It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Vanity of Enlightenment

page: 19
34
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I'm not trying to separate our universe from the multiverse, that can't be because the universe is subjugated to the multiverse... in other words it is part of it.

I am trying to separate our universe from other universes in the multiverse. I can see how you could mix that up reading what I said but this is what I mean. If our universe is infinite, how is it possible for there to be other infinite universes?

I'm already having a hard time attaching words to concepts because there just aren't fixed definitions for any of these words. I don't even know what I mean when I say our universe is infinite... is it physically infinite, or infinite infinite?




posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Maybe they are all just bubbles popping in and popping out of existence, some are created by others popping, everything is cyclic, that is one thing to remember, it is also a fractal! "Planck Scale" is only theory!
edit on 14-2-2013 by 1nf1del because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


Originally posted by Wang Tang
...still exists in ErgoTheConclusion's mind, so it still exists in a certain capacity.

The universe is simply the container...

I've trimmed your post down to that which I feel I can confidently verify.... with modifications that reduce it to what *I* can verify without relying on any input from any "other observer beliefs".

On this level, I will agree with you. It's not that I actually believe the universe *doesn't* exist... it's simply the honest recognition of what I can *actually and honestly and without any cognitive dancing verify*. Especially given my current experience and perspectives as a game developer and where our "simulation" capabilities are trending towards.

I don't know if I'm anything more than a World of Warcraft NPC character performing observations and experiments on a "universe" that can utterly change on a whim of some outside observer/programmer/player. I don't necessarily *believe* that to be so, but I simply can't verify it either way and so have to leave it as an honestly unanswered and currently for myself... unanswerable question.

You are correct that it's really more a debate on what each individual is willing to set their threshold on what it means to be "verified". I can verify that I'm experiencing *something*. Beyond that, I'm not willing to commit anything else because I've consistently had that boundary violated when I honestly tested it.
edit on 14-2-2013 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I see. So let's say our physical bodies exist in a computer simulation and all of our physical interactions are simulated and can be manipulated by an outside power.

So our physical bodies may not exist, but we cannot rationally conclude "we don't exist," because we must exist to some capacity. As Descartes said "I think, therefore I am," so there must be some object that causes us to think. This object, I recognize as the mind.

Our mind must exist then, and it also must exist somewhere. Our minds can't simply exist in nothingness. This place where our minds exist, I would also call the universe.

The problem is I'm dealing with the realm of possibility here and I feel like I'm expanding the definition of universe... but for now I stand by my belief that the universe is a fact. I'll have to think this through more later.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wang Tang
I see. So let's say our physical bodies exist in a computer simulation and all of our physical interactions are simulated and can be manipulated by an outside power.

So our physical bodies may not exist, but we cannot rationally conclude "we don't exist," because we must exist to some capacity. As Descartes said "I think, therefore I am," so there must be some object that causes us to think. This object, I recognize as the mind.

Our mind must exist then, and it also must exist somewhere. Our minds can't simply exist in nothingness. This place where our minds exist, I would also call the universe.

The problem is I'm dealing with the realm of possibility here and I feel like I'm expanding the definition of universe... but for now I stand by my belief that the universe is a fact. I'll have to think this through more later.


Maybe we are nothing more then a dream, electrical signals no different then what we are made of, same signals in your brain, what if we are living in a fractal?



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wang Tang
 

Beautiful response. I definitely agree there is an unarguable "something" that is the "root" of "me" that is utterly and absolutely and forever "real" no matter how many simulations deep "I" choose to "go".

Every attempt to penetrate what exactly that is, is of course met with illusion after illusion after illusion. So to follow up with that... I would like to elaborate on a previous idea you expressed.


Originally posted by Wang Tang
Here's the simplest definition I can give you... the entity that holds our planets, solar systems, and galaxies is the universe.

I simply don't know whether *I* am that entity which holds the planets, solar systems, and galaxies... or whether it is something "outside" of me.

I know that I wouldn't be *aware* of the planets, solar systems, and galaxies without me... so on one level they simply wouldn't exist as far as I know unless I believed they exist.

