Non-Duality: You are experiencing the inside of your own mind

[KenBrace]

Non-Duality

You are experiencing the inside of your own mind!

When most people think of the universe they live in, they think of themselves as looking out into an external world. However, what most people don't realize is that in reality, just the opposite is true.

You are not looking out into an external world. When your eyes pick up light it transfers the light it receives into electrical signals that a small area in the back of your brain interpret. The same goes for all your other senses as well. At the root of everything, you are only experiencing electrical impulses interpreted as an external environment. So instead of looking out into an external world, you are actually looking at the inside of your own mind. It is only an experience and experiences do not have a physical, tangible existence. That means that the computer screen you are looking at right now 100% does not exist.

It's exactly like a computer. When you are browsing the internet, watching a movie, chatting with a friend on facebook, etc. all you are actually doing is observing the computer's interpretation of an enormous stream of "ones" and "zeros". For example an EXTREMELY simple computer program might be something like...

11011011010100010101011010111110110100100101010000101101001000101010101001101010100101010101000101010110101010101010101001000000101010110101101011011111010101010101111010001010110101110101010101010001000010101110001011010101011011110101101010101001001010101010100101011101011010100101010101110101

...which the computer translates as the sentence "Hello guys! How's everyone doing?". An image is also composed of a giant stream of "ones" and "zeros". A movie is a stream of images combined together to form the illusion of motion. So in reality a movie is nothing but one, long, giant list of "ones" and "zeros"!

In the same way you are only able to experience reality via electrical impulses that your brain interprets.

Think about this. Suppose someone took your brain out of your body and placed it into a container that kept it alive. If technology was advanced enough scientists could connect your brain to a computer and stream data via electrical impulses to your brain. You could then experience reality the way you do now with what you think is your body, what you think is your house, who you think is your best friend. As long as data was kept streaming to your brain, you would continue to experience reality based on what was sent to your brain. In reality you have no body. There is only your brain sitting inside a container. But to you, you have a body and live an everyday life.

This is the case with a dream. Nothing real is actually happening. It is simply your brain producing electrical impulses like it does in (at least what you think) is "real life". It isn't until you awake that you realize you weren't a being with a dragon body, flying around visiting mountain tops. You were actually just a person laying in bed being fooled by your brain. You were experiencing a completely made up and artificial reality produced by your brain via electrical impulses.

So the question begs. How do we know that we're not "dreaming" right now? After all if the way we experience reality at the moment is the same way that we experience a fictional reality in our dreams, then how do we know we're not just experiencing a simulation? Well... the answer is... we don't know. Even if reality isn't a simulation and there really is an external world, you still have to remember that you only ever look at the inside of your mind and you aren't actually experiencing reality directly.

Don't close your mind to the things I have said above just because it seems absurd or ridiculous at first thought. If you really do some thinking and consider what is actually going on, I think you will come to the same realization.

Advertising link removed by Moderator

Edited June 13, 2014 by Phi for All
Ad link removed

[Iamwhat?]

Very well put nice and simple

[tar]

KenBrace,

 

"When your eyes pick up light"

 

Well here, I think you have your answer. There was light, for your eyes to pick up. That establishes a reality that we can then build an analog version of, within our brains.

 

While it is very true, that that first image a baby sees is a double image, upside down and backward, the baby "learns" which way is up, and how to merge the images into a useful representation of the world.

 

I would say that a good deal of what we sense and remember, think about and predict, has direct analogies to actual real stuff. There are many instances of things, that you think about, that are in your model of the the world, within your brain, that are also within my model of the world, within my brain, because they are actual, and not creations of our brains, but common images, caused by the same real events and objects, being sensed and remembered in the same analogous fashion, from your perspective, and from mine.

 

So, it has to be Dual. There is the thing as it is, and then there is what we can think about it/ say about it.

