To see a list of the questions you can go here: dandelion.events/e/a0xet You can also access a recording with no ads by making a donation of any amount on this page
Bernardo’s respect for and humility next to Michael is coming off as truly virtuous. Great to see intellectual giants whose character is as developed as their thinking is:)
I appreciate being allowed to listen to Michael and Bernado together. I want to thank everyone in this extraordinary discussion. In addition in helping homeless children who are being affected in wars add a place to my heart. Two scientists shared the Nobel Prize for AI network in physics. Jeffrey Hinton for making possible for making artifical networks possible. He was asked about safety. His reply was, "We just don't know yet." Dennis Hasantis, CEO, of Google Deepmind for Chemistry. He helped to map all ventures of protein that are the building blocks of life.
I agree that neurons knowing which other neurons they do and don't belong to is an insurmountable problem for materialism. I call it the neuron in a vat thought experiment. You can imagine each neuron in isolation which could be stimulated just like in the brain, intermixed with all the other neurons in the universe. There is no way physicalism can explain how we all come together into conscious individuals out of "our" neurons. This is why I take idealism seriously.
I don’t understand what is meant by neurons belonging to other neurons or the idea that a neuron could exist in total isolation from other neurons yet still transmit and receive information with other neurons. In my understanding a neuron doesn’t exist as a particular counterpart to any other particular neuron, so the premise seems incoherent.
@@TheViktorofgilead Think of a brain in a vat. For all it knows, the information it receives could be faked. Now put neurons in vats instead (or whatever technology is needed to make them feel like they are in a brain, I think it's called something like optogenetics). Physicalism is consistent with the former thought experiment but not the latter. Because your consciousness should arise even if your neurons are scattered this way and mixed with others, given that they receive the same information.
@@PeeGee85 If they happen to play the right music then you get that music, sure. And if it is like something to be that music then that sort of works as an analogy to consciousness. But the binding problem is still not solved. How do you know which musicians make up which orchestra? There is nothing in physical reality to unite them. That whole does not exist, but we feel it. More likely, consciousness is primary and neurons don't have causal powers. They are just figments to represent some underlying reality like icons on our screens.
Mikes comment on platonic space is gold. And research coming is amazing. Points to consciousness not being static. It's exploring...actively. Not a planned future we are destined to. A co-created livid dream...wether we are livid for it or not as the ego self.
I absolutely appreciate and am thankful for Michael Levin and all the channels amazing people, philosophy and culture surrounding him. To me, it is a breath of fresh air and inspiration to find a community with such a similar perspective with the labs science and papers to back them up!
I'm just grateful for these ideas and the shift in perspectives that chewing on them has brought me. I hope I can develop the competencies needed to utilize some subset of them to help those in my world live and breathe easier. Thanks for sharing.❤
What Bernardo said about how his experience of meaning relates-or doesn’t relate more specifically-to the meaning of a schizophrenic, was absolutely beautiful and I felt it right in my core, with the goosebumps to go with it, haha. Wow! The meaning is 100% there, but it also 100% non-conceptual and can never be grasped in a digital fashion. There is only peace and joy and awe. If you ever want to see a cinematic version of what he just said, watch Darron Aronofsky’s movie Pi, and watch it all the way until the very end. You won’t be disappointed. 🙂
I was very recently pointed to Bernardo Kastrup. I'm hugely impressed in very many ways, some of which defy words and language. (Obviously) the soul is not subject to rules of the physical dimension. We begin to understand deeper aspects of energies (Robert Temple's 'plasma' evidence; Gill Edwards' Living Magically and shamanism; Kazimierz Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration; Fisslinger's Aura Imaging, etc) as we grow emotionally and spiritually. I'm 67; fit strong healthy so many people guess I'm 40-something. Lots of trauma, for which I'm grateful. Love and gratitude, Alan Chapman
Very much enjoyed this discussion. So much to ponder. Have subscribed to get more of your content. I loved listening to the two men but I don't think I am smart enough to ask a question with this crowd. Will look to support someone else's question, though. Thank you again.
Thank you everyone participating in this discussion, the idea of raising money for charity is a healthy way to encourage engagement in these conversations, have a wonderful day, peace
I get goosebumps and a sort of ecstasy hearing Bernardo on so different questions. He has such an exact thinking and expression in words like a future chatGPT. I think it’s unparalleled. Reminds me of the virtuosity of a Paganini. Does anyone know when and where there is the meeting with Sarvapryananda? Will it be open to public? Best regards from Vienna
Great to hear about your excitement! The event with Swami already happened in September. You can however join the next online series with Bernardo in Nov here: dandelion.events/e/y54ag
1:43:00 et seq, I agree that there might be potentialities in this Platonic Realm, if it is there, potential forms of mind if you will, that could be teased out to actual minds by instantiation in temporality. My difficulty would be that I am not sure how this could be possible except by embodiment in what we refer to as physical process. I am not sure I can identify any known exceptions to this, and even the example of "this sentence is false" needs a process element in order to become oscillatory. If we imagine that hanging out in the eternal realm it's still going to be static. We could depict or imagine a "truth distribution map" or something like this which would include the potentials of oscillatory behaviour, but again, they aren't going to actually embody as oscillation without process and temporality. I can't immediately see how Platonic forms could start oscillating just on their own terms. I agree with Prof :evin they might become novel agents when they embody in process, but in what sense are they when they exist only in Platonic potential? It seems like we need the world for these outcomes (else, what function does the world even play here?)
