two is one

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Thu Jul 02, 2020 11:33 pm

Hi VIviene,

Again I had a very long day at work today (13h)
I am too tired now.
Tomorrow I am off so it should be easier.
Thank you for being patient with me.

Regards,
Tomasz

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:45 pm

Hi Vivien,
Please tell me, what is the difference between thinking and experiencing?
Experiencing is feeling a sensation of touch at the tips of my fingers when I am typing these words.
Thinking is commenting that sensation after it was experienced.


After you ask the question, what do you do exactly?
Do you SEARCH for a me, literally search for it, or you just wait for an answer to arrive in a form of a thought?
After asking that question I do not perform a searching.
After asking that question I experience silence and calmness.
Then thoughts arrive and they comment that experience.
I the base of those thoughts I am writing these words.

If you search, where do you search?

I do not search.

Where is that point zero? Where?
Pin down its exact location.

‘Point zero’ is a form of speech. It is not a real thing which can be located.
Is there an ACTUAL REAL ‘point zero’, or there is just an assumed / imagined one?
If there is actually one, find it, and tell me its exact location.
Point zero is an abstract.
It is not a real thing.


Thank you,
Tomasz

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7049
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: two is one

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:53 am

Hi Tomasz,
After asking that question I do not perform a searching.
After asking that question I experience silence and calmness.
Then thoughts arrive and they comment that experience.
This is not looking at experience.
This is still thinking.
You are just passively waiting for an answer to arrive, and that answer can arrive only IN THINKING.
It’s still intellectual.

The basics of looking is this: you can tell me what is behind your back in two ways
1. You can think about it, remember and tell me from thinking.
2. You can turn around, see it and describe.

So in this investigation I ask you to look at and describe what you experience and not what you think, remember or imagine.
Can you see the difference?


Looking is not passive. It’s an active search.

If I ask you, where is the I that is thinking thoughts? – then you LITERALLY have to search through the whole body, especially the head, for the one that is supposedly thinking.

You have to LITERALLY FIND the thinker, otherwise, if you just passively wait for a thought answer to arrive, then that is just more thinking. More assumption. More belief.
I the base of those thoughts I am writing these words.
OK. This is what you BELIEVE. It’s an unquestioned assumption taken as reality.

Now check it out in reality, if it’s really true.

WHERE is this I that is the base of these thoughts?
WHERE is the person that is writing these word?
Where is Tomasz, who is supposedly thinking thoughts?
WHERE?
You have to find it. Literally.


Look and search one-by-one with each question. Spend lots of time with each questions. Search again and again and again. And even if it seems that you cannot find anything, search more.

You are believing that there is a REAL you, a REAL EXISTING PERSON inside the body, then you HAVE TO FIND IT.

I’m going to be very honest with you. It seems that I’m putting more effort into this inquiry than you.
It’s your inquiry not mine.
You have to work for it.
It won’t fall into your lap.
This investigation requires consistent and repeated looking again and again and again….

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Sat Jul 04, 2020 12:17 pm

Hi Vivien,
I’m going to be very honest with you. It seems that I’m putting more effort into this inquiry than you. I
It’s your inquiry not mine
You have to work for it.
It won’t fall into your lap.
This investigation requires consistent and repeated looking again and again and again….
I can assure you I process your questions on daily basis.
That process is accelerating.
I learned not to write a lot because I found that you do not expect me to elaborate on the answers.

Please tell me, what is the difference between thinking and experiencing?
Experiencing is feeling a sensation of touch at the tips of my fingers when I am typing these words.
Thinking is commenting that sensation after it was experienced.
Could you comment my answer above?
This is a key point.
I need to learn the difference.

The basics of looking is this: you can tell me what is behind your back in two ways
1. You can think about it, remember and tell me from thinking.
2. You can turn around, see it and describe.
I need more points like that one above.
When I am looking now I see a screen and my hands and my forearms and the desk and a few other objects in the room in perifery of my vision field.