 

You would not suggest there is no Sun or Moon or Earth, or Russia or Europe or North Korea. You would not suggest there is no such real things as a mother and father, sister or brother, workmate, schoolmate. fellow citizen, lover or friend. These things are not illusion, simply because we hold an analog model of them in the chemicals and arrangement of signals within our body/brain/heart group. The fact that we all hold the SAME model in so many aspects of it, proves the thing as it is, is.

 

"When your eyes pick up light", there was light to be picked up.

 

As to telling the difference between dream and reality, I have a simple test. If you can make up the rules and put things together with no consequence, then its a dream. If the thing you see or the thing you do has consequences, and effects things in a permanent fashion, then you are awake, and it is real.

 

For instance, clouds do not have zippers. Once I solved a knotty problem in my dreams, and while rehearsing the solution I had come to, once I had awakened, I realized the solution was not actually fitting to reality, as that clouds do not have zippers.

 

If we were to give all clouds zippers, then perhaps my solution might have worked.

 

Do not tell me you have any problem separating what portions of that statement belong in dream world langauge, and what portions belong to the waking world. Since you can easily tell the difference, don't pretend you can't.

 

Regards, TAR

So, even if you are experiencing the inside of your own mind, since an analog representation of the outside world is folded up in and amoungst your brain, then you are as well, experiencing the outside world, through your experience of your own mind...hence the dual nature of reality. Both the thing as it is, and what you can think or say about it.

[Deepak Kapur]

 

Non-Duality

You are experiencing the inside of your own mind!

......When your eyes pick up light...................................

 

 

How do you know that it is actually 'light' that is being picked up by your eyes?

 

The thing that your eyes pick could be 'something else' that your brain then interprets as 'light'.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Deepak Kapur

[KenBrace]

KenBrace,

 

"When your eyes pick up light"

 

Well here, I think you have your answer. There was light, for your eyes to pick up. That establishes a reality that we can then build an analog version of, within our brains.

 

While it is very true, that that first image a baby sees is a double image, upside down and backward, the baby "learns" which way is up, and how to merge the images into a useful representation of the world.

 

I would say that a good deal of what we sense and remember, think about and predict, has direct analogies to actual real stuff. There are many instances of things, that you think about, that are in your model of the the world, within your brain, that are also within my model of the world, within my brain, because they are actual, and not creations of our brains, but common images, caused by the same real events and objects, being sensed and remembered in the same analogous fashion, from your perspective, and from mine.

 

So, it has to be Dual. There is the thing as it is, and then there is what we can think about it/ say about it.

 

You would not suggest there is no Sun or Moon or Earth, or Russia or Europe or North Korea. You would not suggest there is no such real things as a mother and father, sister or brother, workmate, schoolmate. fellow citizen, lover or friend. These things are not illusion, simply because we hold an analog model of them in the chemicals and arrangement of signals within our body/brain/heart group. The fact that we all hold the SAME model in so many aspects of it, proves the thing as it is, is.

 

"When your eyes pick up light", there was light to be picked up.

 

As to telling the difference between dream and reality, I have a simple test. If you can make up the rules and put things together with no consequence, then its a dream. If the thing you see or the thing you do has consequences, and effects things in a permanent fashion, then you are awake, and it is real.

 

For instance, clouds do not have zippers. Once I solved a knotty problem in my dreams, and while rehearsing the solution I had come to, once I had awakened, I realized the solution was not actually fitting to reality, as that clouds do not have zippers.

 

If we were to give all clouds zippers, then perhaps my solution might have worked.

 

Do not tell me you have any problem separating what portions of that statement belong in dream world langauge, and what portions belong to the waking world. Since you can easily tell the difference, don't pretend you can't.

 

Regards, TAR

So, even if you are experiencing the inside of your own mind, since an analog representation of the outside world is folded up in and amoungst your brain, then you are as well, experiencing the outside world, through your experience of your own mind...hence the dual nature of reality. Both the thing as it is, and what you can think or say about it.

