Are you the universe?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Machinaforce

The last line is what they are trying to say, yes. Like the guy I linked when he said you realize you are the tiger and you metaphorically kill it. Or that large paragraph I linked to about atoms and the like.

The more times that I read you analogy the less I’m convinced that it has anything to do with what it being said. It doesn’t really disprove their point or what they are saying.

See, first, just answer the question. It’s a simple question; you should be able to answer it pretty quickly: if I have the steel key, as well as a steel coin (and a gold coin, and handful of sand), and I note that I’m happy to give you the key, how would you reply if I ask whether I should instead hand you the coin or the sand?

Answer that, and then discuss the relevance to their point. Tell me whether you’d shrug and say “oh, well, it’s all the same thing,” and then tell me whether you still think they’re right about how it’s all the same thing. Tell me if you’d be equally glad to get handed a coin or the sand or that key (with a response like “oh, hey, handing me the coin is handing me the key — and handing me the sand is handing me the coin and the key”); and, one moment later, then do the rest.

This isn’t me trying to task you with some long assignment; it should be the work of a moment: say you’re locked in that cell, and I can give you the key that’s in my right hand; or I can give you what’s in my left hand, be it a coin or some sand. Don’t tell me what occurs to you ‘the more times you read the analogy’; feel free to spend less time just putting a reply out there first. You can do this.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

…or, okay, maybe you can’t. I don’t know you; after all, I’m not you.

Here’s my answer: if I’m hungry and thirsty and locked in that jail cell, and you offer me the steel key but then hand me the steel coin, I’d say, “this object you handed me isn’t that other object; it doesn’t matter what they’re each made of, and where they come from; I assure you, one isn’t the other. You may claim that stuff precedes or surrounds them; nevertheless, the coin isn’t the key.”

And if you apologize, and say you’ll now give me the key, and then you give me a handful of sand, I’d say, “okay, see, now you’re not even giving me something that’s made of steel! But, again, that’s irrelevant; regardless of what this handful of sand happens to be made of, it’s not the key; it’s also not the coin. Can you not tell the difference? I can tell the difference; I guess you’re not me.”

And if you gave me the key, I’d say . . . “oh, thank you ever so very much.”

Now, it’s possible to imagine somebody who — upon being given that coin or that handful of sand — wouldn’t react like me. Somebody who’d instead react to the coin or the sand by saying, “oh, thank you ever so very much; the coin is the key, just as the sand is the key, so it makes no difference! It’s all the same thing!”

If that’s how you’d reply, then we have much to discuss. But if you’d reply the way I would — by noting that, no, they’re different; it makes a difference; never you mind what they’re made of, or what precedes or surrounds them; one just isn’t the other, is all — then we don’t have much to discuss, since in that case we already agree that one thing isn’t another; maybe they’re made of the same stuff (like the steel key and the steel coin), maybe they’re not (like a gold coin and the handful of sand); but you’d grant that ONE ISN’T THE OTHER, and we’d be done.

[Machinaforce]

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.

I wanted to requote that since it plays heavily into what I am trying to say.

My regular answer is that I would agree with you, but this has challenged that view.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Machinaforce

I wanted to requote that since it plays heavily into what I am trying to say.

My regular answer is that I would agree with you, but this has challenged that view.

Okay, it’s challenged your view.

But as long as you’d (a) note that the coin I gave you isn’t actually the key; and (b) patiently explain that, no, the handful of sand also isn’t the key, which is why it isn’t helping you escape confinement and slake thirst the way the key would — then your “regular answer” remains; you don’t really believe what they’re saying.

As long as one would spark a “thanks eversoverymuch” while the other would spark an “er, no, this one here isn’t that one there” — instead of either one provoking a reply like “it’s all the same thing; there are no discrete objects” — then while your view may have been challenged, it’s nevertheless still your view.

When you get to the point where you’d greet the coin the same way you’d greet the key or a handful of sand, then I could start trying to get you to come around to my view of the matter. But if you still view things my way, then what’s left for me to do? Tell you not to be convinced by them? You’re already not convinced by them! You heard their pitch, and mulled it over, and — well, the next time you set out to unlock something, I take it you (a) weren’t tempted to try a handful of sand, but instead (b) made sure to put a key rather than a coin in it? And, later, you placed a coin rather than a key or some sand in the slot of a vending machine or whatever?