@@StephenPaulKing there is no alignment of thought. There is some correlation and even in our own mind from one day to the next our understanding of concepts changes. It's simply the conscious simulation that creates the illusion of temporal continuity (which is good for fitness).
@@StephenPaulKing there is no alignment of thought. There is some correlation and even in our own mind from one day to the next our understanding of concepts changes. It's simply the conscious simulation that creates the illusion of temporal continuity (which is good for fitness).
Many people have noted that Idealism is very closely related to Advaita Vedanta. The highest teaching of Advaita is Ajata which means no creation. The world doesn't exist in the first place. Iis there anything in Quantum physics that equates to this ? In what way can a dream be experienced as being real ? E =🕉️
This event was before. I am experiencing it now. Memory was externalized into binary digits. Reformulated at will ((my will), into an apparently seamless experience.. relatively?
Could someone put me in touch with Amir? I’m also in the sports science space and I have similar questions to yours. I appreciate your interest in hearing Michael and Bernardo’s particular perspective on this and I have some thoughts of my own. It would be interesting to connect. Matt
The speed of light will leave us, sol. The speed of u light will show us, soul. What is your speed of light? The stars become to bright to see their neighbors. And the planets cannot emit light without being colonized. If we belt out our thoughts it sounds like an asteroid. When we write our thoughts it looks like a comet. Is the purpose to break through the atmosphere to form a tale for all to see.
@@jamescastro2037 beautiful metaphorical language this pre"sense" holding of unlimited timeless seat of soul, always in all ways l awe and wonder. Thank you
Thank you for beautiful cosmic metaphorical language; to hold everything yet nothing at all "awareness" conciousness, an incognito immutable unlimited seat of soul, always in all ways delivering simply awe and wonder "seeing" itself......
@@adventuresinawareness There is much richness here. For example, our ordinary view would not say "these are the eyes through which the universe is seeing" (consider some Sufi teachers say that "these -the human being's eyes- are the eyes through with God sees" and they then go on to say that is the reality yet usually we don't come to realize this even though it is true. This is like in the Christian Bible that says "now we see through a glass darkly but then we see 'face to face'". The word face is a code word for essence. So the "glass darkly" corresponds to "the disassociate boundary". Now let me just speak freely in my own inner language some of it adopted from scared traditions and some maybe unique to "me". Consider the newborn infant that emerges from the womb; the visible aspect is the appearance of a tiny human. In fact, it is the created imagination of the universal one bringing about an individual view of the universe on itself. However we can say that from "the point of view of the infant", it is pure potential, pure knowing substance (essence). The infant as knowing substance (pure consciousness itself if you like that word) knows nothing of this world. Through interaction with its caregiver (usually mother) and the environment, including its own body; it implicitly learns "I am 'in here' in this separate body and mother is 'out there' in that separate body and everything else is out there because I don't find anything 'in here' with me". When the child starts saying I, me, my, it has implicitly learned and assumes it is 'in the body' and it identifies itself with the body and we can say this is necessary otherwise it would not take the trouble to eat and keep the body alive etc etc. Now lets go back just a bit. The knowing substance aka unconditioned essence (pure consciousness) has mainly two characteristics: it can know and it can identify. It is this ability to identify that makes the dissociative boundary possible. Over time the interactions with the environment/mother, in our development builds up the impressions from the outer senses which becomes the template in the knowing substance that gives us the subject-object split. We implicitly assume "I am 'in here' and everything else is 'out there'". This is the apparent split of consciousness into a separate subject (knower) and a separate object (the known). The subject seems completely other than the object. The unity of consciousness seems to be split into two. It is only the learned structures or template of impressions that makes it seem like the split is ultimately the way reality is. This is necessary early on but as adults we don't wish to stay stuck to this limited view. We wish to know and recognize the original unity that is our true nature. Otherwise we will have (mainly unconscious) lingering, even nagging fear. It will to some degree color our perceptions, motives, intentions and goals. The subtle or not so subtle fear is there because we take ourselves to be separate and therefore vulnerable to all kinds of threats including death. Of course, the body dies and we seem to know that we are the body, it dies we die. As we awaken to a unitive vision the fear can dissolve from our consciousness. Now we see from a unitive stand point and our vision shows us different lines of perspective where reality and values fall differently and most likely more in alignment with our true nature. Without this realization we to some extent cover over our insecurities and fear with all sorts of things (possessions, both things and people) and belief systems to make us feel "safe". Well, this is just a first approximation, for our beginning to understand the reality of who and what we are. There is a way that allow us to know the reality of love. One people of the inner way say that love without wisdom is not. Equally well they say knowledge without love leads to tranny of all sorts. Just as a suggestion, we could say in more traditional language, our true nature is an energy that has its own intelligence (wisdom), love, courage and compassion. We can know (realize) that we are that and we can express that in our words, actions, attitudes and dealings with others. Thanks for the work you are doing.