 

But you don't know for sure whether your eyes are picking up light or your brain is just being fed the data by a simpulator. I personally believe that there is an outside world that directly casuses what we sense but I can't truly be sure. Also even if ther is light on the outside hitting our eyes, light isn't really the way you see it. It's just a wave. The only reason you think that light is shinny is because your brain interprets it that way.

 

How do you know that it is actually 'light' that is being picked up by your eyes?

 

The thing that your eyes pick could be 'something else' that your brain then interprets as 'light'.

 

Waves hit your eyes and go to the back of your brain where it is interpretted as brightness or "light".

 

The main thing behind the realisation of non-duality is that you are observing the inside of your mind. You aren't looking out into an external world (although I do believe there is one). You are looking into your internal mind.

[tar]

KenBrace,

 

But once you make the realization that what you are experiencing is an analog model of the thing, the thing itself is thusly established.

 

So you knew at first you were experiencing an outside thing, that you were in and of the world.

 

Then you made the realization that you have interalized the entire universe so that you could predict and plan your movements through it , and your manipulation of it. That you have to have a model of it, internally, that matches in an analog fashion, the actual thing. You put it on the outside of your body/brain/heart group, because you also have a model of your body/brain/heart group, within your model of the thing.

 

Once you sort the whole thing out, logically, you realize that your model is indeed correct. You are in and of the thing. For real.

 

It is absolutely a model, and it is absolutely a correct model. You are thusly in and of the thing, and you know it is no simulation.

 

What is difficult is to realize that the "simulation" is the way we percieve the world, and it is absolutely real and actual that we hold a model of the universe within the folds and chemicals and signals of our brains. There are not actual super novas happening in our brains, when we think of a supernova, but when a supernova actually does happen, the model of it is clear and plain to us, it has a position and distance and size that is understood within the model.

 

While I have had many an argument with folk on this board, about what is happening in the model and what is happening actually, and the "difficulties" in shifting from one to the other and carrying all the analogies properly through, it is important to me that one maintain a dual understanding of the world, so that one can shift appropriately between the actual and the model.

 

So that one can dream and plan in effective and useful ways, and so that one can enjoy experiencing the place in concert with the other 8 billion modelers of the place.

 

Regards, TAR

[Deepak Kapur]

How do we know that the thing that enters our eyes is a wave and not something else.......

 

How do we know that there are only two levels,the inner and the outer----- everything may only be in our mind or there may be more than one level of outer reality.

[KenBrace]

How do we know that the thing that enters our eyes is a wave and not something else.......

 

How do we know that there are only two levels,the inner and the outer----- everything may only be in our mind or there may be more than one level of outer reality.

 

We don't know for sure.

 

There must be an external world of some kind because there has to be something that is feeding us information.

[tar]

Deepak Kapur ,

 

"How do we know its a wave and not something else?"

 

Interesting that light has been choosen as an example of something that should indicate to us the non-dual nature of reality.

 

Seems a bad choice of objects to choose to argue for non duality. It being both wave and particle.

 

But the obvious dual nature of light aside, if it were "something else" it would still do the things we say it does, when you saw it coming from the Sun and I saw it coming from the Sun and we chose to call it "something else" we could and would still say the same things about it, that we said, while we were considering it a wave. That is it would still have the characteristics of a wave in all those ways that it is like a wave.

 

In parsing these things, like "how do we know?" I find Kant's take very useful. In Critique of Pure Reason he establishes that there are two intuitions that we have, that of time, and that of space, that can not be broken down into simpler, more basic, components of "understanding". That is, "how do we know". He builds logically up from these two, and establishes his table of categories of thought, along side his table of judgements. That is, how do we put the ideas or understanding we have of time and space together, to understand objects and say something about them to ourselves, and to others. His critique addresses your concerns and suggests that we cannot know the thing as it is, but we can say a great deal about it. It is these predicates that we use to describe objects in general...all the things we can say about an object in general, are categorized into areas of quantity, quality, relation and mode.

