@Everyone:
Here are a few definitions, by way of illustration:
apple
noun1. the usually round, red or yellow, edible fruit of a small tree, Malus sylvestris, of the rose family.
2. the tree, cultivated in most temperate regions.
3. the fruit of any of certain other species of tree of the same genus.
4. any of these trees.
5. any of various other similar fruits, or fruitlike products or plants, as the custard apple, love apple, May apple, or oak apple.
6. anything resembling an apple in size and shape, as a ball, especially a baseball.
7. (Bowling.) an ineffectively bowled ball.
orange
noun1. A round juicy citrus fruit with a tough bright reddish-yellow rind.
2. the leathery-leaved evergreen tree that bears the orange, native to warm regions of south and Southeast Asia. Oranges are a major commercial crop in many warm regions of the world.
Here's the classic case of "apples and oranges." For the sake of precision, let's very specifically state that two people, call then Adam and Barbara, are talking about apples and oranges in the first definition given of each, i.e, as fruit.
They are both saying how much they really enjoy eating oranges, but don't like apples so much. Then they begin to describe how they each eat an orange.
Adam says he really enjoys the process of peeling off the skin, and then separating all the little sections inside, and eating them one by one. Barbara then says, "What do you mean? The thin red skin of an organge is the very best part of the whole thing! And I don't know what you mean by 'separating all the little sections inside.' I just eat the whole thing, bite by bite, except for the core and the seeds."
It becomes apparent to Adam that Barbara is mistakenly calling an apple an orange. Barbara says, "No! It is you who are confused!" They go back and forth, over and over, until finally Adam brings over a dictionary, at which point Barbara's error becomes clear.
It is important to note that words have objective meanings. Barbara, after looking at the definitions of apples and oranges, is absolutely perfectly free to continue to call an apple an orange...but of course, that does not make an apple an orange.
@RibbedFlank and hug46:
You were absolutely correct hug46: it was a rhetorical question. But just to answer it for RibbedFlank: No, there does not need to be anything beyond an infinite number of universes.
@Spawn9076:
Thanks for clearing that up. Here's something worth thinking about:
Every experience that you (or anyone) has ever had was experienced as a result of processing within your mind/brain. Beautiful sunsets, overwhelming joy or sadness, the most extreme pleasures or pains, the simplest and most complex thoughts you've ever had...all were experienced as a result of processing within your own brain/mind. Even the most fantastic dream experiences you've ever had were the result of processing within your mind/brain.
The human mind is capable of an essentially infinite variety of experience...including the DMT experience, of course. That fact, alone, does not indicate whether the DMT experience "originates" within the mind/brain or not, or whether the things experience are of "external" origin. (The experience of a sunset, for example, is of external origin: it is which "comes in" from the external world through our senses, but then is processed internally by the brain/mind. A dream experience, however, both originates and is processed internally.)
I believe that the DMT experience definitely does originate in the mind, for very sound scientific reasons, but whatever I believe, the only way to study this to find out is through the scientific method. Even if this is not something that science was able to answer definitively right now, there is no reason to think that it will never be able to answer it in the future.
Regarding shared experiences, I can say that it would depend upon the degree of correspondence between the experience of two indiviuals; also, of course, coincidence would have to be considered. I will say that I don't really believe that shared experiences are anything but coincidental, similar experiences.
@gilbran2:
Defining "oranges" as "apples" does not make "oranges" the same as "apples," and adds nothing at all to the quite sufficient concept of "apples."
Defining "god" as "mathematical necessity" does not make "god" the same as "mathematical necessity," and it adds nothing at all to the quite sufficient concept of "mathematical necessity."
@jamie:
Quote:I think you may have read a bit too much into some things I said...you have extrapolated some things from what I said that were never meant to be implied.
..one being that there is some sort of omnipotent god that exists outside of existence...two that when I claim that the nature of entities is something I could not care about personally in relation to my experiences, that I am claiming that I would rather remain ignorant of they're nature. This is not what I stated. I don't care about the nature of entities, being either inside my head or outside, in relation to my experiences, because it does not matter to me. What is useful for my life I take into account, the rest I ignore. If I have an insight into my life, I also would not care whether or not I came up with it, or if someone else said something to me that made me realize it. It does not change the insight itself.
