Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Runewolf1973]

I don't see any problems. One is just robotic and mathematical and we know that the human being's experience is beyond the robotic and mathematical.

We are all walking pseudoscientists, defying logic, reason, scientific physical laws. Some prefer to know/experience themselves deeper than that.

Again, I really do admire the simplicity but reality and experience run much deeper. There is no problem and nothing is needed, only if one wants to go beyond and discover/experience/grow and know themselves more.

I think the problem lies with those that scrutinize others for going beyond closed gates and boundaries. It's as if it's offensive to some.

Making pseudoscientific claims while presenting them as fact, at the same time expecting everyone to accept them as absolute truth without providing evidence is offensive.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You're right, but

That's really not what anyone is talking about, it's not about having all-knowledge and all of the answers. It's about knowing, understanding, and realization of oneself.

The mystics certainly pretend to have all the answers.

 

[Unification]

Making pseudoscientific claims while presenting them as fact, at the same time expecting everyone to accept them as absolute truth without providing evidence is offensive.

You seem to be stuck in the root that "reality is all science and anything not science is garbage. No science, no reality. No science, can't be fact. No science, no way it's truth."

People are making human being experience claims. The human being defies science.

No one is asking you to accept anything. The evidence is all around you and most importantly, within you. It really is very simple.

Pseudo-science simply means not science.

Science isn't all that there is.

 

[Unification]

Making pseudoscientific claims while presenting them as fact, at the same time expecting everyone to accept them as absolute truth without providing evidence is offensive.

Fact: you can see energy patterns.
This is pseudoscience:not science.

If you want a way around this, you'll say "I don't know if this is a fact." Then you're selling your human being experience short and do not know yourself. ... all for science. Just be you bud. Who gives a damn about pleasing models and others. Your experience runs deeper than that.

I accept you and this is not offensive to me. It's a human being experience beyond science, and is reality. I don't need or require you to provide evidence of what you can do. I respect you as you are, and the words that you use.

No one is asking you to accept anything, just listen and have casual conversations and reasoning with other human beings without being offended. In which case, no one is even asking you to do that.

Also, the evidence is within you and all around you and most of it most certainly isn't compatible with formulas and laws imposed by systems and mankind. Tuning off the mind a bit and just seeing yourself and your inner and external environment for as they are.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You seem to be stuck in the root that "reality is all science and anything not science is garbage. No science, no reality. No science, can't be fact. No science, no way it's truth."

People are making human being experience claims. The human being defies science.

No one is asking you to accept anything. The evidence is all around you and most importantly, within you. It really is very simple.

Pseudo-science simply means not science.

Science isn't all that there is.

Science has never claimed to have all the answers, nor is science "all there is". There is much out there that science doesn't know.

 

[Unification]

Science has never claimed to have all the answers, nor is science "all there is". There is much out there that science doesn't know.

Agree, it's beneficial to not "reify" science over inner experience.

Lol, "reify"...... Thanks Spiny!!

 

[Runewolf1973]

Fact: you can see energy patterns.
This is pseudoscience:not science.

If you want a way around this, you'll say "I don't know if this is a fact." Then you're selling your human being experience short and do not know yourself. ... all for science. Just be you bud. Who gives a damn about pleasing models and others. Your experience runs deeper than that.

I accept you and this is not offensive to me. It's a human being experience beyond science, and is reality. I don't need or require you to provide evidence of what you can do. I respect you as you are, and the words that you use.

No one is asking you to accept anything, just listen and have casual conversations and reasoning with other human beings without being offended. In which case, no one is even asking you to do that.

Also, the evidence is within you and all around you and most of it most certainly isn't compatible with formulas and laws imposed by systems and mankind. Tuning off the mind a bit and just seeing yourself and your inner and external environment for as they are.

Stop underestimating me or my degree of understanding. I never claimed my "seeing energy patterns" as fact. I believe I can see energy patterns, but I cannot provide any evidence for it. It is a belief. I don't present pseudoscience as fact, nor should anyone else.



