Materialistic Non-Duality

[PearlSeeker]

Duality sees the mind and body as seperate.
The usual understanding of Non-Duality is an emphasis on spirit. The existence of a spiritual realm. Maya, reality is the illusion and consciousness is the truth.

My view, and this is just my path to mental maturity, is that a separate spiritual conscious self is the illusion. There is no separate conscious self. Yet you might say I feel, I experience, my conscious spiritual self is real. How can "I" be an illusion. I exist. I think therefore I am. The ultimate in self-determination.

I'm not saying the "I" does not exist. What I am saying is that the "I" is the physical body/Central Nervous System. So for me, non-self is letting go of the idea of a separate spiritual reality. The I that feels, experiences, observes is the physical self.

I understand it is more a matter of perception, perception being a construct of viewpoint. However I identify as a physical body. That to me is all that there is. Nothing needs to be added to explain existence.

I have a few objections:

1.You can't explain or know anything (if you belive reality can only be physical). Language has no meaning. It's a suicide of reason.

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. (J. B. S. Haldane)

If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" (G. K. Chesterton)

2. For you there is no "I" because metacognition is an illusion.

3. There is no free will.

 

[Valjean]

Then ultimately you must be me, in which case, I have to say,

Stop arguing with yourself.

Preee - cisely!
"I am you as you are me and we are all together" -- we're all The Walrus.

Remember, from an advaitic perspective, someone in 7th-state consciousness can't distinguish one individual consciousness -- one jivatman -- from another. Nor can s/he perceive time or space. An enlightened one becomes every conscious and unconscious thing, from beginning to end, everywhere in the universe, past, present and future.

Me, from 3rd state consciousness, can only perceive myself -- and myself at only one point at a time. I may remember riding a tricycle at six, but I can't relive it. I can only perceive one frame of one filmstrip of one life -- my own -- at a time.

But from a high, expanded consciousness; a Samadhi, Turiya or whatever you want to call it, I perceive every frame, in the whole film, of every life that ever has or ever will exist, everywhere in the universe, fully and simultaneously.

So yes. I become you, at every moment of your life. I directly experience, in real time, the moment of your birth, the moment of your death, as well as those moments in the lives of your great, great grandparents, as well as your great, great grandchildren.

I experience the creation of the 1st amoeba on the first planet ten billion years ago, simultaneous with the death of the last amoeba, on a planet not to coalesce for another ten billion years.

This is what cosmic consciousness is. It's what the enlightened experience in their mystical consciousnesses. It's the spiritual goal of the Eastern religions.
Is it any wonder that it can't be communicated to your friends and neighbors?

 

[Nakosis]

It is the experience of a timeless, spaceless, Everythingness. It' more than you're thinking it is.

If it is a point where consciousness is focused inward and outward and it is a timeless, spaceless experience, then how can it or one be aware of the external which consists of time and space? This is not what was defined, "everythingness". Especially if everythingness doesn't include space and time.

Life itself; individuality, the physical world around us, all are violations of theoretical physics.
The Reality of reality has been in question ever since 1905.

Sure, I have, let's say doubts about the validity of theoretical physics. I don't like the concept of spacetime for example. I'm not alone but lack the wherewithal to investigate so have to rely on what others have done. So I think I agree there is a problem there. However, I'm not ready to start using a spiritual realm to justify it.

Interesting point.
There are levels of reality, and levels of illusion. The 'mechanics' of one level are not necessarily those of another.

Sure but the lack of understanding of those mechanics leads to theoretical beliefs as to cause and effect. The mechanics we can imagine are infinite until we actually know them and understand how it works. A lack of understanding doesn't help to support our theories.

 

[Nakosis]

I have a few objections:

1.You can't explain or know anything (if you belive reality can only be physical). Language has no meaning. It's a suicide of reason.

I don't know why you say this. We agree on meaning. In fact communication is pretty hard when we don't agree. It doesn't seem to be any more complex than that. I can create words and give them meaning. There exists other ways of communication, words are simply a more concise method of communication.

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. (J. B. S. Haldane)

Well, it's not. There is knowledge and memories that we/our brain processes. Information stored by the physical brain. Take a computer system for example. You could look at the "atoms" used to store the information but until this information is processes, formulated and formated, it's not going to mean much to you.

If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" (G. K. Chesterton)

Again, this forgets, leaves out the informational aspect of the process. Information has meaning beyond the physical aspect of how that information is stored.

2. For you there is no "I" because metacognition is an illusion.

No there's an "I". It's the brain and related information network. The illusionary part I'm referring to is the belief/feeling that the "I" is something other than the brain, etc...

3. There is no free will.

That's a loaded statement. You know, words again. It depends on what meaning you give to that term. Depending on what you mean, I might agree or disagree.