I did not "extrapolate" that you meant that there was some sort of omnipotent god that exists outside of existence. It makes no sense at all for something to "exists outside of existence:" by existing, one (even a god) would be part of existence.
I also did not "extrapoloate" anything when you said you "couldn't care less whether or not any of that exists outside of the human brain." Those were your words, and I merely assumed that you meant what you said. In light of your NEW words, however, I would say that sometimes it might not matter whether some insight had an "internal" or "external" origin...but at other times this might be crucially important. Let's say that you had an "insight" that someone you normally like or even love was actually an "evil person," for example. (This is just an example. The insight could be anything.) If you believed this, then you would want to distance yourself from such a person, but if you had reason to doubt the validity of your insight, then you would certainly take some time to consider whether or not it was worth acting upon. If you KNEW the insight were internal, then you might be able to look within yourself to determine why your mind might have produced something like this. (For example, was it based upon actual events, which you never connected consciously before, which once connected indicate that this person was covertly acting against your interests? Or was it just some sort of hallucination, with no actual basis in reality?) Or, if you KNEW the experience was external, then you might be able to examine the external source of the experience itself. (For example, was the "entity" that provided the insight, if it was an entity, actually a "good" entity trying to help you or a "bad" entity trying to hurt you? Perhaps you could find out more about the entity, to help resolve the issue.)
The example given was obviously just one example. I think you should seriously re-consider that the source of any "insight" might have some bearing on the insight itself.
Quote:Of course I am interested in what the nature of the phenomena is. That is different from how the phenomena impacts my life however. If I find out why the sky is blue, it is not going to be any less profound when I look out at the clear blue sky..and if it did make it less profound, I would think that I lost the plot somewhere along the way.
The sky is blue because: The light from the sun is essentially white, i.e., it contains all different colors. Red light has the longest wavelength of visible light, and blue the shortest. All the light from the sun must pass through the atmosphere before we see it, which means it must travel past the individual very small atoms and molecules which make up the atmosphere. Because red light has a relatively long wavelength it tends to more easily pass by or around the relatively small "obstacles" of atmospheric atoms and molecules. Because blue light has a relatively small wavelenght, it tends not to pass so easily around these obstacles, and therefore winds up being scattered throughout the atmosphere before it hits your eyes. (Imagine being on a ship, anchored at sea. You drop a large boulder overboard, but the waves or ripples it makes upon hitting the water are very small in comparison with the ship, so these waves just bounce off the side of the ship. Then imagine a large tidal wave. The tidal wave is huge compared to the ship, and the ship poses almost no obstacle at all to the tidal wave.)
In no way does this detract from the beauty of the sky. I actually find that knowing why the sky is blue provides me with an extra sense of beauty or wonder while gazing upwards, for now I not only see the blue sky itself, but in my mind's eye I see the scattering of some waves, the smoother propogation of others, and am able to appreciate reality on a level which otherwise would have remained essentially invisible to me. If I originally thought that the sky was blue for some false reason, such as "it is the reflection of blue water," or something like that, then yes I would have lost that "plot" as you say...but it would have been a FALSE plot, based on non-reality. And in its place I would have gained a TRUE plot, based on reality...and I have to say that every time I have ever "lost a false plot" and "gained a true plot" in its place, this has ultimately lead me to a greater understanding of reality, and a greater appreciation of its beauty on all levels.
Quote:For the record, the only god I believe in is existence itself. I don't claim it has any omnipotent attributes, nor do I claim it is a creator(although technically science does make claims to creation events, like the big bang). I simply choose to call existence god because it is easy, to the point, it seems to be the biggest thing going out there and I like to shake things up and find it interesting how reactive people can be when I call it that. This is just my honest answer. I am not a theist, nor atheist, nor agnostic. I am simply me. I don't need to be anything more, or less.
Now we are back to "apples and oranges"...only now it's "god and existence." Nothing is more "easy" or "to the point" than calling an apple an "apple," and an orange an "orange." You could also "shake things up and find it interesting how reactive people can be" by calling apples "oranges," and vice versa. It's really not all that "interesting" at all to call apples "oranges"...but it does create a lot of un-necessary confusion and division...so if that's your game, you're doing a great job of creating such confusion and division. (As "
Tim and Eric" would say: Great Job!) My purpose here is greater mutual understanding...but that's apparently not yours.
(By the way, calling existence "god" and seeing how people react is also a great way to identify those who are committed to honesty, understanding, knowledge, clear communication and reality, and those others who are mystical or muddy-minded to some degree. Those committed to honesty, understanding, knowledge, clear communication and reality will tend to point out the obvious error, and the rest will just sort of nod, in muddy-minded agreement. The awesome thing, however, is that anyone at any time can choose clear, honest, reality-based thinking, but it does take some effort. The very essence of mysticism...its poison core...is mental laziness of one form or another. Mysticism is an epistemological disease...but the cure lies within!)
Quote:Simply claiming the universe always existed, is just as much a cop out as just saying god always existed. Both are not adequate claims to make when trying to explain existence...except for the fact that from the vantage of an observer within the universe(and of course, time) the only logical thing to say is that it always existed..because existence itself and the universe would seem to be synonymous with each other..but just because it is logical does not mean that it really makes sense in a larger scope.
Essentially it seems like a a paradigm generated within the comforts of an(assumed) closed system...although I am not sure I think the dichotomy between a closed/open system is even relevant at the scale we are discussing. All of these dualist models break down. This is where the claim that the universe always existed is, IMO from a philosophical standpoint is valid...although I still don't feel it is explanatory...it's more of a statement, like saying "the sky is blue"..it does not explain why the sky should be blue.
Saying the universe always existed, also begs the question of what came before the universe...just as claims of god having always existed does. I reject both claims. Neither of them do anyone justice. I am also not sure that the idea of a before/after is relevant.
There is too much contradiction.
The concept of something "always existing" is not a cop-out, but a statement of simple, logical necessity. Reality/existence had to have always existed...or it could not exist now. And if there WERE a god, then that god would have to exist within reality/existence, because "to exist" means that a thing is "part of existence:" they are linquistically and logically equivalent. So, god could not have created reality/existence, although a god could create things WITHIN existence (such as universes, or whatever else).
The problem with the "god concept," however, is that it has been used, today and throughout history, to "explain without explaining" all sorts of things, from the existence of the universe, the Earth, Sun, Moon, stars, planets, the weather, disease, and so on. But then science comes in and finds the REAL explanations for things, and the role of god shrinks...and shrinks...until today all that remains, among those who feel some need to retain the "god concept" in some form, is something essentially watered down to meaninglessness. (Kind of like calling apples "oranges." )
So...the universe is a part of existence, but that does not mean it is ALL of existence. And so it is natural to ask "what came before the universe," and even "what will come after the universe." So now I will move from the larger "existence of existence" to the smaller "existence of the universe." I will try to keep this as simple as possible, so I will leave out as many technical details as I feel I can, just so you can get the "big picture," so to speak.
The original and conventional "model" of the "creation of the universe" which most people are familiar with involved a "big bang" billion of years ago. This was based on a number of very well-founded astronomical observations. Other than the mystery of "what caused the big bang" this model explained pretty much everything...but the "devil is in the details" as they say.
Eventually scientists began to become concerned about something called the "smoothness problem." Essentially, this was the question of why various types of "stuff" in the universe was so evenly distributed throughout space. To make a really long story short, this lead to the idea of a very short "inflationary" period which started immediately after the big bang, during which the universe expaned an incredibly enormous amount (in an exponential fashion) in an incredibly short period of time. Thus any "irregularities" in the distribution of the "stuff" we see in the universe would be "smoothed out." (I'm not sure if that made sense to you. I would be happy to go into more detail if need be.)