You have to LITERALLY FIND the thinker, otherwise, if you just passively wait for a thought answer to arrive, then that is just more thinking. More assumption. More belief.
How can I find the thinker if you already told me it does not exist.
You actively discouraged me from searching.

Looking is not passive. It’s an active search.
So who is looking if there is no me?

WHERE is this I that is the base of these thoughts?
WHERE is the person that is writing these word?
Where is Tomasz, who is supposedly thinking thoughts?
WHERE?
You have to find it. Literally.
I cannot find any sensation which would represent Tomasz.
Tomasz is a pure abstract.

Thank you,
Tomasz

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7049
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: two is one

Postby Vivien » Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:48 am

Hi Tomasz,
I can assure you I process your questions on daily basis.
That process is accelerating.
I learned not to write a lot because I found that you do not expect me to elaborate on the answers.
You can share more about your experience, but not about your theories about your experience.
V: Please tell me, what is the difference between thinking and experiencing?
Experiencing is feeling a sensation of touch at the tips of my fingers when I am typing these words.
Thinking is commenting that sensation after it was experienced.
T: Could you comment my answer above?
This is a key point.
I need to learn the difference.
Yes. But you wrote about one aspect of experience, feeling the sensations that are present when typing.

But what about seeing the colors and shapes on your screen? Or the shape and colors of the moving hands?
Isn’t those visual shapes and colors are also experience?
And what about the sound of the clicking buttons as you type? Isn’t that sound also experienced?
And what about the taste of last food or drink you had in your mouth? Isn’t that taste also experienced?
And is there any smell present in the room? Isn’t that smell also experienced?


So what we call experience are:
- colours
- sounds
- tastes
- smells
- sensations
- and experiencing BOTH verbal and visual thought appears / arises (but NOT the content of thoughts. What the thought is ABOUT that is not experienced).
Can you see this clearly?

Here is an exercise that illustrates this:

Imagine that you are holding a spoon. Imagine its shape, size, weight, temperature, color. Now keep it there, close your eyes, and feel the imaginary spoon.

Then, open your eyes:
Is there a spoon here, in real life?
So how did you see that there is no spoon?
What happened to the spoon?
Did it disappear or it never existed?


Now go and get a spoon from the kitchen and hold it in the same way that you imagined it.
Feel the spoon’s form, its size, its weight, its temperature. Close your eyes and feel the spoon for a while.

Now open your eyes ... is there a spoon here, in real life?
Are a visual thought of the spoon and the experience of the spoon the same?
How does imagining and experiencing differ?

How can I find the thinker if you already told me it does not exist.
You actively discouraged me from searching.
Please be careful, this is a big trap. Why? Since you just heard about there being no thinker, but it’s just a second-hand intellectual information for you, what you either accept it and thus believe it or not.

But even if you accept it and believe it, it won’t change anything, you will still feel, live and believe in a thinker, and that thinker is you.

You need to experience it first-hand. No amount of learning or intellectual understanding will make you see in in experience that there is no thinker.

So as long as you BELIEVE and FEEL that there is a thinker, then you have to search for it.
It’s not a question of believing me or not.

It’s about experiencing it first-hand for yourself, to have a DEEP EXPERIENTIAL RECOGNITION of this being a fact.

So when I say that there is no you who could think, my intention is definitely not to discourage you from searching it.
Quite the opposite.
Saying that there is no you thinking is a pointer.
And the aim of a pointer is too look into the direction it points to, to be able to see it for yourself.

So please never ever believe the phrase that there is no separate self.
Rather actively search and search and search for it, literally hundreds, if not thousands of times, to DISCOVER IT for yourself.
So who is looking if there is no me?
There has never ever been a me, and yet all sorts of activities were and are performed.

In order to looking to happen, there is no need for a me.
In order to thoughts to appear, there is no need for a self.
In order to move the body, there is no need for a doer.

