Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 08-26-2019, 06:28 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
The beginning of this also makes a mention of being the universe:

https://buddhaimonia.com/blog/let-go-find-peace
Uh, yeah; I guess that — ‘in a sense’ — it does.

But the useful part is, it also seems — uh, ‘in a sense’ — to make the opposite point: it cautions you about “a very real thing to look out for. Don't get mixed up thinking the finger pointing the way to the moon is the moon itself.”

See that? You’re being told — by a Buddhist, even! — not to do that. Oh, sure, you can maybe find a Buddhist who’ll say that In A Sense the finger IS the moon; but the one here is already helpfully noting that, In Another Sense, no, it’s not, don’t get that wrong instead of just getting it right.

You can do this. You can strikingly say that a finger IS the moon; and then you can give a wry chuckle, and then remark “in a sense.” You can then add, “of course, in ANOTHER sense, the finger isn’t actually the moon; don’t think even for a minute that one is ACTUALLY the other, that’s just crazy talk.”
  #252  
Old 08-26-2019, 08:42 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,938
We can land a man on the moon but we can't land one on Machinaforce's finger!
  #253  
Old 08-27-2019, 05:44 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Uh, yeah; I guess that — ‘in a sense’ — it does.

But the useful part is, it also seems — uh, ‘in a sense’ — to make the opposite point: it cautions you about “a very real thing to look out for. Don't get mixed up thinking the finger pointing the way to the moon is the moon itself.”

See that? You’re being told — by a Buddhist, even! — not to do that. Oh, sure, you can maybe find a Buddhist who’ll say that In A Sense the finger IS the moon; but the one here is already helpfully noting that, In Another Sense, no, it’s not, don’t get that wrong instead of just getting it right.

You can do this. You can strikingly say that a finger IS the moon; and then you can give a wry chuckle, and then remark “in a sense.” You can then add, “of course, in ANOTHER sense, the finger isn’t actually the moon; don’t think even for a minute that one is ACTUALLY the other, that’s just crazy talk.”
But the point being is that there is no sense of separateness that we commonly believe to be so.

Like in here: http://www.zenthinking.net/blog/unde...-vs-detachment
  #254  
Old 08-27-2019, 06:06 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
But the point being is that there is no sense of separateness that we commonly believe to be so.

Like in here: http://www.zenthinking.net/blog/unde...-vs-detachment
The giant quote at the top of that link is "Non-attachment is the freedom of things. It is a self-realization of the truth of reality--that you, consciousness, can not be affected by anything. It is only the egoic mind that makes you believe otherwise."

I'm pretty sure that when they say this they're not saying that the moon can't effect you - in fact, the site is very clear that it's just talking about emotional detachment. (Except only sort of, because they constantly make these dramatic claims and then back down from them because reality disagrees with them. They seem to really be talking about just being loftily above it all.)

But no, they're not claiming that the moon could crash into you and you could ignore it through force of will. I don't even think they're saying that they're immune to booze, though a plain read of their leading statement would imply such.

Last edited by begbert2; 08-27-2019 at 06:06 PM. Reason: corrected site quote
  #255  
Old 08-27-2019, 09:31 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
But the point being is that there is no sense of separateness that we commonly believe to be so.
You can change the subject later; first, address the subject you’ve been on about for amazingly long in this thread: look at a finger, and look at the moon, and look back at that finger, and look back at the moon; can you tell them apart? Is one of them, near as you can tell, distinguishable from the other?

Possibly you’ll still claim that, In A Sense, they’re connected and not separate; if so, can you — In Another Sense — routinely keep from mixing them up?
  #256  
Old 09-01-2019, 10:55 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The giant quote at the top of that link is "Non-attachment is the freedom of things. It is a self-realization of the truth of reality--that you, consciousness, can not be affected by anything. It is only the egoic mind that makes you believe otherwise."

I'm pretty sure that when they say this they're not saying that the moon can't effect you - in fact, the site is very clear that it's just talking about emotional detachment. (Except only sort of, because they constantly make these dramatic claims and then back down from them because reality disagrees with them. They seem to really be talking about just being loftily above it all.)

But no, they're not claiming that the moon could crash into you and you could ignore it through force of will. I don't even think they're saying that they're immune to booze, though a plain read of their leading statement would imply such.
Well I'm pretty sure you are not consciousness, just the body (which produces it). Also your consciousness can be affected by things that you aren't aware of so I don't know where they got that.

