"How did we 'begin'?"

[WonderBeat]

The tiny mad idea - YouTube

 

[Dave Ellis]

OK, if you were to just link this video yesterday, I would be able to see what your argument actually is.

So, basically, what you're proposing is that we're basically in a world not all that dissimilar from The Matrix. Nothing we perceive is real, we actually truly exist outside of it.

So, that brings up the logical follow-up. Why should I accept your argument as true, and not just write it off as a delusion of yours?

In the Matrix, Neo needed the Red Pill to open his mind up to understand that what he was in was actually an illusion. Basically, I'm asking if you have a Red Pill.

You can assert that this is all an illusion, but how do you actually know it's an illusion? Are you just simply buying in to what they tell you in videos like that, or do you have some definitive proof?

 

[WonderBeat]

First of all, I want to ask "what is the motive behind your doubt?" Why do you not accept this 'belief' as already self-evident and the absolute default stance to take when it comes to Reality?

I believe that, if you search yourself, you will find out that your belief that this is not true is actually a projection, foisted upon you by your mind. This is in an effort to preserve your own prized individuality. That is my whole basic outlook on this matter. Skepticism is not the default position because it is already an attempt, a project, at covering over the real truth.....

 

[Dave Ellis]

First of all, I want to ask "what is the motive behind your doubt?" Why do you not accept this 'belief' as already self-evident and the absolute default stance to take when it comes to Reality?

Well, let me ask you a question. When you were young and growing up, did you view the world as an individual, or did you view the world as some kind of collective consciousness dream state?

I'm assuming when you grew up, you had not yet been "enlightened" to your current worldview. Likewise, the vast majority of the population also perceives the world as it is.

That is a demonstration the self-evident nature of the world, is what is self-evident. That's what we can clearly see. Some abstract philosophy that barely anyone is aware of, is clearly not self-evident.

The default position is taking what is self-evident and that's how most people view the world. You are the only person I have ever talked to that has your beliefs. That in itself doesn't make it wrong, but it's clearly not self-evident.

I believe that, if you search yourself, you will find out that your belief that this is not true is actually a projection, foisted upon you by your mind. This is in an effort to preserve your own prized individuality. That is my whole basic outlook on this matter. Skepticism is not the default position because it is already an attempt, a project, at covering over the real truth.....

Searching yourself is not a path to truth, it's a path to confirmation bias. Every religion in the world demands you search yourself to find that their message is true... and every member of that religion finds truth in their own feelings. For that reason, your stance is not compelling at all.

Skepticism attempts to remove bias, and takes a fair look at the evidence. If something has evidence to support it, you accept it. If something has no evidence, or insufficient evidence, you do not accept the claim. That is a logical way to go about determining truth.

 

[WonderBeat]

Well, let me ask you a question. When you were young and growing up, did you view the world as an individual, or did you view the world as some kind of collective consciousness dream state?

Are you kidding me? When you are young there is only the Miracle. There is only Oneness, Perfection, Joy. Babies truly do come from another world. They only become mindless due to the enervating influence of this deadening material earth.............

I'm assuming when you grew up, you had not yet been "enlightened" to your current worldview. Likewise, the vast majority of the population also perceives the world as it is.

Here is a myth about enlightenment I can straightaway refute. Enlightenment does not happen in time or space. There is never a "time" we are enlightened or for that matter a "time" when we are not. There is only Oneness. When we become "awakened" we don't "learn" anything new. Rather, we simply discover we had never separated ever in the first place. This is why questioning the truth is so utterly inexplicable and ridiculous.........

That is a demonstration the self-evident nature of the world, is what is self-evident. That's what we can clearly see. Some abstract philosophy that barely anyone is aware of, is clearly not self-evident.

The default position is taking what is self-evident and that's how most people view the world. You are the only person I have ever talked to that has your beliefs. That in itself doesn't make it wrong, but it's clearly not self-evident.

Due to the exigencies and conditioning of the word, through the means of the ego and the mind and the deluding senses, we fall away from primal awareness. The problem is again finding the truth through the mind. Yes, per the mind the world seems "self-evident." That's because we're still asleep and dreaming. Repressed and unconscious.

Searching yourself is not a path to truth, it's a path to confirmation bias. Every religion in the world demands you search yourself to find that their message is true... and every member of that religion finds truth in their own feelings. For that reason, your stance is not compelling at all.

This is not about religion at all but the truth...... What religion does is take this primal truth and reinterpret it through the lens of the world and speculation.

Skepticism attempts to remove bias, and takes a fair look at the evidence. If something has evidence to support it, you accept it. If something has no evidence, or insufficient evidence, you do not accept the claim. That is a logical way to go about determining truth.

