (choosing for ourselves what is true, but without final judgment). I like the last one.

[Bonsay]

There are three doors. One has a pot of gold behind it, whilst the other two have nothing behind them. You choose a door to be opened. Before it is opened, one of the doors that you did not choose is opened to show that there is nothing behind it. There are now two doors, one with the pot of gold behind, and one with nothing behind. You are given the choice of swapping from your original choice to the other door. Should you take this choice, and why? Yes you should switch, it's statistically more likely you win if you do.

[DuB]

Don't want to impede the discussion, I just thought that this would be a semi-appropriate place to post this video which illustrates a concept similar to the ones that O'nus is describing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNdekYNzvzA Please don't spoil it for others by posting the answer .

[O'nus]

Don't want to impede the discussion, I just thought that this would be a semi-appropriate place to post this video which illustrates a concept similar to the ones that O'nus is describing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNdekYNzvzA Please don't spoil it for others by posting the answer . Oh I love the psychology of attention. This stuff is hillarious to experiment with. Thanks for sharing that, it is a mind boggling concept that is all too common but hardly recognized. ~

[really]

Are you saying that, if you are under the opinion that one person is credible enough, you should not have to take others suggestions? Should the child not question their parents? The integrity of a spiritual teacher is not dependent on ones opinion about them. E.g. A false guru has no integrity, whether you like them; believe in them or not (elaborated earlier). I’m saying that all enlightened teachers are essentially the same at the core. The same Self is expressing in All (excluding slights). One should question the teacher if they have not experienced the actual states, because a spiritual teacher may not be enlightened, but they can still be quite sophisticated in understanding the concepts of such. This is your form of truth. Unfortunately you fail to see even the contradiction in yourself. Where you refer to truth as non-dualistic intangible thing, you do so with conscious reasoning and intuition. You intuit your "truth" with reasoning which contradicts what your "truth" is. No I don’t contradict it, that is merely a semantic ambiguity. If the Truth is non-dualistic, I cannot reason with it or argue in a dualistic manner. “I” intuit the truth of “I”, there is no conscious reasoning, it is prior to reasoning and duality. Truth can only be seen within reason as "truth" requires a consciousness to realize it. Can there be truth without a perceiver? No, truth requires a perceiver because, by definition, truth implies something we are unaware of or have been deceived of. Yes, however the non-dualistic Truth reveals that what is “doing” the seeking, is what is being sought. Beyond causality, the observer is the observed – does that make reasonable sense? The True Self could be said to be clouded in illusions. I think we quintessentially agree. However, you seem to still include the mind in it. The intangible realm you are referring cannot have a form of consciousness as it is beyond time, linear existence, and all things tangible. "Truth" is contingent of consciousness. I do not “include the mind in it”; frequently I have said it is beyond it and not confined to it. There is no “form” of consciousness anyway, as consciousness is formless. It is intangible. The intangible realm, or static energy, cannot be contingent of anything. The intangible realm is incomprehensible when fully realized, as it is pure consciousness. It is potentiality, it is sometimes called the “unmanifest”. This is all-encompassing and gives rise to physical existence itself. It is contingent of anything and everything. It really boils down to semantics. Define "truth". You and I essentially define it the same, but I don't think you see how you are still including a tangible mind in an intangible concept. The mind is necessary to understand concepts, however the concept is not the thing itself, as you know. Again, you do not understand the Truth conceptually, unless you research into the concept of non-duality. Otherwise, reading “You are the Truth” or “There is no do-er or think-er” may be totally meaningless to the intellect. What..? Can you be more specific about the cogito? What you are saying does not disprove the cogito. You are only proving the cogito the more that you speak and think - no matter what you say. Nevermind, it’s not a problem. See the “Doubting my Faith” thread, if anything. Science never makes any assumptions - get that right. Spiritualists are the ones making the assumption. Science never makes any assumptions? It does in the sense that a scientist may look in one place expecting a specific answer or pattern, yet have unconsciously preconceived ideas that prevent him from understanding the problem. Sometimes, all that happens after a conclusion, is that a particular paradigm is reinforced throughout its own limits, instead of expanding to a greater knowledge altogether. You have the proving to do, not science. Lol, I only apparently have to prove things to those with a scientific mindset. I don’t have a problem with it, I’m sorry. Show evidence for the spirit. And not that garbage from the self-taught, self-researched individual. Unfortunately you're denying yourself from a valuable form of evidence - the help of a teacher, for the sake of your own opinion. Clearly your mind does not like the fact that it needs to disappear. I’ve said before, the mind doesn’t get it. Quiet your mind, and clarity abounds (Avoid fuss and frustration). Psychology will also tell you that. I full heartedly was there once in the spiritualist pack. However, spiritualists have severe flaws. The frustrating thing is that they fail to acknowledge them. Then why, especially after many generalizations and stereotypes, do you want to “be a spiritualist”? All I am saying is that don't make them "special". Shit happens. That is all. The "reason" and "meaning" is associated by you - nothing else. Remember, this perspective is associated by you, too. That is the context you set; that is the meaning you find. What brings meaning and "specialness" is what arises from its Context. E.g. Somebody was planning on getting a job, he had his resume(s) ready and was about to distribute many copies in town. However, he got a special phone call (job offer) just before he was about to leave, and it was from a person, who, in logical relation to his actual intention, "came out of nowhere". This becomes very coincidentally meaningful, and intimate.