As for the you are the universe, I still think it has to do with being made of the same things as everything else and being connected and affected by other things rather than existing as some atomized and independent self. Though that might just be more of a view point that elicits a certain feeling from believing it.
  #257  
Old 09-02-2019, 03:11 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
As for the you are the universe, I still think it has to do with being made of the same things as everything else and being connected and affected by other things
One can be connected to or affected by a thing without being that thing.
  #258  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:47 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
One can be connected to or affected by a thing without being that thing.
True, but I guess it comes down to the fundamentals. If there is no soul or separate entity that is "you" then you are everything, or in this sense that the universe is like an ocean and you are a wave, that individual consciousness is an illusion and it's just one. That we have forgotten who we really are and that it is the greatest identity theft ever.

https://www.lionsroar.com/does-my-tr...gs-on-no-self/

(That last line was from one of the teachers in the link)

Obviously though I have critical doubts about all of that especially universal consciousness.
  #259  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:52 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
True, but
No. Don’t gloss over it; stop right there, and really let it sink in for a moment, before you move on to something else. You’ve said the reverse, over and over, as if it settled the matter; when, in fact, it does nothing of the sort.

“True,” you say, and that’s good — but it’s also where you should take a good long look at why you’ve been saying the exact opposite. If you can so quickly discard it, then why the heck were you repeatedly bringing it up?
  #260  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:48 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
True, but I guess it comes down to the fundamentals. If there is no soul or separate entity that is "you" then you are everything, or in this sense that the universe is like an ocean and you are a wave, that individual consciousness is an illusion and it's just one. That we have forgotten who we really are and that it is the greatest identity theft ever.
Let's belabor the obvious for a moment - there is obviously a separate entity that is "me", and individual consciousness cannot possibly be an illusion.

Have you ever played a role playing game, like dungeons and dragons? Have you ever written a book? What I'm really saying is, have you ever created a character?

You can decide that your character is a separate person from you, and they they don't know all the things you know. You can decide that the character has a personal perspective on the world that they see from the point of view of their own mind and identity, and describe their actions and reactions as though this is true.

But one thing you can't do is forget yourself. You can't actually stop experiencing your perspective, and you can't actually stop knowing the things you know. Your knowledge, experience, preferences - these things all continue to exist, and they continue to fully describe your existence - and the things that are outside your knowledge, experience, preferences will remain stubbornly outside them aside from what you pull in through the peepholes of your senses. You can imagine what it would be like to experience life as me, but you can't actually experience life as me, because you can't expand your mind to include my mind any more than you can reduce your mind to include only your character. Your mind has boundaries, which are all quite real. You are separate and distinct from the not-you.

And everyone's like that; even the woos. The closest they can get to being out of their minds is to go crazy - which they admittedly seem to try to do constantly.
  #261  
Old 09-17-2019, 09:18 PM
pmwgreen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 450
It would be fun if someone said "I became one with the universe and that's how I came to pick all those winning lottery numbers." or ".. and that's how I could warn about the Hurricane." or "... the bombing." or anything really. No matter how connected people think they are, I suspect they aren't.
  #262  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:19 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
My guess is that they say you aren't some separate entity cut off from reality but connected to everything around you. Similar to a wave connected to the ocean but not being separate from it. Though when it comes to atoms and bonds it's more complicated than an ocean analogy. Yeah everything is connected but composition matters though.

You are right in that I can't say iron is steel because the two are different. And yeah reality is weird, especially when I wonder how lifeless matter can create the vibrancy of a human experience. Though they might argue there is no human just matter creating the experience of being a human, not sure how to respond to that one.

But every time I try to nail their argument down it's so vague. What is mean by "you", or universe? How can there be the separateness of our experience but still with us being made of the same things as other life (mostly). Then I get to wondering about life, the self, and all these crazy things I don't know or fully understand.
  #263  
Old 09-25-2019, 12:27 AM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 646
It can be very difficult to assess what is true. There are many levels of reality, and what is true on one level need not be true -- nor untrue -- on some other level. Words are stuck on the level of verbal communication, which is why we must employ metaphor to convey truths beyond that level.

For instance, here are links to two sets of assertions. Ask yourself which are true, and which are not, and at which levels.

