If "everything is energy" then what does this mean?

[godnotgod]

You are actually intolerable. While you are assuming Descartes, 'me', 'you' etc. etc, you unceasingly preach, teach, and berate so-called others for their so called ignorance.

This is a forum. Is it permissible to question and challenge the premises others operate upon or not?

YOU are the one insisting there is a self on both ends of this conversation. All I am saying to you is that it is an assumption on your part as a challenge to what I see as erroneous logic. You want to tell me I am experiencing duality, and I am merely asking you to show me this 'experiencer of the experience' that is occurring in duality. Duality is an illusion, so where is this so called 'I' that is experiencing it? If that gets you angry, why do you then blame me?


Søren Kierkegaard's critique [of Descartes's cogito ergo sum]
The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

• "x" thinks
• I am that "x"
• Therefore I think
• Therefore I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

 

[idav]

Is it not obvious to you that the moment you think 'something', you MUST, by default, also include 'nothing'?

No why do you think its necessary? Even empty space is not nothing.

Why do you assume that reality MUST be made of 'something', especially in light of the findings of QM?

Because reality can be observed. Not always detected by our five senses but detected one way or another.

Maybe it makes little sense to the rational mind, simply because nature is not patterned after Reason. Surely you must have seen enough of what QM has revealed to know that by now.

Despite how crazy nature can be there are still ways to observe and calculate it.

 

[godnotgod]

No why do you think its necessary? Even empty space is not nothing.

Then it is not empty, but space itself, sans whatever it contains, is still nothing.

It is not possible to conceptualize 'something', without 'nothing'. 'Something' is the foreground, and 'Nothing' the background. You only focus on 'something' while ignoring the background, which is passive and already in place even before bringing 'something' into conscious attention. It is the default field against which all 'things' are seen and understood as 'things'.

Because reality can be observed. Not always detected by our five senses but detected one way or another.

We used to think 'reality' was solid materiality, but now think otherwise due to QM. So material reality is not reality, even though it can be detected and observed.

Despite how crazy nature can be there are still ways to observe and calculate it.

Descriptive facts and data about nature are not what the nature of Reality is. I am not the color of my eyes, hair, weight, height, race, etc. I am not my history. You are not observing and calculating nature; your are observing and calculating characteristics and behavior about nature as a means of predictability.

The problem as I see it, is that the discriminating mind is always and forever attempting to attach to something it can 'make sense' of via creating concepts about it, and then proceeding to try to 'figure out' nature in terms of it's conceptual framework, and not the other way around. It does not understand to simply see things as they are, because if it could, it would no longer be required.

 

[idav]

Then it is not empty, but space itself, sans whatever it contains, is still nothing.

Right and this nothing holds you to the earth.

We used to think 'reality' was solid materiality, but now think otherwise due to QM. So material reality is not reality, even though it can be detected and observed.

QM doesn't change the structure of reality, it changes the fact that it can be in simultaneous places and times at the once.

Descriptive facts and data about nature are not what the nature of Reality is. I am not the color of my eyes, hair, weight, height, race, etc. I am not my history. You are not observing and calculating nature; your are observing and calculating characteristics and behavior about nature as a means of predictability.

All calculation are only bits of information about any given object. Whether I'm seeing the frequency your molecules are vibrating in which create the idea of color or I'm seeing you in regards to heat via infrared, they are all just methods of perceiving the same thing, neither are false but neither give a full picture. All methods of observation would need to be utilized to get a full, omniscient picture. No one is claiming we can know everything about something but giving credence to what can be observed.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If there is no snake in the mind, do you see only the rope?

The thought of a snake can pop into one's mind due to the similarities the rope and snake both share. Or a person could be walking through grass and already have a fear of snakes. That fear can trigger the senses to percieve an illusion of a snake if they were to see a rope lying in the grass. Either way there is a stimuli.

 

[godnotgod]

The thought of a snake can pop into one's mind due to the similarities the rope and snake both share. Or a person could be walking through grass and already have a fear of snakes. That fear can trigger the senses to percieve an illusion of a snake if they were to see a rope lying in the grass. Either way there is a stimuli.

You didn't answer the question:

If there is no snake in the mind, do you see only the rope?

 

[Runewolf1973]

You didn't answer the question:

If there is no snake in the mind, do you see only the rope?

What do you mean by "snake in the mind"?

 

[godnotgod]

Right and this nothing holds you to the earth.