You might complain about how many ads they are putting over you content, intelligence is the reduction of energy spent to get the same result, and people that waste it should garner no appreciation or respect.
The questioner hasn't intuitive awareness of the flaw And stuff in there so but but just materialist in thinking. If start with consciousness everything unfolds Coherently.
For future...if you would ask people to send questions and then Mike and Bernardo would pick up the most interesting ones to answer...plus everyone sending a question would agree to donate 100 euros if chosen...I would be very proud if my question would be chosen and happily pay 100 or even more for a good purpose...this "pay most to be chosen" idea makes me feel bad and have to stop listening.
I'm sorry to hear the format affected you. That's a nice idea, but not everyone has £100. In this format, people can sponsor an existing question, so even with very little money anyone an submit a question
An experientially agnostic mind (as opposed to an experientially believing/disbelieving or dichotomizing mind) is a different quality of mind all together, so much so that the brains of individuals who are experientially agnostic (meaning they have come to a deep experience that they do not know anything at all for certain and no longer hold core beliefs and disbeliefs) are organized and operate differently on a fundamental level. It is only an agnostic mind, one unwilling to succumb to the endless trail of self-contradicting breadcrumbs of information manifest in the universe, that is capable of continuous cognitive evolution, because it is no longer dependent on binaries. Consciously directed evolution requires decoupling from smaller framings recursively until all smaller framings are integrated into a new whole that transcends the framings. This process must be repeated until all content of mind is satiated, such that mind can then be observed as a single hyper-object. This is what planaria have achieved on a physiological level. It's not about genes or bioelectricity. These are only the observables, the categories or markers of what is happening on a physiological level. Cognitive evolution cannot be measured through genetics or electrodynamics or any observables for that fact. Only transformations of genes, chemical contents, electrical impulses in the body, and changes in behavior can be mapped. The trajectory of cognitive transformation cannot be mapped (aside from crude attempts in the psychological literature that always fall short). It may be predictable in the sense that the results may be achieved with high probability by use of one method of intervention or another, but the specific steps taken will always be different because cognition is discrete, and the mechanisms it is capable of utilizing are multi-dimensional in a way that is not intuitive to the vast majority of human beings. The root of self-deception is convincing oneself that one has already reached as far as one is willing to go, that there are no further depths worth exploring at this time, and that exploration is best left to those who are willing to risk their own cognitive capacity. This is simply foolish, because such an attitude is one of self-defeat. It is the holding of self-contradictory beliefs and disbeliefs that limit one's exploratory capacity, hence limiting one's cognitive evolution through binary fixation. To say, "I have never had "x" experience and I am fine with that," is the same as saying, "I do not know who I am and I am fine with that." You are just incapable of understanding this because you have never directly experienced who you are. You are still trapped in beliefs and disbeliefs about who you are. Without eliminating these beliefs entirely through experiential methods such as contemplation and meditation, one can never know anything at all. To believe something is to think to know what you experientially do not know. To disbelieve something is also to think to know what you experientially do not know, but simply in the negative form. Belief and disbelief form a horizontal binary axis, whereas, at the center point between belief and disbelief lies agnosticism. To be agnostic about that same thing is to experientially admit that truly, you do not know. "I do not know" is a powerful key. It relieves the mind of the mechanisms of self-deception that empower survival instincts. We hate because we believe one thing and disbelieve another. When we admit we do not know, how can we hate? Belief is dishonesty about not knowing. Disbelief is also dishonesty about not knowing. Agnosticism is total honesty about not knowing. In all 3 states, the main quality is ignorance. The only difference between the three is the inner experience of clarity when there is genuine honesty about one's total ignorance. Finally, it is by cultivating the awareness of not knowing that true experiential knowledge begins to form. This is the vertical axis, and the upward facing axis is referred to as gnosis, or knowing by direct experience. Without a deep desire for gnosis, practices such as kundalini tantra, agna stimulation and activation through mantra and yantra, and the myriad of physical, emotional, psychological, and energetic practices developed over the millennia are all of no use and will be unyielding. There must be a clear desire to know through direct experience, and that desire must be clear through the cultivation of genuine agnosticism, or dropping all belief and disbelief structures entirely. Only then can one be "born again" in the non-dual sense. This is why, in the practice of yoga, preparatory work must be done before attempting to enter into deep meditation or contemplation because preparation is conducive to the desired results. Physical exercises to stretch and sooth the body, emotional exercises to balance one's response to internal and external sensations, mental exercises to