An Eschatological Laundry List

The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die

(It's okay, you can trust me. I'm an ordained Taoist rabbi. Not so very different from Buddhism. Same universe.)
__________________
Take care of yourselves, and those around you. -- Margo Timmins
  #264  
Old 09-26-2019, 02:04 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmlabs View Post
It can be very difficult to assess what is true. There are many levels of reality, and what is true on one level need not be true -- nor untrue -- on some other level. Words are stuck on the level of verbal communication, which is why we must employ metaphor to convey truths beyond that level.

For instance, here are links to two sets of assertions. Ask yourself which are true, and which are not, and at which levels.

An Eschatological Laundry List

The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die

(It's okay, you can trust me. I'm an ordained Taoist rabbi. Not so very different from Buddhism. Same universe.)
I don't think there are levels of reality and metaphors are still words.

What I am getting at with this is that I think they mean we are not atomized and self contained beings but "expressions" of a greater whole. But the universe isn't an ocean and not everything in it is made of the same things.
  #265  
Old 09-26-2019, 03:24 AM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
I don't think there are levels of reality and metaphors are still words.
Then I can be of no assistance to you.

I wish you well in your quest.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
__________________
Take care of yourselves, and those around you. -- Margo Timmins
  #266  
Old 09-30-2019, 02:15 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmlabs View Post
Then I can be of no assistance to you.

I wish you well in your quest.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
It's not really a quest.

thinking about it, we do have separateness in a sense since we cannot feel what others feel or experience what they do.

PLus calling everything an expression of the universe.......something about that just doesn't really seem right but I can't put my finger on it. I mean even in terms of atoms and chemistry things are different and yet similar, but different in very important ways. Just saying everything is made of the same atoms is a gross misunderstanding.
  #267  
Old 09-30-2019, 10:45 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
It's not really a quest.
If it wasn't really a quest, you wouldn't be bumping these deservedly dead threads every few days with some comment no different than what you have said a hundred times before.
  #268  
Old 09-30-2019, 04:45 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
thinking about it, we do have separateness in a sense since we cannot feel what others feel or experience what they do.

PLus calling everything an expression of the universe.......something about that just doesn't really seem right but I can't put my finger on it. I mean even in terms of atoms and chemistry things are different and yet similar, but different in very important ways. Just saying everything is made of the same atoms is a gross misunderstanding.
Hey Machinaforce, you should pay attention to what this guy who I quoted is saying. He seems to be on the right track.
  #269  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:12 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Hey Machinaforce, you should pay attention to what this guy who I quoted is saying. He seems to be on the right track.
But I’m still pulled back to “before you there was the universe” therefor you are the universe
  #270  
Old 10-02-2019, 05:19 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,938
Quote:
But I’m still pulled back to “before you there was the universe” therefor you are the universe
But that is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really stupid. Just because someone said it does not make it reasonable, rational, logical, or true. Before you there was your mother and father. Are you your mother and father?
  #271  
Old 10-02-2019, 05:33 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
But I’m still pulled back to “before you there was the universe” therefor you are the universe
On the face of it that's like a proof that I'm not the universe. I was born in 1976. If you see a picture of somebody taken before that, then that's pretty good proof that the person in the picture is not me.
  #272  
Old 10-02-2019, 07:40 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
I still go back to quotes like these though:

Quote:
What it means?

Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field. (Think of standing waves in a body of water.)

There are no discrete things or objects of solid substance; things as we perceive them are merely changing forms and patterns in nature (the universe) as a whole. You are not a small and lonely being lost in a foreign universe; you are a direct expression of the whole of the universe as it currently is; you (as everything else) is a brief movement in the dance of nature. You do not exist independent of the perceived outside; outside and inside are two sides of the same coin.

The seed is no different from the tree. They are the same thing viewed from different perspectives in time. Birth and death are really no different; waking life is really no different from dreamless sleep.

The nature of the human perspective is experience. This is why we say that we are the universe experiencing itself: A dark cloud is the universe clouding itself; the sun is the universe lighting itself; the rotating planet is the universe spinning itself.

The ocean waves; the planet rotates; the sun shines; the heart beats; the stomach digests; the brain thinks; the body acts. These events are no different in nature. The thinker of thoughts is the waver of oceans, not a little man behind the eyes of the body; the waver of the ocean is spontaneous, as is the thinker of thoughts. Nature is not being moved; nature flows without direction; nature is not concerened with tomorrow, for it is dancing today.

Look at a tree, see how it moves in the wind.

Notice your thoughts arising, even the thought "I am thinking."

Notice that the movement of the tree and the movement of thought are two expressions of the same thing.