My qualm is not with you, it is with Godnotgod who thinks his view is absolute and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Unification]

Stop underestimating me or my understanding. I never claimed my "seeing energy patterns" as fact. I believe I can see energy patterns, but I cannot provide any evidence for it. It is a belief. I don't present pseudoscience as fact, nor should anyone else.



My qualm is not with you, it is with Godnotgod who thinks his view is absolute and everyone else is wrong.

I don't underestimate you. I only make estimations based off of what you say and then turn that into communication and reasoning together.

There is a difference between scientific fact and human being experience fact.

For you, does scientific fact trump your inner experience facts? I think that it would be peaceful and relieving/liberating to not have to please a particular system or others and sell oneself short.

Almost everything that we do is belief and faith based. It's a fact that you believe you can do such. If you've ever done such, then it is a fact for you. You know it and have directly experienced and have defied current science.

He means well, it's likely that he doesn't think that you're wrong... it's just a deeper expansion of what you see as right. Going beyond what is currently seen by one. It's like a: "you're wrong that you can't go beyond and expand."

Thank you, no issues with you as well.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I don't underestimate you. I only make estimations based off of what you say and then turn that into communication and reasoning together.

There is a difference between scientific fact and human being experience fact.

For you, does scientific fact trump your inner experience facts? I think that it would be peaceful and relieving/liberating to not have to please a particular system or others and sell oneself short.

Almost everything that we do is belief and faith based. It's a fact that you believe you can do such. If you've ever done such, then it is a fact for you. You know it and have directly experienced and have defied current science.

He means well, it's likely that he doesn't think that you're wrong... it's just a deeper expansion of what you see as right. Going beyond what is currently seen by one. It's like a: "you're wrong that you can't go beyond and expand."

Thank you, no issues with you as well.

Scientific fact does not trump my inner experience, but I know inner experience cannot be presented as fact.

 

[Unification]

Scientific fact does not trump my inner experience, but I know inner experience cannot be presented as fact.

And there lies the issue of asking someone for physical evidence and proof. They can only explain something to the best of their ability to another, when it has to be experienced by the human being themselves.

The key word being "presented." While inner experiences are and can be facts, they cannot be "presented" as facts to another.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The key word being "presented." While inner experiences are and can be facts, they cannot be "presented" as facts to another.

It's providing a second definition to fact besides the usual and scientific definition of fact. You are just using the word "fact" in an expressive sense. Expressing the reliability of the spirit, the importance of it, the power of it. But logic dictates that the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, meaning that one can only reach the conclusion it is there by choosing that conclusion. Also having the option available that the spirit is not there, which is just as logically valid a conclusion.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The key word being "presented." While inner experiences are and can be facts, they cannot be "presented" as facts to another.

Yes, and it is only those who present their inner experiences as some universal fact whom I see an issue with. Everyone experiences things differently and therefore inner experience is not a reliable or consistent approach to figuring out what is real or what is not. I might be seeing those energy patterns, or it might just be my mind playing tricks. Science doesn't work like that, it searches for consistent, repeatable, testable, and observable results.

 

[Unification]

It's providing a second definition to fact besides the usual and scientific definition of fact. You are just using the word "fact" in an expressive sense. Expressing the reliability of the spirit, the importance of it, the power of it. But logic dictates that the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, meaning that one can only reach the conclusion it is there by choosing that conclusion. Also having the option available that the spirit is not there, which is just as logically valid a conclusion.

Yes, the human beings facts will differ from scientific facts.

Just as one human beings facts will differ from another human beings facts.

"expressing" and "fact" are separate.

It's what human beings do, reason amongst one another. This is done by expressing.

I don't allow a closed and limited system to define my open and unlimited experience. Think of all of those Boolean logic gates of the brain. Now think of all of them being in the open state. Think of penetration beyond those gates.

One human's mind gates being more closed off to certain things another human being's open mind gates are expressing.

I agree, both equally valid reasoning. It still doesn't change the fact the what allows one human being to experience, the same thing allows another human being to experience. Call it "spirit" or whatever. Then the ultimate discernment goes beyond that, it's having a whole and one/unified mind or a dual/separated mind or a tri/separated mind.