improve focus, concentration, and induce one-pointed awareness, and energetic exercises that focus on breathing, rhythm, pattern, and vibration. Finally, it is when the vibrations can be perceived (as ripples in the fields of sensations) that direct experience begins. It is only from this place that direct experience is even a possibility. Before then, one is literally trapped in the matrix of mind, incapable of experiencing reality at all. This is the meaning of Plato's allegory of the cave. When the explorer who discovered the truth by leaving the cave returns to the cave, he is unable to get the others to believe him. Even if they did believe him, they have not had the experience themselves, so they could not know. Even if they believed him, they would remain trapped in some narrative structure. They disbelieved him, and they remained trapped in another narrative structure all the same. They were unwilling to admit experientially that they do not know if the shadows on the wall of the cave are all there really is. It was their own unwillingness, their lack of commitment to truth, that made them complacent, docile, easily malleable at the hands of those with expanded awareness, slaves, unfree to explore. Gnosis is the only true freedom, and the only doorway is agnosticism. Dropping all framings, which are all borrowed, which are all phony replicas created by an unsettled mind that unconsciously seeks to bias its own process of integration by means of selective information processing, is the end of self-deception, and the beginning of awareness of awareness, or the recursive process by which all frames are consciously dropped the moment they are created, thereby maintaining total fluidity of perception moment-to-moment, and the ability to respond consciously rather than react unconsciously based on crystalized conceptual structures. The aforementioned practices and experiences all fundamentally lead to this capability, and indeed, they were created by individuals who had these experiences directly.
I get so frustrated in the area of math with you brilliant people why is it a question where math comes from? I'm an idiot how about we have an idiot explain it first of all math comes from the little scratches that you make on paper with some kind of utensil that's the math you are referring to the content of math itself that you make into scratches comes from the rhythm of moving space math is the articulation of the rhythms of moving space by the human hand with a utensil or objects the math created by the human reveals an image of the rhythms patterns counting of moving space and let's be clear that's not moving through or in space that is space itself that is moving there is no such thing as moving through space we are all a piece of moving space we are all a piece of the rhythms of space that exposed the patterns of counting those patterns can be referred to as archetypes yeah so I'm nowhere as brilliant as any of the content of this but where math comes from seems to be very simple answer and I don't understand why the obvious Logistics of the patterns in space image as a set of numbers by the human this is why math is so implicitly perfect finding its own perfection in its own ways because it is simply a result of the patterns of moving space the nature of moving space creates rhythms and patterns we make it into an articulation of numbers those numbers do not grow out of the ground anywhere but the rhythms exists everywhere they exist in your heart every second and millisecond it is the beating of that heart that represents the millisecond not the millisecond that the human created to articulate its own perceptive view of that rhythm yeah so these are two of my two very favorite scientists philosophers both and yet I still get frustrated when the question comes up of where math comes from I do think that all of the responses I've seen from Dr Levin are satisfying to me in that in as is his usual approach of beginners mind he usually says well you know it's very fascinating I don't really see or understand what's happening here and he leaves it at that however I still think that the obvious Logics of the Rhythm in nature are being ignored why is it that all of these people who are so good at math don't realize the Simplicity in the obviousness of where it came? from I don't get it...❤GEM ❤
To see a list of the questions you can go here: dandelion.events/e/a0xet You can also access a recording with no ads by making a donation of any amount on this page
Bernardo’s respect for and humility next to Michael is coming off as truly virtuous. Great to see intellectual giants whose character is as developed as their thinking is:)
Under analytical idealism physical health is mental health. Thank you, Bernardo!
I appreciate being allowed to listen to Michael and Bernado together. I want to thank everyone in this extraordinary discussion. In addition in helping homeless children who are being affected in wars add a place to my heart.
Two scientists shared the Nobel Prize for AI network in physics. Jeffrey Hinton for making possible for making artifical networks possible. He was asked about safety. His reply was, "We just don't know yet."
Dennis Hasantis, CEO, of Google Deepmind for Chemistry. He helped to map all ventures of protein that are the building blocks of life.
Love these discussions! Keep them coming 🙏
Thank you so much for your contribution! These really go a long way 🙏🙏🙏🙏
I agree that neurons knowing which other neurons they do and don't belong to is an insurmountable problem for materialism. I call it the neuron in a vat thought experiment. You can imagine each neuron in isolation which could be stimulated just like in the brain, intermixed with all the other neurons in the universe. There is no way physicalism can explain how we all come together into conscious individuals out of "our" neurons. This is why I take idealism seriously.