Stop labeling the tree and yourself; notice that all separation is a consequence of the labeling process; allow all boundaries to dissolve.

Feel the swaying of the tree as much as you feel the arising thoughts and the other bodily sensations.

Feel intuitively that what you refer to as I is a form in the universe experiencing itself.
Quote:
The "inevitable" demise is the illusion itself. There limitation of having only those "options" is the illusion - the notion of "utility" is what is samsara/maya. When the man realizes that he is neither the doer of action, nor the enjoyer of the strawberry, has no volition nor efficacy and that he is the tiger himself as well as the strawberry as well as the man - then he has metaphorically climbed up and killed the tiger. You are right in the sense that it is not an "option" - killing the tiger is the reality, the true reality, beyond the "options." It is scary because it is not meant for the faint hearted, However, on a tangible non spiritual level you are correct, however if after reading this you still believe that you exist as an individual conscious being in between birth and death and have to get "the most you can" out of "life" then I have not done a good job with this, and have failed you. Truth is you don't need the strawberry, never did - and yes you can "win" against the tiger. But don't take my word for it, try it yourself.
And it just seems to be intuitively true.
  #273  
Old 10-02-2019, 07:46 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/art...made-of-fields
  #274  
Old 10-02-2019, 07:55 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
I still go back to quotes like these though:





And it just seems to be intuitively true.
I'm just going to ignore the second quoted section since it's utter nonsense outside of context. (It may or may not be utter nonsense even with context.)

The first quote says some things that a blatantly false (seeds are not trees, birth is not death), but it does touch on something that is true, and uses it to argue something that is not true.

The truth is that everything is made of atoms and such, doing what atoms do. In that sense everything is the same*. The * there is because I don't mean that two different atoms are the same atom, as some of the woo implies. However atoms all function in about the same way.

The part where your quote becomes a lie is because it's pretending that the arrangement of the atoms is irrelevant. This is a lie. And it undermines the entire point they're trying to make.

I can look at a tree's leaves blowing in the wind, and recognize that I'm not a tree, because DUH**.

So there is a grain of truth behind the lie. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the grain of truth proves the lie to be true.



** Obviously one could talk at length about how patterns matter, and how different patterns and groupings of atoms coalesce in to naturally distinct things and the ways that these distinct things interact with their surroundings can play with the definition of "distinct" in this context. But I don't feel like talking at length about something we all already know.

Last edited by begbert2; 10-02-2019 at 07:56 PM. Reason: typo
  #275  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:18 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,818
Machinaforce, you start that first quote with “Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field. (Think of standing waves in a body of water.)” And your next post there is a link to an article that’s flatly titled “Everything is made of fields”.

Why is that relevant to you? Why are you even mentioning it, let alone leading off with it over and over again? Why the heck do you think it’s so important — or, for that matter, at all important? Why do you think it should matter to anyone whether atoms are discrete balls or point-like excitations of a field?

I genuinely don’t get it. A lot of stuff you post here — and I mean a lot of it — seems laughably wrong; but I can at least see what you’re shooting for. But this? Why this? Why do you keep bringing this up?
  #276  
Old 10-03-2019, 08:35 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I'm just going to ignore the second quoted section since it's utter nonsense outside of context. (It may or may not be utter nonsense even with context.)

The first quote says some things that a blatantly false (seeds are not trees, birth is not death), but it does touch on something that is true, and uses it to argue something that is not true.

The truth is that everything is made of atoms and such, doing what atoms do. In that sense everything is the same*. The * there is because I don't mean that two different atoms are the same atom, as some of the woo implies. However atoms all function in about the same way.

The part where your quote becomes a lie is because it's pretending that the arrangement of the atoms is irrelevant. This is a lie. And it undermines the entire point they're trying to make.

I can look at a tree's leaves blowing in the wind, and recognize that I'm not a tree, because DUH**.

So there is a grain of truth behind the lie. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the grain of truth proves the lie to be true.



** Obviously one could talk at length about how patterns matter, and how different patterns and groupings of atoms coalesce in to naturally distinct things and the ways that these distinct things interact with their surroundings can play with the definition of "distinct" in this context. But I don't feel like talking at length about something we all already know.
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-doors-...tion-may-2014/

This gets more into the being the universe more or less because there is no separate and unconnected self that you "are". That birth and death are illusions.

