and I definitely think that some dualism has drifted in that direction. — Jack Cummins
Perhaps you have some other kind of argument in mind? I'm all ears. — Manuel
I have a vague understanding of the holograph, but it's a lay-understanding for sure. I've no doubt, though, that All would be fine with it's perception, and the perception of it's parts, being the observation of, or participation in a holograph. — James Riley
But time and chronology don't work in a linear fashion for All. — James Riley
I am certainly wishing to go beyond dualism. — Jack Cummins
Time is not linear, it is the experience of change. — MondoR
Here's the part I sense, intuitively, but have no way of proving: All became so "Godly" (for lack of a better term) that it could both precede the parts coming together, and be a following result of their combination at the same time. Based upon my previous chronology, it is hard to make that leap, for surely All could only do that after the events that created All brought All into being. But time and chronology don't work in a linear fashion for All. — James Riley
If what you say about rocks is true, that is, if they could experience - which they may - then existence is a mistake. — Manuel
I tend to favor the view, like it seems you do too, that all is one. But maybe at a certain step of complexity, things become individual "to themselves", so to speak. — Manuel
I don't know how that follows? — James Riley
, I'd have to ride wit UPN since it accounts for UPNN and UPN and the absence of both. After all, it would be a weak sauce indeed if infinity could not account for the absence of itself. If could not, then it would be finite. — James Riley
Thus, a rock "perceives" from it's point of view, even if we can't fathom it. — James Riley
Hell, I don't think even the geologist understands what he's saying when he talks about a million years, much less billions and more. We can throw the terms around to help us grasp ideas, but as it was opined above, these are but maps and not the terrain of time. — James Riley
I simply mean that if rocks and rivers were conscious in some way, then the way we treat things we consider to be non-mental, would be way too horrible. — Manuel
I'd only ask you, does this "All" include "non-mental" stuff, or would you be of the view that there is no "non mental" stuff: all is part of one mind? — Manuel
ut I can't say with much certainty. I tend to favor the view that we construct the world according to our cognitive, intellectual and genetic capacities. How this things "in here" (in the head) relates to whatever is out there, is very obscure, not to say a mystery which is what I think, but avoid saying too much. — Manuel
Think of it as a Universal Mind (an ocean) with Individual Minds (waves in the ocean). Of course, A Hologram with everything existing everywhere is another equivalent way of imaging it. — MondoR
I also think of personal experiences that I have had with cold. It's very difficult for me to articulate, but I know there are "states" that one can be in, as a result of acclimation, where cold is not perceived like it is when in other states. — James Riley
Because, again, my definition of All would suggest there is a way. I'm fairly certain that when I die, that will happen, but it would be cool if I could do it now. And be choosy about it. Then again, I hear nature calling me back to life to enjoy her now. I'm torn. — James Riley
I suspect they are both, but when I think of a hologram I like to think it is the non-particle manifestation of reality. — James Riley
However, I would not say that anything deep that I have experienced is an indication of anything else other than the power of the mind. — Manuel
They were talking about bats. I'm going two steps further, to plants and rocks. Our limitations are not the limits. — James Riley
If everything is mind, what's the mechanism by which it manifests illusions to fool its individual selves that, say, there is more-than-mind (e.g. mass, light, spacetime)? — 180 Proof
Are such ideas arising in the new physics useful for considering reality and the nature of consciousness? — Jack Cummins
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.