 

So, bottom line, in terms of "how do we know its a wave?", we know because we can assign all the predicates we assign to a wave, to it. It is therefore a wave. If it were "something else" we would not call it a wave. We would call it a gabundafink and it would not have enough characteristics of a wave for us to call it a wave.

 

Regards, TAR

In terms of "other levels of reality", I would ask you the question, "If it has no relationship to here and now, why would you care?" and I would say "If it did have some relationship to here and now it would not be "another" level of reality", it would be an aspect of this one, and that would be something you could say about "this" reality. Which, is, by the way, by my count, the only one we have.

 

Its very big, and very long lived, but there appears to be only the one we all refer to, and say stuff about. Only the one we have emerged from, and only the one that will continue after our deaths.

[Deepak Kapur]

@ Tar

 

you are right.....but.....it seems a matter of personal preference.....

(as is the case with most of things, when studied to their depths):

 

1. as regards basic intuitions, it can be said that we have basic intuitions regarding space, time, heat, pain, light, touch, darkness etc....etc......

 

2. as regards finding other levels of reality....it can be said that....had science been content with what we perceive with our senses, we would not have the kind of insights we have regarding nature...

 

again, all this is relative.....can vary to a great extent....

[Fred Champion]

I suggest if Kant did, as you say, attempt to establish space and time as our basic intuitions then he was incorrect. The fist thing any child realizes is his self, the notion of "I". Recognition of things external comes later. We learn through experience, not intuition, that we occupy a place in a larger environment and that we share that environment. We also experience events and the various cycles of nature and by memory we interpret them as the passage of time and associate remembered events as a particular time. "I" is a phenomenon we experience, as is space; time is not. I suggest that any idea of our reality must begin with accepting our "I". Everything else must be dependent upon what we accept as how that "I" came to be.

[tar]

Fred Champion,

 

Well as far as a priori intuitions go, Kant explains his reasoning rather well. It is hard for me, having read the first part of Critique of Pure Reason, to even come close to considering his take "incorrect".

 

As far as "I" being the first thing a child experiences, I don't know that that is so obvious and plain as you make it out to be.

After all a child's first experiences are actually before birth, when they are actually connected by blood and vessel to the mom. Plus, a child is usually pretty attached to mom and dad or care giver for the first years of life. Hardly ready to announce their independence. Plus there are developements, like having the ability to put yourself in someone elses shoes, that don't really occur until we are three or four. I think we probably "learn" about "I" same way as we learn everything else, by experience, and trial and error, and attempting to make coherent sense out of what we sense.

 

Were I will agree with you, is that a body/brain/heart group, as is found in an instance of a human organism, is a "focal" point, that is at a particular place, at a particular time. But then we are back to being aware of here and now, which is what Kant said in the first place. In any case, I don't think you can contruct a good argument to place such a synthesised idea as "I", on the same a priori intuition level as the understanding of space and time.

 

Regards, TAR

[Fred Champion]

What one experiences is... The important part of that phrase is the "one". It is that "one" that I refer to as the "I" or the self. I suggest that prior to the formation of the self there is no experiencer and thus no experience. The earliest that life can begin is at conception.

[tar]

Fred Champion,

 

Ok. I can go along with that. But such "focus" or awareness is to me more of a precondition than an a priori intuition.

 

I suppose you could look at it like "I" is basic. But than you could go one better and claim "life" is basic. Without life, there would be no "I" in your take, and no sense and memory, prediction and thought, and nothing with which to understand and nothing in particular to judge, in mine.

 

So, to the second part of the thread topic, it seems evident that one must be, on several levels the object of their own subjectivity. You don't have any equipment, other than the equipment you have, with which to experience and judge the world.