 

[Nakosis]

Preee - cisely!
"I am you as you are me and we are all together" -- we're all The Walrus.

Remember, from an advaitic perspective, someone in 7th-state consciousness can't distinguish one individual consciousness -- one jivatman -- from another. Nor can s/he perceive time or space. An enlightened one becomes every conscious and unconscious thing, from beginning to end, everywhere in the universe, past, present and future.

Me, from 3rd state consciousness, can only perceive myself -- and myself at only one point at a time. I may remember riding a tricycle at six, but I can't relive it. I can only perceive one frame of one filmstrip of one life -- my own -- at a time.

But from a high, expanded consciousness; a Samadhi, Turiya or whatever you want to call it, I perceive every frame, in the whole film, of every life that ever has or ever will exist, everywhere in the universe, fully and simultaneously.

So yes. I become you, at every moment of your life. I directly experience, in real time, the moment of your birth, the moment of your death, as well as those moments in the lives of your great, great grandparents, as well as your great, great grandchildren.

I experience the creation of the 1st amoeba on the first planet ten billion years ago, simultaneous with the death of the last amoeba, on a planet not to coalesce for another ten billion years.

This is what cosmic consciousness is. It's what the enlightened experience in their mystical consciousnesses. It's the spiritual goal of the Eastern religions.
Is it any wonder that it can't be communicated to your friends and neighbors?

It doesn't seem to be what is implied by the definitions but ok maybe what I found is wrong.


Lets take the concept, universal consciousness. I believe completely my brain can experience this. I see consciousness existing in a virtual universe. In this virtual universe the brain is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. Between us (consciousness) and reality is a virtual interface the brain creates for consciousness to experience. It's usually directly stimulated by reality. IOW if we see and table it's because a table is physically there providing sensory information. However this doesn't always have to be the case. It could be for example an image created from a memory.

So we know the brain can allow us to see and hear from memories as well. You can close your eyes and imagine a red balloon. So where does this red balloon physically exist?

I've no doubt the brain is capable of creating an experience of oneness with the universe. It can be excessively vivid and seemingly real. This experience however doesn't guarantee it is a reality.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure, I agree that the mind seems incapable of forming memories in deep sleep or under anesthesia. However I don't see how this supports your belief.

I was only explaining Advaita not supporting it.

The philosophy comes from those that have explored the depths of consciousness. I personally know materialism doesn’t follow from my investigation of the paranormal/psychic.

 

[Nakosis]

I was only explaining Advaita not supporting it.

The philosophy comes from those that have explored the depths of consciousness. I personally know materialism doesn’t follow from my investigation of the paranormal/psychic.

Ok, then a question, what are you trying to achieve from your investigation. Just wondering if there may be a common goal there somewhere.

 

[Valjean]

If it is a point where consciousness is focused inward and outward and it is a timeless, spaceless experience, then how can it or one be aware of the external which consists of time and space? This is not what was defined, "everythingness". Especially if everythingness doesn't include space and time.

In or out of what?
There is no in or out. There is no 'external', nor is there time or space, just a vast, timeless here/now.
https://www.amazon.com/Be-Here-Now-Ram-Dass/dp/0517543052

Sure, I have, let's say doubts about the validity of theoretical physics. I don't like the concept of spacetime for example.

A healthy doubt, I'd say -- one shared by all good physicists.
Einstein's spacetime -- space and time as a four dimensional manifold, is pretty much a given. It's been validated by every investigation since the 19-teens.Nothing more complex than a lever would work without it.
I'm not alone but lack the wherewithal to investigate so have to rely on what others have done. So I think I agree there is a problem there. However, I'm not ready to start using a spiritual realm to justify it.[/quote]Wise decision, IMHO.

Sure but the lack of understanding of those mechanics leads to theoretical beliefs as to cause and effect. The mechanics we can imagine are infinite until we actually know them and understand how it works. A lack of understanding doesn't help to support our theories.

Remember. There are levels of reality. In everyday life, there is cause and effect, but at a quantum level there is nothing preventing effect preceding cause, and from a vedantic perspective neither cause nor effect exists.

 

[Nakosis]

In or out of what?
There is no in or out. There is no 'external', nor is there time or space, just a vast, timeless here/now.

What I mean by in is what I consider the virtual reality that the mind can create whatever it wants which we can consciously experience vs actual external stimuli. The mind is so capable of simulating external stimulus people can easily confuse the two.

A healthy doubt, I'd say -- one shared by all good physicists.
Einstein's spacetime -- space and time as a four dimensional manifold, is pretty much a given. It's been validated by every investigation since the 19-teens.Nothing more complex than a lever would work without it.

