Does mindset affect the DMT experience or just the interpretation of it?

[clouds]

“How do we decide what is real and what isn’t?”

I know 1 + 1 = 2 (using verifiability)

Please tell me why that would be unreal.

 

[ragabr]

“How do we decide what is real and what isn’t?”

I know 1 + 1 = 2 (using verifiability)

Please tell me why that would be unreal.

I think Descartes wrote a book on just that...

 

[gibran2]

“How do we decide what is real and what isn’t?”

I know 1 + 1 = 2 (using verifiability)

Please tell me why that would be unreal.

I see a sequence of symbols on my monitor’s screen. The symbols correspond to a defined mathematical expression of equality which, by definition, is true.

The symbols I see on my monitor are as real as my monitor.

The concept of mathematical equality is something that exists within my mind – in my brain – so the mathematical concept is as real as my brain.

 

[clouds]

Wow, I think saying that the certainty of the mathematics (abstract concept) depends on the existential validity of your brain (concrete object) is saying too much.

Let me be clear: 1+1=2 was True even before the existence of... *drums* ...this universe.

 

[gibran2]

Wow, I think saying that the certainty of the mathematics (abstract concept) depends on the existential validity of your brain (concrete object) is saying too much.

Let me be clear: 1+1=2 was True even before the existence of... *drums* ...this universe.

Hmm…

Where does the concept “1 + 1 = 2” exist? In our collective minds? If not, then where?

And if without our minds the concept doesn’t exist, then how can something that doesn’t exist be true?

 

[clearlyone]

The concept of mathematical equality is something that exists within my mind – in my brain – so the mathematical concept is as real as my brain.

yes, yes, ... and such a brain is claimed by many to be the container of concepts. But the brain itself just a concept. We are pulling the thread and will be left with no sweater.

How flimsy our process for what is real and what is not. It is slicing nothing into pieces of nothing. This is real over here, that is unreal over there. Ultimately, no matter how subtle one gets with various terms; visions, hallucinations, illusions ... one depends on the other and cannot exist without the other; its just more fine slicing. Can we never question the slicing process itself? Can we ask, what is ALL this, everyday, hyperspace, dream, and dreamless sleep?

Do you ever wonder, what lies in the other direction of all that is experienced? Do you ever wonder whom is the experiencer, the conceiver of the concept of a brain? Of course, any answer is another concept ... but isn't that interesting? SWIM asks this during a journey with full intention.

Just one viewpoint.
Much Respect.

 

[clouds]

We are only drinking from the eternal river of abstraction.

I say that 1 + 1 = 2 is True EVEN before this universe, because it never STARTED to be True.

1 + 1 = 2 is Eternally True. It was true before this universe and it will be True Forever.

Maybe even 1 + 1 = 2 is the proof that Eternity exists (I'm talking about Time).


So our minds (the abstract part of our brains) drinks from the river of Mathematics and comprehends it.
The river never began to flow and it will never stop to flow. There is no time in the "Abstract World".

You are saying that without our minds the concept does not exist. That is wrong.

The concept has always existed. Our minds can see it. When our brains die, the concept will exist.

If humanity disappears from the face of the Earth in the year 4567 A.C... 1 + 1 = 2 will still be True.


Our minds can read some pages from the Book of Truth... but the Book of Truth is Eternal.

 

[clearlyone]

Wow, I think saying that the certainty of the mathematics (abstract concept) depends on the existential validity of your brain (concrete object) is saying too much.

Let me be clear: 1+1=2 was True even before the existence of... *drums* ...this universe.

Ahh! Clouds, this is beautiful. Not because I agree . But because it points to a very deep question. I'm recalling some book text but cant recall the source. The question goes:

Did order (mathematics) create intelligence that then discovered that order (mathematics) OR did intelligence (awareness, consciousness) create order (and mathematics).

Our prevailing materialistic view of reality might prefer the first. Big bang, initial conditions were driven by mysterious 'Laws of Physics' which pre-existed. But when I consider what I know first hand only, the latter is what I'm presented with. Almost smacked in the face with.

Peace

 

[gibran2]

Let me be clear: 1+1=2 was True even before the existence of... *drums* ...this universe.

