GENIUS FORUMS

I can't believe that anyone would believe this. Is this saying that a Lego house is really some lego blocks?

It means that no thing exists of itself (is its own cause). Another way to look at it is things being illusory because they have no true beginning or end. Where does your keyboard begin/end? It's impossible to demonstrate this beyond the inferential level of brute perception. The only answer is: where it appears to. But what is this appearance?

Dan Rowden wrote:It means that no thing exists of itself (is its own cause). Another way to look at it is things being illusory because they have no true beginning or end. Where does your keyboard begin/end? It's impossible to demonstrate this beyond the inferential level of brute perception. The only answer is: where it appears to. But what is this appearance?

Is that it? Of course that is wrong. Sentience is its own cause. Sentience pushes the car, but nothing pushes sentience. Easy.

Everything is an illusion -- does this not include your mind and thoughts? Or are you into a mind-body duality now?

This is more metaphysics.

Well, Quantum Physics says there's no there there. 18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad, in his hymns to Kali (his concept of the monotheistic divine is female), says that everything you see is part of a "projected matrix" out of the mind of the Goddess.

Well, ok. So, nano technology experiments have shown that 'space' is not infinitely divisible, but has 'pixels' 10 X -35 meter. Nor is the matrix infinite, but only 15 billion light years across. Or so they say. I've not been there. And down at the nanocosm, there arent any atoms, just angels, called quarks, dancing.

It seems to take 10 or 11 dimensions, depending on which bishop you listen to, to explain what their steps are: up, down, or strange. Then too, cyberspace is monodimensional; just a string of bits. And being mono-dimensional, can penetrate to any other combination of dimensions, which- if you see this message, is one of them. Which may, or may not, be the same matrix you get to see.

In my reality matrix, Ramprasad wrote that there are a myriad worlds. So, there may be one just as you conceive it to be. And maybe some that were created by Jehovah in seven days, with Jesus coming back, and all the rest. Even an eternity with a harp and a halo, or a wholy whorehouse with 12 year old virgins to fuck forever. Whatever floats your boat. Lego blocks dont sound too difficult either.

I could be wearing a visor over my head, and be stuck in a simulation, but my sentience is still real.

Your sentience is the One Sentience. It is not truly yours.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:It means that no thing exists of itself (is its own cause). Another way to look at it is things being illusory because they have no true beginning or end. Where does your keyboard begin/end? It's impossible to demonstrate this beyond the inferential level of brute perception. The only answer is: where it appears to. But what is this appearance?

Is that it? Of course that is wrong. Sentience is its own cause. Sentience pushes the car, but nothing pushes sentience. Easy.

How exactly does sentience cause itself? Or are you saying sentience is eternal?

Neil Melnyk wrote:Everything is an illusion -- does this not include your mind and thoughts? Or are you into a mind-body duality now?

Why would I exclude anything other than the Totality? I don't get your position here - are you arguing things do have inherent existence?

Dan Rowden wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:Everything is an illusion -- does this not include your mind and thoughts? Or are you into a mind-body duality now?

Why would I exclude anything other than the Totality? I don't get your position here - are you arguing things do have inherent existence?

Perhaps it is an illusion that everything is an illusion.

Carl G wrote:Your sentience is the One Sentience. It is not truly yours.

Proof?

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:Everything is an illusion -- does this not include your mind and thoughts? Or are you into a mind-body duality now?

Why would I exclude anything other than the Totality? I don't get your position here - are you arguing things do have inherent existence?

Perhaps it is an illusion that everything is an illusion.

Well, that's the next step on the reasoning trail - that the duality of illusory/real is itself false dualistic thinking. But I think that's a step too far, too soon, for most people.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:It means that no thing exists of itself (is its own cause). Another way to look at it is things being illusory because they have no true beginning or end. Where does your keyboard begin/end? It's impossible to demonstrate this beyond the inferential level of brute perception. The only answer is: where it appears to. But what is this appearance?

Is that it? Of course that is wrong. Sentience is its own cause. Sentience pushes the car, but nothing pushes sentience. Easy.

How exactly does sentience cause itself? Or are you saying sentience is eternal?