But be very careful not to fall into believing that if there is no self, then there is nothing to do.
Since you BELIEVE that there is a self, so you have to search for it, until it gets totally clear without any doubt that indeed there is none.
I cannot find any sensation which would represent Tomasz.
Tomasz is a pure abstract.
We are not just simply looking of a sensation that would represent Tomasz.

Since a representation of Tomasz, is not equal to Tomasz.
Just as the word ‘chair’ represent the thing you can sit on.
But the word ‘chair’, is not the thing itself.

Try to sit on the word ‘chair’. Can you do that?

Please, don’t just quickly jump to an intellectual conclusion that of course I cannot sit on it, but literally try it.

So, we are not looking for a representation of Tomasz / me / self, we are looking for the ACTUAL Tomasz / me /self.

Just as you would look for a chair when you want to sit.
The representation of a chair, the word ‘chair’, or even a mental image of a chair, won’t do it.

Imagine a chair as vividly as you can. Can you sit on it? Why not?

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:14 pm

Hi Vivien,
So what we call experience are:
- colours
- sounds
- tastes
- smells
- sensations
- and experiencing BOTH verbal and visual thought appears / arises (but NOT the content of thoughts. What the thought is ABOUT that is not experienced).
Can you see this clearly?
Yes, I can see it.
In my present experience, there is a touch of the keyboard on the tip of my fingers, there is sound of my wife talking over phone with her sister, there is gentle pressure of the chair pressing against my bottom, there is a sense a gentle tension in my upper stomach which represents a frustration triggered by my friend sending me texts all day :)

It’s about experiencing it first-hand for yourself, to have a DEEP EXPERIENTIAL RECOGNITION of this being a fact.
Yes, ok I understand it.
You suggest me to search but you know there is nothing or noone to be found.
Once I spend some time on searching I should eventually experience it by myself.


In order to looking to happen, there is no need for a me.
In order to thoughts to appear, there is no need for a self.
In order to move the body, there is no need for a doer.
It like a car which is driving itself without a driver :)

Please, don’t just quickly jump to an intellectual conclusion that of course I cannot sit on it, but literally try it.
I was literally looking for myself in my house today.
I was nowhere.

So, we are not looking for a representation of Tomasz / me / self, we are looking for the ACTUAL Tomasz / me /self.
Therefore, I wrote - I cannot connect an idea of Tomasz with anything which can be experienced like touch, sound, smell, taste, body sensation etc).
In other words, there is not a name Tomasz written on those experiences (I described at the beggining of this post).
It might be because I was not born toghether with a small card with a name Tomasz :)

Thank you,
Tomasz

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:36 pm

Hi Vivien,

The last sentence from my last post reminded me an article I wrote a few years ago.
https://www.openfocusattentiontraining. ... on-styles/
Tomasz

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7049
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: two is one

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 06, 2020 3:47 am

Hi Tomasz,

You’ve missed replying to several pointers.
Please don’t cherry pick the questions.

Have you done the spoon exercise?
Whether or not, please do it again. And not just once. Not even twice. Do it several times.
You can experiment with different objects.

Tomasz, I’m giving these exercises not just to read thought them, and entertain them intellectually.
You literally have to do these exercises.


If you hold your intellect in high regard, then this inquiry can be very humbling.
Your intellect is not needed.
It’s in the way.
Your intellect is not as important as you would want to believe.
It could be useful tool in everyday life, but it’s utterly useless when you want to experience reality.
As long as you hold onto your intellect, you won’t be able to see through the illusion.
Let this think in.


Here is the spoon exercise again:

Imagine that you are holding a spoon. Imagine its shape, size, weight, temperature, color. Now keep it there, close your eyes, and feel the imaginary spoon.

Then, open your eyes:
Is there a spoon here, in real life?
So how did you see that there is no spoon?
What happened to the spoon?
Did it disappear or it never existed?