Whether that means they exist when I don't believe they exist or not is something I simply can't prove because I've yet... by pure necessity of definition... to come across something I don't believe exists. So is my belief keeping the planets where they are, or are the planets mandating my belief? I simply can't ever resolve that question because inherent in "knowing" is "believing". You don't know anything to be true you don't also believe to be true.

Chicken and Egg. Belief and Knowing.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 




With this one take Vanity and multiply it x 3.141 f=gd. Good luck.


Wow. That post made you sound so thoughtful and intelligent. I wish I was as smarts as you is.


And you would know.
You are running some arguments here that are impressive thoughtful and intelligent. I suppose you might be as smarts as me (my wishful thinking alas).
edit on 14-2-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   
"The Seven Deadly Sins of Enlightenment", are a problem that most Buddhist practitioners would not even acknowledge as a possibility, but they are responsible for shaping a side of Buddhism that is never talked about.

As grand as it is, Buddhism is still a religion for practical purposes. I'm not sure that is what the Buddha intended it to be, but that is what it is in our time. I personally believe that the Buddha, like Jesus, or perhaps even Mohammed, would be shocked at what has become of what they gave to the world.

There are many people practicing Buddhism today who do not see a difference between Buddhism and the human potential movement. However, if they want to disabuse themselves of an incorrect apprehension of the facts, they would do well to ask themselves if there is a difference between the human potential movement and any other religion.

Buddhism is a religion, just like all the others, in certain important respects.

I don't say that idly or lightly. An animal can be in a stall, in a holding pen, in a corral or on the range of a hundred thousand acre ranch and still be fenced in, though in the last case they may never become aware of it. Buddhism is like that. It's a religion in the way it is practiced in our time. It was purpose built. It is not the human potential movement.

In some ways Buddhism is better than the wildest utopian fantasy and in other ways it is worse than the worst dystopian nightmare. The problem with the "fine print" in Buddhism is that there is no "fine print".

I'm still glad to be Buddhist, but . . . .

"Enlightenment", in the Buddhist sense, is not for everyone. It is for serious renunciates.

No matter how thoroughly one polishes a mirror, it always has to reflect the world. That reflection is difficult to bear and is only the start of the difficulties for "heroic spirits".

There is a lot of politics and mischief at all spiritual levels, as in every other walk of life. Buddhas leave everything behind. Bodhisattvas slog on through the politics and mischief.

I could say a lot more about this theme but I don't think it would be helpful. People frown on this kind of talk, people who can reach out and "touch you".



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 



Yes, you don't know much, but you're assuming that your failed attempts mean a method doesn't work at all. That is quite vain if you ask me.

You keep saying I've failed. That's simply not true. If not achieving enlightenment is failure, then everyone is a failure. I don't agree with that at all. In fact, I am better off because of my discoveries. Maybe you have succeeded where I haven't? I would doubt that, because you're still here arguing for 'enlightenment' but with nothing of substance. Maybe you're still stuck on the treadmill, so to say, running, but to no where. That's your path, not mine.


Obviously, everybody has thoughts when they sleep. It's called "dreaming" and happens every night. You might not remember, but a healthy brain does dream.

Yes I dream often, and you rightfully pointed out that we in fact cannot stop thinking, only focusing. I don't understand where you were going with this, or what point you're trying to make here.


Your little detour in semantics is cute, but a bit on the childish side. What you're saying is basically a rose is a rose is a rose. I knew that ... lol. But, a single phenomenon that displays contrary properties creates a paradox.

Let me simplify for you: water is wet, but not dry. Dry water does not exist. No paradox. A photon with 0 mass is a particle AND a wave. That is a true paradox because the two properties are mutually exclusive. So in essence light can behave like dry water ...

And I can behave like a horse or a dog or a cat—that doesn't mean I am something I'm not. If you said light is water, you would be speaking a contradiction and paradox. You might have to admit to yourself that Quantum mechanics is something that doesn't relate to enlightenment, and you are resorting to the common psuedoscientific tactic of trying to use quantum mechanics to make your assertions more credible. I look at this mentality with complete mistrust and contempt.

Here is what we're arguing about:
- enlightenment
- vanity
- those who call themselves enlightened are vain


Here's what we're not arguing about:
- the behavior of photons



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



Here is what we're arguing about:
- enlightenment
- vanity
- those who call themselves enlightened are vain


Anyone who is "enlightened" in any capacity has no reason to declare it. It's on the same par as sexuality - that's your business, and no one else is interested in hearing it. Good on you, but keep it to yourself. It makes you sound obnoxious.

