Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is awareness independent of any brain thought process, yes.

Yeah, I know, awareness requires a brain; but not when it is you, because you are special.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, I know, awareness requires a brain; but not when it is you, because you are special.

Well don't winge about me, go do daily meditation for a few years and see for your self. The transcended mind state is a subjective experience, free from thought.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well don't winge about me, go do daily meditation for a few years and see for your self. The transcended mind state is a subjective experience, free from thought.

But what you express, is a thought. Namely what the universe is and I know you have thought about that a lot.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But what you express, is a thought. Namely what the universe is and I know you have thought about that a lot.

Yes, of course I think, but there are no thoughts in deep meditation. That is the whole idea, thoughts are about real things, but are not that which they represent, if one is to actually experience the real, then go beyond the thought, realize that which the thought represents.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, of course I think, but there are no thoughts in deep meditation. That is the whole idea, thoughts are about real things, but are not that which they represent, if one is to actually experience the real, then go beyond the thought, realize that which the thought represents.

Yeah, but what you claim about the universe are based on thoughts with content.
You can do your meditation all you like, but you are not actually doing that in this thread of posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no link that says infinite is limited.

You are using a strawman argument again.

Do you know what scare quotes are and what they signify?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, but what you claim about the universe are based on thoughts with content.
You can do your meditation all you like, but you are not actually doing that in this thread of posts.

To convey a subjective experience to another, one needs to use concepts, the concepts are not real, except as concepts, that is why I explained to you earlier that unless the other person has had the same or similar experience, they can not possibly apprehend that which was conveyed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are using a strawman argument again.

Do you know what scare quotes are and what they signify?

No SZ, infinity is not limited, get over it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No SZ, infinity is not limited, get over it.

The abuse of the term "limited" is what you claimed. My link shows that a universe with a beginning is not limited.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To convey a subjective experience to another, one needs to use concepts, the concepts are not real, except as concepts, that is why I explained to you earlier that unless the other person has had the same or similar experience, they can not possibly apprehend that which was conveyed.

But then I am not really real. I am not in the really real reality, so why do you keep talking to me? I am The Unreal.
If you are in doubt, I am using a version of reduction ad absurdum and that is not really real.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But then I am not really real. I am not in the really real reality, so why do you keep talking to me? I am The Unreal.
If you are in doubt, I am using a version of reduction ad absurdum and that is not really real.

Mikkel is a name just like Fido the dog has a name, but the name, nor the living body that responds to the name, is the whole reality of the entity. To realize fully what and who mikkel really is in the context universal existence one needs to go beyond thought.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel is a name just like Fido the dog has a name, but the name, nor the living body that responds to the name, is the whole reality of the entity. To realize fully what and who mikkel really is in the context universal existence one needs to go beyond thought.

Yeah, I do it differently and thus I am unreal, since I don't do it like you. I am The Unreal.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, I do it differently and thus I am unreal, since I don't do it like you. I am The Unreal.

Vanity needs to be transcended if one is serious about self realization, humility is essential.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Vanity needs to be transcended if one is serious about self realization, humility is essential.

Yeah, I am not that special or unique, so I have never learned that.
I mean I clearly don't understand what is really real and I don't understand how we can even communicate since you are transcendentally real and I am not. I really don't get it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, I am not that special or unique, so I have never learned that.
I mean I clearly don't understand what is really real and I don't understand how we can even communicate since you are transcendentally real and I am not. I really don't get it.

I, I, I, the ego must be transcended to realize that of which the ego is but a temporary aspect of awareness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I, I, I, the ego must be transcended to realize that of which the ego is but a temporary aspect of awareness.

Yeah, but I can't do that, so I am not really real and I really don't understand anything as really real.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, but I can't do that, so I am not really real and I really don't understand anything as really real.

Yes, not can any 'I'.

 

[wellwisher]

Just watching a show on cable about astronomy and exploration of space and the possibility scientists say of life out there. (It's so stupid...) So they say they see no signs of life out there, and then wonder if there is life like ours. Imagine that. Life like ours somewhere out there maybe. So it just hasn't "evolved" yet, I suppose. Or maybe these evolved beings look like? a horror being?

This statement of fact shows that even what is called "Science" makes use of faith. On the one hand, there is no direct evidence of life beyond the earth. But many people in science have this strong faith that life has to be out there. Faith is the belief in things not seen. Even though they still have no hard evidence, to see, they still believe= faith.