And, to this day, you still keep getting it right with your regular answer?

[Larry_Borgia]

TWOP why are you wasting your time with This? You will never ever ever get a straight answer.

[Darren_Garrison]

@Larry_Borgia

TWOP why are you wasting your time with This? You will never ever ever get a straight answer.

He has no nearby windmills, and is unclear on how to “tilt”.

[Machinaforce]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Okay, it’s challenged your view.

But as long as you’d (a) note that the coin I gave you isn’t actually the key; and (b) patiently explain that, no, the handful of sand also isn’t the key, which is why it isn’t helping you escape confinement and slake thirst the way the key would — then your “regular answer” remains; you don’t really believe what they’re saying.

As long as one would spark a “thanks eversoverymuch” while the other would spark an “er, no, this one here isn’t that one there” — instead of either one provoking a reply like “it’s all the same thing; there are no discrete objects” — then while your view may have been challenged, it’s nevertheless still your view.

When you get to the point where you’d greet the coin the same way you’d greet the key or a handful of sand, then I could start trying to get you to come around to my view of the matter. But if you still view things my way, then what’s left for me to do? Tell you not to be convinced by them? You’re already not convinced by them! You heard their pitch, and mulled it over, and — well, the next time you set out to unlock something, I take it you (a) weren’t tempted to try a handful of sand, but instead (b) made sure to put a key rather than a coin in it? And, later, you placed a coin rather than a key or some sand in the slot of a vending machine or whatever?

And, to this day, you still keep getting it right with your regular answer?

You are missing the point because right now it seems like their view of matter is right and you are still insisting things are separate and discrete when judging by their evidence and claims it’s not.

This isn’t about what I do or don’t believe but trying to find out how you are “not” the universe. Because as it stands it seems as though I don’t have the justification or knowledge to hold onto my old “materialistic” worldview. If atoms are not “Discrete units” then that really harms my understanding of things and I wanted to know if that was right or not.

You are targeting the wrong thing here. Because if there are no discrete units then everything is made of the same stuff and is fundamentally the same,which is what they say. Try to get at their argument since that is the problem I am having.

[Machinaforce]

@Larry_Borgia

TWOP why are you wasting your time with This? You will never ever ever get a straight answer.

I can get a straight answer if people addressed what I linked.

[road_lobo]

@Machinaforce

You are missing the point because right now it seems like their view of matter is right and you are still insisting things are separate and discrete when judging by their evidence and claims it’s not.

This isn’t about what I do or don’t believe but trying to find out how you are “not” the universe. Because as it stands it seems as though I don’t have the justification or knowledge to hold onto my old “materialistic” worldview. If atoms are not “Discrete units” then that really harms my understanding of things and I wanted to know if that was right or not.

You are targeting the wrong thing here. Because if there are no discrete units then everything is made of the same stuff and is fundamentally the same,which is what they say. Try to get at their argument since that is the problem I am having.

You are aware atoms are “made” of quarks, right? Have you read about the particle zoo? All matter is fundamentally energy. This doesn’t contradict materialism.

Here’s a podcast where the self is discussed in terms of psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience. There’s no woo.

You Are Not So Smart Podcast 004 – The Self – Bruce Hood

- YouTube

In this episode of the podcast, Bruce Hood talks about his book The Self Illusion and how ideas of materialism and dualism are being explored by modern science. Hood is the Director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre in the Experimental Psychology Department at the University of Bristol.

Here’s a transcript of the interview.

Transcript: Interview with Bruce Hood from Episode 004

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Machinaforce

You are missing the point because right now it seems like their view of matter is right and you are still insisting things are separate and discrete when judging by their evidence and claims it’s not.

It’s not that I’m insisting on it…

This isn’t about what I do or don’t believe but

…no; it is. It’s about what you believe and insist on and et cetera.

You’re the one telling me your regular answer would be to express your thanks if someone handed you the steel key; and that, if you got handed a coin instead of the key you were promised, you’d helpfully point out that, uh, no, this one right here isn’t actually the other one over there; and that, if you were then given the key, you’d say “oh, yes, that’s it, thanks” — but if you were instead given a handful of sand, you’d say “no, that’s still not it; that’s something else.”

If that’s not how you would reply — if you would accept the key or the coin or the sand with a cheerful “there are no discrete units and everything is made of the same stuff and is fundamentally the same” — then I can try to reason with you until you see things my way; maybe I’ll fail, but maybe I’ll succeed.

But if you already see things my way? If you’re already at a point where you can tell the difference between the key and the coin, and you’d act accordingly if folks offer you some sand? I’m not much on reasoning you out of a position you don’t hold; there’s little point in trying, if you already agree with me.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Larry_Borgia

TWOP why are you wasting your time with This?

What’s the harm? He seems sincere, and it’s not like I mind replying.

[Machinaforce]

@road_lobo

You are aware atoms are “made” of quarks, right? Have you read about the particle zoo? All matter is fundamentally energy. This doesn’t contradict materialism.

Here’s a podcast where the self is discussed in terms of psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience. There’s no woo.

You Are Not So Smart Podcast 004 – The Self – Bruce Hood
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=eUvaUy1n-JE

In this episode of the podcast, Bruce Hood talks about his book The Self Illusion and how ideas of materialism and dualism are being explored by modern science. Hood is the Director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre in the Experimental Psychology Department at the University of Bristol.

Here’s a transcript of the interview.
Transcript: Interview with Bruce Hood from Episode 004 – You Are Not So Smart

I’m not so sure about the atoms part really.

The transcript was fascinating, though if I am honest I don’t grasp the implications beyond it. I get the pieces, but putting it together is weird. So if the self is an illusion then what? What does that mean for aspects of life?

[Larry_Borgia]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

What’s the harm? He seems sincere, and it’s not like I mind replying.

It just seems like you’re banging your head against the wall. But do what you want, as long as you realize he will never answer that question about the key, or any other question.

[Machinaforce]

@Larry_Borgia

It just seems like you’re banging your head against the wall. But do what you want, as long as you realize he will never answer that question about the key, or any other question.

Because I keep posting the paragraphs and replies explaining what they mean by it and people don’t address it.

Like in the case of the Broward Meditation saying to throw away thoughts of a self, relationships, etc, because you are the universe. What appears to be birth and death is an illusion and just the rearrangement of form, especially since death isn’t the destruction of matter. Nothing is “Born” just rearranged. That’s what they get at too, and what they mean by “before you there was the universe”. There is no independent existing you, and the notion of a self is an illusion (though I will say that his science behind it is refreshing compared to the usual proclamations about it).

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Machinaforce

Because I keep posting the paragraphs and replies explaining what they mean by it and people don’t address it.

I think you’re wrong; but I don’t think it matters. Look at what you just wrote: you keep posting the paragraphs, and people don’t address it. After all, I keep making mention of keys and coins — and your response, as far as I can tell, is that you’d thank someone for the key, but if given the coin you’d react differently (namely, you’d point out that the coin isn’t the key).

To be clear, I can drop the bit about keys and coins; say you’re thirsty, and you get offered a gold cup full of water, and you’re then handed a tin cup full of cyanide. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but: I’m guessing you’d react by noting that the tin cup full of cyanide isn’t the gold cup full of water; and that, since they’ll have such different effects on you, you’ll gladly drink the water but not the cyanide; and, if pressed, you’ll add that the tin cup isn’t made out of gold, and the gold cup isn’t made out of tin, and neither one is the other.

And if I’m right about that — if, this very month, you’ll make a point of only ever drinking stuff that doesn’t kill you, instead of pouring yourself a hot cup of poison and saying, “meh, it’s all the same” — then there’s nothing to address: you already know the answer, you don’t actually believe water in a gold cup is cyanide in a tin cup; you manage to tell the difference. (And if somebody else disagrees and does drink poison, well, that shows that you’re not him, are you?)

I think all of the above is a great argument that addresses the question. Maybe you disagree; if so, well, that shows that you’re not me, doesn’t it?

[Machinaforce]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I think you’re wrong; but I don’t think it matters. Look at what you just wrote: you keep posting the paragraphs, and people don’t address it. After all, I keep making mention of keys and coins — and your response, as far as I can tell, is that you’d thank someone for the key, but if given the coin you’d react differently (namely, you’d point out that the coin isn’t the key).

