Does it ever bother you how bound you are to physical reality? Happiness is basically structural, it is a fitness level of your parts. Like birds doing acrobatics in the air, so too do we experience based on our capacitance.
Does it ever bother you how bound you are to physical reality?
wacko
yakko
dot
Behavior therapy burnout or just a general inquiry?
General inquiry
Well, once you make it through enough behavior therapy you eventually realize the process it is designed to stimulate insofar as it pertains to happiness is really kind of like a muscle, so you have to keep exercising to maintain it or you can just accept it as a process that can be performed at will and let it slide and then restimulate it to try and get back to the initial feeling. You can also just accept that the process itself is a sterile derivation and go back to the way you were before. I understand and appreciate the system he was instrumental in but the ego itself is just sort of problematic in this regard, the Buddhists were likely ahead of the curve in this regard, which I know a number of psychologists hate to hear but it is what it is I suppose.
this is not a mental health thread fyi
superdeterminism is still determinism
I was not trying to turn it into one, perhaps I should have just said if you are concerned about something like this you may be overcomplicating it, but I did not want to sound condescending. If we reduce happiness to the constituent chemicals in the brain then it will never escape physical reality.
>we just add a black box for fun
>superdeterminism is still determinism
Logic is deterministic, the seed of each tree of logic is irreducible "will".
>he thinks there is no structure for will
Plato rears his ugly head
The rough structure of a human wanting to eat an apple is obvious except it's not self-contained, it eventually rests on the will to copy information which eventually rests on irreducible fundamentals of reality. There's a seed outside the system, the kind of logical structures we find useful to copy information are the ones we consider fundamental but they're not, they're emergent structures that seem fundamental given the context of life that wants to reproduce. The context that allows logic as we know it rests on will.
The system is obfuscated, human perception has purposes and things are understood relative to that, it doesn't mean there is some magical thing outside of the system.
>doesn't mean there is some magical thing outside of the system.
Logic demands a thing outside the model. Until you model its structure it's a fundamental that everything else rests on. Same language as in physics, the fundamental forces may have a structure that we may discover but both possibilities, an infinite loop of deeper and deeper structures as in turtles all the way or an irreducible fundamental are both just as irreducible to our logical models. Either way it's always hecking "magic" as in not subject to our models.
>logic demands a thing outside the model
false
Give one example of a logical structure that doesn't rest on anything outside itself. Any model you can imagine of anything must rest on assumptions. Within the context of logic things can actually be true or false and the obvious fact that this is how logical models work is proven true by Gödel.
this is observable literally only from our perspective what you are effectively saying is "everything weve come into contact with works this way, therefore it must all work this way"
Not even close to what I'm saying. In that post I'm talking about the limitations of what we can model using logic. You can't give one counter example because this is how logic works. If you can provide one example you've proven me and Gödel wrong.
"The limits of my language are the limits of my world" -Wittgenstein
We humans describe what we have access to, it is wrong to assume there is anything beyond this and it is wrong to assume there is a continuance in logic.
Both Godel and Wittgenstein cannot tell you about what is beyond experience.
I'm not telling you what's beyond, just that there is always a beyond. This is an appeal to logic, the thing we use to construct our language and worldviews. If you want to play pretend go ahead but don't try to confuse people around you. You're not even literate so your language games will always confuse you.
>there is always a beyond
You unironically don't know this and also can't prove this, you can literally prove this only for what you can perceive and not a bit more.
>You unironically don't know this and also can't prove this
I know this as much as I know that 1+1=2. It's an appeal to logic, it's true in the context given by the rules we use to reason, as true as claims get.
>you can literally prove this only for what you can perceive and not a bit more
Why do you just say things? Logical proof applies to the domain of logic. I know 1+1 apples will be 2 apples tomorrow with as much certainty as I can know anything. It's not absolute knowledge, it's what the rules of logic dictate, an appeal to logic.
Yes this works for all we have observed, that's it. You are wrong to assume this continues.
I'm not the one fricking assuming. I'm explaining what knowledge is because you keep replying as if you don't understand it.
seethe
>It's an appeal to logic, it's true in the context given by the rules we use to reason, as true as claims get.
Except logic as no authority to be appealed to if this beyond is a logic-transcendent reality. Checkmate.
You don't have any alternatives to offer, it's a limitation of knowledge since all knowledge and language rests on logic. And saying logic doesn't account for everything isn't a counterpoint because that's the fricking point in the first place. Logic itself tells us that logic can't account for everything, any model you can conceive of will fail to account for everything.
