Re: so, the real reality does not exist? (wtf?)

[Gunholy1]

what do you know about neutrinos and light?

[TheLovesoul1]

science says we are born with physically everything we need to adapt and being multifunctional its called selection theory come to my channel to see were this is talked about the vid is nwo and consciousness i call it omniadaptibility or functionallty.

[TheLovesoul1]

science says we are born with physically everything we need to adapt and being multifunctional its called selection theory come to my channel to see were this is talked about the vid is nwo and consciousness.

[divinegod123456]

Also, think about what lead you to these thoughts. You might get frustrated when you realize that you are in fact, playing in a world of shadows and trying to explain color while you only know black and white.

There are many ways of thinking about this world...many permutations and combinations of words that can create a whole new word..

I want to think without words, but I came to this conclusion using these words.

I don't know if there is mindset I haven't explored.

[vivino100]

"While “naturalists” believe all entities are similar by their physical traits and different by their mental or spiritual ones, it is just the opposite with “animism” since every entity is similar by its spiritual features and differ radically by the sort of body it is endowed with." Latour. So, perhaps there are incommensurably different ways of seeing the world. Viviero De Castro mentions two: the 'naturalist' and the 'perspectivisit'. I think they are right, this is a naturre/cultute issue.

[vivino100]

I was reading a paper by B Latour that reminded me about this debate: he says "While “naturalists” believe all entities are similar by their physical traits and different by their mental or spiritual ones, it is just the opposite with “animism” since every entity is similar by its spiritual features and differ radically by the sort of body it is endowed with. " So it is possible to assume that due to various ecologically bound factors, there are 'naturalists' as opposed to 'perspectivists'.

[GrowingTreeAz]

After watching this video, my brain shrank to the size of a golfball.

[0ThouArtThat0]

@GrowingTreeAz be sure not to choke on it.

[modularfish]

Whether you see something or not, and think it is important or not, is really a matter of perception. Think about what that means for a little while, without jumping to conclusions. Just because you cannot see it, or just because it no longer exist in its exact for, does not remove the impact it has in shaping the world around us. Think about this and you will begin to understand that the process of information is the foundation of everything in the world we live in.

[lilgogeta]

banana

[trip2space]

yo i was trying 2 hear some trance n saw this movie...basicly is his mind saying" LSD fucked me up"

[splatuality]

And the mirror looked at its own reflection and said wow I look beautiful today .

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

dont make shit up 0ThouArtThat0 get of the drugs

[BaileyAE29]

your lucidity makes me smile. where does your voice come from?

[fondoftheduh]

It's called perception. Why complicate and analyze it? It's very simple..simplified it's called perception.

[waltrician11]

Perhaps our activityies, all activityies. For and against are the dance of frequency. While at it's base is only intent of becoming. Which in a birth state, a state of manifestation doen't lend itself to perceptional equation. An equation is a defind activity (limited). This source, this frequency would be unequatible. Truth are facst of accepted equation which lends it's self to manipulation...

[htf5555]

"the truth is, there is no spoon"

[yupiie]

why is my commentary removed ? wow... censorship... I never thought... so much for a free thinker...

[Sereiphiel]

The only true prisons exist within the mind. Open your mind to the truth. No, I don't want to take your mind I only want you to see the truth.

[fdambra]

perfectly articulated! Thanks for sharing.

[sonnetxi]

there are however some things which i think are certain eg things internal to consciousness like mathematical formulas. so what iam saying is i exist because iam conscious; "i think therefore i am"

but then my friend disagreed and said: how do we know our consciousness isnt dreamt up by a demon?

what do you think of this?

[sonnetxi]

what i think is, everything external to consciousness cannot never be proven. because perception is a mutalble and unstable thing, we will never know for absolute certainty that reality is the way it is or it even exists. however, i dont believe that reality is a construct of consciousness, as suggested by the quote by buddah, but it is external but just not knowable.

[goreglavu]

Tks for sharig your knowledge. Some of us were there allrady, and appreciated a new kid around the block to bring it to life again.

Wish you success on your quest into the unreal.

[Haydun1978]

People need to start speaking plain English.

Where is the layman's version of this?

[faunandy]

Names, descriptions and labels are the very shackles that bind the *ego* to the illusion of solidity within this time/space reality (our *existence*) - ironically, it would be hard to function without the interpretations, yet these are the very things one need to abandon in order to remain in the present ground of 'absolute pervasive' Be-ing.

