>how fragmented one’s mind is

What does this mean?

This one is making my mind go in circles and I'm struggling to summarize my point, so bear with me please.

I understand the cautious note, but at the same time, don't the times astray feed directly into creating critical thinking?

Without a single time astray all you can go off of is other people. At some point you would assume other people may not see a situation the same as you. How do you form that "you" without being fragmented?

And sorry if I misread yours.

depends on what your temptations are.

i do what i want when i want to, its caused homelessness, addiction and a whole lot of experiences i wouldnt change for the world.

and yet im not stagnant or sad, ive lived with over 80 people in 4 different states (im Australian) ive done jobs across a dozen industries. now im 31 with no debts and im 57kg at 183cm and work my own business gardening (and literally no support at all, i dont talk to family).

ibe done all this by not resisting but by doing what i want (what i actually want to, not what society wants me to want. when i was young i wanted simple base pleasures, as ive gotten older my wants have changed to security and stability, skilled hobbies etc).

I know plenty of people who know exactly the type of character they are, and there’s absolutely no hesitation - no temptation - in acting as they do.

To be tempted depends on a degree of guilt, and hesitation depends on how confident (or not) the person is w/regards to the ‘unattractive’ deed...

...which, if exposed, reflects poorly on their fake ‘reputation’.

There are those who feel no guilt, no remorse, and who are overwhelmingly confident that they’ll not suffer any consequences by doing whatever they want.

Temptation is simply an experience - an id vs superego conflict observed by the ego - for those who haven’t the clearest idea of how to go about getting what they want without consequence.

Then there are those who don’t care about consequences, because they know themselves...

...to be or not to be: there is no question.

>; he says the most people feel as if their current self-image is how they will be forever, despite the multitude of changes that they went through up to that point

how?

doesnt make any sense to me, obviously we are all different at different points in our lives, an unchanging person is effectively a dead person.

Electricity is never “un-manifest”ed. It is required for atoms to bond and is present in everything that is matter. Furthermore electricity is present even in non-matter space by fields, where it enjoys the freedom to be and simultaneously to not be aka non-duality via the quantum nature of time.

To say consciousness requires a body is just a religious idea of humans being special. In fact, contrary to the astronauts idea of great religious teachings, this would mean biological creatures are not special and do not partake in special gifts from the gods like consciousness. Similar to how people believed the Earth was the center of the solar system or universe. We move on our own accord? Where do we go? Nowhere, because it’s an illusion of movement. Like the example of a train moving at the speed of light, and a passenger walks from the back to the front… he does not break the light barrier because he is not really moving anywhere.

as someone with few inconsistencies and poor ability to resist temptations i disagree.

i fail to resist temptations because why should i resist them? if i want to drink, smoke, eat, fuck then i do.

ive been an addict, there was no inconsistencies there either ie i had no internal problem with the actions i was performing, no 'i shouldnt do this but i will' more ''i know this is 'bad' but i do not care, everything is 'bad' after all''

as to avoiding temptations theres no need, if i dont feel like doing x i will not (its how ive quit before, got over it so i stopped).

then again maybe im just better at self-control then most, i have no debts at 31 and im 57kg at 183cm.

All your observations are filtered and modeled by your mind. That things work means only that you have a model that can predict, nothing more; Just because you have an equation for it does not mean gravity is any less bizarre or "explained"

Just your use of the words before and after implies an understanding of the concept of "time" which we havent.

You know, nothing is solved but there is a reason Albert Einstein had to ask his colleagues if they seriously believed the moon is not there when nobody looks at it.

Reality is just not that simple

Obviously.... If you know exactly what you want, and you fully believe you can get it, why would you spend a single fraction of a second doing anything else? Why is so much modern scientific research just now discovering the shit we all already knew anyway? Shouldn't we be clarifying the difference between thought and reality or solving the ecological disasters or thinking up better legal/economic systems or SOMETHING that's actually useful for God's sake???