[O'nus]

I started to read all the posts but i couldnt be bothered with all the childish arguements. When you have something more than ad hominems to contribute, it will nice to see that. @ o'nus: I can't quite see where your making the link between conciousness and senses. Please explain. Consciousness is facilitated by the senses. I thought this was obvious, sorry. Without any senses, you would not have consciousness (eg. death). Regardless if you believe this or not (it is true though) the fact remains that your consciousness has flaws in understand and perception. I am going to filter really's response to pertinence. If it is not quoted, I likely agree. The True Self could be said to be clouded in illusions. "Could be" and "illusions" are very vague and broad concepts which do not help define or help to come to understand anything. It only limits our ability to understand. I do not “include the mind in it”; frequently I have said it is beyond it and not confined to it. You're still not distinguish it though! There is no “form” of consciousness anyway, as consciousness is formless. It is intangible. Wrong. Flat out wrong. Consciousness is the senses. This is simple scientific fact. Without the brain, you would not have consciousness. It is that simple. That is all it is. If it were otherwise, than anything with "energy" would have consciousness (eg. a rock) but a rock does not have consciousness. If you want to argue that it does, the fact remains that you are unable to distinguish it from the humans consciousness. Thus, you do not have any formal definition. The intangible realm is incomprehensible when fully realized, as it is pure consciousness. It is potentiality, it is sometimes called the “unmanifest”. This is all-encompassing and gives rise to physical existence itself. It is contingent of anything and everything. Oh my. I don't know how many times this has to come up. This is the exact same thing you can say about nothingness. I am considering just responding to you now with the following: Distinguish the spirit from: - Mind - Energy Distinguish the "truth" from nothingness. The only reason I ask is because you obviously cannot give a foundational definition. If I just say, "Oh, I believe in X, which is beyond reason. I cannot tell you what it is, but someday you will realize it and maybe know" what would you think? The mind is necessary to understand concepts, however the concept is not the thing itself, as you know. Again, you do not understand the Truth conceptually, unless you research into the concept of non-duality. Otherwise, reading “You are the Truth” or “There is no do-er or think-er” may be totally meaningless to the intellect. Okay, as far as this thread is concerned though - we can agree that just experience alone and meditation alone is not the only means to understanding this. You require an interaction and collection of both your personal thoughts and discussion with others, etc. Right..? Science never makes any assumptions? It does in the sense that a scientist may look in one place expecting a specific answer or pattern, yet have unconsciously preconceived ideas that prevent him from understanding the problem. Sometimes, all that happens after a conclusion, is that a particular paradigm is reinforced throughout its own limits, instead of expanding to a greater knowledge altogether. What you are describing is a commonly known scientific problem called "bias". Science does it's best to avoid this via double-blind studies which work very effectively. This method removes the possibility of any form of presumptions or assumptions. How can you assume something about something in a double-blind study? Lol, I only apparently have to prove things to those with a scientific mindset. I don’t have a problem with it, I’m sorry. Of course you do. You would not have to prove yourself to someone who already believes you. What the hell is this about? You do not care if you have no reason to believe what you believe? Unfortunately you're denying yourself from a valuable form of evidence - the help of a teacher, for the sake of your own opinion. Clearly your mind does not like the fact that it needs to disappear. I’ve said before, the mind doesn’t get it. Quiet your mind, and clarity abounds (Avoid fuss and frustration). Psychology will also tell you that. You completely misunderstand me then. My entire point in this thread is that sometimes teachers are the best form of learning. Please reconsider my point. Then why, especially after many generalizations and stereotypes, do you want to “be a spiritualist”? Because, it is comforting. Too bad it has no reason. E.g. Somebody was planning on getting a job, he had his resume(s) ready and was about to distribute many copies in town. However, he got a special phone call (job offer) just before he was about to leave, and it was from a person, who, in logical relation to his actual intention, "came out of nowhere". This becomes very coincidentally meaningful, and intimate. Yes, it may be meaningful but only because of the person and situation, nothing "special". For example, let's say he got a phone call that was the wrong number. It's irrelevant, right? This is because it has no meaning whatsoever to the person or anything. This is because only of the pertinent values and characteristics of the person, etc. There is no further fact or "special" thing about coincidences. Shit happens - that is all. I did ignore a few things you said, but only because they seem more relevant in the other thread. My focus in this thread is simply to discuss the vices of experience and consciousness. Nothing more really. Flat out - do you agree that the sense and consciousness have flaws? If no, then can you claim that anything with a consciousness is a perfect being? ~