Now go and get a spoon from the kitchen and hold it in the same way that you imagined it.
Feel the spoon’s form, its size, its weight, its temperature. Close your eyes and feel the spoon for a while.

Now open your eyes ... is there a spoon here, in real life?
Are a visual thought of the spoon and the experience of the spoon the same?
How does imagining and experiencing differ?


-
And have you done this one?

Just as the word ‘chair’ represent the thing you can sit on.
But the word ‘chair’, is not the thing itself.
Try to sit on the word ‘chair’. Can you do that?

Please, don’t just quickly jump to an intellectual conclusion that of course I cannot sit on it, but literally try it.

Imagine a chair as vividly as you can. Can you sit on it? Why not?


Therefore, I wrote - I cannot connect an idea of Tomasz with anything which can be experienced like touch, sound, smell, taste, body sensation etc).
In other words, there is not a name Tomasz written on those experiences (I described at the beggining of this post).
It might be because I was not born toghether with a small card with a name Tomasz :)
The question is, is this you lived everyday experience, or is this just an intellectual understanding?
I was literally looking for myself in my house today.
I was nowhere.
The self is not in the house, it’s believed to be INSIDE the body.
So you have to search for it inside the body.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:29 pm

Hi Vivien,
Have you done the exercises?
Yes, I did. I did not know I should have report on it. Why did you assume I have not done those exercises?

xxx
Is there a spoon here, in real life?
No there is not.
So how did you see that there is no spoon?
There was empty space.
What happened to the spoon?
It never existed.
Try to sit on the word ‘chair’. Can you do that?
No
Imagine a chair as vividly as you can. Can you sit on it? Why not?
There was empty space so I fell
The question is, is this you lived everyday experience, or is this just an intellectual understanding?
How will you ever recognise it?

I keep searching.

Thank you,
Tomasz

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7049
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: two is one

Postby Vivien » Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:32 am

Hi Tomasz,
Yes, I did. I did not know I should have report on it. Why did you assume I have not done those exercises?
Because you didn’t reply to the questions. The reason why I’m making the questions blue is because all of those pointers. So please always reply to them. It’s not enough that you do the exercise alone, you might be fooling yourself into believing that you see something while you can. But if you post your reply, there is a chance that I might spot something what you cannot see.

Tomasz, you replied to the first part of the spoon exercise only, and you didn’t say anything about the second part. The important part.

How should I help you if you don’t share what happens when you do the exercise?
How thoroughly do you read the questions?
How thoroughly do the investigation?

You also missed an important pointer with the chair exercise. You simply didn’t read the questions carefully.

You only leave room for speculation. And since you missed the second part, I cannot get to other conclusion than you didn’t read the exercise carefully. Because if you were, then you would have seen why it’s important to reply properly.

I’m going to be honest with you. There are lots of clients waiting to be guided. And you haven’t shown a deep commitment to this inquiry. That’s all right. But we are volunteers here, we are doing it in our free times for free, so we have limited time and capacity to help. And if you don’t have a deep commitment, then I’ll move on to another client, who is more open and eager to start the investigation.

It’s all right, if you are not committed. But then you are simply not ready.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:28 pm

Hi Vivien,
I have read our thread again.
You have definitely put a lot of effort, time and commitment in writing posts to me. Thank you.
But makes this enquiry very intense. Perhaps too intense for me.
There is also continuous issue with me not looking/searching/experiencing but thinking/believing. It is easy to see your frustration.
So, I have two questions:
1. Is it possible to write answers every 3-4 days or to make smaller steps?
2. Is it possible you can pass my enquiry to another guide?
Thank you,
Tomasz

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7049
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: two is one

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:59 am

Hi Tomasz,

I'm going try to get another guide for you, but I cannot promise that it will be successful. There aren't many guides, and currently there are 10 people waiting for a guide to start the inquiry.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ronaldo
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:06 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: two is one

Postby Ronaldo » Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:37 am

Hi Tomasz,

My name is Ron, I've read through your thread with Vivien, and if you'd like, I will try and resume guiding you.  I know you have a couple of busy days each week, so you can simply reply when you can/want, but try to read each of my posts and just ponder on it, even if you can't answer that day.

