World View - and why one's world view is important

Kastrup nails it and materialists can never get past the hard problem. Why not just face the truth?

 

Sheldrake stating why sience, at best, is a modeling tool.



And for proof there's life beyond the death of the body, here's an excellent account of what goes on

 

No problem. I'm relieved to know that I was listening attentively. I only had the information in the video to work with, so I couldn't draw the same conclusions you did. Nevertheless, I can see Lipton making some basic errors in that clip that cause me to doubt the validity of his reasoning. Kastrup does the same, but Sheldrake has been much more steady and reasonable, in my opinion.

 

I went back and watched that video for the fourth time to figure out where you were getting a relationship between Lipton's eureka moment (that identity is the signal) and the ability to rewrite our subconscious programming. You really have to stretch to find such a relationship. I find it quite interesting that we can watch the same video and reach such diverse conclusions regarding its content. I want to say that at least one of us wasn't listening attentively, but wouldn't that be oversimplifying a very complex situation? Could it be that the message is different for every listener? And if that is so, what does that say about Lipton's ability to communicate clearly?

I'm hoping you will tell me you weren't listening attentively, because I'm still hearing Lipton convey the same message I heard the first time I watched the video. If you can say the same after four viewings, then we really have an interesting mystery on our hands.

 

I thought I understood your perspective, Sam, but now you say I did not. What part was it that I got wrong?

 

It appears (as in the quote above) that so many false interpretations are being made here.

I did not ever write that what we experience does not exist. I did not ever state that our experiences are not real. All I ever implied is that all this is within consciousness. And that consciousness is fundamental to all we experience.

 

Lipton is making the usual human error of misinterpretation. A receptor and interpreter of incoming signals is not the signal. Lipton downplays this distinction and misinterprets his identity to be the incoming information. Yes, the incoming information has important effects on the receiver, but if the receiver has free will, meaning the ability to choose, then the incoming information can be selectively interpreted. And it is selectively interpreted, which gives us the usual human error of misinterpretation! So that clearly demonstrates that the receptor is not the signal. In other words, we are not the information that is outside of us.

As much as I love Lipton's passion, excitement, and innocence, I think he needs to rethink his initial premises. His reliance on the computer analogy and the TV broadcasting analogy reminds me of the hammer analogy -- when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to resemble a nail.

 

Less deceptive perspectives about materialism come from Rupert Sheldrake.

I would especially draw your attention to two things Rupert Sheldrake says:

@01:47 Materialism -- the doctrine that the only reality is matter.

@25:20 There is now a movement against materialism, or at least going beyond it.

Sam is willing to take the extreme view that matter is not real, that it does not exist, that only consciousness exists, and that it is consciousness that creates the illusion of matter.

I do not believe the only reality is matter, as I know full well that various forms of energy exist that are immaterial, and that matter and energy are related by Einstein's famous equation E = m * (C^2). Matter does exist, but there is more than matter in the world.

More than anything, I believe humans are incredibly ignorant, that we think we know, but we do not. I think Rupert Sheldrake does a good job of pointing this out, whereas Kastrup is ready to load us up into the next flawed belief system, that only consciousness exists, and that everything is derived from it.



Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion: Why Materialism is not the Answer

 

The claims of this video lead to even bigger metaphysical abstractions than the abstraction Kastrup is trying to call baloney (i.e. materialism).

The medium of subjective experience (what Kastrup calls consciousness) can be as independent of reality (and as dependent on reality) as the pictures produced by a camera are. Cameras do not create reality, even though they create pictures. Pictures are not the same as reality, but they are indeed a reflection of reality (usually). Our consciousness may be like a camera, rooted in matter, and allowing us to experience reality without creating reality or being reality.

At 2:10, Kastrup says "There is nothing to a whirlpool but water." There is, in fact, much more to a whirlpool than water, even though Kastrup would have us believe there is only water involved. This is one of many examples that are beginning to cause me to dislike Kastrup, as he is being very deceptive in his reasoning.

 

Enjoy!

 

Open your mind anyway, whether there is a "rational" case or not. I think it is a mistake to ask for a rational case when dealing with concepts we can't measure or even define, like consciousness. How can we possibly be rational about the indefinite and the unknown? There is no clear demarcation line between "dead things" and "living things". It may even be an erroneous comparison. Nor is there a clear line between the consciousness of a person or a mammal or an insect or a bacterium or a virus or a molecule. I think an open mind is absolutely called for when investigating these issues.