It's a wonderful kind of Nothing, but is still Nothing: Pure Virgin Nothing, out of which Everything comes. How could it be any other way? Think, but think hard, hard enough to pierce the facade and break through to the other side. Just get past all the baggage of math, science, and conceptual thought. Let's put the toolboxes aside for awhile so we can SEE things as they are. They'll still be there when you return, providing a fresh look.

QM doesn't change the structure of reality, it changes the fact that it can be in simultaneous places and times at the once.

It changes what we thought the structure of reality was, adding possibility to our view.

All calculation are only bits of information about any given object. Whether I'm seeing the frequency your molecules are vibrating in which create the idea of color or I'm seeing you in regards to heat via infrared, they are all just methods of perceiving the same thing, neither are false but neither give a full picture. All methods of observation would need to be utilized to get a full, omniscient picture. No one is claiming we can know everything about something but giving credence to what can be observed.

Apparently, the measurement problem in QM is still unsolved:

https://www.quora.com/Does-decoherence-solve-the-measurement-problem-in-quantum-theory

 

[godnotgod]

What do you mean by "snake in the mind"?

From where does the image of 'snake' first arise when there is no actual snake present?

 

[Runewolf1973]

From where does the image of 'snake' first arise when there is no actual snake present?

It arises in the mind since the illusion is a sensory distortion. It is however brought on or initiated by the stimuli which is the rope.

 

[godnotgod]

It arises in the mind since the illusion is a sensory distortion. It is however brought on or initiated by the stimuli which is the rope.

Does it exist first in the mind or first in the rope?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Does it exist first in the mind or first in the rope?

The snake, which is the illusion only exists in the mind. It is the rope (the stimuli) which comes first..

 

[idav]

Apparently, the measurement problem in QM is still unsolved:

https://www.quora.com/Does-decoherence-solve-the-measurement-problem-in-quantum-theory

Your misunderstanding. When we see color, what we are seeing really is the frequency at which the atom is vibrating based on how it reflects the photons coming form any light source. Any observed thing whether observed via our senses or instruments are clues.

Quantum states have been observed as shown in quantum computing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22336-quantum-measurements-leave-schrodingers-cat-alive/

 

[godnotgod]

The snake, which is the illusion only exists in the mind. It is the rope (the stimuli) which comes first..

OK, so it sounds like seeing the rope as a snake is just a mistake. So is it possible, even with the image of the snake in the mind, to see the rope as a rope, and not as a snake?

 

[Runewolf1973]

OK, so it sounds like seeing the rope as a snake is just a mistake. So is it possible, even with the image of the snake in the mind, to see the rope as a rope, and not as a snake?

Sure, I would say it is possible. Some people are less easily fooled I guess, or maybe they have more control over their minds.

 

[idav]

OK, so it sounds like seeing the rope as a snake is just a mistake. So is it possible, even with the image of the snake in the mind, to see the rope as a rope, and not as a snake?

This is all about perception. Perceiving something is not the question. Seeing or feeling something that resembles a snake, rope or elephants trunk are all valid perceptions, it only takes more knowledge for proper interpretation. A blind persons awareness may be more keen than a person seeing something because other methods of perceiving are all just as valid.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The snake, which is the illusion only exists in the mind. It is the rope (the stimuli) which comes first..

I think it's reasonable to assume a stimulus "out there", it's then a question of perception, ie recognition. In this case there is an incorrect perception, the assumption of "snake" rather than "rope".

I think this can be explained quite straightforwardly, and I don't see the need to surround experience with a load of metaphysical speculation and convolution. And of course the more mental baggage we carry about the nature of experience, the further we go from the experience itself. Being fully in the present requires dropping all the ideas we have ABOUT the present.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This is all about perception.

Exactly so. An exercise I do sometimes is consciously labelling things, eg "tree", "car", normally this process is automatic and unconscious.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure, I would say it is possible. Some people are less easily fooled I guess, or maybe they have more control over their minds.

OK. So, since seeing the rope as a snake is an incorrect view, can we call this kind of view a conditioned view?

 

[godnotgod]

This is all about perception. Perceiving something is not the question. Seeing or feeling something that resembles a snake, rope or elephants trunk are all valid perceptions, it only takes more knowledge for proper interpretation. A blind persons awareness may be more keen than a person seeing something because other methods of perceiving are all just as valid.

Yes, but one thing remains: This view that is one of perception is obviously incorrect: the rope is not a snake, and never was a snake. There is no such snake. Does 'proper interpretation' take more knowledge, or just less conditioning, and isn't knowledge actually just another form of conditioning? IOW, the rope is seen as a snake because prior knowledge about snakes is held in memory, whose image is then superimposed over reality, in this case, the image of a snake over the reality of the rope.