Therefore, the understanding that the ego is indeed a mechanical construct that we use as an existential *wheelchair* is paramount to our *walking* again

[RealityGameWorld]

to make all possbilitys possbie, we would have too make reality unreal and lie and a fantasy

plus when i but one of the vids on the one what looks blue , i want to remove it

but the things whats its about are possbie only in reality it can happen becoze we are in the unreal already

we will just wake up to the real world and come out of the game

can you understand , how this would be possbie, the furture is in the past and the past is in the furture. I know what it means but do u have aIdea

[RealityGameWorld]

Reality is not the Real world

what reality is , is the Game world

also think back to what shakespeare said as well , it all go's with quantum

we have all just been living a lie

we real lives in the real world and we are just living in a fantasy, and all human history is a lie and never really happed, it would be hard 4 ppl to believe that but easer to understand with Quantum understanding

[SudanCarib]

so all this around us...........its not real.

[ghostofbdoo]

talking about collective intentions. lets say if a group of people is co-creating a person to be dumb. does it work that way?

[rocketchoker]

f u

[DeconstructingTheLie]

Dude you rule. Thank you for having the aggregate clarity that you do. My friends are all hyper-new agers and gobble that stuff up. I feel better now.

[themanyone]

So you're saying, essentially, that knowledge, even perception, is just a continuous creation and that if we can master this dance, we can get the reader/viewer of our writing/art/videos to participate/know things into existence with us? Powerful.

[0ThouArtThat0]

right, or a co-creation. It all rests on nothing but our collective intentions. Now I'm not trying to negate the solidity of the physical world, just trying to suggest that the physical world ended up the way it has through evolution because of a co-creative process that could have gone many other directions but just so happened to lead to us here and now. Where we take it from here is up to us.

[SoilWzelot]

great vid, and great thoughts, although i like quantum physics i like more when some1 can explain complex stuff with simple words like in in the vid...

keep it up

cheers!

[splatuality]

@0ThouArtThat0 A metaphor of sorts .. Imagine a foot print in the sand.. now imagine that neither the foot or the sand ever existed but only the Impression . The same way a picture cannot leave its frame and view itself , we are entangled in this picture we call reality .

[TheLovesoul1]

@0ThouArtThat0 you and 77gunslinger have the same point kind of very interesting very great you guys are so bright thank you very much for helping me whats your thought on light?

[sam042488]

hey the world is much more beautiful not knowing, trust me

[theiceman74]

i think u are right but kindda 2 late for me...i missed my old days happy or sad...now i am more like a zombi..

[connecthedot]

its Self reflexive

[blauweoceaan]

Hi,

you write/quote: "Truth is not objective, nor is it subjective. The truth is that reality has no ground, no essence, and is therefore empty. All the ten thousand things arise in relation to all other things and no thing in particular has any substantial existence in and of itself. "

and then under that you also quote buddha.

The thing is, that top quote is NOT, I repeat NOT from Buddha it is from: Nagarjuna

Someone who made an interpretation of the Buddha's teachings.

[zencat]

Good one, TAT. All arguments to this vid are going to smack right into duality, like Everett's here- positing a 'we' here and an 'objective world' there, a 'brain' and the 'world around' it.

[EverettsVLOG]

the only argument i see that you make here in favor of your position is:

1.) if there is an objective world, we can never know it because all we would have is representations

2.) therefore, believing in the objective world is untenable??

what??!! i dont get you man, i dont think one can have terribly strong evidence that there is an unknowable objective world, but i dont understand what your idea is and how it is much different. do you believe the brain represents the world around you?

[0ThouArtThat0]

I'll PM you about this, Everett. It is difficult to discuss enactivism because it draws conclusions so contrary to common sense. I assure you it is based on an empirical understanding of the nature of biology and cognition, it just rejects reductionism in favor of holism and complexity.

[normonics]

"it can perceive any world it wants to" ...not quite.

[0ThouArtThat0]

yes contrawagner got on me about that metaphor, too. I was trying to say that the organism perceives the world based on its own structure and organization, not based on what the environment is in itself. It perceives the world that it has enacted through a billion or so years of evolution (the individual's will has nothing to do with it).