I disagree, it is not a waste of time because of the prominence of the physical. If you demonstrate to me that you can walk through solid walls simply by readjusting your perceptions, then I can understand how your idealism could possibly negate materialism.

There is nothing simple about the physical, or genetics, or psychology. We do not have a secure handle on any of these things, even though we often think we do. I would suggest that you do not have a secure handle on self-centricity, or consciousness, either. I certainly don't.

A lack of empathy implies a lack of consideration for others which leads to self-centricity. Why does materialism need to be dragged into the issue?

So your current world view has led to positive changes, and this is good. Peace has been augmented, and comfort has been increased, and this is good. It is hard to argue with results, if those results cannot be attained by other means. But they can be. It is not necessary to adhere to a world view of monistic idealism and reject materialism to achieve similar results. I think your error is here. It is not a critical error, in that your belief does no harm and has worked well for you, at least better than your prior world views. Is your belief true, however? I cannot determine if your belief is true or not under the current circumstances, nor do I think anyone can. That is my primary issue with your reasoning. It is not what we would call rational. But in your particular case, I do approve of the positive results in your life.

This is a demonstration of your empathy, wishing others could experience the positive results you have experienced. It is certainly admirable in my world view.

As you have recognized, life is far more than just existence. Empathy plays a major role in enabling such a rich world view. Without empathy, that world view is dramatically changed. We know this because of the study of sociopaths. They view existence as a game to be won, a game of deception and manipulation, a game of power and control over others, a game of selfish reward regardless of the cost to others. So it appears to me that our world view is significantly determined by our psychology. However, I think it is a mistake to say that our psychology is significantly determined by our world view. From what I have understood so far, this seems to be what you are saying, Sam -- change your world view, and you will change your psychology. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

Hi Rose... the video you posted is very good. I don't believe anything. I do have operating assumptions which are subject to change at anytime. As far as idealism (as depicted in this video) goes... my current operational assumption with regards to the metaphysics as to how all this can possibly be is indeed reflected well by the video and contrasted well against realism and materialism. Regardless of anyone's attempts to try and convince me that materialism is the proper metaphysics to explain "how all this" came about, the day someone can make a reasoned case for how individuated consciousness could suddenly emerge from "dead things" (as materialists believe) then I might once again open my mind to the possibility that materialism is something worth considering.

If anyone makes an effort to discuss anything as important as how our world might become a better place for all and they can only include whatever they have determined to by physical or the inexplicable springing forth of consciousness and the psychologies of these individuated expressions of life that are perceived to be conscious... including looking deep within its own currently known (limited) and currently discovered aspects (again limited) such as "genes" (this clearly excludes epigenetics - something still limited - or at least minimizes it) then in my opinion they are wasting everyone's time because IMO there is far more than the simple "physical" and "genetic" and "psychological" aspects to the reason something such as self-centricity exists.

In fact, this very POV (along with a wink and nod group centricity) which appears at the core of sociopathy as well as many other anti-social behaviors can often be found walking hand in hand with one's world view based on materialism)/ What is interesting to note is that there are indeed non-materialists who have chosen to perceive themselves to be their own, unique universe which is making "a god" of oneself and this is where some of the dark Left Hand path folks go.

In my studies of Gnosticism I found the most important message to be "one finds the answers within" as opposed to external sources providing those answers (Right Hand path). In addition, Right Hand path ends up in self anihilation. This is certainly a free will choice anyone can make, but its not mine currently.

In my current world view (monistic idealism) I have not only answered more questions than any other metaphysical cosmology/cosmogony has presented but I not only experience far more peace than ever before, what is for me most important, so do all who are impacted by Sam Hunter's words and deeds.

I do wish more folks would be fortunate enough to have the experiences they need to get past materialism as when I lived as a materialist, I only existed. When I opened to more... "that" was the key and beginning to the change which has me "living life"and in the most amazing and seemingly magical ways.