As for the atoms bit it would mean there are no discrete essences to things and that they are just excitations of some underlying field.
  #277  
Old 10-03-2019, 09:37 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
As for the atoms bit it would mean there are no discrete essences to things and that they are just excitations of some underlying field.
What difference would that make?

We’ve been over this before. I thought you’d dropped this point? It goes like this: if you hand me a gold cup full of mercury atoms, I don’t try to drink; but if the cup is full of water, what with the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atoms, yeah, that, I’m going to drink. (The cup, incidentally, is made of gold atoms, which is why it’s solid under conditions where the water and the mercury are liquid — and why it doesn’t react to magnets the way a cup made of iron atoms would).

That’s so if the atoms are balls floating in space, but it’s also true if they’re, uh, more point-like excitations of a field; regardless, I act like I can tell them apart, and treat them differently: pouring one down my throat and making sure not to pour the other one down my throat. I hope you do likewise, and I can’t imagine either of us varying that based on whether they’re floaty balls or pointlike excitations.
  #278  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:07 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-doors-...tion-may-2014/

This gets more into the being the universe more or less because there is no separate and unconnected self that you "are". That birth and death are illusions.

As for the atoms bit it would mean there are no discrete essences to things and that they are just excitations of some underlying field.
Noting thoughts on the link as I read it:

1: Based on the first paragraph, this article is probably steeped in jargon - terms which have customized meanings that differ from their plain meanings. Thus an out-of-context reader like me (and you) will have to be very careful about tracking the meaning of the jargon so it will be correctly interpreted.

continuing reading...

Standard silliness about how an empty glass isn't empty because air. Correct, but silly and not meaningful...

Some paragraphs that make it explicitly clear that when they say that things are all connected/the same/inside one another, that's just silly jargon for "things that are different and distinct have at some point interacted with each other"...

The paragraph immediately after that contradicts the paragraphs explaining the jargon by leaping to a conclusion that is incompatible with the jargon. These guys are idiots. But idiots with agendas - their blatantly fallacious thinking reaches the conclusion they like (emptiness, which is jargon for the connectedness/nonself stuff), so they are cool with the bullshit. Continuing...

A factually incorrect statement about how wind works, used as a basis for a factually incorrect statement about causality...

Some semantic nonsense about how unless something is currently in the act of verbing, they are not a verber. Correct (sort of), but meaningless...

...and here we are, the crystalization of the above silliness and errors: the assertion that when you take out all the stuff that's (really not) in you, that there's nothing left. Putting aside the idiocy about causal influences (like the sun!) literally existing within you, there's some cleverly evil legerdemain going on here. It's true that if you remove all the atoms from a person, the person will vanish and all you'll be left with is a pile of assorted atoms. But that doesn't mean that you just showed the person was nothing but a pile of atoms; that means that the removal process destroyed the person, because patterns do in fact matter. But buddhists don't want patterns to matter, so they say stupid shit like "If you remove the non-me elements from me—the sun, the dirt, the garbage, the minerals, the water, my parents, and my society—there’s no me left", as though that implies that we're nothing but a random arrangement of our component parts. Which is blatantly false.

Shall I go on? I don't think I got to the birth being death thing yet, but honestly there's so much idiocy and outright falsehood in what I've already read that I'm highly confident that the rest is garbage too.
  #279  
Old 10-04-2019, 10:23 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What difference would that make?

We’ve been over this before. I thought you’d dropped this point? It goes like this: if you hand me a gold cup full of mercury atoms, I don’t try to drink; but if the cup is full of water, what with the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atoms, yeah, that, I’m going to drink. (The cup, incidentally, is made of gold atoms, which is why it’s solid under conditions where the water and the mercury are liquid — and why it doesn’t react to magnets the way a cup made of iron atoms would).

That’s so if the atoms are balls floating in space, but it’s also true if they’re, uh, more point-like excitations of a field; regardless, I act like I can tell them apart, and treat them differently: pouring one down my throat and making sure not to pour the other one down my throat. I hope you do likewise, and I can’t imagine either of us varying that based on whether they’re floaty balls or pointlike excitations.
I'm mostly referring now to the lion's roar link that I posted now. Since I asked a physicist about it being true and he told me the short answer was NO.
  #280  
Old 10-04-2019, 10:29 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Noting thoughts on the link as I read it:

1: Based on the first paragraph, this article is probably steeped in jargon - terms which have customized meanings that differ from their plain meanings. Thus an out-of-context reader like me (and you) will have to be very careful about tracking the meaning of the jargon so it will be correctly interpreted.

continuing reading...