Amazing isn't it? Little could you suspect that your own skepticism is really your own biggest bias. Truth in actuality is immune to all questionings.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Are you kidding me? When you are young there is only the Miracle. There is only Oneness, Perfection, Joy. Babies truly do come from another world. They only become mindless due to the enervating influence of this deadening material earth.............

You didn't answer the question. When you were 10, did you perceive the world as you do now, or did you have a more conventional way of looking at it?

Here is a myth about enlightenment I can straightaway refute. Enlightenment does not happen in time or space. There is never a "time" we are enlightened or for that matter a "time" when we are not. There is only Oneness. When we become "awakened" we don't "learn" anything new. Rather, we simply discover we had never separated ever in the first place. This is why questioning the truth is so utterly inexplicable and ridiculous.........

What's ridiculous is your obvious dodging of my questions. At one point in your life, someone told you about this philosophy. Is that, or is that not true?

Due to the exigencies and conditioning of the word, through the means of the ego and the mind and the deluding senses, we fall away from primal awareness. The problem is again finding the truth through the mind. Yes, per the mind the world seems "self-evident." That's because we're still asleep and dreaming. Repressed and unconscious.

Even though it was a roundabout way, you have confirmed the conventional way of looking at the world is what's self-evident to us. Thank you.

This is not about religion at all but the truth...... What religion does is take this primal truth and reinterpret it through the lens of the world and speculation.

Every religion claims it's all about the truth as well, once again, it's not a compelling argument. Your "primal truth" is simply more speculation, reinterpreted from what we know about existence.

Amazing isn't it? Little could you suspect that your own skepticism is really your own biggest bias. Truth in actuality is immune to all questionings.

I'll give you credit... I've heard some strange ideas on this forum, yours is unquestionably one of, if not the most bizarre. I'm literally astounded at how deluded you are....

I think you're the first person who has ever made the argument that skepticism is a large bias. Skepticism by definition is a non-biased position. A total absence of bias is necessary for skepticism to be properly applied.

 

[WonderBeat]

You didn't answer the question. When you were 10, did you perceive the world as you do now, or did you have a more conventional way of looking at it?

I will grant for sake of debate, that I was always an unusual child.... I have the distinct impression throughout all my life that I have been living a dream... and this has only been all the more confirmed as I grew older...

What's ridiculous is your obvious dodging of my questions. At one point in your life, someone told you about this philosophy. Is that, or is that not true?

It's not a philosophy! How can it be when it's the truth?

I will say there have been "pointers" to the truth in the form of words, but truth is self-evident. Pointers simply flesh out what you, literally, have already known.

Even though it was a roundabout way, you have confirmed the conventional way of looking at the world is what's self-evident to us. Thank you.

Certainly there's nothing wrong with taking the dream seriously and projecting it as real. As if these beliefs really constitute truth..... I am simply saying all that is peripheral to one who is awake...........

Every religion claims it's all about the truth as well, once again, it's not a compelling argument. Your "primal truth" is simply more speculation, reinterpreted from what we know about existence.

LOL. Really? Being, Existence is a speculation? No... that which is, is. It can't be any more simple, any more monadic, any more basic than that.... Unity, Love, Joy, Truth: all synonyms, One Heart, One Love, One God......

OBVIOUS

I'll give you credit... I've heard some strange ideas on this forum, yours is unquestionably one of, if not the most bizarre. I'm literally astounded at how deluded you are....

I'm literally astounded at how deluded you are, but hey everything's a paradox!

I think you're the first person who has ever made the argument that skepticism is a large bias. Skepticism by definition is a non-biased position. A total absence of bias is necessary for skepticism to be properly applied.

Well... if you think about it it isn't so hard to see.... How when confronted with the obvious..one retreats into questions.... is it alright to question something which is patently true? No one doubts the Holocaust, or do they?

Truth is infinitely simple; delusion is infinitely complex.................

 

[Dave Ellis]

I will grant for sake of debate, that I was always an unusual child.... I have the distinct impression throughout all my life that I have been living a dream... and this has only been all the more confirmed as I grew older...



It's not a philosophy! How can it be when it's the truth?

I will say there have been "pointers" to the truth in the form of words, but truth is self-evident. Pointers simply flesh out what you, literally, have already known.



Certainly there's nothing wrong with taking the dream seriously and projecting it as real. As if these beliefs really constitute truth..... I am simply saying all that is peripheral to one who is awake...........



LOL. Really? Being, Existence is a speculation? No... that which is, is. It can't be any more simple, any more monadic, any more basic than that.... Unity, Love, Joy, Truth: all synonyms, One Heart, One Love, One God......