[normonics]

but even in evolutionary terms, I think you underplay the role of restriction the environment plays. Yes it's true, nature is able to exploit resources and harvest energy in very unlikely and messy ways, (ways humans would have trouble engineering) BUT there are a lot of very real and pressing factors which must be overcome in order for life to succeed, this is why we see convergent evolution.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Environment plays a role for sure. I may have leaned too much on the side of the autonomy of the organism because I was responding to the opposite extreme which has it that organisms are input/output boxes completely determined by environment.

[normonics]

I've never been totally clear on how you can be so sure that's not the case. I don't see the terrible problem you seem to with an input/output metaphor. If nothing esle, it is a very useful metaphor in many ways. How can you teach someone something without providing it to their input? How can you know if theyve truly learned that thing without them spitting it out their output? Why does input and output bother you?

[0ThouArtThat0]

Because it seems to imply that information exists ready made out there in the world and all the body needs to do is passively receive and process it. I think the body/perception plays a far more active role in constituting what kind of environmental influence counts as information. Perception participates with whatever is out there to give rise to a world. There doesn't seem to be any meaningful sense in which we could talk about a perception-independent world.

[normonics]

I don't see how calling something an 'input' to a system implies all that. It almost seems to support your notion, because if the agent didn't play a very big role in deciding how to react to various environmental fluxes, thered be no reason to label an input/output. Again I ask, how can you teach someone ANYTHING without outputting/inputting it?

[normonics]

The input is the threshold which energy flux in the environment is converted into usable 'human' information.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I wouldn't disagree, but I'd just add that the threshold is determined by the qualities of the organism (its structure and organization) and not by any intrinsic qualities of the input or environmental flux.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Learning is all about putting things into context. We learn something new by relating it to what we already know. It's not as though we just add some new fact to our stockpile of information. Learning something new changes everything we already knew, as the entire brain is affected by the process of neural re-wiring.

[0ThouArtThat0]

But I think the point is that our nervous system is always already in an active state of meaning-making or world-enacting when "input" arrives. The input has no meaning in itself until it is related to this ongoing activity.

[normonics]

Why did helen keller need to communicate differently than the rest of us? (because some of her inputs were malfunctioning)

[0ThouArtThat0]

You've read Tao of Physics, right? Capra wrote another book called The Web of Life (mentioned in a prior vid). It talks about the development of systems theory, mathematics of complexity, autopoiesis, dissipative structures, and enactivism and tries to weave them all together into a new paradigm. Put it on the reading list, I think you'd really dig it.

[normonics]

fair enough, i'll check it out fo sho

[0ThouArtThat0]

I'd say Keller constructed a world for herself based on what sensory modalities she still possessed.

The word input isn't necessarily a problem, I just think it can be misleading. Visible light is only an input because the eye has evolved the structure and the brain the organization to perceive it. So this activity of perception is as much construction as it is reception. It is not like the eye is parachuted in to this world ready to receive objective inputs.

[normonics]

of course.

[yinyangzia]

ok, now I see where your coming from.

[ContraWagner]

There is no way that one's will actually affects evolutionary process.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I didn't mean it that way, I was just saying that life is self-organizing and is not determined by its environment. It can "do what it wants" (within certain constraints), metaphorically speaking.

[naumanhumayun]

hah, it can be most sensibly be argued that our whole biological evolutionary history is a condition of tripping the hell out on the will.

[naumanhumayun]

I would agree, truth, it seems, is a very abstract condition of human performance that we IDENTIFY, or 'abstract' in reality (phenomenal unfolding of life experiences). It becomes a designated point of Evolutionary, phenomenological, and fundamentally-excessively mode of communicative interaction, between us.

[ContraWagner]

Ok, maybe you didn't mean to assert that our will or cognition doesn't have anything to do with evolution, but when you say it is not determined by its environment, what else does it mean?

[0ThouArtThat0]

When you kick a rock, it reacts based on the laws of simple cause and effect. When you kick a dog, it responds based on its own internal structure and organization.

The environment influences organisms, but it does not determine them. Organisms are self-determining (but don't take this to mean there is some magic will or ego inside the body making decisions). They are determined by their own structure and therefore gain a degree of autonomy from the environment.