As pointed out by Vivien, beliefs, dogmas and assumptions stand in the way of realization, and due to your training and education you have accumulated a lot of them. You consider these assumptions as absolute indisputable truths, and so you do not even question their validity, and don't think of them as beliefs, e.g. matter, evolution, gravity, but are these absolute truths? Do you know that with absolute certainty? We'll explore these together if you like.  

LU is not typically concerned with these types of intellectual enquiries, (this will be a first...). Rather, LU focuses completely on what can be seen by direct observation (sense perception, not thoughts - and you'll understand why soon enough).  

My background is not too far from yours, and I know I had to first understand why before I could accept and open up to such weird and illogical types of enquiries. Some of them seemed silly or pointless, they insulted my intelligence at first, then threatened my world of logic and order.  This is the road I'd like to take you on. Once you see the point and logic in going beyond logic and thought, you can also be guided to see reality.  But you must open up and look at things afresh, let your guards down and consider what you've been taught.

So what is reality? Can you say what the world/universe is, and what you are?

Ron
The truth is simple. If it was complicated, everyone would understand it. - Walt Whitman

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:45 pm

Hi Ron,

Thank you for writing to me.
Yes, you are right, I did not get a message from the forum that someone was posting to me.

Yes, it would be great if you could guide me.
I do appreciate what you guys doing.
You commit your private time for benefit of others.

I would like to approach my ‘looking’ differently now.
I realise, this is the second, and likely the last, chance for me to be guided.

As you could see I had a bit rough relationship with Vivien.
She kept pointing that I was using too much of my intellect and imagination instead of simply looking. I could not get what she really expected from me but after we part, I read a few other people threads on the forum. I hope, I know better now what she meant by ‘looking’.
I also realised that I was trying too hard to post regularly and I ended up writing very little because I was usually doing it late evenings when I was very tired. It was simply too intense for me.
We also had a few misunderstandings with Vivien mainly due to my limited English skills. I realised some time ago that I am dyslectic, and I keep making a lot of simple/silly language mistakes not realising it (even if I re-read the text a few times before posting it).

So, what I will do differently
1. I will not post back to you unless I decide I did some genuine looking.
2. At the same time, I will post as often as I can to keep momentum
3. I will make specific time most days to really look (I think, I can manage 30-45min a day).
4. I will ask you to be patient with my English and let me sometimes correct myself.

So, what is reality?
I had a lot of theories about reality as you can imagine :)

My current one describes an energy field with many small distortions which represent various objects (see this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG9hJLX ... e=emb_logo).
The object is everything which can be detected (a physical object, a sound, smell, taste, a thought, etc).
The main feature of an object is that it has a background against which it can be detected (for example, space or silence).
The objects are formed by the field and the field is between objects (perceived as empty space or silence).
The field itself is not an object because it has no background against which it can be detected.


According to my current theory the field is inside everyone’s head.
The brain generates an electro/magnetic field by running small electric currents along nerve cells.
The brain re-creates reality by generating distortions in that field (objects).
That distortions are triggered by impulses coming to the brain from receptors inside ears, eyes, skin etc.


During the brain development the brain is bombarded by impulses coming from receptors which create small field distortions. With time the brain learns how to notice those distortions against their ‘silent’ background; then the brain learns how to select the important ones and how to connect them into patterns.
This is how children learn about the world.
On a certain stage, the brain creates the self which feels like another object. It is because the self seems to have a background. The background for self is formed by exclusion. The backgrund of self is everything else but not self.
There is me, here, and the rest of the world is outside of me.


I believe during the LU process it becomes clear that the self is not a single object. What is usually perceived by self is continuously changing collection of objects (thoughts, body sensations, etc) The self - as a single object - has never existed.