That's right. That was my point (among other problems). I was surprised that Bernardo didn't really understand how serious this is.
I don’t understand what is meant by neurons belonging to other neurons or the idea that a neuron could exist in total isolation from other neurons yet still transmit and receive information with other neurons. In my understanding a neuron doesn’t exist as a particular counterpart to any other particular neuron, so the premise seems incoherent.
@@TheViktorofgilead Think of a brain in a vat. For all it knows, the information it receives could be faked. Now put neurons in vats instead (or whatever technology is needed to make them feel like they are in a brain, I think it's called something like optogenetics). Physicalism is consistent with the former thought experiment but not the latter. Because your consciousness should arise even if your neurons are scattered this way and mixed with others, given that they receive the same information.
Imagine an orchestra or jam band made of musicians, all playing the same music together, either strictly (rehearsed) or loosely (improvised).
@@PeeGee85 If they happen to play the right music then you get that music, sure. And if it is like something to be that music then that sort of works as an analogy to consciousness. But the binding problem is still not solved. How do you know which musicians make up which orchestra? There is nothing in physical reality to unite them. That whole does not exist, but we feel it. More likely, consciousness is primary and neurons don't have causal powers. They are just figments to represent some underlying reality like icons on our screens.
I absolutely LOVE the dialogues between these two. Thank you so much for hosting them. 🙏🏻
Our pleasure!
Mikes comment on platonic space is gold. And research coming is amazing.
Points to consciousness not being static. It's exploring...actively. Not a planned future we are destined to. A co-created livid dream...wether we are livid for it or not as the ego self.
THANK YOU ALL - OUR MODERN SOCRATIC AND PLATONIC EMPYREAN - LOVE THIS PRESENTATION MAKING THE WORLD SMART AND KIND AND ENLIGHTEN - MY WOW FOR TODAY
I absolutely appreciate and am thankful for Michael Levin and all the channels amazing people, philosophy and culture surrounding him. To me, it is a breath of fresh air and inspiration to find a community with such a similar perspective with the labs science and papers to back them up!
Much appreciated!
I’m looking forward to Tuesdays in November. Thank you. 🙏
Us too! See you there
I'm just grateful for these ideas and the shift in perspectives that chewing on them has brought me. I hope I can develop the competencies needed to utilize some subset of them to help those in my world live and breathe easier. Thanks for sharing.❤
I hope so too!
Good discussion
What Bernardo said about how his experience of meaning relates-or doesn’t relate more specifically-to the meaning of a schizophrenic, was absolutely beautiful and I felt it right in my core, with the goosebumps to go with it, haha. Wow!
The meaning is 100% there, but it also 100% non-conceptual and can never be grasped in a digital fashion. There is only peace and joy and awe.
If you ever want to see a cinematic version of what he just said, watch Darron Aronofsky’s movie Pi, and watch it all the way until the very end. You won’t be disappointed. 🙂
I was very recently pointed to Bernardo Kastrup. I'm hugely impressed in very many ways, some of which defy words and language. (Obviously) the soul is not subject to rules of the physical dimension. We begin to understand deeper aspects of energies (Robert Temple's 'plasma' evidence; Gill Edwards' Living Magically and shamanism; Kazimierz Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration; Fisslinger's Aura Imaging, etc) as we grow emotionally and spiritually. I'm 67; fit strong healthy so many people guess I'm 40-something. Lots of trauma, for which I'm grateful. Love and gratitude, Alan Chapman
Thanks for sharing your reflections and inspirations. Great to hear 🙏
@@adventuresinawareness thank you for your lovely response. Wonderful! ❤
Very much enjoyed this discussion. So much to ponder. Have subscribed to get more of your content.
I loved listening to the two men but I don't think I am smart enough to ask a question with this crowd. Will look to support someone else's question, though. Thank you again.
Thank you! Your support of a question would be welcome, and do would one of yours!
Thank you everyone participating in this discussion, the idea of raising money for charity is a healthy way to encourage engagement in these conversations, have a wonderful day, peace
Thank you for the encouragement!
I get goosebumps and a sort of ecstasy hearing Bernardo on so different questions. He has such an exact thinking and expression in words like a future chatGPT. I think it’s unparalleled. Reminds me of the virtuosity of a Paganini.
Does anyone know when and where there is the meeting with Sarvapryananda? Will it be open to public?