 

But to the first part of the thread topic, the statement that this "I"ness should be proof of "non-duality", I say that it absolutely does not, because sensing light, requires that there be something called light, that is NOT part of the "I"ness to begin with.

 

While there may be a bottom line, all inclusive argument, that non-duality implies oneness, and I may have to agree, that on some level, since there is only one universe, it "could" be considered this way, there is more evidence that a "severalness" is required for the universe to be. That is, there has to be a subject and an object. A thing as it is, and something to notice.

 

An outside world, and the way we understand it to be.

 

Regards, TAR

Whether you are the subject of your own objectivity or the object of your own subjectivity, you are still aware of the dual nature of the thing.

 

A concious being is a conscious being and NOT a simulation. You cannot simulate consciousness. Where would the "I" come from?

Edited June 22, 2014 by tar

[Fred Champion]

Well tar,

the idea that a "conscious being ... is not a simulation" is pretty much the idea that there is more to the "I" than the body. Consider the body as the machine and the DNA as the software; would not this organic machine be a simulation? It seems to me that the thing that makes an entity an entity and not a jump-started humanoid simulation is the spark of life, the spirit, the soul, the identity, the self, the "I"; in other words what we call the "life" in an individual.

 

I suspect the main reason many reject the idea of an identity separate from, but connected to, the body is because they don't want to be sucked into some religious sort of thing. I also expect the main reason that most people feel that there is an identity "inside" their body is because there actually is that identity. I think it is likely that when the "spark of life is passed" at conception both the formation of the body begins and the identity is instantiated.

 

I'm not going to argue in this thread for or against the identity surviving the death of the body; that 's for another place. I wil say that I believe the identity "grows" just as the body grows. I think this is where the notion of the "innocence" of the young comes from. We become more "aware" of our self, our surroundings and our place in our surroundings as we grow and experience.

 

Every experience we have prejudices us for every subsequent experience; we learn. Our memory is not perfect; we tend to "fill in the blanks". Our analitical ability is compromised by experience; we learn to expect. I think it is not possible for an adult to fully comprehend the manner in which a child intuits his surroundings. Given this, it seems unlikely that adults can totally separate their intuition from reasoning.

 

I doubt if there is to be any "proof" of existence of either the "I" as the origin of an imagined universe or of the "I" within a larger context of things "not I". We witness the beginning and end of others. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that an "I" would, or even could, conjure an existence with a beginning and an end for itself. Proof is after all just accepting a preponderance of we accept as evidence.

[tar]

Fred Champion,

 

I also am cautious of getting sucked into the God thing. It is a thing so obvious to me, that we are in and of a greater thing, that one cannot either own it solely, nor "get it", in a manner that trumps another's take. As soon as it is identified as a solely owned or associated with personality, everybody else knows its lunacy, except for everybody else that feels likewise associated.

 

But this, to me, validates a dual understanding of the place, and of oneself. Any fear that one might have of being a simulation is erased with the knowledge that the place itself would then have to be a simulation, which it can not be, since its the place we consider real and judge simulations against, in the first place.

 

So the ghost in the machine supposes that the machine is false and the ghost is true.

All or nothing? One or the other?

 

So much more valid and understandable to take it, in the dual way it presents itself to us.

The ghost can not exist without the machine to house it, the machine cannot move without the ghost to desire it.

 

That we are in and of the thing. Already.

 

I promised God that I would keep his secret, when I was 13.

I have been an Atheist since college.

I engage the thought of "others", anytime I fear that I am the "only" consciousness there is.

 

There is obviously more than one. Has been for 13.8 billion years, and will be for more time to come, than one can reach. We are far from and thusly insulated from either the beginning or the end, so do not have to worry about unity leaving us with nothing to do.

 

Non-duality is simply not evident. Non-duality would imply a statis, an end, a completion, that the universe is presently not in any condition to entertain.