The other conclusions from that approach are:
 the whole reality, I know is created in the brain
 likely a big chunk of the reality outside the brain is inaccessible as it cannot be sensed
 the objects perceived are ‘images’ of the real objects, they are not real
 empty space is an integral part of perceived reality and it is represented by temporarily ‘silent’ (not distorted) field
 the whole reality I know is inside because the perceived division between inside and outside is generated by the brain, it means that what I perceive as two is one

Can you say what the world/universe is,
The only world I know is a continuously changing electro/magnetic field created by the brain.
I do not know what the real reality outside is.

and what you are?
As I am sure you are aware, I practice certain type of attending which is called Open Focus.
During my exercises, I can become aware many objects at the same time together with space which is between and inside them (please, see a definition of the object above).
During that training, I fairly quickly realised that I cannot locate any single object which could represent me.
My conclusion was that I was the field from which all objects emerge and into which all objects dissolve.
Vivien made me realise that saying - ‘I am a field’ - could be just another self-identification (maybe more subtle).
She did not let me explain, that the field in that understanding is not and object and it should not be misled with a common understanding of ‘I’ as a separate object.


Thank so for giving me the second chance,
I am looking forward to 'looking' with you :)
Tomasz

User avatar
Ronaldo
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:06 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: two is one

Postby Ronaldo » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:46 am

Hi Tomasz,
No problem, your plan sounds good to me, we can definitely work with that.  Your English is perfectly fine and coherent, you will proofread before sending, and I am going to be patient as long as we have some or any productive exchange.
T: I know better now what she meant by ‘looking’.
That will come in handy in a bit, but as I explained, I think it will be extremely helpful to first understand why looking is the only effective way to realize, when you understand why analyzing will not help you one bit, you will find it far easier to engage in pure looking.

Although we're (re)starting this investigation with some theories and geek talk, keep in mind that our goal is not to figure out and establish the correct theory, nor dive into an academic debate and speculations. Rather, my goal is to show you the utter futility of these theories when it comes to attempting to make sense of life, explain reality, the world and what you are.  It's a bit like a 2D creature from Flatland who cannot see or access the 3rd dimension, it's outside  of its world.  The same is with thought, as long as you limit yourself to only using the tool of thought, intellect, imagination you will forever roam in that land of made-up reality. The only way out is dropping ideas and beliefs and direct observation.   However, to drop beliefs, you must see and recognize them first.

T: I had a lot of theories about reality as you can imagine :) My current one describes an energy field with many small distortions which represent various objects
Yes, you do, and so did I, but reality is not a field and not made of atoms or energy.  If you really want to spend time with a good theory by someone who has a clue, look up Bernardo Kastrup (e.g. "The Idea of the World"), but even that is not going to get you to see.

T: The brain generates an electro/magnetic field by running small electric currents along nerve cells.The brain re-creates reality by generating distortions in that field (objects).
That distortions are triggered by impulses coming to the brain from receptors inside ears, eyes, skin etc
As cute as it may seem to you, can you also see that you have no way of knowing that any of this has a shred of truth?  

T: the only world I know is a continuously changing electro/magnetic field created by the brain. I do not know what the real reality outside is.
How do you know it's made of electro/magnetic fields and that it's created by the brain? (rhetorical question !)
You don't actually know what is an electromagnetic wave (nobody does) and you certainly don't know what is the brain. We can't figure out what is real by relaying on stuff that you were taught and accepted, deep down, they are only concepts == beliefs. Yes, you can build experiments that will show great concordance, but then what? Can you really ever understand what a force is? What time is without referring to itself? (time is an interval between two times? space is a distance between points? Isn't distance == space?)

