• radiofreebc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    This. So…much…this.

    Our egos are a frequency, a perspective…but we are part of something much larger than we are capable of understanding.

    We are all just a radio station, broadcasting into infinity, into a receiver capable of receiving infinite frequencies.

    We are the bacteria on our own fingernails, but we are everything…all at the same time.

    The universe is as old as it takes for us to be everything.

    I am he

    As you are he

    As you are me

    And we are all together

      • Kor@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        That’s the neat thing, you can choose to believe both to be true at the same time, but never reconcile them. Just as there most likely wouldn’t be pleasure without pain.

        As a species, we really should learn to live in and with perpetual ambiguity. There is no fixed point and no achieving bliss. Only permanent struggle towards the “right” path, whatever that shapes up to be.

    • shawn1122@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      It’s amazing how popular this ancient philosophical metaphysical perspective is. Even Stephen Colbert, a devout Catholic, responded with a similar concept when asked in his questionnaire what happens when we die?

      Moksha (Hinduism), Nirvana (Buddhism), returning to the Tao (Taoism), Neoplatonism (ancient Greece), Fanaa (Sufism/Mystical Islam) - over millenia, so many traditions have been captivated by the idea of rejoining with “the One”.

      Within Hinduism is the nonthestic framework promoted by Adi Shankara known as Advaita Vedanta which is Sanskrit for nonduality. This takes the concept even further, positing that we are one eternally and that individuality / self are spiritual Maya or illusion.

  • shawn1122@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    20 hours ago

    It’s amazing how popular this ancient philosophical metaphysical perspective is. Even Stephen Colbert, a devout Catholic, in his final episode responded with a similar concept when asked in his questionnaire what happens when we die?

    Moksha (Hinduism), Nirvana (Buddhism), returning to the Tao (Taoism), Neoplatonism (ancient Greece), Fanaa (Sufism/Mystical Islam) - over millenia, so many traditions have been captivated by the idea of rejoining with “the One”.

    Within Hinduism is the nonthestic framework promoted by Adi Shankara known as Advaita Vedanta which is Sanskrit for nonduality. This takes nonduality even further, positing that we are one eternally and that individuality / self are spiritual Maya or illusion.

  • cally [he/they]@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    The Universe (big thing) pretending to be individuals (small thing)

    vs

    Atoms (small thing) pretending to be individuals (big thing)

    • cally [he/they]@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      Do you ever just realize that everyone is in space right now? Like, sure, there’s an atmosphere, but other than that you’re basically out there. The air around you is sky. The vacuum around you is universe. When you take a closer look, there are universes within universes, whole worlds of microbes, like the ones on the very surface of the keyboard I type this on - on the larger scale, ecosystems of stars, being born, evolving and dying - like in a cosmic “firework show”. But they don’t tend to affect each other, I think. They’re so far away…

      And then, there’s us. We’re so small yet so big. Does that make us special or just mediocre? To an ant we are giants, to a star we don’t exist. Why does consciousness as we know it only exist in the middle of sizes? Maybe because it’s “as we know it”, and of course we only really know what things are like at our scale? Maybe sapience is subtle, and it can only be detected when you spend every moment dealing with it. Perhaps atoms are kind of conscious, and brains are the shape they make such that their consciousness field constructively interferes. Idk

      • Aniki@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth

        the article is shit sadly

        Spaceship Earth (or Spacecraft Earth or Spaceship Planet Earth) is a worldview encouraging everyone on Earth to act as a harmonious crew working toward the greater good.

        nah

        it’s just saying that there’s no absolute ground, no absolute physical coordinate system. (relativity)

  • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 day ago

    I love this kind of philosophy. I wish it were possible to access it on a tangible level, but sadly it seems consciousness is local phenomena

      • scathliath@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        There’s actually a shocking variety that induce this, as an amateur psychonaut. Personally, I enjoy LSA for a “lite” version. One can brew it from a particular yellow flower native to the Southwest, but particularly called “mormon tea”.

      • volore@scribe.disroot.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 day ago

        shrooms can make you more empathetic, but in my case it also unlocked a new kind of depression in realizing that so many who need a change of perspective to see things that way, even for but a glimpse, never will. I felt such love and empathy for others in that moment, and such sorrow that it would never be felt nor returned by the vast majority of others; I understood perfectly in that moment what Edgar Mitchell meant by an “instant global consciousness”, and how we would likely never achieve this state of enlightenment among enough individuals to matter.

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah they can make you feel that way especially if you do them with a tight friend, but in reality you’re still locked into your own perspective.

        Maybe if more people believed we could kind of willingly feel it by proxy. Kind of like how mirror neurons let you simulate the other on your own equipment.

    • pptiny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      You could just work on “first shift”, or what in Buddhism is called Fetters 1 and 2. Seeing through the self delusion. No woo-woo required and it’s the first stepping stone. But a big one.Just realizing there is no “me” here, and never has been, helps a lot.

  • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    My thought recently has been:

    1. The universe is physical, ie made of material stuff. There is just stuff and the forces between stuff

    2. Stuff is governed by physical laws

    3. The interractions between things are relatively simple, but get much more complex and seemingly ramdom the more stuff you add

    4. This seeming randomness is not true randomness because the interractions between things are governed by predictable rules

    5. We are made of stuff, down to the neurons in our brains

    6. Our actions and thoughts are ultimately directly caused by neuronal activity that is (in theory) predictable and governed by laws

    7. Free will and individuality aren’t “real” in the way people typically mean. Our actions are determined entirely by the particles in our system interracting with the constituent parts of other systems.

    My conclusion: this doesn’t matter on a practical level. We still experience free will and individuality. But those things are illusions caused by the interractions of many complex systems.

    • Aniki@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      what if you live in a computer simulation, and you just see chemicals because that’s part of the simulation, but there are actually none?

      Spoiler

      • BillyClark@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Which part of that clip gives some room for flexibility? From my watching of the clip, he just says this is an old religious problem that we are now examining from the viewpoint of science, and that the apparent room for flexibility in quantum probabilities don’t offer anything like actual free will. And he essentially concludes by saying that despite there being no evidence of any shred of anything like free will, that we still need to search for and strive for it.