From: oldernow@dev.null
On 2025-03-14, D wrote:
>>> How does one _not_ experience time?
>>
>> By turning awareness from outward (EX-perience) to inward
>> (IN-spirience) - i.e. awareness back upon itself, which
>> deprives the illusion of being an experiencer the wind in
>> its sails, as it were, which takes all other conceptual
>> framework (i.e. representation/modeling) with it.
>
> First you need do clear up what you are talking about.
When someone says "two plus two is four" to someone
that doesn't get it, is the problem with the statement,
or with the receiver not having done the preparatory work
making it possible to receive/acknowledge/see it?
> You have subjective time, and objective time. Subjective
> time can be distorted when you sleep. This is trivial
> and completely not interesting.
So... when a word (e.g. 'time') doesn't live up to its
lore, split it into two ('subjective time', 'objective
time')?
Will we need three.. four.. more if we probe more deeply?
Weren't the people who thought they had nailed down an
aspect of reality in the word 'time' mistaken now that we
(well, you...) know there is more than one kind of time?
So if they didn't know there are actually two kinds of
time, might it be that you don't know there are actually
more than two kinds of time? What does that make of the
certainty of your, um, faith that there are only two?
It's seems to me that the quickest way to know nothing
about whatever is happening is to attempt to crow bar it
into words, because oooh how it loves jumping right back
out of its word-y containers, even as the intellectually
proud recoil in disbelief as their words fail them!
> External time is a process, and like I said, you have no
> choice but to live within it.
Isn't it amazing what we can believe?
For example, moderns are constantly seen holding their
phones to record a scene, and therein wind up experiencing
the holding of a phone capturing a scene instead of the
scene itself.
Ditto on words/modeling/re-presentation.
>>> Or regarding the "experiment" that "D" suggested:
>>
>> FWIW, "D" is possessed by hallucinations of there being
>> an objective, external world. :-)
>
> Incorrect. I have proven the external world. The one who
> is possessed by hallucinations is actually you, since you
> deny what your senses are telling you.
Oh my! Whatever shall I do?!!?!!!
> Only clinically insane people deny objective reality based
> on what their senses tell them. I am worried about you. =(
> Don't fall into the solipsistic trap. =(
Not to worry! Your beliefs about what is happening in what
you believe to be an objective reality aren't anything
more than the non-stuff stuff that dreams are said to be
made of.
> What does give me hope is that despite your illusions of
> there being no reality, you still respond to messages,
> so in a way you ahve refuted yourself by answering. =)
How do you know it's "me" and not someone else, an
AI instance, etc.?
And if you can't be sure of that, how can you be sure
that what you call your mind isn't supplying the entire
scene/experience, complete with the belief/conviction that
it isn't merely mind supplying the entire scene/experience?
>>> how does one _not_ experience gravity on the Earth?
>>> Gravity is a very strict law of nature!
>>
>> *One* cannot *not* experience gravity on the Earth,
>...
>
> Not interesting.
Not interesting? Or not apprehended?
--
NPC's dutifully ignored.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