 

And if the universe need not fear having nothing to do next, a little peice and part of it, like a human, or any entity that has grabbed life and form and structure and pattern from such a universe, that is otherwise headed toward entropy, need not fear having nothing to do with the place. And any entity is thusly a victory of its own doing and is thusly not a simulation, but a real thing, that can get no realer. A conscious being is real. And exists in a real place. The pattern exists and the pattern is manifest.

 

So it is not just you, experiencing your own mind as KenBrace suggests. I know this, because there is me.

 

Regards, TAR

[Deepak Kapur]

@ Fredchampion

 

What is the origin of your soul....and so on......

[Fred Champion]

Perhaps its time for a bit of metaphysics. Considering the question of just what it is that makes an entity an entity, I ran across the idea that there appear to be three characteristics all entities share: they are singular, discrete and bounded. The question arises on whether the apparent form is one of several which could be. In other words, what if:

 

One may be singular or plural. We typically think of the individual as a singular being. And yet we see the behavior of schools of fish, flocks of birds, herds of various kinds and the like. Individual organisms seem to have some way of sharing intention. A plural being would have multiple instances of existence.

 

One may be discrete or non-discrete. Our five senses allow us to experience discrete objects. We observe action and reaction, one object displacing another and gases mixed into an atmosphere. We also witness multiple personalities, multiple identities, expressed in one body. A non-discrete being could occupy the same place with both discrete and other non-discrete beings.

 

One may be bounded or unbounded. We observe growth, usually within limits. But we also observe fungi, bacteria, viruses many plants and some animal populations expand to consume all available space and resources. We see materials change phase with change in temperature and pressure. An unbounded being might change size at will.

 

We may consider that by taking combinations of these characteristics we can posit eight distinct types of beings. Examples are:

 

Human bodies may be thought of as singular, discrete and generally bounded.

The spirit, soul or identity is often thought of as singular, non-discrete and bounded.

God is usually considered as plural, non-discrete and unbounded.

Ghosts, spirits, and the like are most often taken to be singular, non-discrete and bounded.

Angels, demons and the like are often taken to be singular, non-discrete and unbounded.

 

Singular, discrete and unbounded: schools, flocks and herds.

Plural, discrete and bounded: ?

Plural, non-discrete and bounded: ?

 

My imagination fails me on the last two.

 

The bounded vs unbounded idea seems explainable. The singular idea is common; the plural idea seems quite foreign. I expect there are a great many more examples which would be logical, and a great many more posited, if we consider that, as science tells us, at least 90 to 95 percent of the universe is what we may call non-discrete. The idea that there are non-discrete objects, beings and entities and that this kind of things makes up such a large part of the universe is interesting, but to me the more interesting thing is just how non-discrete and discrete things could accomplish the interactions commonly attributed to them. What might we have as a basis for understanding such an interface?

@ Fredchampion

What is the origin of your soul....and so on......

I expect the parts of your life, your soul, your identity are delivered to the point of conception as the life present in the egg and the sperm. Both carry life, but are incomplete. Neither can form a complete body nor a complete soul by itself. At the moment of conception both the body and the soul begin. The soul is associated with, inhabits, the body. Unless disrupted, both will grow and mature. It is obvious that the body will die. It is not obvious whether the soul will die or persist.

[Deepak Kapur]

@ Fred Champion

 

You have talked about your self, your identity, your conception and birth, your soul etc.....but....you haven't talked about what you think about the origin of soul.....is god the origin of soul or someone who made god?

[tar]

Fred Champion,

 

Well speaking of metaphysics. From Kant:

(found in Section III.---Of the pure Conceptions of the Understanding, or Categories, which is in a section called "Of the Transcendental Clue to the Discovery of all Pure Conceptions of the Understanding, which is in Book I:Analytic of Conceptions which is in the First Division(Transcendental Analytic) of the Part Second:Transcendental Logic, of the first 300 pages of Critique of Pure Reason, entitled TRANSCENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS)

 

"TABLE OF THE CATEGORIES.