>Logic itself tells us that logic can't account for everything
Still checkmate. Because what logic cannot account for is beyond logic and its categories, and since being and existence are categories, neither can be attributed to logic-transcendent reality aka the beyond; ergo, you don't actually know there is a beyond and you also can't prove it.
>how bound you are to physical reality?
Compared to what?
God existing.
"You" are the structure. The observer is in everything, it's not bound to the flesh or any material. Logical structures modulate the universal qualia, like they're all ideas in the mind of something greater. Material changes have no effect on the qualia, only logical structural changes. This means when our stupid chatbots are processing information they also modulate the universal qualia.
Wow this a radical and moronic belief. It does effect rhetoric wtf is your point lmao.
books for this feel?
Seconding
, anyone has recs?
What is the alternative to being 'bound to physical reality'?
It bothers me a lot. I'm just a configuration of subatomic forces.
It bothers me that this understanding is easily (and constantly) exploited to fulfill the itch of power.
>Does it ever bother you how bound you are to physical reality?
>t. doesn't know
You are completely free in reality. It is that which is irreal (metaphysical) that binds you
No. I have experienced supreme ethereal bliss. Everything here is quite small and inconsequential, pretty or ugly as it might be.
>Does it ever bother you how bound you are to physical reality?
How would I know anything else?
I N T E L L E K T U E L L E A N S C H A U U N G
No because NDEs are unironically irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o
So any atheist would be too, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:
>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."
If NDEs were hallucinations somehow then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would maintain that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.
We wanted to be bound to this existence while we are still here, to be as immersed with the idea of being human as possible. We are infinitely free in the afterlife forever anyway. Roleplaying that we are not for a while is just fun.
Jens Amberts is that you? Buy an ad already.
>We are infinitely free in the afterlife forever anyway.
Then why the hell did we end up as humans?
You obviously haven't meditated much if you think we are bound to a physical reality. I can see in black and white at will during my meditations, and it only takes me 10-15 minutes to get there now. Took me a 3 hour session to do it initially. My theory is that I am consciously switching to primarily seeing via rods.
We are souls/spirits with a physical(human) body. The goal is to overcome sensory temptations and live attuned to this nature. I believe Shamanism is more correct where we have to keep coming and going from and to the spirit realm until we progress enough character wise. You know how there's some kids who are more well behaved innately? They basically did character development in the last life, and are able to focus on more important things from an earlier age this go around.
ok... but why be human tho? You tellin me I was infinite, then why would I ever want to NOT be infinite?
Human is just one of many forms. Human is the highest thing to come back as since we have the most freedoms, and can contemplate higher ideals compared to any other animal or object on earth. You kind of want to move up the spiritual ladder in life, and humans are at the top of that. That explains the why choose human. But as to why this system is in place is beyond true understanding, and falls to speculation that varies based on culture. The reason I point to Shamanism though is that is was present in nearly every culture around the world, and predates religion and philosophy while still having some of their ideas bleed into those fields today.
>why this system is in place is beyond true understanding, and falls to speculation that varies based on culture
that's what I wanna know
good principles
If you were made of components that were more conducive to happiness you would literally be happier, your meditation is nonsense. The benefit you explain with meditation is because meditation makes improvements to some of your parts.
And happiness detracts from longevity. It uses energy to be happy, and being happy is simply a temporary emotion that is ultimately not necessary. Your obsession with joy is a hindrance to yourself that you have never even realized in your quest to be an intellectual powerhouse. Quiet your ego, open your ears, and listen to the ancients.
If you want to read more it's from the book Shamanism for Beginners by James Endredy. You can probably start with any book for beginners on the topic though.
Happiness is just an example, obviously this extends to quite literally everything.
Why even bring up happiness unless you saw it as an underlying root of meaning to your life? Longevity is a much more pertinent tool to maximize as you can do much more with life than you can with death. Most anything you can do while happy can be done while content, or even unhappy. If you want to extend your logic to other things then please point me to an example of a component of longevity that does not impact longevity as much as the mental state - which is something malleable and able to be controlled.
Anon I just thought it would be a good example in order for people to grasp my point
In your point you say meditation is nonsense, yet it also improves you. You have no point.
You just want to argue. Meditation is nonsense from the point of view of falsely attributing it to something other than a physical improvement of some of your parts.
You just aren't well read nor well practiced in the multi thousand year old practice of meditation. I don't want to argue. I just want you to learn. How is meditation having a physical improvement on anyone when it impacts the mind first and foremost? You aren't thinking before you type.
Had a solid giggle
>Does it ever bother you how bound you are to physical reality?
