What is an Idea made of?

  • Thread starter Epoch1
  • Start date
  • #26
189
0
so do you believe that Calabi-Yau manifolds of 6 extra hidden and very small dimensions that only touch in one physical dimension can be a repository of consciousness as they are omnipresent in 4d spacetime ???

It perfectly brings into line consciousness and quantum physics. We tap into a dimension of consciousness and project it onto the universe.

shades of Bohm's holographic universe
 
  • #27
11
0
RingoKid said:
so do you believe that Calabi-Yau manifolds of 6 extra hidden and very small dimensions that only touch in one physical dimension can be a repository of consciousness as they are omnipresent in 4d spacetime ???

It perfectly brings into line consciousness and quantum physics. We tap into a dimension of consciousness and project it onto the universe.

shades of Bohm's holographic universe
I think I agree... these manifolds, are they parts of a V6, slant six or straight six engine block? And what model and year Calabi-Yau car are you referring too? We are still working with the car parts analogy right?

If not then I have a little studying to do. Its late and the Heineken's are kicking in. I'll get back to you tho.
 
  • #28
1,515
0
Les SleethWhile not accessible by the senses said:
vibrant illumination[/i].
The problem with this is that to call that which is ultimate infinite, extended, vibrant and so on is dualism. It suggests that it has this property but not that one.

Leibnitz pointed out that logically speaking something that is one thing, a continuum, cannot have physical extension. This is consistent with Taoist, Advaita and Buddhist teachings. Thus in Taoism for instance it is incorrect to assign any dual properties to the Tao, and certainly not extension. It is never one thing or the other, this or that. This is why it cannot be conceptualised but, (as you have argued elsewhere if I remember right) can only be known directly.

This is Lao-Tsu's meaning when he speaks of 'the Tao that cannot be named'. Likewise in Buddhism 'emptiness' neither exists nor not-exists, is neither caused nor uncaused, is neither eternal or timeless, neither finite nor infinite etc. It is something that transcends these distinctions. It just is. Perhaps it's right to say that it has noumenal existence, but no phenomenal existence. The key point is that this is 'something' (equally 'nothing') that cannot be accurately said to be one thing or many, or to be extended or not extended. Inevitably we have to give it such properties when we conceive of it or discuss it, and it is unavoidable that we discuss it as if it really were one thing or the other. 'The Tao must be talked' as Lao-Tsu said. But we are talking only of its appearances, not of its noumenal nature, which is inconceivable (precisely because it is non-dual and all concepts are inevitably dual) and must be experienced to be known.

Okay, so to finally answer your question! :yuck: I am not saying I know that’s how creation is/works. What I am saying is that if one adopts a variety of neutral monism, then it is possible to model creation without dualism.
The non-dual view is quite different to neutral monism, although that's probably the closest 'western' doctrine to it. Even if all you do is assume that what is ultimate is (one or the other of) nothing or something then this is considered dual thinking in the Taoist view. Likewise a Buddhist would say that it is impossible to model the nature of reality without dualism. That's why they advise giving up models.
 
  • #29
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Canute said:
The problem with this is that to call that which is ultimate infinite, extended, vibrant and so on is dualism. It suggests that it has this property but not that one.
I don’t believe I am confused about this, I’ll explain below.


Canute said:
The non-dual view is quite different to neutral monism, although that's probably the closest 'western' doctrine to it. Even if all you do is assume that what is ultimate is (one or the other of) nothing or something then this is considered dual thinking in the Taoist view. Likewise a Buddhist would say that it is impossible to model the nature of reality without dualism. That's why they advise giving up models.
Yes, they are two completely different things. I never meant to discuss the dualism the Buddha, for instance, talks about. I am talking about the Western concept only, and that has to do with conceptualizing about (i.e., not experiencing) the ultimate nature of reality. If I were the Buddha and I were teaching conscious oneness, then I'd be emphasizing experiencing the ultimate nature of reality.

If we were going to talk about the practice of union, then it is quite true that one cannot conceptualize and be perfectly “one” while doing that. It doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with conceptualizing -- the Buddha himself did so extensively. When it is time to think, then one cannot escape the dualistic experience while thinking is going on. It only becomes a problem for an inner practitioner when he believes the duality that thinking creates is real, and then gets attached to that which he’s thinking about.

The format for my post above is a thinking format, not a teaching conscious oneness format. I was doing an inductive exercise to show, conceptually, how with substance monism it isn’t necessary for there to be two completely different substances or realms which we call “physical” and “mental.” There is a way everything can be made of exactly the same existential “stuff.” The reason things appear different is because that “stuff” is being subjected to different conditions.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
314
1
Mind/body porblem

Rader said:
There is no evidence that brains create thoughts, if they did, they could do it when they were dead. So then if this is so, it might be more logical to think that something immaterial uses the brain to express its thoughts, when it’s alive.
A agree and this statement parallels rather nicely with idealsim. :smile:
 
  • #31
11
0
RingoKid said:
so do you believe that Calabi-Yau manifolds of 6 extra hidden and very small dimensions that only touch in one physical dimension can be a repository of consciousness as they are omnipresent in 4d spacetime ???

It perfectly brings into line consciousness and quantum physics. We tap into a dimension of consciousness and project it onto the universe.

shades of Bohm's holographic universe
Please forgive the late night tongue-in-cheek response to your post. As for Calabi-Yau and Bohm's Holographic Universe theory I honestly can say I had never heard of either of them. Motivated by your response I did some research on both in order to give a reply that will not be totally stupid.

As for Calabi-Yau I visited a few sites hoping to get a good overview of the subject but every page was chock full of symbols and math equations and stuff that in general makes my brain hurt.

But David Bohm, the holographic universe, the infinite order and all his other ideas were a great read. He has a level of insight that has led him to a lot of the same conclusions as I have.

He still shares the same fundamentally incorrect belief as to the relationship shared between Life, consciousness and the universe that most scientists hold, but his use of the hologram analogy to illustrate the universe as a wholeness is excellent.

His suggestion that when the hologram is reduced to separate and smaller pieces they still retain all the information needed to produce a whole image is right on target.

I believe the are two major scientifically accepted conclusions as to the universe and the forces that governs its existence that are seriously flawed.

The general belief that there are four fundamental forces that shape the universe is wrong. There is at least one and most likely two greater forces that the four are contained by.

Also wrong is the general assumption that the universe was created and life eventually evolved within it. I am convinced that life is the source of the universe. The universe in a sense is a great stew of matter and Life is the pot that it is stewing in.

Back with more later.
 

Related Threads on What is an Idea made of?

Replies
29
Views
7K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
28K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
541
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
Top