Standard silliness about how an empty glass isn't empty because air. Correct, but silly and not meaningful...

Some paragraphs that make it explicitly clear that when they say that things are all connected/the same/inside one another, that's just silly jargon for "things that are different and distinct have at some point interacted with each other"...

The paragraph immediately after that contradicts the paragraphs explaining the jargon by leaping to a conclusion that is incompatible with the jargon. These guys are idiots. But idiots with agendas - their blatantly fallacious thinking reaches the conclusion they like (emptiness, which is jargon for the connectedness/nonself stuff), so they are cool with the bullshit. Continuing...

A factually incorrect statement about how wind works, used as a basis for a factually incorrect statement about causality...

Some semantic nonsense about how unless something is currently in the act of verbing, they are not a verber. Correct (sort of), but meaningless...

...and here we are, the crystalization of the above silliness and errors: the assertion that when you take out all the stuff that's (really not) in you, that there's nothing left. Putting aside the idiocy about causal influences (like the sun!) literally existing within you, there's some cleverly evil legerdemain going on here. It's true that if you remove all the atoms from a person, the person will vanish and all you'll be left with is a pile of assorted atoms. But that doesn't mean that you just showed the person was nothing but a pile of atoms; that means that the removal process destroyed the person, because patterns do in fact matter. But buddhists don't want patterns to matter, so they say stupid shit like "If you remove the non-me elements from me—the sun, the dirt, the garbage, the minerals, the water, my parents, and my society—there’s no me left", as though that implies that we're nothing but a random arrangement of our component parts. Which is blatantly false.

Shall I go on? I don't think I got to the birth being death thing yet, but honestly there's so much idiocy and outright falsehood in what I've already read that I'm highly confident that the rest is garbage too.
But their argument is that there isn't a separate and independently existing self to call "you", who you are comes from everything around you and life experience from those things so how can they be "you"? But then again infants are born with personalities and humans aren't born blank slates and some traits are enduring so maybe there is more to it than that.

Also how are those statements factually incorrect?

And the bit about death is the one that got me.
  #281  
Old 10-06-2019, 12:10 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Or to shorten the bit about the self:

" You must realize through meditation that there is no substantial self; rather, you are a composition of different elements that shares no essence."
  #282  
Old 10-06-2019, 06:24 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Or to shorten the bit about the self:

" You must realize through meditation that there is no substantial self; rather, you are a composition of different elements that shares no essence."
I don’t follow.

You say I’m a composition of elements; and I have memories you lack, just as you have memories I lack; and I make decisions you wouldn’t, and vice versa. You’re a self, to take one example, who just now posted that as if you find it to be profound; and I’m a self who looks at it and says, “seems less interesting than Sartre’s line about how existence precedes essence; what’s all this, then?”

There are a number of differences between us: we can tell each other apart, and other people — er, sorry; other selves — can tell us apart likewise. When one of us gets thirsty, that remains the case if the other one knocks back a drink. If one of us learns something new, the other one might never find out. Maybe one of us will die tomorrow, and the other live on. That all strikes me as relevant; but why mention that you’re a composition of elements over there and I’m a composition of elements over here? How does that add anything to the discussion?
  #283  
Old 10-06-2019, 01:19 PM
Beckdawrek's Avatar
Beckdawrek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Boonies??
Posts: 19,019
Really this whole thread (s) is disturbing.
I've mentioned in your threads before, Dude, get a hobby, buy a stack of comics, watch cartoons, do crossword puzzles. Seriously.
You need to get out of your own head. You are not the Universe. Neither am I.
We are just people. So much flotsam and jetsam floating around in this universe. (Dang, that's deep)
Once and for all. You are real, the universe is real, people are real, thoughts are real. No one is perfect. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Always wash your hands after you use the restroom.
All that mumbo-jumbo you read is junk. Throw it away, recycle responsibly, we must keep the universe tidy.
Good luck on your journey through life. It might suck but it's all we got.

(ETA: Burpo you are a genius, I think.)

Last edited by Beckdawrek; 10-06-2019 at 01:22 PM.
  #284  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:22 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckdawrek View Post
Really this whole thread (s) is disturbing.
I've mentioned in your threads before, Dude, get a hobby, buy a stack of comics, watch cartoons, do crossword puzzles. Seriously.
You need to get out of your own head. You are not the Universe. Neither am I.
We are just people. So much flotsam and jetsam floating around in this universe. (Dang, that's deep)
Once and for all. You are real, the universe is real, people are real, thoughts are real. No one is perfect. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Always wash your hands after you use the restroom.
All that mumbo-jumbo you read is junk. Throw it away, recycle responsibly, we must keep the universe tidy.
Good luck on your journey through life. It might suck but it's all we got.

