Can ONE reason (rhetoric) without using word based definitions of what ALL perceived means?
Reason is based on comprehension of word based definitions, but perception is based on pre-defined information offered. What's in-between perception (input) and comprehension (processing)? Free will of choice.
Does ONE think in adherence with ALL or does ONE consent to a rhetorical filter; offered by another ONE? Who taught you to speak? Parents? Who taught them? Who taught them? Who taught them?...Nature does not use words to brand information.
That still doesn't mean that your individual existence isn't real, just that your perceptions of it may not be what objective reality is, not that anybody truly knows objective reality, do they?
You're being to much of a materialist. We get our data for the external world through our senses. However, what if we had through our minds and reason the structures laid down (before even being exposed to the external world) to sort and aggregate the data our senses give us of external reality?
Our mind give us the capacity to take the data incoming from the external world and not leave it like a pile of note cards on the floor. Inherent reasoning powers take that data and organize it into piles of like data, and later into systems of data, and ultimately beliefs. We test these beliefs and if they keep proving to happen again and again (the sun rises in the east and sets in the west).
Objective reality was, and always will be unknowable because nobody has all knowledge. Right now, do you know how many hairs are on your head, or how many frogs are in Ohio? No. Therefore objective reality is unknowable. That it's unknowable, however, doesn't prelude that it's there, but unable to be measured as we don't have the resources to measure it and it's always in flux.
We are ultimately all limited by the fact (there's that materialism we can't avoid) that the universe as we perceive it is one of causality and the direction of time.
Truthfully, that’s a nice supposition, and one I might agree with in another context, but here I’ll play D.A. and suggest that until your notion gets evidence and a mechanistic explanation behind it (im partial to Sheldrake’s “morphic resonance” theory but I won’t argue both sides in this comment lol), there’s no reason to dream up something more than what we are, which is animals stuck on the “wrong” side of the veil (wrong only in that objective reality is imperceptible forever and always on this side)
There's no point in attempting to understand the grand scheme, or rather it is counterproductive, as you only have access to one extremely small piece of the whole from your limited perspective.
Work with what you've got, or drive yourself mad trying to hold the entire universe in a teaspoon.
you only have access to one extremely small piece of the whole from your limited perspective.
What if you are ONE within ALL; a potential within a potentiality?
What if ONE perceives ALL information, but ONEs comprehension of what ALL means is defined by ONEs free will of choice to either adhere or ignore ALL as the source of ALL information?
What if ALL reality can be ignored for belief based fiction, and what if that ignorance based belief, corrupts ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived information?
Coincidentally; the few control the many with lies; the many consent to lies by believing them.
Solips-ISM and Non-Dual-ISM...it's not about WHAT one believes; but THAT one believes.
It's the -ism that represents the offered contract of belief, that when consented to, creates the conflict between believers vs non-believers. Solus and ipse (alone and self) refer to ONEs choice to ignore adherence of self sustenance (reality), which then creates the belief based duality (fiction) aka ignorance of reality.
The difference is within the sales pitch to get ONE to consent to the same contract of belief (ignorance of self).
Start with the basics, "I think, therefore I am."
Go from there.
"I think, therefore I am."
Can ONE reason (rhetoric) without using word based definitions of what ALL perceived means?
Reason is based on comprehension of word based definitions, but perception is based on pre-defined information offered. What's in-between perception (input) and comprehension (processing)? Free will of choice.
Does ONE think in adherence with ALL or does ONE consent to a rhetorical filter; offered by another ONE? Who taught you to speak? Parents? Who taught them? Who taught them? Who taught them?...Nature does not use words to brand information.
“I think, therefore I am” - a Boltzmann brain floating in the primordial soup
That still doesn't mean that your individual existence isn't real, just that your perceptions of it may not be what objective reality is, not that anybody truly knows objective reality, do they?
That’s my point, if “objective reality” is unknowable to us, which by all indications it is, “I think, therefore I am” is inherently flawed (imo)
You're being to much of a materialist. We get our data for the external world through our senses. However, what if we had through our minds and reason the structures laid down (before even being exposed to the external world) to sort and aggregate the data our senses give us of external reality?
Our mind give us the capacity to take the data incoming from the external world and not leave it like a pile of note cards on the floor. Inherent reasoning powers take that data and organize it into piles of like data, and later into systems of data, and ultimately beliefs. We test these beliefs and if they keep proving to happen again and again (the sun rises in the east and sets in the west).
Objective reality was, and always will be unknowable because nobody has all knowledge. Right now, do you know how many hairs are on your head, or how many frogs are in Ohio? No. Therefore objective reality is unknowable. That it's unknowable, however, doesn't prelude that it's there, but unable to be measured as we don't have the resources to measure it and it's always in flux.
We are ultimately all limited by the fact (there's that materialism we can't avoid) that the universe as we perceive it is one of causality and the direction of time.
Truthfully, that’s a nice supposition, and one I might agree with in another context, but here I’ll play D.A. and suggest that until your notion gets evidence and a mechanistic explanation behind it (im partial to Sheldrake’s “morphic resonance” theory but I won’t argue both sides in this comment lol), there’s no reason to dream up something more than what we are, which is animals stuck on the “wrong” side of the veil (wrong only in that objective reality is imperceptible forever and always on this side)
You're trying way too hard to be deep.
There's no point in attempting to understand the grand scheme, or rather it is counterproductive, as you only have access to one extremely small piece of the whole from your limited perspective.
Work with what you've got, or drive yourself mad trying to hold the entire universe in a teaspoon.
you only have access to one extremely small piece of the whole from your limited perspective.
What if you are ONE within ALL; a potential within a potentiality?
What if ONE perceives ALL information, but ONEs comprehension of what ALL means is defined by ONEs free will of choice to either adhere or ignore ALL as the source of ALL information?
What if ALL reality can be ignored for belief based fiction, and what if that ignorance based belief, corrupts ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived information?
Coincidentally; the few control the many with lies; the many consent to lies by believing them.
Solips-ISM and Non-Dual-ISM...it's not about WHAT one believes; but THAT one believes.
It's the -ism that represents the offered contract of belief, that when consented to, creates the conflict between believers vs non-believers. Solus and ipse (alone and self) refer to ONEs choice to ignore adherence of self sustenance (reality), which then creates the belief based duality (fiction) aka ignorance of reality.
The difference is within the sales pitch to get ONE to consent to the same contract of belief (ignorance of self).