This is a logical contradiction.

Let’s assume that before the universe there was nothing. You claim that a particular concept or statement was true before the universe. In what form did this concept exist? If it had a form, then there was something before the universe – contradiction. If the concept had no form – if it was nothing – then the concept did not exist and therefore could not have a logical truth value assigned to it. Again, a contradiction.

In your post above you say that there is an “Abstract World”. What exists in this world? Anything? Everything? What form do logical truths take in this abstract world? What is their substance? If they have no substance – no existence – how can you claim they exist?

 

[clearlyone]

I say that 1 + 1 = 2 is True EVEN before this universe, because it never STARTED to be True.

Humbly disagree if capital T is used in True. 1+1=2 became True when consciousness imagined separation. Consider all was one (maybe you'd agree at least really really scrunched into a very small space - almost one ) at the moment of the Big Bang. Before this where was the second?

You are saying that without our minds the concept does not exist. That is wrong.

The concept has always existed. Our minds can see it. When our brains die, the concept will exist.

Not being flippant. But I have to add ... so says your brain with a concept. I don't really recall dying. If I did, it would be good reason to toss out most my concepts on death ... and mathematics.

If humanity disappears from the face of the Earth in the year 4567 A.C... 1 + 1 = 2 will still be True.

For sure no one will notice it was 4567.:lol:

Our minds can read some pages from the Book of Truth... but the Book of Truth is Eternal.

Well said clouds.

 

[clouds]

This is what I think:


Truth precedes the Universe.

The universe is a physical object.

The Truth is an abstract concept.

There is Time in the Universe.

Truth is Eternal.


The "Abstract World" is a metaphor for "True Concepts", which are Abstract Concepts.
Basic Mathematics are a perfect example of what is both True and Eternal.


I don't see where the logical contradiction is.


As far as I know, the Universe (galaxies and stuff) may even have a Beginning and End, and that wouldn't affect in any way the Abstract World of Truth.

I repeat, Truth and Universe are very different things.

The Universe may be a simulation, a dream or real... and yet... mathematical concepts would prevail because they are True.


I think Truth is not restricted to Mathematics, but that the best example I can think of.

P.S. Abstract concepts have no "form" or "shape". They only have meaning.


That's only what I think...

 

[clearlyone]

Great insight flows through that post. I grew up logically inclined in every aspect, science and math was it. With help of certain experiences, it feels good to let go of even mathematics. I now question, whom is it that is experiencing a concept, a knowing. In this direction, objects of knowledge (including my beloved math and QP) are left behind in search of the nectar ... which we know will never be captured with numbers or words on a page - inferred only weakly at best.

Sorry if that sounds too spiritual or such. Thanks for the great discussion all.

 

[gibran2]

@ clouds -

Several points to ponder:

Meaning, truth, concepts, metaphor – these all seem to be products of the brain. They don’t seem to exist in separation, yet you claim they do.

And if they do, if they indeed exist in an “Abstract World”, how is it that we, in the “physical world” gain access to this abstract realm? What is the interface?

If abstract truths have no form in the “Abstract World”, then how is one truth or concept differentiated from all of the others? What makes one different from another?

There are some concepts that seem to be eternal, but others are obviously not. For example, the rules of chess form an abstract concept – a truth. So do you claim that the rules of chess have always existed in a timeless realm, just waiting for us to access them?

And what about emotions and more complex human concepts – is the concept of “happiness” in this realm? What about “patriotism”? Do these “truths” have a timeless quality independent of human beings?

 

[clouds]

The interface between the Abstract World of Truth and the Concrete Universe? Consciousness.

Now, Meaning.

1 + 1 = 2 is an equation that has meaning beyond the meaning we give to the symbols.


• one plus one equals two

• uno mas uno es igual a dos

• 1 + 1 = 2

• (x) + (x) = 2x


these examples have the same fundamental meaning. What is true is the meaning that one thing plus another another thing equals two things. No matter what symbols (shape) do you use or what subjective meaning you give to the equation. The objective meaning is shapeless. Also, I don't really need to say this... I'm just explaining what meaning means to me. Since 1 + 1 = red, can also be true if I say to my brother to show me a red coin when I ask him the answer to that equation.}

True meaning is beyond what we think of an abstract concept.

Then you bring examples that are related to humans. But as you say, what if humans are not real? What if emotions are not true?
As you know, Mathematic Laws are cold-as-it gets. But, like I said before, the only example I can think of something "real" is mathematics (and only Basic and Medium... not even sure about Advanced) but Emotions...? do they have a place in the "Abstract World"... I think that is a possibility... but I wouldn't bet my life on it as a I would bet my life on the Reality of Basic Mathematics. There is a huge gap between objective laws and subjective feelings, right?

Now... the chess example... what they are doing is playing with a set of rules that are True. (otherwise there could't be a fair game, right)... so... what if The Abstract Concept are not the rules per se, but the fact that they are True. And the meaning is that they are True.

So maybe there is only one thing in the Abstract World: Meaning. (which can be applied to many things in the Universe).


I think we are getting to a point where we must be very specific with the words we use.

Meaning has two meanings: Truth (Objective meaning) and Meaning (subjective meaning).

Maybe our language needs to find a better word for subjective meaning... since opinion seems to offend so many people hahaha

 

[Global]

This is what I think:


Truth precedes the Universe.

The universe is a physical object.

The Truth is an abstract concept.

There is Time in the Universe.

Truth is Eternal.


The "Abstract World" is a metaphor for "True Concepts", which are Abstract Concepts.
Basic Mathematics are a perfect example of what is both True and Eternal.


I don't see where the logical contradiction is.


As far as I know, the Universe (galaxies and stuff) may even have a Beginning and End, and that wouldn't affect in any way the Abstract World of Truth.

I repeat, Truth and Universe are very different things.

The Universe may be a simulation, a dream or real... and yet... mathematical concepts would prevail because they are True.


I think Truth is not restricted to Mathematics, but that the best example I can think of.

P.S. Abstract concepts have no "form" or "shape". They only have meaning.


That's only what I think...

These mathematical concepts don't necessarily have to be true. They are true so far as our limited understanding allows it to seem true, but it would be ignorant, no matter how elementary a concept seems, to rule out possible alternatives. Such is narrow-minded thinking which has held back mankind in complacency for millenia.

 

[open'nheart]

i was always under the impression that 1+1=3....biologically speaking anyways:twisted: (i jest, no flames please )

i appreciate the way this dialog has evolved from the op.

 

[clouds]

such is narrow-minded thinking which has held back mankind in complacency for millenia.

man, I'm not saying that everyone <must> believe in Math or they are going to hell.
Anyone is free to believe and do what they want as long as they accept the consequences.

If I'm enjoying the sun and the beach and want to believe this is all a dream, then I guess it's cool.
But if I want to create a software that helps me design a virtual reality for an A.I. Bots Experiment... you BET I better believe Math is Hardcore Truth.

Some things are useful, I believe.

 

[Global]

such is narrow-minded thinking which has held back mankind in complacency for millenia.

man, I'm not saying that everyone <must> believe in Math or they are going to hell.
Anyone is free to believe and do what they want as long as they accept the consequences.

If I'm enjoying the sun and the beach and want to believe this is all a dream, then I guess it's cool.
But if I want to create a software that helps me design a virtual reality for an A.I. Bots Experiment... you BET I better believe Math is Hardcore Truth.

Some things are useful, I believe.

In the scenario you propose, math is of course the basis for a virtual reality, but that's not what you were talking about before. All I'm trying to stress is that, and this is not meant to be inflammatory, nor am I isolating you when I say this, nor are you even entirely guilty of this, but it seems that there are an array of posters who speak with such a certainty that there clearly can in no way be alternative external realities, when there is just as little hard evidence to say the opposite.

 

[JamesLove]

For those that think that it is possible that this is not the true reality, then what is the explanation for this reality? What is this then?

 

[ragabr]

What do you refer to when you say "this" or "this reality"?

'I' engage with several mutually exclusive models, each having their own predictive advantages and disadvantages. The concept of a single phenomenal reality doesn't match 'my' experience.

Even the idea of a continuous consciousness experiencing this historical personality appears highly questionable.