(ETA: Burpo you are a genius, I think.)
Hobbies don't work because this stuff tends to bleed into them quite easily.

As for the universe bit it keep thinking about some Zen koan that goes "what was your face before your mother and father were born". This reminds me of that long chain of ancestors, to apes, to animals before that and then particles and then to the beginning of the universe. So by that logic you are the universe because of that long chain that led to here.
  #285  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:30 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Hobbies don't work because this stuff tends to bleed into them quite easily.

As for the universe bit it keep thinking about some Zen koan that goes "what was your face before your mother and father were born". This reminds me of that long chain of ancestors, to apes, to animals before that and then particles and then to the beginning of the universe. So by that logic you are the universe because of that long chain that led to here.
Why would you say one is the other just because one appears in some long, uh, chain that leads to the other? As far as I know, Thing A isn’t necessarily Thing B just because one is in a long chain that leads to the other.
  #286  
Old 10-11-2019, 04:37 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
But their argument is that there isn't a separate and independently existing self to call "you", who you are comes from everything around you and life experience from those things so how can they be "you"? But then again infants are born with personalities and humans aren't born blank slates and some traits are enduring so maybe there is more to it than that.

Also how are those statements factually incorrect?

And the bit about death is the one that got me.
I didn't get to the bit about death before the constent errors and stupidity drove me to stop bothering to read their bullshit.

And there is definitely an independently existing self called me. The fact that that me has grown and changed based on interaction with external reality doesn't mean that I don't exist; that's stupid and the people saying it are stupid. So that's a statement that's factually incorrect right there, and I detailed several other specific instances of factual incorrectness in my boredom-shortened dismantling of the cite itself. You ignoring that I pointed them out doesn't make them go away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Or to shorten the bit about the self:

" You must realize through meditation that there is no substantial self; rather, you are a composition of different elements that shares no essence."
I don't have to realize stupid and demonstrably false things.
  #287  
Old 10-20-2019, 12:38 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Well there does seem to be science to back up the illusion but about use being separate as well as our bodies: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huf...p_b_334491/amp
  #288  
Old 10-20-2019, 02:03 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Well there does seem to be science to back up the illusion but about use being separate as well as our bodies: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huf...p_b_334491/amp
The guy who wrote that has no understanding of the concept of maya at all. It's a clickbait article with an irrelevant emphasis on sex.
  #289  
Old 10-20-2019, 05:50 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Well there does seem to be science to back up the illusion but about use being separate as well as our bodies: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huf...p_b_334491/amp
1) How does that link show there’s “science to back up the illusion”? He mentions facts (what percent of an adult’s body is water; what different percent of a baby’s body is water; and what’s the composition of dust; and so on) as if they’re merely knowable: as if they’re known to him, in particular; and as if his readers can know them, too. How is any of that an illusion? That sounds like mere reality is at hand, such that you can simply learn truths about the screaming baby or pile of dust that you’re looking at: of either, you can note, “that, over there, which seems to be separate from me, has a different chemical composition than I do.”

2) You then say: “but about use being separate as well as our bodies”. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Did an entire phrase get dropped? Like, if you wrote ‘about use being separate From Our Minds as well as our bodies’, I could maybe start mulling it; but, as it is: “use being separate” from — what, exactly? And then you move on to “as well as our bodies”, like it’s the second item on a list of two; but I honestly can’t tell what the first item on that list would be.
  #290  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:54 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
1) How does that link show there’s “science to back up the illusion”? He mentions facts (what percent of an adult’s body is water; what different percent of a baby’s body is water; and what’s the composition of dust; and so on) as if they’re merely knowable: as if they’re known to him, in particular; and as if his readers can know them, too. How is any of that an illusion? That sounds like mere reality is at hand, such that you can simply learn truths about the screaming baby or pile of dust that you’re looking at: of either, you can note, “that, over there, which seems to be separate from me, has a different chemical composition than I do.”