You are trying to come up with an explanation of reality that is based upon one HUGE belief that you have. That belief is groundless  and it has a name - materializm. You're not alone, most people, religious, spiritual or scientist share this that there is an objective world “out there” made of matter – atoms, molecules, energy. In other words, first there was the universe, then the world, then life began at random and evolved, or was created by a God. At some point you were born and somehow, the molecules that make your body became alive through the process of procreation – with or without divine intervention. Now here you are, a living organism surviving in this mostly hostile world, and when you die, the world will go on just fine without you. 

Unlike most people, you at least also ate your own dog food, and arrived at the right conclusion, which is: If you believe there is a world out there, made of matter and you are perceiving it through your five sense, there is no escape from also concluding that you have no way of knowing what that reality truly is. All that you can ever perceive is a subjective interpretation – a simulation occurring in your brain that has little to do with what’s out there for real.  This is pretty grim, and it means that you can never know what is real, you're hardwired to a simulator. How can you say anything at all about what's real if you have no direct way to measure anything? But is that the truth?  Let's examine this a bit further.


Let's start with matter.
We go about our day assuming everything around us, including ourselves is made of matter. What is matter? The atom is nearly all empty space, quite in contrast to what matter looks or feels like.  The structure of these basic "classic" particles was found to actually consist of more elemental particles and new types of forces to hold them in place. Physicists have discovered hundreds(!) of subatomic particles, some experimentally from particle colliders, some are theoretically required to satisfy other observations.  Just like the ancient view of the world resting on the back of a turtle begged the question what that turtle rests upon? Yes, it’s turtles all the way down. We removed the silly image but continue to believe the exact same idea that the basic particles can be found, that they exist, that one day we’ll find that true basic elemental particle.  Of course that led to strings and other fields, but what makes them?  The deeper they look into “matter”, the clearer it is that nothing is actually there that can be called “matter”, but the search will never be completed. 

The shift from classical into quantum mechanics has revealed some rather bizarre and buffelig observations about matter and energy.  We can't dive into these phenomena, but a well known anigma worth mentioning is the “observer effect” – it has been found experimentally that an observer, the level of observation or the lack thereof affects the result of the experiment! Furthermore, with quantum entanglement, information is somehow transferred between certain quantum particles no matter how physically far apart they are, and the supposed information flow defies the speed of light constraint. 
So despite its solid appearance, “matter” is a vague and mysterious concept which is not at all understood.  Over the years, many of the fathers of quantum physics and prominent researchers have made statements that exposed their deep realizations about the nature of what they found experimentally, but these realizations are still on the outskirts and mostly unrealized by people, and ignored by most scientists, perhaps because quantum effects are not part of the day to day experience.  

I'm going to leave you with one last argument to consider, what's called “the hard problem of consciousness” or explaining why and how sentient organisms have a sense of experience if they are made of matter. How the hell does matter (mass, charge, spin) create the experience of tasting a strawberry, a thought about being late, the emotion of shame, or the sensation of warm sunshine on your neck? 

From reviewing the above, Is it possible that this is fundamentally wrong and backwards? That experience is prior to, and not created by matter? That matter is a perception? Could it be that matter does not exist as a separate, independent entity outside observation?
  
Consider this, When you dream, you experience, but is the boat you’re selling, the stairs you climb, the people you talk to, made of matter? Are you made of matter in the dream? It sure feels real, Is it possible that the real world is not that much different from the dream?

This lengthy reply may bring up resistance and unease, your entire world is based on these assumptions, so it doesn't just drop in a day. Please avoid trying to come up with arguments that support your theory, I'm not providing you with an alternative theory, there is none! I am only trying to show you that there is nothing solid about matter, and nothing solid about your beliefs about matter. I am trying to convey to you that any knowledge you think you have is based on dogma and assumptions, there is nothing you actually know for sure, except... The only things you know is that there is this experience! The sites, the sounds and sensations could be unreal, but the experience is undeniable, isn't it?

To be continued :)
Ron
The truth is simple. If it was complicated, everyone would understand it. - Walt Whitman


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest