The "master/slave" conditioning versus The Batman/ Bruce Wayne Duality

Batman is pure science. The Physics of movement. Quantum. Classical. His direction from A to B is pure science. Martial arts, wit, etc. all science.

I guess I should have explained myself better. Things are different because they have at least one similarity, that they are both real. This is known as syndiffeonesis in the CTMU which you are already familiar with I'm sure.

Absolutely and I do not disagree. However, your consciousness will not.

It's a matter of degrees of freedom. The choice to choose between life and death is free will at its finest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you always equate "quantum" and "science"? You claimed that Batman is a quantum particle yet your only support is that everything he does is "science"?
Can I suggest that if you cant post things that make sense that you don't post at all.

Things are ddifferent because they have at least one similarity??? I refer you to an earlier sentence... if yon can't make sense, don't post.

So you said that our hearts and minds are one, but then when I say that mine are my own (i.e. not shared) you say that you don't disagree??? I refer you to my previous comment.
As for conciousness, please prove this claim.

WTF??? What does this have to do with my comment? Also, please define freewill and prove that we have it... you're taking it as assumed that it does. Please don't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

YES!

Uh duh, my name is Sarkus and I do not support the fact that everything is pure science.

Please refer to the OP.

Choice requires thought. The will to power is a direct result of the actions of thought. Survival of the fittest is based on this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Richard Lawrence Norman uploaded a new version of quantum human paradigm links.docx.

June 6

All group members: Please read the group charter here, and examine the reading list. Click a link to read. Free books, papers, and articles are also to be found under the file menu. Here is the group charter: The Physics of Love: Quantum Human Paradigm

The human race is lost. Our history is as our present, a swirling morass of wars, hatred, greed, betrayal, cruelty, deception and uncaring. Yes… The human race is deeply ill. It need not be so. There is an answer. This group, is about that answer: The Quantum Human Paradigm. We are all connected with all things and each other…this is not some nebulous eastern paradox, so unclear and indistinct, it is science. The essence of what the great teachers throughout history have divulged, is now clearly available for us all to see and understand, and as we look, it becomes evident, that ethics, caring, health and their fount: Empathy…are woven into the basic fabric of reality itself. Physics demonstrates for us: we are to create entanglements, cooperate and care for each other. The very most fundamental essence of spiritual practice, is soon to be distilled, and the religions which separate each from the next, will melt away, and leave in their stead: a perfect health and human connectivity. This, is the next step in Human evolution…should our race choose to survive.

Cooperation and entanglement, empathy and the demonstrable effects of mere thought upon physical reality, the connection between the basic physical and mental processes offers this hope, and "spirit," may then become tangible, and so, earn its place as the happy province of every balanced mind. We need not blink and hide our eyes, this is real, and demonstrable in clear experiments! I will provide those experiments, and you will plainly see. No faith is required. The entire of all reality is based on this simple idea: Feeling…. "Affect, is effect." Affect, our feelings, demonstrably affect reality, they change the world, literally. This, is the demonstrable power of prayer, this is why we must and should love each other and care for this earth as an extension of ourselves…this, is our point and purpose. The feeling we hold, the empathy expressed from unconscious sources, can and does, change, form and create this world. It is that simple. Affect equals outcome. A = O. That, is our human hope, our cooperative mandate…the essence of it all now available to see, and so know…why we are here.

Please enjoy the essays and science. I love you all, but warn, I have no empathy for any troll, and those who are rude and cruel, will be quickly eliminated and banned. This site is a loving place. Here…what was once hidden under the name of "spirit," will be revealed as an endemic property of physics itself, and our conscious universe can be understood, for we are as this world and universe, a piece of feeling, affect and wave-function which guides and creates all things. It is this, which is our essence, our hope and promise. This is a place of caring and hope, and I truly welcome you all. Each one of you is precious, and valued. Please be sweet and honest, for we are all connected, and it is only money, illness, and our tortured past which obscures the fact: there are no differences between the parts of a coherent system, which are in fact, a unity. It is this, which creates all things.

Please ask for vital research into new avenues of treatment for disease, and other experimental proof of these concepts. For little but loose change, we could change…the world. ––Rich Norman


https://www.facebook.com/download/841390215935403/quantum human paradigm links.docx

 

Then you will continue to misunderstood, and you will continue to post what most people find to be nonsensical drivel. Quantum mechanics has its place, but is simply not significant in the vast majority of the macro environment, where all the quantum possibilities average out to what we expect under classical physics.
Until you actually get a grasp of such core aspects of what you write about, you'll forever come across as just another crank, writing what is tantamount to gibberish.
As said, either make sense or don't post.

For Pete's sake, spellbound, can you not grasp the issue at play here? To equate "quantum" and "science" is to equate 1 to the entire realm of numbers, or to equate fuel with a car.
You need to be precise with what you write, stop equating terms that simply should not be equated, and then you might start making sense... But if you can't.... :shrug:

I have read the OP, and there is no proof regarding your claim of consciousness. Please provide the proof to your claim.

And this answers my question how, exactly?

Are you capable of comprehending what people ask you, and then capable of replying coherently to them with something that is actually relevant to their question, or do you only respond with yet more gibberish?

Make sense, spellbound, or please cease from posting.

 

Sarkus, when did you become such a genius?

Taken from: CTMU Objections and Replies

The universe isn't cognitive.

• This processing conforms to a state transition function included in a set of such functions known as "the laws of physics". Calling these functions "cognitive" is hardly a stretch, since it is largely in terms of such functions that cognition itself is understood. Moreover, since "the characteristics, the features, ... the behaviors of the many facets and elements of this reality" are generally attributed to the laws of physics, it is not clear why cognition should not generally apply. After all, spacetime consists of events and separations, and events can be described as the mutual processing of interacting objects. So where physical interaction is just mutual input-to-output behavioral transduction by physical objects, and cognition is mutual input-to-output behavioral transduction by neurons and their inclusive brain structures, physical interaction is just a generalization of human cognition. If this seems like a tautology, indeed it is; self-contained self- referential systems are tautological by definition.

• Suppose you're wearing blue-tinted glasses. At first, you think that the world you see through them is blue. Then it occurs to you that this need not be true; maybe it's the glasses. Given this possibility, you realize that you really have no business thinking that the world is blue at all; indeed, due to Occam's razor, you must assume that the world is chromatically neutral (i.e., not blue) until proven otherwise! Finally, managing to remove your glasses, you see that you were right; the world is not blue. This, you conclude, proves that you can't assume that what is true on your end of perception (the blue tint of your lenses) is really true of reality.

Fresh from this victory of reason, you turn to the controversial hypothesis that mind is the essence of reality...that reality is not only material, but mental in character. An obvious argument for this hypothesis is that since reality is known to us strictly in the form of ideas and sensations - these, after all, are all that can be directly "known" - reality must be ideic. But then it naturally occurs to you that the predicate "mental" is like the predicate "blue"; it may be something that exists solely on your end of the process of perception. And so it does, you reflect, for the predicate "mental" indeed refers to the mind! Therefore, by Occam's razor, it must be assumed that reality is not mental until proven otherwise.

However, there is a difference between these two situations. You can remove a pair of blue sunglasses. But you cannot remove your mind, at least when you're using it to consider reality. This means that it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless; there is no reason to even consider a distinction between that which is mental and that which is not, since nature has conspired to ensure that such a distinction will never, ever be perceived. But without this distinction, the term "mental" can no longer be restrictively defined. "Mental" might as well mean "real" and vice versa. And for all practical purposes, so it does.

A theory T of physical reality exists as a neural and conceptual pattern in your brain (and/or mind); it's related by isomorphism to its universe U (physical reality). T<--(isomorphism)-->U. T consists of abstract ideas; U consists of supposedly concrete objects like photons (perhaps not the best examples of "concrete objects"). But the above argument shows that we have to drop the abstract-concrete distinction (which is just a different way of expressing the mental-real distinction). Sure, we can use these terms to distinguish the domain and range of the perceptual isomorphism, but that's as far as it goes. For all practical purposes, what is mental is real, and vice versa. The T-U isomorphism seamlessly carries one predicate into the other.

You really know how to stick it to someone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

One doesn't need to be a genius to have and understand the basics.

Are you going to answer the question or not? Do you always simply revert to a copy/paste from such CTMU websites when you don't actually have an answer of your own, requiring the person to wade through yet more incomprehensible verbiage as if it answers the question?

I merely ask that you try to answer questions posed to you and in a manner that the person will understand. Posting from the CTMU or using the language of the CTMU will generally not cut it as an acceptable response.

 

I hope that you realize that Batman is a comic-book character. He's fictional. Even if there was a real Batman, he wouldn't be a "quantum particle". I still don't understand Batman's relevance to whatever point that you want to make (and seem totally incapable of explaining).

Which Vedas? Defining that term can be tricky, since scholars often use it to refer to the four earliest Vedas (the Samhitas), the Rig (Veda of hymns), Yajur (Veda of prayers), Sama (Veda of chants) and Atharva (Veda of spells). Hindus often use the word 'Vedas' to include all of their religious literature considered 'shruti' (timeless and revealed). Virtually all contemporary Hindus have beliefs dramatically different than those found in the early Vedas. Contemporary Hinduism is based more on the Upanishads, which Hindus consider the culmination of the Vedas and which they include in the broader shruti class of supposedly revealed canonical Hindu literature. So when they say 'Vedas', they typically mean Upanishads. A difficulty there is that there are lots of different Upanishads. Many of them aren't ancient at all, but appear to have been composed fairly late in medieval times, under Islamic and even Christian influence. It seems that every Hindu school or sect had to have its own set of Upanishads to provide its scriptural authority, so as sects proliferated so did Hinduism's canonical literature.

So again, precisely which Vedas have you been reading? They don't all contain the same philosophy or teach the same metaphysics. Depending on how one defines it, the term 'Vedas' can refer to an extremely broad class of religious literature. I don't believe that any single individual has ever read all of it, certainly not you.

You seem to be equating Vedic philosophy with Advaita Vedanta. I have a lot of respect for Advaita and I'm hesitant to associate Advaita with your views or with Langan's, which I have less respect for.

If everything is mushed together and conceived as being one thing, everything as one single object of thought, how can thought occur? How would logical implication work? What meaning would remain in Langan's beloved 'in the beginning was the Word' cosmic "syntax"? How could different words even exist or have any reference to anything?

What point is there in having a conversation in which one person says, "Everything! Everything! Everything!" and and another replies "Everything! Everything! Everything!"? In your scheme, that's seemingly the only thing that can be said. Of course, there couldn't be two people having a conversation, since they would both be one and the same.

If you believe that the rest of us are really you (and really God), why in the fuck do you spend so much time preaching to us and trying to convert us? What makes you think that you are different from (and superior to) the rest of us? Don't your self-concept and evangelical mission contradict your own principles?

Don't insult Spidergoat. While he's clueless on occasion (certainly less often than you), he has an incisiveness to him, a talent for saying pithy things in very few words, often making me laugh while he's doing it. I like that and I like Goat.

You ceaselessly quote Langan (the self-proclaimed world's smartest man!), his devotees and various 'quantum mystics', seemingly treating them as your authorities. You relate your own religious/psychiatric experiences, evidently with the intention that we believe and follow you. The thing that angers you most about us is our failure to do that, our unwillingness to hand ourselves over, our reluctance to make ourselves your slaves and acknowledge you as our spiritual master.

 

There you go again with the crazy stuff.