Best regards from Vienna
Great to hear about your excitement! The event with Swami already happened in September. You can however join the next online series with Bernardo in Nov here: dandelion.events/e/y54ag
1:43:00 et seq, I agree that there might be potentialities in this Platonic Realm, if it is there, potential forms of mind if you will, that could be teased out to actual minds by instantiation in temporality. My difficulty would be that I am not sure how this could be possible except by embodiment in what we refer to as physical process. I am not sure I can identify any known exceptions to this, and even the example of "this sentence is false" needs a process element in order to become oscillatory. If we imagine that hanging out in the eternal realm it's still going to be static. We could depict or imagine a "truth distribution map" or something like this which would include the potentials of oscillatory behaviour, but again, they aren't going to actually embody as oscillation without process and temporality. I can't immediately see how Platonic forms could start oscillating just on their own terms. I agree with Prof :evin they might become novel agents when they embody in process, but in what sense are they when they exist only in Platonic potential? It seems like we need the world for these outcomes (else, what function does the world even play here?)
Best wishes from Kent UK ✌️🕉️
We need a general theory of how minds interact. How does the physical action of language act on minds such that alignment of thoughts occurs?
@@StephenPaulKing there is no alignment of thought. There is some correlation and even in our own mind from one day to the next our understanding of concepts changes. It's simply the conscious simulation that creates the illusion of temporal continuity (which is good for fitness).
@@StephenPaulKing there is no alignment of thought. There is some correlation and even in our own mind from one day to the next our understanding of concepts changes. It's simply the conscious simulation that creates the illusion of temporal continuity (which is good for fitness).
Many people have noted that Idealism is very closely related to Advaita Vedanta.
The highest teaching of Advaita is Ajata which means no creation. The world doesn't exist in the first place.
Iis there anything in Quantum physics that equates to this ?
In what way can a dream be experienced as being real ?
E =🕉️
1:15
I have yet to hear a clear answer to, what is the purpose of alters? Why are we dissociated from the universal mind?
Same question.
This event was before. I am experiencing it now. Memory was externalized into binary digits. Reformulated at will ((my will), into an apparently seamless experience.. relatively?
Could someone put me in touch with Amir? I’m also in the sports science space and I have similar questions to yours. I appreciate your interest in hearing Michael and Bernardo’s particular perspective on this and I have some thoughts of my own. It would be interesting to connect.
Matt
If you email me your email (you can find contact emails on adventuresinawareness.com ) I can forward your email to the Amir that asked this question
The speed of light will leave us, sol. The speed of u light will show us, soul. What is your speed of light? The stars become to bright to see their neighbors. And the planets cannot emit light without being colonized. If we belt out our thoughts it sounds like an asteroid. When we write our thoughts it looks like a comet. Is the purpose to break through the atmosphere to form a tale for all to see.
@@jamescastro2037 beautiful metaphorical language this pre"sense" holding of unlimited timeless seat of soul, always in all ways l awe and wonder. Thank you
Thank you for beautiful cosmic metaphorical language; to hold everything yet nothing at all "awareness" conciousness, an incognito immutable unlimited seat of soul, always in all ways delivering simply awe and wonder "seeing" itself......
dissaciociation = experience ?
disassociation in Bernardo's model means an individual view of the universe on itself
@@adventuresinawareness There is much richness here. For example, our ordinary view would not say "these are the eyes through which the universe is seeing" (consider some Sufi teachers say that "these -the human being's eyes- are the eyes through with God sees" and they then go on to say that is the reality yet usually we don't come to realize this even though it is true. This is like in the Christian Bible that says "now we see through a glass darkly but then we see 'face to face'". The word face is a code word for essence. So the "glass darkly" corresponds to "the disassociate boundary". Now let me just speak freely in my own inner language some of it adopted from scared traditions and some maybe unique to "me". Consider the newborn infant that emerges from the womb; the visible aspect is the appearance of a tiny human. In fact, it is the created imagination of the universal one bringing about an individual view of the universe on itself. However we can say that from "the point of view of the infant", it is pure potential, pure knowing substance (essence). The infant as knowing substance (pure consciousness itself if you like that word) knows nothing of this world. Through interaction with its caregiver (usually mother) and the environment, including its own body; it implicitly learns "I am 'in here' in this separate body and mother is 'out there' in that separate body and everything else is out there because I don't find anything 'in here' with me". When the child starts saying I, me, my, it has implicitly learned and assumes it is 'in the body' and it identifies itself with the body and we can say this is necessary otherwise it would not take the trouble to eat and keep the body alive etc etc. Now lets go back just a bit. The knowing substance aka unconditioned essence (pure consciousness) has mainly two characteristics: it can know and it can identify. It is this ability to identify that makes the dissociative boundary possible. Over time the interactions with the environment/mother, in our development builds up the impressions from the outer senses which becomes the template in the knowing substance that gives us the subject-object split. We implicitly assume "I am 'in here' and everything else is 'out there'". This is the apparent split of consciousness into a separate subject (knower) and a separate object (the known). The subject seems completely other than the object. The unity of consciousness seems to be split into two. It is only the learned structures or template of impressions that makes it seem like the split is ultimately the way reality is. This is necessary early on but as adults we don't wish to stay stuck to this limited view. We wish to know and recognize the original unity that is our true nature. Otherwise we will have (mainly unconscious) lingering, even nagging fear. It will to some degree color our perceptions, motives, intentions and goals. The subtle or not so subtle fear is there because we take ourselves to be separate and therefore vulnerable to all kinds of threats including death. Of course, the body dies and we seem to know that we are the body, it dies we die. As we awaken to a unitive vision the fear can dissolve from our consciousness. Now we see from a unitive stand point and our vision shows us different lines of perspective where reality and values fall differently and most likely more in alignment with our true nature. Without this realization we to some extent cover over our insecurities and fear with all sorts of things (possessions, both things and people) and belief systems to make us feel "safe". Well, this is just a first approximation, for our beginning to understand the reality of who and what we are. There is a way that allow us to know the reality of love. One people of the inner way say that love without wisdom is not. Equally well they say knowledge without love leads to tranny of all sorts. Just as a suggestion, we could say in more traditional language, our true nature is an energy that has its own intelligence (wisdom), love, courage and compassion. We can know (realize) that we are that and we can express that in our words, actions, attitudes and dealings with others. Thanks for the work you are doing.