 

I. II

Of Quantity Of Quality

Unity. Reality.

Plurality. Negation.

Totality. Limitation.

 

III

Of Relation

Of Inherence and Subsistence (substantia et accidens).

Of Causality and Dependence (cause and effect).

Of Community (reciprocity between the agent and patient).

 

IV

Of Modality

Possibility.---Impossibility.

Existence.---Non-existence.

Necessity.---Contingence.

 

 

These categories were Kants "improvements" on Aristotle's categories and they rather thouroughly cover what one can say about an object in general. Leading me to agree with the man, that you have your thing as it is, and then you have what you can think or say about it.

 

Regards. TAR

Edited June 25, 2014 by tar

[Fred Champion]

Fred Champion,

 

Well speaking of metaphysics. From Kant:

(found in Section III.---Of the pure Conceptions of the Understanding, or Categories, which is in a section called "Of the Transcendental Clue to the Discovery of all Pure Conceptions of the Understanding, which is in Book I:Analytic of Conceptions which is in the First Division(Transcendental Analytic) of the Part Second:Transcendental Logic, of the first 300 pages of Critique of Pure Reason, entitled TRANSCENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS)

 

"TABLE OF THE CATEGORIES.

 

I. II

Of Quantity Of Quality

Unity. Reality.

Plurality. Negation.

Totality. Limitation.

 

III

Of Relation

Of Inherence and Subsistence (substantia et accidens).

Of Causality and Dependence (cause and effect).

Of Community (reciprocity between the agent and patient).

 

IV

Of Modality

Possibility.---Impossibility.

Existence.---Non-existence.

Necessity.---Contingence.

 

 

These categories were Kants "improvements" on Aristotle's categories and they rather thouroughly cover what one can say about an object in general. Leading me to agree with the man, that you have your thing as it is, and then you have what you can think or say about it.

 

Regards. TAR

You task me. I need to read it.

@ Fred Champion

 

You have talked about your self, your identity, your conception and birth, your soul etc.....but....you haven't talked about what you think about the origin of soul.....is god the origin of soul or someone who made god?

Consider that if there is "the other side" as any believe, then it is part of the Universe. I accept Universe (with the capital "U") to be all that is; if there are multiple universes (with a lower case "u") they are part of the Universe. If the other side is, then what is it? I expect it might be part or all of what science tells us is the 90 to 95 percent of our Universe that we have not been able to observe.

 

If the other side is, then I take it or part of it to be the environment, heaven, where God and souls are described as being. I expect the substance of some or all of the things there is non-discrete. If such an environment and the things in it is, then there is a physics for it, because it would be a physical, although not physical in the traditional sense of material, place with physical objects and entities. Obviously the nature of non-discrete things would be such that the physics of non-discrete things would be quite different from that of our experience, but since it appears that there might be some interaction between discrete and non-discrete things, a combined physics which would have to account for both is indicated.

 

You ask for an origin. We have not discovered the origin of what we can observe. Perhaps the other side is the origin of our material universe. Science has only recently acknowledged even the possibility of something other than the material universe we observe. I do not expect science to openly posit a state of being for heaven or anything in it much less to consider an origin for it or anything in it. There is enough evidence, from anecdotal accounts and my own experience, for me to accept that something beyond what science acknowledges is there, but how could I possibly posit anything about an origin for it?

 

As long as we are so far from the original topic, how about a little conspiracy theory? Many rich and smart people have, and are, spending huge amonunts of money on finding and confirming the Higgs boson. These sorts of folks don't typically throw money at folly. So, the question is what do they want for their money? Consider the potential power that could come from an understanding of the other side and the manipulation of things with that knowledge. Could it be they know more than they're letting on?

[PeterJ]

Nonduality is the claim that there is no 'other side'. The two worlds are one says Rumi. But there would be two worlds in the same sense that there is for physics, the classical world and the world of QM. Nagarjuna speaks of (Rumi's) two worlds as the 'conventional' and the 'ultimate'. But the distinction would be reducible.