I guess that's where the vanity comes in. I try not to, but this is a site where people aren't offended by stuff like that, so I'm more open with my advice and suggestions. But I will never ever say that my way is the only way, the best way, or even a definite way. It's worked for me, but maybe it will only work for me. I hope to point out the best stuff in an attempt to make parallels that people will learn from, but in the end, it's my story, and it will never happen the exact same way again.

Which is why it sounds obnoxious when people talk about enlightenment because they act as though their methods are a tried and proven technique. Mental yoga just doesn't appeal to some people, and then the vanity shows when others see this and say, "But you'll never truly know yourself and the world if you don't do this!"

I try to avoid that. Whatever works for you, works for you. I just offer my thoughts. Take it or leave it. And from what I've seen of your posts, LesMisanthrope, I don't think you're really suffering for not being what people call "enlightened". And you know, I'm just glad that your skeptical standpoint provides fodder for an intellectual conversation. It's good to see the other side of the fence, if only to remind me of the flaws on my side.

edit on 14-2-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Enlightenment is the end of feeling like there is something missing. It is the end of trying to become something.
It is the end of looking for that secret we just can't seem to get hold of.

The problem is if one is looking for enlightenment - one is seeking. It is the seeking which makes the apparent separation happen. Only when the seeking stops will there be the realization of oneness.

youtu.be...



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Maybe we are nothing more then a dream, electrical signals no different then what we are made of, same signals in your brain, what if we are living in a fractal?


In this world the dream still exists, the electrical signals still exist; so even if we are simply electrical signals in a dream world we would still exist.

If our perception is just a dreamworld, then how do we define "universe?" Is the universe the expanse of our dreamworld, or the expanse of actual reality?

I'm not sure what you mean by living in a fractal, not familiar with the term.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



Enlightenment is the end of feeling like there is something missing. It is the end of trying to become something.
It is the end of looking for that secret we just can't seem to get hold of.


I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying I disagree, or at the very least, I don't understand. Many people feel they are complete, and yet you would say they are not "enlightened". This, again, implies that "enlightenment" is purely subjective.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Many people feel they are complete, and yet you would say they are not "enlightened". This, again, implies that "enlightenment" is purely subjective.




I would not say anyone is or is not enlightened. There are no enlightened people.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

I simply don't know whether *I* am that entity which holds the planets, solar systems, and galaxies... or whether it is something "outside" of me.

I know that I wouldn't be *aware* of the planets, solar systems, and galaxies without me... so on one level they simply wouldn't exist as far as I know unless I believed they exist.



The fact that we percieve them indicates that they exist in some capacity. You know that you exist because you have the ability to think. Therefore, your perception exists, and everything you percieve exists in some capacity.

If we percieve a physical object, say, a polar bear, we know that it exists in the physical realm. We also know that even if our physical realm is not true reality, it still exists, so anything that exists within the physical realm also exists.

Now if we start asking is the polar bear real, that is a whole other issue. Our idea of a polar bear is its physical manifestation as a giant furry majestic white bear that lives in the Arctic and drinks Coca Cola. This physical manifestation may not be its true form, and we can never know what its true form is, but we can know that there is an underlying form behind the physical manifestation of a polar bear.

If we live in a computer simulation, then the true form of a polar bear would be a specific set of rules and codes.

So you are the entity which holds planets, solar systems, and galaxies, and although their true form may be different from what you percieve, the fact that you percieve them indicates that they exist.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


If I were to postulate that nothing exists outside of my mind, how would you prove me wrong?



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


If I were to postulate that nothing exists outside of my mind, how would you prove me wrong?


How can you exist in nothingness?



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


If I were to postulate that nothing exists outside of my mind, how would you prove me wrong?


To whom would you postulate that truth to if nothing or nobody existed outside your mind? Therefore, if there was nothingness then you would not be postulating.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I always keep that possibility open.

But is it me in your mind, or you in my mind, or someone else's mind that holds the entirety of our existence.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wang Tang
How can you exist in nothingness?

Same way "everything" exists in nothingness.







 
34
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join