FUCKING GOATED BRUH🙏🏾❤
You might complain about how many ads they are putting over you content, intelligence is the reduction of energy spent to get the same result, and people that waste it should garner no appreciation or respect.
Can you make the transcript availabe!
Below the video, in the show notes, click on 'more', then scroll down to the bottom to find the link to a transcript.
The questioner hasn't intuitive awareness of the flaw And stuff in there so but but just materialist in thinking. If start with consciousness everything unfolds Coherently.
5:05
For future...if you would ask people to send questions and then Mike and Bernardo would pick up the most interesting ones to answer...plus everyone sending a question would agree to donate 100 euros if chosen...I would be very proud if my question would be chosen and happily pay 100 or even more for a good purpose...this "pay most to be chosen" idea makes me feel bad and have to stop listening.
I'm sorry to hear the format affected you. That's a nice idea, but not everyone has £100. In this format, people can sponsor an existing question, so even with very little money anyone an submit a question
ads constantly interrupting conversation when we talk about the nature of reality
There's a link in the description where you can get a link to a recording with no ads 🙏
donate or get an ad blocker. there are options besides complaining.
You can write the name but spell it wrong and we can still read it@@CrazyLinguiniLegs
An experientially agnostic mind (as opposed to an experientially believing/disbelieving or dichotomizing mind) is a different quality of mind all together, so much so that the brains of individuals who are experientially agnostic (meaning they have come to a deep experience that they do not know anything at all for certain and no longer hold core beliefs and disbeliefs) are organized and operate differently on a fundamental level. It is only an agnostic mind, one unwilling to succumb to the endless trail of self-contradicting breadcrumbs of information manifest in the universe, that is capable of continuous cognitive evolution, because it is no longer dependent on binaries.
Consciously directed evolution requires decoupling from smaller framings recursively until all smaller framings are integrated into a new whole that transcends the framings. This process must be repeated until all content of mind is satiated, such that mind can then be observed as a single hyper-object. This is what planaria have achieved on a physiological level. It's not about genes or bioelectricity. These are only the observables, the categories or markers of what is happening on a physiological level.
Cognitive evolution cannot be measured through genetics or electrodynamics or any observables for that fact. Only transformations of genes, chemical contents, electrical impulses in the body, and changes in behavior can be mapped. The trajectory of cognitive transformation cannot be mapped (aside from crude attempts in the psychological literature that always fall short). It may be predictable in the sense that the results may be achieved with high probability by use of one method of intervention or another, but the specific steps taken will always be different because cognition is discrete, and the mechanisms it is capable of utilizing are multi-dimensional in a way that is not intuitive to the vast majority of human beings.
The root of self-deception is convincing oneself that one has already reached as far as one is willing to go, that there are no further depths worth exploring at this time, and that exploration is best left to those who are willing to risk their own cognitive capacity. This is simply foolish, because such an attitude is one of self-defeat. It is the holding of self-contradictory beliefs and disbeliefs that limit one's exploratory capacity, hence limiting one's cognitive evolution through binary fixation. To say, "I have never had "x" experience and I am fine with that," is the same as saying, "I do not know who I am and I am fine with that." You are just incapable of understanding this because you have never directly experienced who you are. You are still trapped in beliefs and disbeliefs about who you are. Without eliminating these beliefs entirely through experiential methods such as contemplation and meditation, one can never know anything at all.
To believe something is to think to know what you experientially do not know.