 

Nonduality is so mind-bending that it is difficult to talk about it. For instance, for this view the aphorism of Lao-tsu, 'True words seem paradoxical', would be true. So expect a lot of what seem at first glance to be contradictions to appear in the discussion. Lao-tsu is also clear that is possible to understand and know our origin, and that he knows it. Indeed, he say 'Knowing the ancient beginnings is the essence of Tao'. It is the essence of mysticism. Btw, Schrodinger was 'nondualist'. This is why he proposes 'I am God', even though his religious view was not theism. .

[Deepak Kapur]

Even if there is non-duality, one always tends to ask.....what is the source of this single consciousness/god/non-duality?

[PeterJ]

Well, that's the thing. It would not be quite right to call it consciousness, since we usually use this word to imply two things, consciousness and its object. But this would not be consistent with the the advaita ('not-two') view. The basic principle would be that by reduction the universe (Reality) would be an undifferentiated state prior to time and space. Not 'one' but, rather, not a numerical value. Never 'this' as opposed to 'that'. Because it would be beyond the categories of thought we cannot use the categories to describe it. Hence 'The Tao that is eternal cannot be spoken'. But we need to speak about it, so we must use pairs of selective categories to do so. Thus, for instance, Heraclitus states 'We exist and do not exist'. It all depends which way we look at it, whether from a conventional or ultimate view, while the truth would transcend these two views for the view that is 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories'.

 

It's a little like saying that we can call an electron a particle or a wave, and are forced to do so, but really it is neither.

 

I believe that it would be impossible to make much sense of nonduality in the absence of some direct experience, as a purely intellectual idea, so it's not the easiest of topics to discuss. However, it does make sense in metaphysics, and it can be proved that it is the only general theory that does. Unfortunately no scientific experiment could falsify it, so in physics we would have to concede that we cannot rule it out but can never be completely sure that we should rule it in.

 

It is also very difficult to discuss this without making mistakes, and I am not immune. Lao-tsu states 'True words seem paradoxical', and for rigour this rule must be obeyed. (It is because there would be two complementary and contradictory views neither of which is adequate on its own. .

Edited June 25, 2014 by PeterJ

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

Nicely put.

 

I would like to add a little implication that presents itself, when the OP is considered. Which is sort of my point here, in general.

 

If two people, both consider they are the only reality, they have just proved themselves wrong, by talking about it.

 

I had a favorite joke while briefly a philosophy major in college, that I wanted to start a Sophists club.

 

The OP suggests that one is just trapped in their own mind, in some sort of illusion, and that the whole thing is therefore a simulation of reality. I am thinking that this is a misappropriation of the perspectives that one is privy to, as a human. The particular mechanics of sense and perception and memory and thought are an enabling consideration of our awareness of the outside world. This is why I alway mention that our thoughts and perceptions are anolog representations of the outside world. So that the two are not unrelated, even though they are different in nature.

 

The light that enters the eye, is real. It is a real representation or announcement or consequence of the electron that fell an energy level, and released a photon...over there...before...in an actual moment, in actual space. That we represent it, and symbolize it, and make this and that analogy in relation to it, means a great deal, and tells us about our abilities, and our common abilities, and not unimportantly, our ability to talk about it.

 

It is obviously not one way or the other, but a thing that can only be understood by looking at it from both perspectives. As it is probably not possible to look at something from two perspectives at once, its probably best to alternate and accept the results of this alternation...over time.

 

Sort of Zen-like a suggestion, but I think it important to allow not only oneself to have this capability of perspective shift, and to have this ability to put oneself in someone else shoes, but to allow another to have the same capability.

 

And once you have allowed another this same ability, there is no question about the existence of this other, in a waking reality that is "outside" your mind.

 

Regards, TAR