The question I have is, what is the basis for adding faith to science? Much of this has to do with casino math, where a math oracle is allowed to think for you, apart from your own logic and hard evidence. The oracle has spoken, so its must be obeyed, especially when walking blind. The weather man says there is 50% chance of rain tomorrow. The oracle has spoken. But what does than mean? The ambiguity of the oracle covers the bases so what sounds solid, is very thin. The oracle has the North Polar Ice cap melted by now, so where is the beef? The blind continue to migrate.

What would happen if science could no longer could use the same math oracle that is used by politicians and gambling casinos? This science example of faith, in what has not been seen, would be a much tougher sell. Without the oracle, the double talk and dual standards of politics and the lure of lottery prizes, which helps with this sales pitch, would not be there. One is currently seen as an outlier, if you do not express faith in life besides the earth, even with no rational evidence to support this faith. The pot of Atheism faith still call the kettle of religion faith, black, but fails to see the parallel.

One can see the affect of politics in this sales pitch; land of dual standards. Religions are often based on faith. Atheism quotes science and requires hard evidence to support that faith. But it does not require this tougher standard of itself, when it comes to life on other planets besides earth. Their gods much exist since the oracle has spoken in math.

Their pseudo-god talks to them, via a math oracle and therefore those who are blind, can still smell their way down the road. If we took away that oracle, since it is cross contaminated with subjectivity; political and gambling, how would science address the same issue; Age of Enlightenment instead of whim of the gods; 50% chance of rain?

I would be willing to help set up lab experiments and have scientists prove their faith. If they cannot, then we will have to separate them from state funding; separation of church and stswte. We cannot have dual standards for faith, unless dual standards rule in science. Science would be better off cutting their ties to Vegas and Washington, so you can start doing real science, again, based on reason. This approach would be harder, since there is no oracle buffer. But I have to assume there are many smart people in science, who are currently serving the pseudo gods of the oracle, who supplements their reasoning skills. If we remove the braces, they can walk again instead of, going along to get along.

 

[Mock Turtle]

This statement of fact shows that even what is called "Science" makes use of faith. On the one hand, there is no direct evidence of life beyond the earth. But many people in science have this strong faith that life has to be out there. Faith is the belief in things not seen. Even though they still have no hard evidence, to see, they still believe= faith.

The question I have is, what is the basis for adding faith to science? Much of this has to do with casino math, where a math oracle is allowed to think for you, apart from your own logic and hard evidence. The oracle has spoken, so its must be obeyed, especially when walking blind.

What would happen if science could no longer could use the same math oracle that is used by politicians and gambling casinos? This example of faith, in what has not been seen, would be a much tougher sell. Without the oracle, the double talk and dual standards of politics and the lure of lottery prizes, which helps with this sales pitch of science faith, would not be there. One is now an outlier, if you do not express faith in life besides the earth, even with no rational evidence to support this faith. The pot of Atheism faith still call the kettle of religion faith, black, but fails to see the parallel.

One can see the affect of the politics in this sales pitch; land of dual standards. Religions are often based on faith. Atheism quotes science and requires hard evidence to support that faith. But it does not require this tougher standard of itself, when it comes to life on other planets besides earth. Their gods of technology much exist since the oracle has spoken in math.

Their pseudo-god talks to them, via a math oracle and therefore those who are blind, can still smell their way down the road. If we took away that oracle, since it is contaminated with subjectivity; political and gambling, how would science address the same issue; Age of Enlightenment instead of whim of the gods?

I would be willing to help set up lab experiments and have scientists prove their faith. If they cannot, then we will have to separate them from state funding; separation of church and stswte. We cannot have dual standards for faith, unless dual standards rule in science. Science would be better off cutting their ties to Vegas and Washington, so you can start doing real science, again, based on reason. Science is not just about employment and money. This approach would be harder, but I have to assume there are many smart people in science, who are currently serving the pseudo gods of the oracle who supplements their reasoning skills. If we remove the braces they can walk again; go along to get along.

Why didn't you just concentrate on the silliness of her comments. Given we are but a speck in the universe and still in the beginnings of understanding as to what might be possible 'out there', given it was but a few decades ago that we found out how plentiful planets were. As to life and even intelligent life - who knows? We would be extremely dumb to conclude anything given a lack of evidence when we just haven't explored enough yet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The abuse of the term "limited" is what you claimed. My link shows that a universe with a beginning is not limited.

Are you referring to the link with the number series? If so, numbers are abstractions, they are symbols as like the one for infinity, but they are not real things to be found in the universe. Infinity means no limits.