OBVIOUS



I'm literally astounded at how deluded you are, but hey everything's a paradox!



Well... if you think about it it isn't so hard to see.... How when confronted with the obvious..one retreats into questions.... is it alright to question something which is patently true? No one doubts the Holocaust, or do they?

Truth is infinitely simple; delusion is infinitely complex.................

The problem is you are passing off everything you say as "obvious", where it's certainly not obvious to anyone other than yourself.

Like any religion (and I'm not saying your viewpoint is a conventional religion), you are making a ton of unsubstantiated claims, claiming absolute truth, and relying on personal revelation to substantiate your claims. It is simply not compelling.

There is no reason for anybody to take your claims seriously. Simply saying it's true, does not make it true. Even if everything you have told me is 100% accurate, you still haven't justified your belief in it. It's full of contradictions, and flies in the face of everything we can demonstrate about reality.

 

[quatona]

First of all, I want to ask "what is the motive behind your doubt?" Why do you not accept this 'belief' as already self-evident and the absolute default stance to take when it comes to Reality?

Because for to be self-evident it would have to be, well, self-evident. Yet, it surely isn´t - au contraire, the vast majority of people are irritated or even alienated by this concept.
Don´t get me wrong: I (unlike you) am not working from the idea "self-evident = truth and not self-evident=wrong".
The fact that it is not self-evident doesn´t prove your idea wrong, just like e.g. the self-evidence of "I think therefore I am" renders it the truth.

I believe that, if you search yourself, you will find out that your belief that this is not true is actually a projection, foisted upon you by your mind.

You make it sound like you have found a way of bypassing the mind.

This is in an effort to preserve your own prized individuality. That is my whole basic outlook on this matter. Skepticism is not the default position because it is already an attempt, a project, at covering over the real truth.....

That´s somewhat a funny statement coming from someone who challenges those very concepts that have a long tradition of being taken for granted.

 

[sk8Joyful]

I believe that, ...
This is in an effort to preserve your own prized individuality. That is my whole basic outlook on this matter.

The truth of this matter is revealed at 1:18 into this strip,
by divulging that "this MAD-idea" was generated by the "Course in miracles":
as some supposed practice of forgiveness in one's daily life.
The introduction to the book contains the following summary,
"Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God."

It was written by psychologists, whose entire aim was to get people to reject God, & thereby lose out on their Salvation.

Anybody with a working mind will discard
that nonsense for what it in fact is: NONsense!

 

[Going Merry]

Wait i am correcting my self; i have to take wau to the power of wau infintelty...
anywho i edited it so now no one will know ofthe error i made muahaha

Um Oneness seems silly
more like a theology type thing

 

[KCfromNC]

This sounds an awful lot like basic skepticism......

Any time I hear that I should just believe and that my reasons for being skeptical are irrational, I make sure I have a tight hold on my wallet.

 

[Eudaimonist]

First of all, I want to ask "what is the motive behind your doubt?"

Mine is to accurately understand reality, and that means without contradiction or emotional bias. What is yours?

Why do you not accept this 'belief' as already self-evident and the absolute default stance to take when it comes to Reality?

Because it isn't that at all. The absolute default stance is that we are human individuals living human lives. It takes some sort of mysticism to make one think otherwise.

I believe that, if you search yourself, you will find out that your belief that this is not true is actually a projection, foisted upon you by your mind.

I have searched myself for decades. For a short time (when I was around 18 years old) I did engage in the "What if we are in the Matrix?" style skepticism. However, after thinking about those issues, I had realized that they were just airy philosophizing. They are skepticism without any evidence or purpose. The only reasonable "default" position is to accept what we had learned at four years old, which is that we are human individuals living human lives.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

I have searched myself for decades. For a short time (when I was around 18 years old) I did engage in the "What if we are in the Matrix?" style skepticism. However, after thinking about those issues, I had realized that they were just airy philosophizing. They are skepticism without any evidence or purpose. The only reasonable "default" position is to accept what we had learned at four years old, which is that we are human individuals living human lives.

That's a pragmatic assumption, one I also happily make for the sake of sanity. But from a purely epistemological perspective, radical skepticism has no rational refutation. We take a leap against Matrix-like thinking because we rely more deeply on our intuition than our reason. But precisely by virtue of being what it is, intuition precedes rationality. I think if you take this argument far enough, it provides a good basis for the claim that our value of truth is secondary. If it was primary, we would prefer a like of radical skepticism no matter how ridiculous an unlivable our lives would become.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's a pragmatic assumption, one I also happily make for the sake of sanity. But from a purely epistemological perspective, radical skepticism has no rational refutation.

It is easily rationally refuted. Epistemological skepticism has no evidence to back it up. It is just airy philosophizing.