Yes, but there are still scientists questioning it.
Alternatives to general relativity - Wikipedia

Remember. There are levels of reality. In everyday life, there is cause and effect, but at a quantum level there is nothing preventing effect preceding cause, and from a vedantic perspective neither cause nor effect exists.

Yes, that is my main concern. The idea that time is anything other than a measure of change. It is like saying a meter is more than a measurement of space or there is an actual division of space into centimeters, millimeters, micrometers etc.

 

[Valjean]

It doesn't seem to be what is implied by the definitions but ok maybe what I found is wrong.


Lets take the concept, universal consciousness. I believe completely my brain can experience this. I see consciousness existing in a virtual universe. In this virtual universe the brain is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. Between us (consciousness) and reality is a virtual interface the brain creates for consciousness to experience. It's usually directly stimulated by reality. IOW if we see and table it's because a table is physically there providing sensory information. However this doesn't always have to be the case. It could be for example an image created from a memory.

All perfectly true -- at level three. Remember, what's true at one level is not necessarily true at another. As long as we understand what level we're coming from, we can communicate perfectly, but mix levels and we'll both be flummoxed.
Yes, consciousness is a brain function. No, consciousness is merely mediated by the brain. No, consciousness exists independent of the brain. All true, all false -- depends.

So we know the brain can allow us to see and hear from memories as well. You can close your eyes and imagine a red balloon. So where does this red balloon physically exist?

If you dream of a red balloon, where does it exist? If you buy a balloon, hold it in your hand and blow it up, is it a real balloon, a Real balloon -- or no balloon at all? One could correctly answer yes, no or 'depends' to any of these.

I've no doubt the brain is capable of creating an experience of oneness with the universe. It can be excessively vivid and seemingly real. This experience however doesn't guarantee it is a reality.

Good point. How to decide? Is reality created by the brain or just mediated by the brain?
I can tune my radio to dozens of stations/realities. If I damage it, I can alter or loose these different programs. Are the programs then gone, or is it just because the mechanism mediating them is broken?

 

[George-ananda]

Ok, then a question, what are you trying to achieve from your investigation. Just wondering if there may be a common goal there somewhere.

I am trying to determine if I can learn anything that addresses the big questions of life and how to live the best life possible.

 

[rational experiences]

I know my subconscious mind has put forth a lot of feelings and thoughts. It's capable of creating an entire dream world with autonomous characters for me to interact with.

I experience this nightly, along with the experience of myself in the dream, sometimes as my self. Sometimes as someone else. So I know my mind is capable of creating realities that don't exist for me to experience.

I've experienced this universal consciousness. How do I know this is not just one among the many other realities created by my mind? I suspect I like the idea of me being the consciousness that brought forth reality. The mind, what it is capable of is pretty amazing though it tends to get a bit egotistical.

The topic is the same spiritual review that states. Eternal as spirit and spiritual mass eternal always existed. Was already a living being, owned a living spirit language....self.

To discuss information the self discussed self.....spirit talking to spirit talking to spirit in the eternal. One spirit decided to do change of language to see difference.

O God the spirit eternal language formed. Once language changed, then communication shifted from between each spiritual being to God. O God was formed in a mass of a spirit language that was owned first by one spirit only.

As the eternal mass thinned around O God forming its presence, it all collapsed and burst/burnt...how space was a removed body of eternal mass. Cold gases therefore today are mind quantified to have come from the eternal but are not the eternal, it is just a discussion about where did it come from. To think is first of spirit.

Therefore it is why the mind is separate in its owned determined reasoning from just existing with the body, or just being the body. For it is not what it accepts, it always accepts as being apart from and not actually just "body".

 

[PearlSeeker]

I don't know why you say this. We agree on meaning. In fact communication is pretty hard when we don't agree. It doesn't seem to be any more complex than that. I can create words and give them meaning. There exists other ways of communication, words are simply a more concise method of communication.

If thoughts are just a chemical reaction in the brain then there is no meaning.

The illusionary part I'm referring to is the belief/feeling that the "I" is something other than the brain, etc...

Yes, individual "I" doesn't hang in a vacuum and "nobody is an isle"... but: are you just the cloth (you wear) or are you also something other?

[I wrote: There is no free will.]
Depending on what you mean, I might agree or disagree.

In materialistic/naturalistic view there is no act/free will because choice is just a reaction.

 

[metis]

But this is true only of materialist, low level realities. When you start talking about concepts like maya and Hindu concepts of non-duality, you've crossed into the quantum realm and beyond. Nothing interrelates, because there are no things to 'inter' relate. There is no "us," nor any "thing" surrounding us.

But quantum theory does not state there are no "things", only that sub-atomic particles tend to act differently than mega-matter.

What we may call "whatever" is arbitrary, thus depending on what we are experiencing one way or the other and what we have decided to call it/them. "Things" must exist or we wouldn't be writing posts here at RF. This does not in any way negate non-duality.