[really]

"Could be" and "illusions" are very vague and broad concepts which do not help define or help to come to understand anything. It only limits our ability to understand. Please stop trying to be difficult. Language is metaphor. You're still not distinguish it though! How can you distinguish awareness; distinguish potentiality? It is intangible and prior to the very act of doing so. What is aware of existence? Is it some form of plastic? An ice-cream cone? Are our souls all made of air-conditioners? Wrong. Flat out wrong. Consciousness is the senses. This is simple scientific fact. Without the brain, you would not have consciousness. It is that simple. That is all it is. I'm speaking of consciousness, as in - awareness and being. What is aware of the senses? Do you know about the cogito? If it were otherwise, than anything with "energy" would have consciousness (eg. a rock) but a rock does not have consciousness. If you want to argue that it does, the fact remains that you are unable to distinguish it from the humans consciousness. Thus, you do not have any formal definition. Consciousness is the life-force, the intelligence of growth and evolution. Through this is the capacity to be aware. This is essential, it is not intellectual. It is spiritual - the spirit of life. Oh my. I don't know how many times this has to come up. This is the exact same thing you can say about nothingness. I cannot talk about something that doesn't exist. The intangibile may be described as nothingness, but it is not in itself nothing. What is potential? What is Love? They are formless and invisible, this is not "nothingness" anymore than your own awareness is. (However sometimes non-duality implies that awareness is neither something nor nothing, and it is both. I like to simplify this, in that nothingness is actually non-existent.) Distinguish the "truth" from nothingness. Truth is that which is true, it exists, it is Real. Truth is subjective and intangible, as all Reality. Whereas, nothing is nothing, it does not exist at all. The only reason I ask is because you obviously cannot give a foundational definition. If I just say, "Oh, I believe in X, which is beyond reason. I cannot tell you what it is, but someday you will realize it and maybe know" what would you think? X is not comparable to this. There are too many variables. You cannot imitate this whole matter with a such a hypothesis, it is quite ignorant. What I think is irrelevant. Ask person Q what he/she thinks. Okay, as far as this thread is concerned though - we can agree that just experience alone and meditation alone is not the only means to understanding this. You require an interaction and collection of both your personal thoughts and discussion with others, etc. Right..? A huge discussion is not necessary, but it may be a great help, to the mind. On the other hand, it could be hell - the mind tries to know and understand everything, when it can't. The contemplation and intention behind one's thinking changes with intent. One's awareness is shifted, the spiritual "will" may become radically strong and unreasonable. What you are describing is a commonly known scientific problem called "bias". Science does it's best to avoid this via double-blind studies which work very effectively. This method removes the possibility of any form of presumptions or assumptions. How can you assume something about something in a double-blind study? How can you assume something about something? Well, you get my point. Careful of bias, whatever it is called. Of course you do. You would not have to prove yourself to someone who already believes you. What the hell is this about? You do not care if you have no reason to believe what you believe? I have no reason to believe according to who? What do you think I am? I believe in this, because I believe in "I". That is what it is about. Have you been paying attention? You completely misunderstand me then. My entire point in this thread is that sometimes teachers are the best form of learning. Please reconsider my point. Lol, then please reconsider your point too. And before saying somebody speaks garbage, actually look into what they're saying. Because, it is comforting. Too bad it has no reason. It is comforting, to what? Through what method and purpose? That couch is comfortable. I am not complaining. No need to intellectualize it and cause yourself trouble. In spirituality, nobody who is truly interested thinks it is unreasonable (no reason to believe), that is contradictory. Yes, it may be meaningful but only because of the person and situation, nothing "special". For example, let's say he got a phone call that was the wrong number. It's irrelevant, right? This is because it has no meaning whatsoever to the person or anything. This is because only of the pertinent values and characteristics of the person, etc. There is no further fact or "special" thing about coincidences. Like I said, meaning arises from context. To the mystics, all is unfolding perfectly, in perfectly synchronous operation. All in the universe is united together, all affects everything else, whether one person sees meaning in all or none at all. This brings up karma, which I won't go into. Shit happens - that is all. Really? Sounds like a pretty shit universe. All in the light of awareness. I did ignore a few things you said, but only because they seem more relevant in the other thread. My focus in this thread is simply to discuss the vices of experience and consciousness. Nothing more really. I already know you usually skip things. If you're interested, please consider what I have to say, in the context I am saying it. No drama to add to the topic, even if it is off. Otherwise, don't ask questions that are irrelevant to begin with. Flat out - do you agree that the sense and consciousness have flaws? If no, then can you claim that anything with a consciousness is a perfect being? Senses have flaws, awareness and being is flawless. Awareness and being has no demands, and it is effortless. This is the core of consciousness.