If I am able to chose after this life whether to come back here again to such an upside down world... I probably would. In fact, I have the savior complex just as much as Chico does and so that alone would likely draw me back. And I am not so sure that is a good thing by the way... but I prefer honesty. But equally important would be this...

to have the chance to gaze into the eyes of my dear Cristina, my children... not because we are married or that I am the father of my children... but because I have been fortunate to get to know them so closely, so well... and to know their wonderful hearts. And of course this extends to loved ones beyond just the immediate family, beyond my lifelong friends, beyond the friends that have come in and out of my life or have become friends recently... beyond the neighbors, those who I have worked with... those who may not like me or even hate my guts... those I pass on the street and those I may never meet.

In fact, it really boils down to the experience of being able to give to life itself as well as have the experience of life itself but note I mean life under my definition which is far beyond just existence.

 

"Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism"

Yeah, right. facepalm

The conclusion is not inescapable, as this video claims, for that implies certainty, which is contrary to quantum mechanics!!

Good grief... We are making our usual mistake of cascading misinterpretation. Occam's Razor is not a dependable rule of thumb, as it is not at all representative of reality, which is complex beyond our understanding and imagination.

This notion of idealism is also arrogant anthrocentrism, just like claiming God created man in His image. Humans are always thinking that they are special, that the universe revolves around them. It is precisely within our flawed character to believe that nothing exists without us to observe it! That's how ridiculous we are. And then we think we can straighten all of this out with thought experiments! Total typical human insanity.

 

No, Sam. No.

Your current world view serves you better than your prior world view served you before. It's primarily about you, i.e. it is fundamentally a selfish perspective. You can argue that your world view currently serves us better than your prior world view served us before. To a small degree, that is true, in so much as it affects those people close to you. But for the bulk of humanity, your changing world view has no impact.

For the bulk of humanity, about 99% of the population (Minions, Followers, and Independents), it is the world view of the Sociopaths that determines reality. Essentially that reality is imposed on us through trickery, deception, and unethical manipulation. We already know that there is no changing the world view of sociopaths, as it is determined by their defective psychology. And changing our own world view is not going to unseat the reality imposed on us by the Sociopaths. In fact, our own world views are also largely a function of our "normal" psychology, and so our world views are also very resistant to change. So thinking that changing anyone's world view will solve our problems, i.e. the bulk of humanity's problems, is wrong thinking.

I hope you can see now, after my above explanation, that changing world views is not the solution.

At this physical level of being, when the sociopaths end up eliminating each other, however it happens, they will take us with them. We will simply be collateral damage. Humanity will be extinct.

Now I can't tell you about souls, the "All that Is", or timeless formless eternal life. I don't know squat about that. Neither does anyone else, really. I do know something about physical existence. And I, along with the bulk of humanity (if I may be so bold), do not want to see humanity go extinct! I want this sociopath problem solved, and I want it solved before we reach the point of no return as we are led down the path to extinction!

Is that wrong thinking?

 

Our current tools? Would not one's own individuated 'personal mind' be where the source of the problem might reside? What founds everything is one's world view. I was able to achieve a world view described best by 'idealism.' How I got there was inspired by being sick and tired of being sick and tired. I then dove into discovering why I was sick and tired. By doing that I discovered that what externally made me sick and tired was more like a reflection of what was going in "within." So I looked hard at each and every facet of "the within" whereby I discovered my world view was entirely unsubstantiated and worse, was disconnected and made no sense. I threw it all out, went deep into "study" and fortunately emerged with the world view I have now - monistic idealism.

Why I say fortunately is based on what those in my life would say. They would say, "Thankfully he did this because he changed for the better for having done so!"

That whole process (which is still a work in progress and hopefully one that never ends) was and is actions I (as an individuated expression of "the All that Is" - which is just words I use as a pointer to that which is ineffable) took and still take entirely on my own yet the impact this has on everyone else, my loved ones, friends, neighbors, those I pass on the street and those I may never meet is the purest form of unselfishness one can manifest.

Fred has it right (all and only my opinion).

We definitely do not have to have the same underlying world view or philosophy... we definitely do not need to share the same metaphysical explanation for this experience we call life unless the only viable, lasting solution includes a shift in the world view away from a focus all and only upon "the outer" and instead achieves a balance with "the inner." To deal with the sociopathy issue all and only externally is, IMO all and only an action which will produce new, mutant forms of sociopathy.