2) You then say: “but about use being separate as well as our bodies”. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Did an entire phrase get dropped? Like, if you wrote ‘about use being separate From Our Minds as well as our bodies’, I could maybe start mulling it; but, as it is: “use being separate” from — what, exactly? And then you move on to “as well as our bodies”, like it’s the second item on a list of two; but I honestly can’t tell what the first item on that list would be.
What I meant was that he said it is evidence against us being separate entities and that it's just forms or the illusion of forms. I asked him about it but his response told me nothing.

Like in regards to no self, how you aren’t a separate and atomized individual existing in the world but the result of everything else in existence. The way I can phrase it is that you aren’t a video game character that was made and then thrust into some universe. Rather it’s as though reality is like clay and your “form” is just a molding of the clay, but you mistake that for being an entity when really it’s just a different form of what is already there.
  #291  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:20 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
What I meant was that he said it is evidence against us being separate entities and that it's just forms or the illusion of forms. I asked him about it but his response told me nothing.

Like in regards to no self, how you aren’t a separate and atomized individual existing in the world but the result of everything else in existence. The way I can phrase it is that you aren’t a video game character that was made and then thrust into some universe. Rather it’s as though reality is like clay and your “form” is just a molding of the clay, but you mistake that for being an entity when really it’s just a different form of what is already there.
A thing can still be an individual entity even if they have been influenced by other things.

Yes, I know these folks say otherwise. They're wrong.
  #292  
Old 10-23-2019, 08:32 PM
Beckdawrek's Avatar
Beckdawrek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Boonies??
Posts: 19,019
I cannot believe I'm posting in this thread again.
Seriously, you've spent way too much of your life(my life, as well) trying to answer the unanswerable.
All these words you've written, all this time researching and reading. All the hours you've stared at your belly button and you'll never figure it out. The best you can hope for is a constructive, happyish life. There's no perfect. There's no pure happiness. Things go wrong. Shit happens.
I could tell you a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Maybe even get a YouTube following of my crappy woo beliefs. Sell you a bill of goods, so to speak. I'm no more correct than what you're reading. Dude there's no magic. It's just a life you have. I have my life. You have yours. That's all you get. You are not the universe. Nobody is. You're a human being. That's all. Choose to waste it looking for the answers. Fine. Go ahead. You be you. I'm gonna eat a burrito now. No magic needed. Just a microwave. And it makes me happy. You, too, can achieve this happiness. Look in the freezer section of your grocery store. For a buck 39 you will be happy, for awhile. I promise. Baby steps. Tomorrow, maybe frozen pizza.

Last edited by Beckdawrek; 10-23-2019 at 08:34 PM.
  #293  
Old 10-23-2019, 08:43 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Like in regards to no self, how you aren’t a separate and atomized individual existing in the world but the result of everything else in existence. The way I can phrase it is that you aren’t a video game character that was made and then thrust into some universe. Rather it’s as though reality is like clay and your “form” is just a molding of the clay, but you mistake that for being an entity when really it’s just a different form of what is already there.
Carl Sagan said it much better. You're no Carl Sagan.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #294  
Old 11-03-2019, 11:05 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
It's essentially the same thing.
  #295  
Old 11-04-2019, 12:18 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
The guy who wrote that has no understanding of the concept of maya at all. It's a clickbait article with an irrelevant emphasis on sex.
How so?
  #296  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:44 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
How is he mistaken on Maya?
  #297  
Old 11-05-2019, 06:46 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
The guy who wrote that has no understanding of the concept of maya at all. It's a clickbait article with an irrelevant emphasis on sex.
As I had, how is he misunderstanding it?
  #298  
Old 11-05-2019, 06:50 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Dude, don't shout into the void. An answer will come or it won't.

And don't look at me. As far as I'm concerned, maya is 3d-rendering software.
  #299  
Old 11-05-2019, 07:31 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Dude, don't shout into the void. An answer will come or it won't.

And don't look at me. As far as I'm concerned, maya is 3d-rendering software.
I took some 3D modeling classes a while back, starting around 2010. Google was a huge help - I'd Google "Maya 2010" and the issue I had, and get lots of great information. Worked great for two years, until Maya 2012 came out, and all my search results were suddenly about bullshit end-of-the-world woo.
  #300  
Old 11-05-2019, 07:42 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I took some 3D modeling classes a while back, starting around 2010. Google was a huge help - I'd Google "Maya 2010" and the issue I had, and get lots of great information. Worked great for two years, until Maya 2012 came out, and all my search results were suddenly about bullshit end-of-the-world woo.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017