[Adam24]

Consciousness is facilitated by the senses. I thought this was obvious, sorry. Without any senses, you would not have consciousness (eg. death). Regardless if you believe this or not (it is true though) the fact remains that your consciousness has flaws in understand and perception. ~ Conciousness may be effected by the senses but it is not created by them, thats an extreme view of an empiricist. If you mean consiousness of the real world then that is true, but if all senses are suddenly removed due to a fault of the brain one would not simply die. A flower lives, if it had reason then it would not need senses to be concious. Are you attacking senses, reason, or the two combined? and if both less extreme values are in order to balance the argument.

[Adam24]

I started to read all the posts but i couldnt be bothered with all the childish arguements. @ o'nus: I can't quite see where your making the link between conciousness and senses. Please explain.

[really]

(The persona is not God. But they are god like.) I'm not sure I understand. Not fully. My trouble lies in the all knowing. Sometimes it is called all-knowing awareness, as a "knowingness" that arises. It is a consequence of Pure Awareness; the enormous intuition, having realized the Source of the Universe. This essential knowledge is all-knowing because it is the realization of ones Source, which is everywhere present. It is not the same as academic knowledge or data to be "acquired" about the material world. It is the ineffable knowing, of the essential Truth: As It Is. This is how I understand it, and how it has generally been described. As well as the fact that Enlightenment is always perceived as whole, good, Agape? As non dualistic, No good or no evil. It just is what it is. But that is not the case in "god like" is it? Yeah, it is said to be good and True, but this is also neither good nor bad. I understand this is hard to comprehend, because it is non-dualistic. But for the sake of the mind, you could say it is good, and all is good. But when it is realized, that is just the Truth, it is not the opposite of bad. When there is no "bad" left, there is no use calling anything "good", I guess. I understand this as God-like because, God is all-benevolent, all-forgiving and loving, in this sense that the Truth is not excluded from anybody but through what is termed "ignorance." I have also heard that many that truly are do not really seek to teach others, as they do not have an agenda -good or bad. Is that accurate? It is a basic 50/50 that anyone enlightened will continue functioning in the "world" (as we know it ), and those who do "stay", don't necessarily have to become spiritual teachers. If they became teachers, they wouldn't have an "agenda", in its typical definition (E.g. non-profit orginizations), I believe they simply do it for its own sake, because they're loving to all and can serve a great purpose if they have the advanced capacity to do so. They have no interest in "converting" or manipulating peoples beliefs, what people wear, or anything like a cult or false-guru would desire to do. We agree then. I'm glad you see my point. But before you run off, can you please answer my questions (especially the ones I have repeated)? I don't understand why I have to beg you, we are discussing, aren't we? I am interested too, you know. However, I would like to take our discussion of the spirit to a separate thread. I hope you understand. ~ I understand. But I see nothing new there; nothing much I can add. I have been over this already, and you agree with me on the crux.