If Earth ends up run by sociopaths where the rest of us are relegated to enslaved robotons with souls emulating stasis then I would make odds high that eventually the sociopaths because of the very nature of sociopathy will end up eliminating each other (at this physical level of being) where regardless of what happens to non-sociopaths, our souls via the nature of the All that Is (the timeless, formless eternal one life) will provide the opportunity that each of us have new experiences and perhaps experiences without the mental, emotional, psychological and most importantly spiritual illness of sociopathy within our experiential realms.

 

Materialism as I use the term is the metaphysical explanation for what we experience. Idealism is another metaphysical explanation. My current operating metaphysical explanation is far more in agreement with the explanation for who all "this" came about than materialism posits. Note that idealism also provides space for "the why" whereas materialism cannot address "why?" Empathy is something I feel I have. It comes forth from the depth of my being. Yet equally to empathy are many other feelings that come forth from the depth of my being and one of those feelings is my love for life. But I cannot just stop with the statement "I love life" without defining what life is for me. Life, for me, is the continuous experience of an abundance of meaningful experiences. As I have gotten older I have found that the most meaningful experiences I have are when I observe others exploring their own wonderment of life. I enjoy seeing their joy of discovery, their joy in exploring freely.

Freely.... sociopaths wish to shut down our freedoms to enjoy life.

Yet if the only way to stop them is to use the very forms of action they use upon us IE. to control the controllers... to use forceful power to limit their power (as there will be no other way to do it unless it is forced upon those that are somehow "identified" as sociopaths), to identify the "them" which then automatically creates the "us" which I make odds all but 100% certain will create within the "us" more sub groupings of "us and them," then I won't be able to participate because I am not interested in being a hypocrite as that is how I would perceive myself if I took the very actions I abhor.

I would surely end up "a savior" who the rest would also eventually need saving from. Haven't we seen this triad over and over and over again throughout all our experiences and repeated over and over again in our histories? The victims, the perps, the saviors. Pick one as you can only be one when we see the world this way. This may not be self-centric (at least to the degree we perceive those labeled "sociopath" to be), but it is clearly group-centric. Group-centricity is the very ground which sociopaths plant their seeds. Imagine if each and every individual could awaken to that? They would be facing themselves and who they are (at this one life level of their being). If enough care about who they are, then enough will go within to ferret out their own inconsistencies via dismantling their own self deceptions... something I observe Fred has done a great deal of work on and has made inspiring progress in doing (stated based on what I read in the water cooler chat this morning).

If each and every individual, through various individualized processes makes the changes within themselves such that they become better and better for the rest, then that is actually anything but selfish... in fact, it is world-centric (humanity-wide-centric) and perhaps even cosmic-centric where eventually one emerges as kosmic-centric. Each step along the way is better and better for all. Each step along the way is inherently less and less selfish. Yet each step is achieved by holding to principles such as honoring the free-will of each of us as long as one "does no harm" or as long as one "does not do to others what one does not want done to themselves."

 

Normally, yes, but I think we have drilled down so deep that we've hit the bottom, so to speak. Our current tools won't let us go any deeper. The next step is where does our psychology come from? How exactly is it produced? How can it be changed for the better? Our ignorance is limiting us, but that may not be a barrier in this instance, because we can effectively act on the understanding we have of the problem at this level and solve it.

So we may not have to agree on any underlying philosophy if we see the same problem and the same solution.

 

Hi Rose... if that happened, I am sorry. I didn't know about that. This is sad for me to hear.

 

I think the material world is where the sociopaths are most adept at controlling us. Their primary methodology is deception. Their most successful material tool for manipulating us is money, now reduced to mere pieces of paper or even worse, bits in a computer. Because their success at attaining power and control is in the material world, materialism is emphasized.

"Rehabilitate" is not the right word, I don't think. Sociopaths have been molding us in their image for millennia. They are corrupting us to be like them. If we could free ourselves of their insidious influence, we would be able to naturally be who we really are. Their evil is unnatural because it is disproportionate, while our goodness is natural when it is not artificially suppressed.

I don't see sociopathy as being a symptom of materialism. I see it as being a symptom of lacking empathy. But I can see how you might connect materialism to sociopathy. We are, after all, pattern matchers.