Thus, my point is that what we may call a "cat", for example, is not a stand along "thing". Plus, even though I may see a "cat", the reality is that I am only seeing what light is being reflected by the "cat", thus not the actual "cat" itself.

But at the same time we have to avoid taking a nihilistic position in assuming that the "cat" I think I "see" doesn't actually exist. We simply cannot function that way as we would not be able to do anything in reaction to anything else. So, if I'm walking outside, which I'll be doing shortly, how do I do that if nothing can be perceived at all? Does that "tree" in front of me actually exist? If I don't react to it, I'm maybe gonna have some serious issues with a tree limb stuck in my mouth.

 

[Nakosis]

If thoughts are just a chemical reaction in the brain then there is no meaning.

Seems obviously untrue. Repeating it I don't think is going to change that.

Yes, individual "I" doesn't hang in a vacuum and "nobody is an isle"... but: are you just the cloth (you wear) or are you also something other?

Well, brain, related nervous functions. That's what I identify with. Not my clothes.

In materialistic/naturalistic view there is no act/free will because choice is just a reaction.

I disagree. However I think that is a different debate regardless of whether you believe in a spiritual realm or not.

 

[Nakosis]

The topic is the same spiritual review that states. Eternal as spirit and spiritual mass eternal always existed. Was already a living being, owned a living spirit language....self.

To discuss information the self discussed self.....spirit talking to spirit talking to spirit in the eternal. One spirit decided to do change of language to see difference.

O God the spirit eternal language formed. Once language changed, then communication shifted from between each spiritual being to God. O God was formed in a mass of a spirit language that was owned first by one spirit only.

As the eternal mass thinned around O God forming its presence, it all collapsed and burst/burnt...how space was a removed body of eternal mass. Cold gases therefore today are mind quantified to have come from the eternal but are not the eternal, it is just a discussion about where did it come from. To think is first of spirit.

Therefore it is why the mind is separate in its owned determined reasoning from just existing with the body, or just being the body. For it is not what it accepts, it always accepts as being apart from and not actually just "body".

I think it's more that we don't see a brain when we look in a mirror. We see the physical body but feel there is more to us than what we see in the mirror. Kind of hard to identify with something you never see. So we create an idea of who/what we are and identify with that. In your case an incorporeal spirit.

Nobody, usually identifies as a "brain" walking around in a meat suit.

 

[Nakosis]

I am trying to determine if I can learn anything that addresses the big questions of life and how to live the best life possible.

That's valid IMO. I want to live the best life as possible as well, however the big questions I just accept I'll never have an answer for, not in my life. So no longer feel a need to go looking for them.

 

[Nakosis]

All perfectly true -- at level three. Remember, what's true at one level is not necessarily true at another. As long as we understand what level we're coming from, we can communicate perfectly, but mix levels and we'll both be flummoxed.
Yes, consciousness is a brain function. No, consciousness is merely mediated by the brain. No, consciousness exists independent of the brain. All true, all false -- depends.
If you dream of a red balloon, where does it exist? If you buy a balloon, hold it in your hand and blow it up, is it a real balloon, a Real balloon -- or no balloon at all? One could correctly answer yes, no or 'depends' to any of these.

Good point. How to decide? Is reality created by the brain or just mediated by the brain?
I can tune my radio to dozens of stations/realities. If I damage it, I can alter or loose these different programs. Are the programs then gone, or is it just because the mechanism mediating them is broken?

Sure, it's a choice. I'm not saying I'm right. Certainly can't prove I'm right but it is how I choose to look at my reality. Hey, and my view could always change if it seems reasonable to do so.

 

[George-ananda]

That's valid IMO. I want to live the best life as possible as well, however the big questions I just accept I'll never have an answer for, not in my life. So no longer feel a need to go looking for them.

From my study of the paranormal/psychic/spiritual/Indian (Hindu) philosophy I feel I have found all the answers I need to the big questions. The universe is on our side and will help us if we are open.

But all philosophies that support happiness, brotherly love and peace are all headed in the general right direction in my book (even materialistic humanism).

 

[Valjean]

Relevant Scientific American article:
Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe and Everything?

The obvious way around the combination problem is to posit that, although consciousness is indeed fundamental in nature, it isn’t fragmented like matter. The idea is to extend consciousness to the entire fabric of spacetime, as opposed to limiting it to the boundaries of individual subatomic particles. This view—called “cosmopsychism” in modern philosophy, although our preferred formulation of it boils down to what has classically been called “idealism”—is that there is only one, universal, consciousness. The physical universe as a whole is the extrinsic appearance of universal inner life, just as a living brain and body are the extrinsic appearance of a person’s inner life.

Panpsychism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)