To disbelieve something is also to think to know what you experientially do not know, but simply in the negative form.
Belief and disbelief form a horizontal binary axis, whereas, at the center point between belief and disbelief lies agnosticism.
To be agnostic about that same thing is to experientially admit that truly, you do not know.
"I do not know" is a powerful key. It relieves the mind of the mechanisms of self-deception that empower survival instincts.
We hate because we believe one thing and disbelieve another. When we admit we do not know, how can we hate?
Belief is dishonesty about not knowing. Disbelief is also dishonesty about not knowing. Agnosticism is total honesty about not knowing.
In all 3 states, the main quality is ignorance.
The only difference between the three is the inner experience of clarity when there is genuine honesty about one's total ignorance.
Finally, it is by cultivating the awareness of not knowing that true experiential knowledge begins to form.
This is the vertical axis, and the upward facing axis is referred to as gnosis, or knowing by direct experience.
Without a deep desire for gnosis, practices such as kundalini tantra, agna stimulation and activation through mantra and yantra, and the myriad of physical, emotional, psychological, and energetic practices developed over the millennia are all of no use and will be unyielding. There must be a clear desire to know through direct experience, and that desire must be clear through the cultivation of genuine agnosticism, or dropping all belief and disbelief structures entirely. Only then can one be "born again" in the non-dual sense.
This is why, in the practice of yoga, preparatory work must be done before attempting to enter into deep meditation or contemplation because preparation is conducive to the desired results. Physical exercises to stretch and sooth the body, emotional exercises to balance one's response to internal and external sensations, mental exercises to improve focus, concentration, and induce one-pointed awareness, and energetic exercises that focus on breathing, rhythm, pattern, and vibration. Finally, it is when the vibrations can be perceived (as ripples in the fields of sensations) that direct experience begins. It is only from this place that direct experience is even a possibility. Before then, one is literally trapped in the matrix of mind, incapable of experiencing reality at all.
This is the meaning of Plato's allegory of the cave. When the explorer who discovered the truth by leaving the cave returns to the cave, he is unable to get the others to believe him. Even if they did believe him, they have not had the experience themselves, so they could not know. Even if they believed him, they would remain trapped in some narrative structure. They disbelieved him, and they remained trapped in another narrative structure all the same. They were unwilling to admit experientially that they do not know if the shadows on the wall of the cave are all there really is. It was their own unwillingness, their lack of commitment to truth, that made them complacent, docile, easily malleable at the hands of those with expanded awareness, slaves, unfree to explore.
Gnosis is the only true freedom, and the only doorway is agnosticism. Dropping all framings, which are all borrowed, which are all phony replicas created by an unsettled mind that unconsciously seeks to bias its own process of integration by means of selective information processing, is the end of self-deception, and the beginning of awareness of awareness, or the recursive process by which all frames are consciously dropped the moment they are created, thereby maintaining total fluidity of perception moment-to-moment, and the ability to respond consciously rather than react unconsciously based on crystalized conceptual structures. The aforementioned practices and experiences all fundamentally lead to this capability, and indeed, they were created by individuals who had these experiences directly.
I get so frustrated in the area of math with you brilliant people why is it a question where math comes from? I'm an idiot how about we have an idiot explain it first of all math comes from the little scratches that you make on paper with some kind of utensil that's the math you are referring to the content of math itself that you make into scratches comes from the rhythm of moving space math is the articulation of the rhythms of moving space by the human hand with a utensil or objects the math created by the human reveals an image of the rhythms patterns counting of moving space and let's be clear that's not moving through or in space that is space itself that is moving there is no such thing as moving through space we are all a piece of moving space we are all a piece of the rhythms of space that exposed the patterns of counting those patterns can be referred to as archetypes yeah so I'm nowhere as brilliant as any of the content of this but where math comes from seems to be very simple answer and I don't understand why the obvious Logistics of the patterns in space image as a set of numbers by the human this is why math is so implicitly perfect finding its own perfection in its own ways because it is simply a result of the patterns of moving space the nature of moving space creates rhythms and patterns we make it into an articulation of numbers those numbers do not grow out of the ground anywhere but the rhythms exists everywhere they exist in your heart every second and millisecond it is the beating of that heart that represents the millisecond not the millisecond that the human created to articulate its own perceptive view of that rhythm yeah so these are two of my two very favorite scientists philosophers both and yet I still get frustrated when the question comes up of where math comes from I do think that all of the responses I've seen from Dr Levin are satisfying to me in that in as is his usual approach of beginners mind he usually says well you know it's very fascinating I don't really see or understand what's happening here and he leaves it at that however I still think that the obvious Logics of the Rhythm in nature are being ignored why is it that all of these people who are so good at math don't realize the Simplicity in the obviousness of where it came? from I don't get it...❤GEM ❤