>upon which we build all of our technology and engineering

Not knowing what space or time "is" does not negate what we do understand. We can build stuff which works based upon it. There are known knowns, and they do prohibit alternatives. For example, no matter how mysterious space or time turns out to be, it will not ever negate the existence of the moon, or the golgi apparatus, or dna, or any other highly observed structure emerging from and existing within it. Human brains understanding of reality has nothing to do with anything. The point of observables is that they do not emerge from our mind, they are there before our minds even evolved, and will be there long after we've gone. That will be true no matter how detailed our observations have become.

I have no clue what you mean by

> Either we are special or we arent. It can't be both

>You could measure the ability to walk in a set of toddlers, but that doesn't imply that it doesn't bode well for our ability to walk as adults.

It would be irresponsible to ignore the possibility that the walking difficulty as a toddler might indicate an adjustment is needed so that it doesn't alter the individual as an adult.

You seem to be conflating an indicator for an absolute.

I'm not sure we're operating with the same definitions and/or understanding of physics here. By 'phenomenal conscious experience' I mean qualia. Qualia is a (by?)product of brains but not necessarily a property of physical matter, hence why I'm a dualist. I'm not sure how a molecule would change phenomenologically because I don't attribute such conscious phenomena to them in the first place. All of the afterlife stuff has nothing to do with observable (physical) reality, but is an addition to it; it's the statement that observable reality is not the total sum of reality.

>Or you can construct a logically, or even empirically consistent theory of reality which is consistent with both your assertion and these observables.

That's what I've done. This is what I've been trying to say; you can fully accept a scientific understanding of the physical world and also incorporate a belief in non-physical phenomena (through the direct observation of one's own arguably non-physical consciousness/qualia), and through some reasoning and epistemological coherentism deduce the existence of an afterlife.

My point was that it is an admission of insincerity of belief if someone claims to believe they are going to suffer for eternity as a result of transgressions in this life, and then willfully and persistently commits those transgressions.

Taking your point of a more abstract sense of an afterlife, why would there be a judgment mechanism? What would that even mean. In this context of everything being conscious and connected, why would there be a judgment mechanism? Judgment is an evolved trait of some tiny fraction of highly evolved biomass on one of quadrillions of quadrillions of planets. Literally a heuristic procedure for regulating interaction between social group members along lines of reproductive advantage for the group.

What would an amoebas, or a trees essential consciousness be judging itself for in the afterlife, for example? It has no context outside of regulating prosocial behavior among highly intelligent lifeforms.

How can you know that consciousness remains the same in whatever body you observe it?

What you were saying ("the universe itself want us to explore it", "the consciousness of the universe") was implying otherwise to me.

I mean, I would only consider those statements I quoted to be true in a poetic or metaphorical way.

>I'm not a panpsychist.

Apologies then, but you seem quite keen on defending it.

>The mind can be understood far more easily as a separate entity from consciousness.

Elaborate? I'm interested.

>That's a shame, isn't it? Empathy is how you remove differences between each other, not by simply stating a premise. It's not that psychedelics won't show you this, but you are so conditioned to not give any credence esoteric ideas.

I don't see it as a shame. My empathy works pretty well. And you frankly have no idea how 'esoteric' my beliefs are. I'm willing to entertain any idea; when I entertained panpsychism I found it incoherent and unconvincing.

>I find it ridiculously humorous that you just brush away the oneness as being a matter of fact, when in fact a direct experience of this oneness is what changed an astronaut forever.

People change constantly. Astronauts are people too. Why should I find this particularly compelling?

>It isn't just a meaningless statement, it means that all the distinctions that we can draw up amongst humans, animals, or any living being for that matter, are completely subjective.

I wouldn't say all distinctions, but even so I don't see this as any sort of major revelation. Perhaps for an anthropocentrist, which is something I'm very far from.

>Ego isn't bad, it is just unruly and often compels you to do things that are counterproductive to your life. What is recommended is that you grow out of your egoic habits/thought patterns.

I think a little unruliness makes life more interesting. Counterproductivity, chaos, suffering, a bit of destruction - all spices of life. The egoless and the egoed are perfect foils for each other. Alas, I prefer discussions of metaphysics and epistemology to axiology; more potential objectivity to work with. I was just expressing an aside.