True, if I don't believe in something... I'll never choose to pursue it and perhaps know it. I'll process it directly into that ram file called "garbage." It by no means enables someone to automatically assume it's false on another. The mindset that "I haven't experienced it so it's false, it's not scientific so it's false."

If my mind gates were open to believing in something, I'll choose to pursue it and perhaps know it. But then there are conditions. For example, I couldn't know or experience having a pure conscious if my mind were impure. So if I'm trying to pursue something while being a hypocrite, I won't find it and I'll believe it doesn't exist, while condemning others that it doesn't exist. Logic states this is foolishness.

If one were truly logical, they'd be aware that it's pure ignorance and arrogance to judge anyone else and their experiences.

Hypothetically, let's say there are 12 gates to the brain/mind.... I am expressing with all 12 of mine open to another who has 4 gates open and 8 closed. They will more than likely be very closed off to what I am expressing because their mind is closed off to such. We cannot begin to understand what another is expressing unless our mind gates are open to such. Perhaps it's due to light/energy penetrating and opening those gates to one mind and another has not yet experienced such.

It really boils down to one knowing, realizing, and understanding themselves and their own nature before they can begin to even try to understand and know another.

 

[Unification]

Yes, and it is only those who present their inner experiences as some universal fact whom I see an issue with. Everyone experiences things differently and therefore inner experience is not a reliable or consistent approach to figuring out what is real or what is not. I might be seeing those energy patterns, or it might just be my mind playing tricks. Science doesn't work like that, it searches for consistent, repeatable, testable, and observable results.

Experience is the best reliable evidence and source.

Science doesn't work like that, science is always scrutinizing science. At least the honest science and not the scientists who assume, have agendas, images and credibility to protect.

Well, you can choose to live your life embracing your inner experiences or you can choose to maybe just think of yourself as a fraud with your mind playing tricks on you because human beings say so and dictate that dominion and control over you.

 

[Unification]

Yes, and it is only those who present their inner experiences as some universal fact whom I see an issue with. Everyone experiences things differently and therefore inner experience is not a reliable or consistent approach to figuring out what is real or what is not. I might be seeing those energy patterns, or it might just be my mind playing tricks. Science doesn't work like that, it searches for consistent, repeatable, testable, and observable results.

It seems you're trying to find an ultimate reality and objective reality while understanding that inner experiences of reality from human being to human being differ. That is a logical contradiction.

Again, science doesn't answer or will ever answer metaphysical reality because science is about the physical reality.

"Your metaphysical inner experience is false and not reality because it's not absolute scientific and physical reality."
Meanwhile being proactive for scientific absolutes while not believing in anything absolute.

All I wish to do is help you to see how silly that sounds.

 

[YmirGF]

If one were truly logical, they'd be aware that it's pure ignorance and arrogance to judge anyone else and their experiences.

Oh, come now, do try to be objective. You also might want to run this by godnotgod as he certainly seems to have very real issues in this department.

Hypothetically, let's say there are 12 gates to the brain/mind.... I am expressing with all 12 of mine open to another who has 4 gates open and 8 closed. They will more than likely be very closed off to what I am expressing because their mind is closed off to such. We cannot begin to understand what another is expressing unless our mind gates are open to such. Perhaps it's due to light/energy penetrating and opening those gates to one mind and another has not yet experienced such.

Maybe I'm just expecting too much, but I'd rather expect that someone who is on this hypothetical bleeding edge, as it were, would provide far more convincing arguments TAILORED for their intended audience. Why is it that folks have the tendency to blame their audience and never question their own communication skills?

It really boils down to one knowing, realizing, and understanding themselves and their own nature before they can begin to even try to understand and know another.

Following this through, said individuals would theoretically be able to express themselves in a compelling manner because they understand how their audience thinks. I don't see much evidence of that feature in this thread. How 'bout you?

 

[Runewolf1973]

It seems you're trying to find an ultimate reality and objective reality while understanding that inner experiences of reality from human being to human being differ. That is a logical contradiction.

Again, science doesn't answer or will ever answer metaphysical reality because science is about the physical reality.

"Your metaphysical inner experience is false and not reality because it's not absolute scientific and physical reality."
Meanwhile being proactive for scientific absolutes while not believing in anything absolute.

