@hixiodom: Just curious: are the above statements hypothetical, or are those your true beliefs? Do you really believe there is no individuality or free will? Do you completely rule it out? Other similar threads have been popping up, so it seems like other nexians are wrestling with the same ideas, which is kind of interesting.

And I know laws are made by nature and interpreted by physicists. My comment was meant to be sarcastic, so maybe I should have put "unbreakable" in quotations. Also, while time is fixed for objects traveling through space at relatively the same speed within the same gravitational fields, the only reason we "know" this is because of the use of our subjective senses. Our eyes let us observe the phenomena physically, and our thoughts and feelings help us understand it more comprehensively. We really have no way of remaining completely objective about it. And there are ways to sneak outside of the constraints of time(psychedelics, anyone?) that are subjectively just as real as witnessing the material world we're discussing through the lens we usually utilize. We're still using the same senses that got us to other conclusions, but are these experiences not valid until they're put under a microscope?

One more thing: What's absurd to me is that humans like you and me are trying to understand the workings of the gigantic universe that we're embedded in. We're like two ants trying to explain how the entire planet goes about its business. It's kind of a ridiculous proposition, but hey, it's fun to give it a go.

They're not my true beliefs. They were my true beliefs at one point, but then I had another realization: That all of my knowledge of particles comes from my perceptions; from the consciousness that I previously claimed to be illusory. So I realized that, from one viewpoint, it appeared that particles were reality and perceptions were illusory while, from another viewpoint, it appears that consciousness is reality and particles are illusory.

After thinking about that for a long time, I decided that I should believe the latter scenario simply because it is the one that allows me to exist.

But yes, you're right: The problem is that we only have subjective knowledge of the universe, thus making it impossible to know whether the universe we perceive reflects objective reality or is merely something imagined by our transcendental minds.

I was actually trying to go for both. I think the objective particles and our subjective consciousness are both real.

Occurring - 2 Cs, 2 Rs. To See. To Ahh.

Rest assured, I have been following this thread and topic with great interest but have had no time to respond until now.



I understand the inherent contradiction here - it's not my life at all, it is simply - life. I have also come to understand what would change.

There would be no self consciousness, as there is no self to be conscious of.
There would be no reason to be hurt or offended as there is no-one to feel offended.

I've looked at cause and effect. That nothing ever happens in the past or the future, things only ever occur in the present. There is no past, there is only moments of the present that have already occurred. There is no future, there are only moments of the present that have not yet occurred.

As much as I seem to now be understanding this (yes, I am aware of the huge contradictions in saying I all the way through this post but this is simply for ease of understanding and to remain distanced from the syntactic gymnastics that could more than likely obfuscate my point) more and more, it still feels very much to me like a concept, a philosophical premise and a thought experiment.

Yes, it is credible that there is no I. Yes, it may even be true. It is more a stretch of belief to think that an I exists at all. Apply Occam's razor - what is more likely? That there is a pilot at the helm, guiding this body, thinking, deciding, discerning, but essentially, having no real control at all - or - that there's no pilot necessary, that the thoughts, decisions and discernment occur because they are functions of the brain of a body that navigates this world according to it's sum total of life experiences, it's environment, it's emotions.

I'm not at all arguing for predestination, it is simply that the will to choose and do things occur without anyone to do the choosing or doing. Simply, a choice is made, then the choice is followed.

This being said: no great awakening, no seeing the world differently - no physical or mental change that is so commonly reported after learning about this.

I almost feel like increased thinking of this topic could lead to delusion, apathy and daily life (socialising, working, decision making) becoming markedly more difficult.

It can be said, of course, - and I'm sure Cieran would agree - that 'this is your ego desperately trying to cling to the lie, this is the parasite holding on for dear life'.

I say delusion as I always hold the position that I am utterly wrong in all the things I do and think, I think self-doubt is an important trait to have when seeking anything close to truth.

I say apathy as in, because I can see all of this being a form of detachment from difficult things in life. There seems to be an element of picking and choosing involved.

For example, I can never be offended or hurt because there is no one to feel offended or hurt, therefore there is no reason to acknowledge such emotions as the you who is apparently being offended, does not exist. You see this all the time in cases of severe abuse, the sense of self is completely shut down and people are left observing not first hand but externally as way of coping with trauma or extreme distress.

You discover something terrible has just happened, a major accident or the death of a loved one "this can't be happening!!". It is a denial of reality.

This is a coping mechanism - it gives detachment from the felt experience. Suddenly, I am not experiencing this - it is simply occurring. You are not being offended or hurt, but being offended or hurt is occurring. It does this, so that a rational decision (as opposed to a hysterical) can be made.

Now at the same time, take positive moods - joy, empathy, love. Though there is no one to be feeling these emotions, these emotions are occurring, and thus, can be acknowledged. "This is happening!"

I don't think any of our felt experiences should be denied, they are simply experiences, they are simply occurring - and all of our life experiences, the good, the bad can be learned from and that knowledge shared.

Apathy. Hate it. Don't want it. Don't want to feel detached to the things that make me feel uncomfortable. This is what is felt so unsettling about the "no me" thing.

Finally, and least important, difficulty in day to day life. This, I feel, is all about tact and approach. Enlightened ones would feel quickly alienated if they were constantly interrupting and derailing conversations with people to let them know that "no, you're not hungry - hunger is occurring!" or my personal favourite "I don't love you. Love is occurring". I think my partner would leave me even if I hinted at approaching the topic from that point of view!

I hope to god, this does not come across as some sort of rebuttal - it the last thing I want. I sincerely want to gain some understanding whether this is seriously worth pursuing, I find it very interesting.

Oh and I can no longer get in touch with my friend, as he seems to of have removed his facebook I'd love to discuss this further with him.