>I'm not a panpsychist, so I don't know why you keep referring to it.

Er, this entire comment chain is about panpsychism.

>What seems like hippie nonsense is the same nonsense Buddha spouted. I'm sure he was heck of a hippie.

Probably.

>Stoicism has a metaphysical aspect that sounds almost like the same hippie nonsense that offends you.

I don't know enough about stoicism to comment, but sure, possibly.

>You have no idea how encumbered you are by the weight of your ego. True independence is not being bogged down by the vagaries of your mind. And who ever told you that by giving up your ego, you are giving up your freedom of being an individual?!

Evidently I don't even know what an ego is, but I don't feel any particular weight or encumbrance in my life beyond what's necessary to keep my feet on the ground and provide traction to keep moving forward. Floating isn't really my thing.

>It is called liberation in spirituality for a reason. It is a liberating experience.

I felt liberated enough saying I was no longer convinced of atheism. I don't think I can handle any more liberation.

>it isn't a manic delusion I can assure you.

Sorry but the deluded never believe they're deluded lol. It's part of the definition.

As fun as this is though I'm mostly just here to discuss panpsychism, not the values of unity and ego death and the Buddha etc. I'd be here all day otherwise.

you might really want to and you might enjoy your time but you could still be really procrastinating some other thing you should do but don’t want to

> but it's not a logical necessity that it must always be that way.

I agree with this 100% in principle. Which is why I asked a specific question. One which you didn't even address. That is my point. You have to ignore specific observable facts of our reality, to hold the belief that molecules, and the structures they form are redundant constructs, and that although it is not a logical necessity they are not, it is an observable reality that they evolved into greater complexity over billions of years, without any phenomenological change in their nature.

Or you can construct a logically, or even empirically consistent theory of reality which is consistent with both your assertion and these observables. That's fine, but until you do that, or even acknowledge the observable nature of reality, you are actively ignoring it.

Awesome

I don't think it was ever said the universe as a whole is conscious, only that we represent the consciousness of the universe.

Well, we don't have much better empirical evidence of consciousness.

Either way, I'm not sure that portion of the article is really framed as proof in and of itself.

​

>The Fundamental Nature of Reality
>
>I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.' Max Planck (Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist and originator of Quantum Physics)
>
>A paper recently published by The Institute of Noetic Sciences, founded by Edgar Mitchell, proposes 'that the hard problem arises because one or more assumptions within a materialistic worldview are either wrong or incomplete.' Simply stated, we have assumed matter precedes consciousness, when in fact it may be the other way around, consciousness may be fundamental and primary to all else.
>
>Many great thinkers have contemplated the idea that the physical world is somehow secondary to a hidden non-physical world. It is strangely reminiscent of Plato’s Theory of Forms which suggests that the physical world is not as real as the world of ideas. ‘Ideas in this sense, are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations’. Modern scientists have stated that the universe is a hologram, and simulation theory seems to be mentioned in popular culture with increasing frequency.
>
>The paper published by IONS contains several competing theories that deviate away from the materialistic worldview, these are referred to as non-local consciousness theories. Rather than consciousness being generated solely and purely from the brain, or locally, originating 'from physical substrates like neurons that have evolved to be more and more complex over time through adaptation, leading to the emergence of consciousness', these theories suggest consciousness emerges non-locally, or not purely from the brain, although 'both types of theories attempt to explain the underlying brain mechanisms of consciousness.'
>
>'Neuroscience today says consciousness is generated by and localized in the brain because it emerges from brain activity. Alternatively, [they] propose that consciousness may not originate in the brain, although some aspects of human perception of consciousness may be dependent on the brain. [They] also suggest that awareness extends beyond the brain. These non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness may be due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered.'

I can imagine being too open would impede your ability to form coherent beliefs. Openness could also be called naive in the way you are explaining, it's important to use critical thinking so that you are not led astray.

[deleted]

Just the word observables is problematic. We dont even know what are space or time to begin with, nor consciousness. It would be a huge coincidence if human brains have the potential of understanding the nature of reality. Either we are special or we arent. It can't be both

[deleted]