When we observe a particle to alter its state, the effect is instant, and the twin response can instantly cross the universe. Time has no meaning to sentience. So it is eternal.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Carl G wrote:Your sentience is the One Sentience. It is not truly yours.

Proof?

That's 100 Proof, my friend. Straight up. Cheers.

Dan Rowden wrote: Well, that's the next step on the reasoning trail - that the duality of illusory/real is itself false dualistic thinking. But I think that's a step too far, too soon, for most people.

Okay so we agree that nothing is an illusion. Can you now justify calling emotions delusional?

Carl G wrote:Your sentience is the One Sentience. It is not truly yours.

when we observe a particle, we are the observer. Nobody else is observing the particle. Therefore, we have our own sentience.

We borrow a portion of the One Sentience. Or more accurately we temporarily embody a portion of IT.

Neil,

Okay so we agree that nothing is an illusion. Can you now justify calling emotions delusional?

Dan's right. You're not ready to deal with such a question until you understand the manner in which all things are illusory.

-

Carl G wrote:We borrow a portion of the One Sentience. Or more accurately we embody a portion of IT.

How do you know there aren't Two Sentiences and that we borrow from one or another depending on random number generators being run by a Third -exclusive- Sentience?

David,

NM: Okay so we agree that nothing is an illusion. Can you now justify calling emotions delusional?

DQ: Dan's right. You're not ready to deal with such a question until you understand the manner in which all things are illusory.

Did Dan say anything about me not being read to deal with this question? :-S

Dan said:

Well, that's the next step on the reasoning trail - that the duality of illusory/real is itself false dualistic thinking. But I think that's a step too far, too soon, for most people.

It seems to to me that the world is neither illusionary or real -- from our perspective. This dualistic thinking is false because we simply are in no position to make a value judgment as to how real or illusionary our world is. It isn't possible for us.

I asked Dan how he can deem emotions delusional after admitting what he did.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Carl G wrote:We borrow a portion of the One Sentience. Or more accurately we embody a portion of IT.

How do you know there aren't Two Sentiences and that we borrow from one or another depending on random number generators being run by a Third -exclusive- Sentience?

Because you're One stupid fuckhead who just wants to be trouble.

Carl G wrote:We borrow a portion of the One Sentience. Or more accurately we temporarily embody a portion of IT.

A cog belongs to a single clock. Not all the clocks around it. A spinning particle is a cog. We spin the cog sentiently. The cog can turn clockwise or anti-clockwise, and we know that it is a single particle, and not a shared particle. The rotation is also in an eternal state of both directions, and also disobeys time laws, and nature. Therfore, we can actually see with our own equipment that we are spinning something that is not shared with the One sentience. And we can also see that it had no cause to spin, and that it had no cause to choose a direction.

Neil,

It seems to to me that the world is neither illusionary or real -- from our perspective. This dualistic thinking is false because we simply are in no position to make a value judgment as to how real or illusionary our world is. It isn't possible for us.

I asked Dan how he can deem emotions delusional after admitting what he did.

The trouble is, you don't really understand what it means that things are neither illusory nor illusory, and that is because you don't understand the way in which things are illusory and the way in which they are real. The way Dan understands these things is entirely different to your own current understanding.

You're like a kindergarten kid trying to criticize quantum physics without bothering to study classical physics first. You're reaching up from a faulty, incomplete understanding.

-

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: Well, that's the next step on the reasoning trail - that the duality of illusory/real is itself false dualistic thinking. But I think that's a step too far, too soon, for most people.

Okay so we agree that nothing is an illusion.

I don't agree to that at all unless you're understanding it exactly the way I do and I know you don't.

Can you now justify calling emotions delusional?

Because emotions arise out of the delusional belief in an inherently existing self. Without such a belief there's no place for emotions to find cause or reason (other than lingering mental habits which manifest as a subtle form of dissonance).

Dan,

Because emotions arise out of the delusional belief in an inherently existing self. Without such a belief there's no place for emotions to find cause or reason (other than lingering mental habits which manifest as a subtle form of dissonance).

Many people don't believe they have an inherently existing "soul" or "self" and still have emotions. I don't understand why something must be inherently existing to love it, or why one must be inherently existing to love whereas thinking, for example, is excluded from this.