Perhaps what you mean is that Batman symbolizes science in your thinking or that he reminds you of science for some reason. I still don't know why, or what Batman has to do with quantum mechanics, advaita vedanta, with your religious intuitions about oneness or with Langan's incomprehensible ideas.

(Yes, I know that you believe that you can control light bulbs with your mind, but can't reproduce the effect in front of anyone else. So don't post that one again.)

 

Science governs who and what we are. It is who and what we are. God would be what lies beyond phenomenon (sensible perception). This is basic logic pertaining to observation (the ability to see).

Yes, you are correct. Nothing really compares to the Vedas and the Upanishads in terms of depth and timelessness. It truly is knowledge to behold. One can only attempt to match its content and rhythmic beauty. I was unaware that the Upanishads were written as recently as 1500 A.D. Your description of shruti makes me want to go out and get a copy.

In Quantum Physics, all particles are one, as in superposition or entanglement. This is not because they are communicating FTL to each other, but because they are indeed one. We all have a relationship or connection to the spacetime manifold in which the universe can be real. Thus we all have something in common with each other. The unreal universe is non-relational to the real universe and cannot exist, so it does not exist. There can be no external reality to a conscious observer.

The two are one. Not in body, in spirit. You are not your physical body appearing to you because you cannot be in two places at once.

They do not. Rather, I am sharing myself with others. And it would be truly selfish not to.

 

No, they are not. That's why some particles are entangled and others are not.

Again, no, they are not. They are neither "one" nor are they sharing FTL communications.

Because you cannot be in two places at once, you ARE your physical body, and thus you can observe yourself.

 

Your physical body is but an image. What you are is the awareness or consciousness in which the physical bodies appear.

In the meditation for September 15 in A Net of Jewels (1996), Ramesh says,

"What you appear to be is the outer body perceiving the outer world, but what you are is that Consciousness in which the body and the world appear."

Reality is absence of separation.

 

No, your physical body is made of matter. You can take images of it, of course.

Your consciousness requires a physical body in which to manifest.

Reality is unrelated to separation. Something does not cease being real due to physical separation from another something.

 

Yes. One is both an image of a body and the consciousness in which the body-image appears. This is simple logic. If you were not your consciousness then you would be unable to identify to yourself, since you define who you are, meaning that you are.

One is not identifiable because of God consciousness, which is not. Because you are reality itself.

 

The fact that choice requires thought does not mean we have *free will*. Our choice is always in the direction of greatest satisfaction. IOW, no FW.

 

I don't believe it is always is in that direction... people who sacrifice themselves for the greater good are not doing it for satisfaction, as they might never have it - although religious folk might believe they will. An atheist who throws himself on a grenade to protect his friends, for example? Where is the "greatest satisfaction" when the atheist will not experience it?

 

I'm sure that's what contagious diseases might think as well.
Please also be aware that "sharing oneself with others" can be extremely selfish: it clearly gives you great satisfaction, yet there is no clear sign that others get anything from the exchange. You might thus be doing it simply to assuage your own sense of needing to, thereby forcing your views and opinions on people who might not care for them.
Yes, this is a forum, open to all, so some sense of sharing and letting people share is to be expected and encouraged. But there is a difference between such sharing and basically shoving the same stuff down people's throats again and again and again and in a manner that really doesn't encourage sharing, as we simply don't speak Langan (or whatever language he uses within his CTMU).

 

You have a body.
That body can be imaged in many ways - a camera, an eye, a lidar scanner.
Your body has the characteristic of consciousness.
Those three things are NOT the same.

No. Reality existed before I got here and will continue to exist after I leave.

 

That's a reasonable argument. I would say that it is in the direction of "most perfect", "most certain", or "greatest surviving" action.

 

You do not "have" a body, you ARE a body. And that body is animated not by an emergent, illusory ego, but a primary and supreme consciousness.

And if you believe you are anything less than reality then I am speaking to a person who does not exist.