To be clear, I can drop the bit about keys and coins; say you’re thirsty, and you get offered a gold cup full of water, and you’re then handed a tin cup full of cyanide. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but: I’m guessing you’d react by noting that the tin cup full of cyanide isn’t the gold cup full of water; and that, since they’ll have such different effects on you, you’ll gladly drink the water but not the cyanide; and, if pressed, you’ll add that the tin cup isn’t made out of gold, and the gold cup isn’t made out of tin, and neither one is the other.

And if I’m right about that — if, this very month, you’ll make a point of only ever drinking stuff that doesn’t kill you, instead of pouring yourself a hot cup of poison and saying, “meh, it’s all the same” — then there’s nothing to address: you already know the answer, you don’t actually believe water in a gold cup is cyanide in a tin cup; you manage to tell the difference. (And if somebody else disagrees and does drink poison, well, that shows that you’re not him, are you?)

I think all of the above is a great argument that addresses the question. Maybe you disagree; if so, well, that shows that you’re not me, doesn’t it?

They would say it is all the same because there is no discrete essence to things, it’s all fundamentally the universe which is something you keep missing the point on with your analogies (or stories). Like the Broward people said, birth and death are an illusion. You think you have a mother and father and you were born, but that is a trick,you have always been. It’s even partly based on the law of conservation of matter (although that is problematic since no one addressed if atoms are solid or discrete units or not).

You keep addressing points that have nothing to do with any of this, and ignore the parts that cause the problem.

[Machinaforce]

Or like what some other one mentioned about being there at the formation of the universe (mostly because the atoms in our bodies are partly made from what was at the dawn of creation).

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Machinaforce

They would say it is all the same because there is no discrete essence to things, it’s all fundamentally the universe which is something you keep missing the point on with your analogies (or stories).

Well, yes, they might say that. But the point of my analogies or stories is, what they actually do is drink the water in one cup while staying away from the poison in the other cup, as if they were different cups with different liquids in them. It’s easy enough for a guy to say there’s no discrete essence to things, but he still unlocks this or that door by reaching into his pocket for a key — and if he instead pulls out a coin, he soon realizes his mistake and swaps out the coin for a key; he doesn’t even try to use one as if it were the other; he knows better.

You keep addressing points that have nothing to do with any of this, and ignore the parts that cause the problem.

That’s just it: why do folks who say these things keep acting as if it matters that they drink water from one cup or poison from another? Why do they say that stuff, only to act like a key and a coin are discrete objects, such that it matters whether one or the other is in hand?

I get why I act that way; it’s because I don’t believe those claims. But why do they act that way, unless they don’t believe those claims either? Oh, sure, they could claim that these are points that have nothing to do with this; but they’d be wrong, unless they can explain why their decisions and their actions (a) match mine, but (b) don’t actually fit what you say they’re saying.

[Machinaforce]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Well, yes, they might say that. But the point of my analogies or stories is, what they actually do is drink the water in one cup while staying away from the poison in the other cup, as if they were different cups with different liquids in them. It’s easy enough for a guy to say there’s no discrete essence to things, but he still unlocks this or that door by reaching into his pocket for a key — and if he instead pulls out a coin, he soon realizes his mistake and swaps out the coin for a key; he doesn’t even try to use one as if it were the other; he knows better.

That’s just it: why do folks who say these things keep acting as if it matters that they drink water from one cup or poison from another? Why do they say that stuff, only to act like a key and a coin are discrete objects, such that it matters whether one or the other is in hand?

I get why I act that way; it’s because I don’t believe those claims. But why do they act that way, unless they don’t believe those claims either? Oh, sure, they could claim that these are points that have nothing to do with this; but they’d be wrong, unless they can explain why their decisions and their actions (a) match mine, but (b) don’t actually fit what you say they’re saying.

Again I keep pointing back to what that paragraph I quoted said, you aren’t getting the argument here. The point is what they are all ultimately made of, you aren’t listening. It doesn’t matter what “appears” to be so,since there is no discrete water or key, it’s a result of something else. It doesn’t exist on it’s own. like if you break down a cracker you won’t find any “crackerness” to it or essence. That’s the point being made by them.

I keep asking you to address what they say not make up stories that have nothing to do with what they are saying.

[Darren_Garrison]

There is no discrete Dunning or Kruger!