[jogayot]

the Truth! preach it, dragon brother! hah... but as you pine for oneness, thing is that there can not be two Truths. describing it and making it livable on our level is still useful. recursivness reigns and us being it and able to conceive it in ourselves is our "miracle". existence or non-existence doesn't matter (pointlessness of theist/atheist debacle), when important stuff is finding out the how and the why even if it will go on ad infinitum. when you look at ultimate equation from outside

[jogayot]

of time the answer seems to have to be 0=1, otherwise nothing would've happened. and as far as consciousness, i had recently thought that it might not really matter. truthfully humans suck, stupid, delusional entities, can't count or imagine N-dimensional spaces... so much waste of computational power to mumble silly: "I'm right!". we should devise something better, really evolved beyond humans, not a mere marionette, we should aim to create God. hah >:-)

[0ThouArtThat0]

0=1 or is it One become Many?

[jogayot]

more like nothing is in relation with everything: trivial, as in looking on universe as closed system under thermodynamical or otherwise parameters or like i came to it while pondering this long standing "thought experiment" of mine trying to imagine how "it" interacted with itself when it were to come out of "nothingness". in physics we basically operate on equalities of two differently expressed definitions. simple tautologies if they did not represent reality. or like i said before "x(y) -

[jogayot]

y(t, .) = 0". laws of conservation are great and dandy, but all they can help in is e.g. extending our notion of thing conserved (energy) onto before unknown territories. now we're beginning to see that there seems to be something blowing universe apart. but for example conservation of baryonic number or charm seems laughable to me or i just do not have better grasp of QFT beyond popular accounts of standard model. anyway. either we'll invent some new "energy" whose conservation encompasses

[jogayot]

anti-gravitating universe or we'll build computer faster enough to try before the end all probable combinations of how space-time blocks of planck length evolved this three dimensional stage. and either the buck will stop or we'll keep on chasing cheese. polaretic discoherencies of thought are so c(r)ut(d)e. better stop this mumble fest. a bit of space left: it's like trying to imagine fabric of space being populated by this "0=1=-1 oscilating" triangles, tetrahedra... (a clocks?) and so "on".

[jogayot]

geometry of time...

[0ThouArtThat0]

Didn't they already invent that new energy, or did they just give something they don't understand at all a name? ie dark energy, dark matter, etc. ?

[jogayot]

heh, good question... i dunno... guess i should learn string theory really. but as far as i know now it has no explanation. besides lately listening to: watch?v=HY8vCbU-qmw it seems that even discovering "godly" higgs particle giving mass to everything it will still require some handy work to come up with stuff balancing it out to make universe flat and "only" 13+ billions years old... i understand how valiant

[jogayot]

the struggle it is to fit it all "nicely" but like the video says we'd need an accelerator the size of galaxy to verify strings theories as they stand now. what bothers me the most if there was bing bang it surelly requires the point it started in... yet they are fitting data to flat universe where evething "equally" recededs from everything else. either i'm not understing it fully or there is something deeply "screwed up" there.

[plenipotentiarius]

Pragmatists, Dewey, enactivists may be right about the non-existence of the noumenal as you suggest. To my mind they are just a simplification of Hegel, one that does not see the unconscious aspects of pragmatic action and that the idea of 'the Useful' is only one moment in the picture. "Natural Drift" is a way out but, that becomes an ontologised response to our social system of survival.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I've so far just been talking about this in terms of biology. Bringing society and intersubjectivity into it certainly complicates the picture. I think the same general principals hold, but they need to be applied to a new level of description.

[plenipotentiarius]

I agree but you might find at the other level, the other side of this dualism I mentioned that what separates the two sides is not an impenetrable wall nor a one-way or simple transaction. Thus you might find that it undermines this "biology" level. But Kant, noumenal fused with phenomenal is not biology.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Kant is relavent because in the picture I'm trying to draw, being alive is synonymous with cognition. Cells, plants, animals, with or without nervous systems, are cognitive systems. Living implies knowing, the ability to perceive an environment (even cells do this) constitutes life. So Kant applies to biology because mind and body are integrated.

[plenipotentiarius]

Ok, I see, so you haven't been talking only of biology but also psychology, since in your philosophy they'd be one and the same, all the rest being noumenal.

So is this biologism or psychologism? It is both I suppose and is a variant of the merger strategy of late, eg, in socio-biology or psychohistory.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Suffering is still something all sentient beings experience, yes.

[HeidiSaid]

I could feel your frustration in your last video. Hope this finds you well.

[HeidiSaid]

This was a great response video. After reading Dario's response, may I assume we are questioning the absolute sentient of all beings?

[0ThouArtThat0]

whatdya mean?