Inflation was not just some "idea," but was well-founded on a number of fronts, from cosmology to particle physics. It is considered a well-founded part of physical theory.
Originally it was assumed that after this initial period of exponentional "inflationary" expansion stopped that the universe simply settled down into a phase of "normal" exapnsion, which would be slowing down over time, due to the combined gravitational attraction of everything in the universe. The only real question was whether this expansion would continue to slow forever but not actually stop, or if the combined gravitational attraction of everything in the universe would be enough to eventually even reverse the expansion, resulting in a "big-crunch."
This lead to the desire to measure the current rate of expansion, to see just how much it was slowing down, and also a desire to try to determine the amount of matter in the universe, so that the overall combined gravitational attraction could be determined; then it would be possible to decide if the universe would expand forever, or reverse into a big cruch.
Scientist discovered something VERY surprising, however: the current expansion of the universe was NOT slowing down -- it was actually speeding up, but very slowly...in other words the expansion was accelerating! This lead to the realization that at some point trillions of years from now the acceleration will have increased to the point at which it will be expanding exactly as it was during the "initial" inflationary period at the beginning of the universe!
Again...the inflationary period at the end of the universe will look a LOT like the inflationary period at the begining! This is pretty damn amazing! One implication is that there really wasn't an actual big bang "creation evemt" prior to inflation...what there was was a REALLY SMALL section of a preceedinging universe which "inflated" to ultimately create the entire observable universe we have today! Furthermore, each little piece of our "current" universe (and by little, I mean smaller than an aton) will also ultimately inflate to the size of another observable universe in the future!
This is a truly mind-blowing hypothesis to me! It implies that not only has existence/reality as a whole always existed, it also implies that our universe itself has always existed, going through an infinitie cycle of inflation and non-inflation...thus the universe is already infinitely old, infinitely large....and yet growing infinitely larger into the infinite future! There is no "before" or "after" the universe...and no creation event; just the eternal infinite expansion/inflation of an eternal infinity.
Please seriously consider this concept. Meditate on it, if you will. As usual, I am NOT saying that "this is how it is," but that this is truly profound scientific model of reality. Saying "well, its not proven, so you haven't shown me anything at all," would be disingenuous. Rather than dealing in mere metaphors, or saying some wishy-washy thing essentially equating apples and oranges, I am describing a viable model of the universe.
There is no "contradiction" at all in any of this. There are logically consistent possibilities, which are founded upon some of the best scientific knowledge we have today.
Have I said we are done trying to figure it all out? Not at all...the quest for reality-based knowledge continues...by those who value such knowledge.
Quote:I still do not agree that you have provided insight into either the nature of consciousness or existence. I appreciate the discussion though and hope I have not offended you in any way. It is nice to have people here who are passionate and not afraid to challenge ideas.
How much more "insight" do you need? One way or the other reality/existence is eternal and infinite...and quite possibly our universe is an eternal infinity contained within the "larger" eternal infinity of reality itself. Also, with Objective Reduction we have a model of reality in which every quantum event is a "blip" of consciousness, a universe bubbling with consciousness at every level...and even a moment associated with the "initial" inflationary event when the entire observable universe experience a moment of consiousness as a whole.
Yes...science has more to discover. But where it is taking us on the journey of understanding and knowledge is SO much more profound and frankly beautiful than anything offered by mysticism. So...you can keep calling apples "oranges," and keep denying the INCREDIBLE insights into existence and consciousness (and their intertwined nature)...or you can look at what I have said honestly and clearly, trying to grasp the implications. I know that not everyone can handle such wide-scope, reality-spanning, conceptual thinking with ease...but it can be done and I feel you have the intellectual capacity to do just that.
I also regret any offense to you, but I know that one of well-known "tricks" of certain buddhist is to strike the initiates unexpectedly, and that when the initiate is in just the right frame of mind, this sudden intrusion of pain often immediately leads to satori, i.e., enlightenment or awakening. I seriously would love to see you wake up jamie.
LIVE AND LET LIVE!
"Thou Art Zon."