All I wish to do is help you to see how silly that sounds.

I am not searching for some "ultimate reality". Again you are making false assumptions about what I believe, what I know, or what my position is. I would like you to stop doing that. I have no problem if you want to make assumptions or speculations about the universe, or about what you think realty is, but DO NOT make assumptions about me because you do not know me.


I believe everything changes because science points to that as being the case. I also believe it is possible that the reason why "reality" is so elusive is that reality itself changes. The may be no such thing as "absolute". Every second, every moment a new reality emerges or becomes manifest. What is reality now will no longer be reality a second from now. Everything changes. Perhaps the only reality IS change. Perhaps the only salvation from suffering is change. We cannot live permanently amid suffering because everything changes. The Buddha wanted to find a way to end suffering. The problem is its own solution. Change causes suffering. Change also ends suffering. When you learn to embrace change instead of fearing it or avoiding it, you find true peace and freedom.

 

[Unification]

Oh, come now, do try to be objective. You also might want to run this by godnotgod as he certainly seems to have very real issues in this department.

Maybe I'm just expecting too much, but I'd rather expect that someone who is on this hypothetical bleeding edge, as it were, would provide far more convincing arguments TAILORED for their intended audience. Why is it that folks have the tendency to blame their audience and never question their own communication skills?

Following this through, said individuals would theoretically be able to express themselves in a compelling manner because they understand how their audience thinks. I don't see much evidence of that feature in this thread. How 'bout you?

Blame is not even there. Perhaps expectations and assumptions lead to just that. . something that isn't there.

The expressing that it's possible to go beyond a closed mind and it's evident that some are closed off to others ideas. Some are open to all, some are very open to expanding. Some are very closed off to any expansion. That's just how it is, it is not blaming anyone.

Its not a one man show talking to an audience. It's more so reasoning with many other human minds in which are differing. Also using different words, different meanings for words.

Some understand exactly what others are discussing here, some don't. . that is not blame.

That is also allowing the expectation that there are no ego's here, and that others are even listening to each other. In which case, not much will be compelling regardless of what words are used or what is said.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Blame is not even there. Perhaps expectations and assumptions lead to just that. . something that isn't there.

The expressing that it's possible to go beyond a closed mind and it's evident that some are closed off to others ideas. Some are open to all, some are very open to expanding. Some are very closed off to any expansion. That's just how it is, it is not blaming anyone.

Its not a one man show talking to an audience. It's more so reasoning with many other human minds in which are differing. Also using different words, different meanings for words.

Some understand exactly what others are discussing here, some don't. . that is not blame.

That is also allowing the expectation that there are no ego's here, and that others are even listening to each other. In which case, not much will be compelling regardless of what words are used or what is said.

I'm open to all sorts of possibilities. I will even entertain the possibility that Godnotgod might be right with his nothingness/changeless view. However, I will not entertain those views as fact until they can be demonsrated as being such.

 

[Unification]

I am not searching for some "ultimate reality". Again you are making false assumptions about what I believe, what I know, or what my position is. I would like you to stop doing that. I have no problem if you want to make assumptions or speculations about the universe, or about what you think realty is, but DO NOT make assumptions about me because you do not know me.


I believe everything changes because science points to that as being the case. I also believe it is possible that the reason why "reality" is so elusive is that reality itself changes. The may be no such thing as "absolute". Every second, every moment a new reality emerges or becomes manifest. What is reality now will no longer be reality a second from now. Everything changes. Perhaps the only reality IS change. Perhaps the only salvation from suffering is change. We cannot live permanently amid suffering because everything changes. The Buddha wanted to find a way to end suffering. The problem is its own solution. Change causes suffering. Change also ends suffering. When you learn to embrace change instead of fearing it or avoiding it, you find true peace and freedom.

I am not making false assumptions about you. I'm going off of what you "say."

"Universal." "Consistent." "Reality."

And then you go on to discuss "change" and pretty much nothing being universal and consistent.

Science as universal, consistent, and the absolute factor of what reality is, and then back to the contrary.

I do really like what you wrote in the second paragraph.