No, I’m actually quiet fond of being alive.
cimh
Are we bound to physical reality? What does that even mean?
>breathe water
>drown
What
>want to shoot lasers out of eyes
>focus on it really hard
>cant
amateur
How does that mean I'm bound to physical reality?
You're talking about being bound to the physical laws of the universe not whether we are bound to the universe itself
I'm saying that the entirety of "you" is specifically and strictly a physical situation
Is the experience of being a human being physical thing?
>Like birds doing acrobatics in the air, so too do we experience based on our capacitance.
There's no evidence that experience is a physical thing, I don't even know how you could argue it is
In fact there is only evidence that experience is a physical thing, there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
how can I touch experience?
Stick a fork in a power outlet
How do I touch a dream?
AI can describe a persons dream perfectly accurately, how do you imagine that is possible?
AI can only regurgitate what it had been told or read.
Same for you 🙂
can you not read?
I'm not bound to a physical reality because I'm at a higher plane of existence
In my being I don't feel bound to physical reality, I feel like I'm a world within myself. Existence is spilt between me and everything else
quite the opposite, actually
I conceive of the universe as a great Hegelian-like dialectical process of an immaterial or supramaterial force (on a transcendental plane that transcends what we conceive of as matter, energy, space, time, and information, or MESTI, the phenomenal universe) descending into, inhabiting, enlivening and transmuting the matrix of this material reality to turn it into the Noumenal Transcendental Source’s own perfect abode, in a panentheistic and hylozoic manner. If the universe is like a body, then God is the soul of that body, spread entirely throughout it yet also remaining transcendent and superior to it.
We are apparently bound to this physical reality, but there are “chinks in the wall”, so to speak, that occasionally show glimpses of something greater. Your own awareness is immaterial and transcends the givens of Matter, Energy, Space, Time and Information (MESTI), which are all dependent on consciousness or an observer to be able to be coherently spoken of. We have synchronicities, as Jung spoke of, which speak to a deeper and more profound interrelation between mind and matter than the modern materialistic paradigm would suggest, if you’ve been blessed enough to experience undeniable and statistically outrageous synchronicities. Even dreams can give a glimpse that there’s a subtler reality, or an aspect to consciousness that transcends the material. Even the very ability of yourself to form CONCEPTS which transcend the material, is a telling hint. Whether it’s abstractions like “honor” and “justice”, or of a perfect circle (a line of thought suggesting the Plato’s Forms/Platonic idealism, which was also an inspiration for Jung’s notion of the archetypes, collective unconscious, and Anima Mundi or World Soul, besides alchemical sources and Western mysticism in general).
The body is not to be denied or destroyed, it is the home where Spirit is supposed to meet Matter and make it perfect, by bringing the Spirit to fully inhabit and gain mastery over this Matter. Just my six cents. Purusha and Prakriti (of the Indian Samkhya school of philosophy, Consciousness and Matter) are the two poles of the universe, but, just like Noumenon and Phenomenon, are inseparable from each other and interdependent, like two sides of a coin — one couldn’t exist without the other.
good post
I don't think people need to raise this to a supernatural or outside of physical phenomenom, I think all of what you've said here can fit perfectly fine within physical boundaries.
Yeah I hate it.
I should become smarter and more enlightened by reading and writing, not stupider. Rather, it is only exercise which makes me smarter which is so unfair because i sunk the cost into reading already.
>Does it ever bother you how bound you are to physical reality? Happiness is basically structural, it is a fitness level of your parts.
I'm not bothered because I am structurally fit and therefore happy and content. I base this on my subjective experience and attribute it to the quantity of sex I receive.
it's not just about the quantity, but the quality to.
My wife is hot
hot b***hes can still be bad at sex
Yes sometimes i become uncomfortably aware of my physical reality and am suddenly am horrified to think I am flesh and blood
It grosses me out to think there is blood pumping through my veins and how it would only take a slight accident for that blood to be spewing out of me
With each passing second my body is experiencing the decay of age.
This is it no higher reality
>This is it no higher reality
>
>Logic itself tells us that logic can't account for everything
Still checkmate. Because what logic cannot account for is beyond logic and its categories, and since being and existence are categories, neither can be attributed to logic-transcendent reality aka the beyond; ergo, you don't actually know there is a beyond and you also can't prove it.
corollary: you also don't know there isn't a beyond and also can't prove there isn't
>you also don't know there isn't a beyond
I don't know but I have no reason to believe and have yet to find any convincing
>Happiness
what are you a woman?
Blah blah blah gay word salad
Pretentious psychobabble