[Cyclic13]

How about looking more into the inconsistencies in the fundamentals of our "reality" caused by the conscious observation or expectation of quantum events? FAR more intriguing and promising than exposing sensory limitations.

[Xei]

How about looking more into the inconsistencies in the fundamentals of our "reality" caused by the conscious observation or expectation of quantum events? What is the wavelength of an electron accelerated from rest by a p.d. of 1eV?

[Cyclic13]

What is the wavelength of an electron accelerated from rest by a p.d. of 1eV? λ=1.23 nm Although, I'm not concerned about the math or physics of the matter so much as what it's findings imply about "reality" and the affect of a conscious observer on it, however minuscule. Imagine if we had a certain tool or chemical that we could give to people that takes the perceptions of a person and amplifies them. What if that amplification allowed them to slightly change the foundations of their reality through observation. I wonder what kind of perceptual shifting mechanisms could be out there?

[O'nus]

λ=1.23 nm Although, I'm not concerned about the math or physics of the matter so much as what it's findings imply about "reality" and the affect of a conscious observer on it, however minuscule. Imagine if we had a certain tool or chemical that we could give to people that takes the perceptions of a person and amplifies them. What if that amplification allowed them to slightly change the foundations of their reality through observation. I wonder what kind of perceptual shifting mechanisms could be out there? Stop doing drugs! ~

[O'nus]

How about looking more into the inconsistencies in the fundamentals of our "reality" caused by the conscious observation or expectation of quantum events? FAR more intriguing and promising than exposing sensory limitations. Yeah. I suppose it is just a much more exhausting endeavor. I feel almost inadequate to question reality itself. As an empiricist, I would likely through my trust to the scientific quantum mechanics. Thus, my capability is dwarfed as I know very little of the subject.. That guy seems much more well spoken than those on "What the bleep do we know". ~

[Xaqaria]

Yeah. I suppose it is just a much more exhausting endeavor. I feel almost inadequate to question reality itself. As an empiricist, I would likely through my trust to the scientific quantum mechanics. Thus, my capability is dwarfed as I know very little of the subject.. That guy seems much more well spoken than those on "What the bleep do we know". ~ Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is extremely simple to understand and then ponder over its ramifications. It is a good place to start when trying to get into the realm of scientifically questioning reality (instead of just consuming hallucinogens).

[O'nus]

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is extremely simple to understand and then ponder over its ramifications. It is a good place to start when trying to get into the realm of scientifically questioning reality (instead of just consuming hallucinogens). I laughed pretty hard at this, lol ~

[Cyclic13]

Those cynically chastising me for wanting to push the perceptual limits, act as if it's not possible to scientifically question things while also actively participating in your own personal reality expanding experiment. Science has shown there is no separation for the observer so you might as well take it to the lengths of perception and see where you can go in affecting reality. I don't fear taking the next step in pushing the boundaries of experience and perception. Hallucinate, comes from "hallucinari" or "to wander in mind" Why worry or fear wandering your mind? Timidly following yellow brick roads already laid out for you by others will lead you only to results had by others that took a risk to wander within. Traversing a road less traveled is often where innovation and new ways to look at the world and yourself are born. Many don't know that the person who discovered the helix for DNA, Francis Crick, admitted he discovered it while on LSD. While you sit and cynically scoff at hallucinogens, I respect them for the reality morphing and sculpting tools that they are and have been in our evolutionary development. Honestly, you shouldn't knock it until you try it. Otherwise, all it shows is how scared and ignorant of it's uses you are. (Part 2);(Part 3)