All "refutations" of our human lives are irrational. They explicitly abandon standards of reason in favor of "anything goes" skepticism.

We take a leap against Matrix-like thinking because we rely more deeply on our intuition than our reason.

No, it is years of life experience and the immediacy of human experience that backs us up. No one is an epistemological skeptic when they cross a busy street. No one. Either you wake up out of your stupor, or you are road pizza.

Until Morpheus offers the red pill, there is no point in taking epistemological skepticism seriously. It is just philosophy gone insane. The proper starting point for all philosophy is that we are human individuals living human lives. Until then, philosophy is stillborn.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

It is easily rationally refuted. Epistemological skepticism has no evidence to back it up. It is just airy philosophizing.

"No evidence" isn't a refutation. If it was, then empiricism itself would be refuted by the fact that it has no evidence to back it up.

No, it is years of life experience and the immediacy of human experience that backs us up. No one is an epistemological skeptic when they cross a busy street. No one.

And this is only because they make the leap, mediated by intuition, that there really is a world out there -- one that's about to smash you in the face lest you walk a little faster. Because it's mediated by intuition, it isn't a matter of rationality. There's nothing at all wrong with that, but it simply means that not everything is reducible to rationality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"No evidence" isn't a refutation.

Yes, it is.

If it was, then empiricism itself would be refuted by the fact that it has no evidence to back it up.

No, empiricism isn't the sort of thing that needs evidence to back it up. However, epistemological skepticism does. Claims that we "might" be living in the Matrix demand evidence.

And this is only because they make the leap, mediated by intuition, that there really is a world out there

It isn't intuition. It is life experience and the immediacy of human experience.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

No, empiricism isn't the sort of thing that needs evidence to back it up. However, epistemological skepticism does. Claims that we "might" be living in the Matrix demand evidence.

That's hardly fair to claim that empiricism doesn't need any justification whereas radical skepticism does. The Matrix claim is a bit different because it posits all sorts of odd things as explanations for how the world "out there" isn't real -- that we're deluded by machines who use our bodies for fuel to perpetuate their own artificial lives. But the claim of radical skepticism is much more fundamental than anything like this or empiricism. Empiricism presupposes (not through reason) the validity of experience as a means to uncovering reality. Radical skepticism doesn't make this presupposition. Precisely because we're talking about experience itself, it's begging the question to say that empiricism (which presupposes our own experiences as valid) is the standard by which radical skepticism (which doesn't presuppose our experiences as valid) is determined as true or false. Skepticism doesn't make a positive claim; it's a suspended state that precedes a positive claim. Empiricism, on the other hand, presupposes a set of positive claims, most essentially that experience is valid in determining veracity.

 

[TScott]

I don't discount the basic idea of one-ness. I don't necessarily subscribe to the actual descriptions and theories espoused by Wonderbeat's video, they being one specific explaination of the phenom we call the universe.

There is actually some science behind all of this-it is true that if you take the space-time element out of the equation the universe becomes a dimensionless singularity of what? Pure energy?
Who knows, it's a mystery.
There are many mysteries, and the idea of one-ness can come as close as anything to explaining many of them. It's not outside the realm of possibility that if you yourself could be transformed into a wave of energy travelling at the speed of light that you would be everywhere and everywhen in the universe at once-relative to your perspective. To you time becomes irrelevent; a second could become an infinity, or a billion years could become an instant. To any outside observer you would be plodding along at 186,000 miles per second taking you millions of years just to traverse the gulf between the galaxies, yet paradoxically if you went to the other end of the universe and returned it could seem to the outside observer that you never left.
I think the phenom of space time is real, as real as matter can be, but I hold out for the possibilty that there is still a cosmic connection of everything if you will.

The great Arthur Clarke used a metaphor in Childhoods End that I always liked. He said that everything and everyone in the Universe were like islands in the sea-seemingly seperated by water, yet in reality still connected.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's hardly fair to claim that empiricism doesn't need any justification whereas radical skepticism does.

Oh, it's totally fair.

How does one justify empiricism? We rationally recognize the need for evidence to back up claims about reality. This is not based on "intuition", since it is life experience that shows us this need. Life experience is overwhelmingly on the side of the view that we are human individuals living human lives.

Radical skepticism asks us to abandon any means we might have to prove anything, even life experience. It suggests that we "might" be living in the Matrix (just for example) without offering any proof whatsoever, even that based on life experience. It may be dismissed from the outset because it doesn't offer anything to begin with. Its claims are empty and void.

Since radical skepticism has no standards of proof, it may be dismissed without proof. The default position is that we are human individuals living human lives. Anything else is philosophy gone insane.


eudaimonia,

Mark