Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Namelesss]

Attachment and aversion (to the passing) is suffering!

Which is why, when is close to Taoists and Buddhists, for that matter, you can feel their judgments of emotions and desires.

No, I cannot.
Nor do I evaluate a philosophy by the greenhorns/beginners attempting to practice it.
When Laotsu spoke of 'emotions' he was talking about JUDGMENT!

What is outside they have accepted - advanced practitioners at least but what is inside is still judged as not OK or potentially not that. They do not say this. What is inside that is problematic can arise and pass and they disidentify in this way with what is inside them. But you can feel the vibe of judgment when they meet others more accepting of the limbic brain, so to speak.

You speak of "they" and judge.
I speak of We, and don't.
Knowledge = actual experience! And my experience shows that your 'interpretations and reflections do not speak to the founder's philosophies but to your biases and weaknesses.
Perhaps a couple direct quotes might offer some food for contemplation;

"When everyone knows beauty as beautiful, there is already ugliness;

When everyone knows good as goodness, there is already evil.

"To be" and "not to be" arise mutually;

Difficult and easy are mutually realized;

Long and short are mutually contrasted;

High and low are mutually posited; ...

Before and after are in mutual sequence."
- Lao tzu

"There are two paths leading to oneness with the Tao.

The first in the path of acceptance.
Affirm everyone and everything.
Freely extend your goodwill and virtue in every direction, regardless of circumstances.
Embrace all things as part of the Harmonious Oneness, and then you will begin to perceive it.

The second path is that of denial.
Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth.
Peel all the veils away, and you will arrive at the Oneness.

Though these paths are entirely different, they will deliver you to the same place: spontaneous awareness of the Great Oneness." - Lao Tzu

Rather than speaking of models of that which cannot be modeled, I speak from experience/Knowledge.

Me. too.

If that were the case, you wouldn't refer to practitioners of both philosophies as 'they', We would be We!

In the mystical state, there can be no 'discrimination', no 'judgment', literally!
The state of Enlightenment is nondifferent than unconditional (transcendental) Love!
This state transcends the conditional perceptions of thought/ego/duality leaving Us as ALL inclusive, even of the 'nasty'. All is Loved, all is assimilated in (health) unconditional Love!
There is not anything (to avoid or chase) but the Beloved!

Oh, I am sure there are states where this kind of enlightenment, often sitting or lying down in isolation or with others who have similar judgments of emotions and desires, it seems like there is full acceptance. But at tea with one, or walking in a garden with one, or [fill in the blank] the judgments are in the air. What has been denied out, disconnected from by one part of the self successfully, is suddenly nearby and ookie.

You can keep repeating yourself about your judgment, etc..., but your experience is obviously second and third hand.
No, you are not 'sure/certain' (even if direct experience provided Knowledge), or, if you are, that would be... less than mentally healthy.
The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-certainty-bias

True, unconditional Love (Enlightenment) is ALWAYS Known by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (Charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

More things that arise and disappear...

It appears that you do not understand the notion of 'unconditional/transcendental'.

just like the emotions and states the Taoists judge negatively.

Repeating ignorance continually does not make it less ignorance, it just spreads among the ignorant.

“Your task is not to seek for Love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.” - Rumi

And what gets batched as barriers does not get love.

Actually, the only way to pass beyond the 'barriers' is to assimilate them in Love!
"A 'demon' is merely an unLoved 'angel'!"

[Karpel Tunnel]

No, I cannot.
Nor do I evaluate a philosophy by the greenhorns/beginners attempting to practice it.

Me neither, I go by the masters.

[You speak of "they" and judge.
I speak of We, and don't.
Knowledge = actual experience! And my experience shows that your 'interpretations and reflections do not speak to the founder's philosophies but to your biases and weaknesses.

They were my observations, just as what might seem like you judgments of me here are observations. You say I speak of they and judge. Then you speak of yourself speaking of we and not judging. Notice the irony.

You can keep repeating yourself about your judgment, etc..., but your experience is obviously second and third hand.
No, you are not 'sure/certain' (even if direct experience provided Knowledge), or, if you are, that would be... less than mentally healthy.
The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-certainty-bias

Irony: you talk in certainty about how I, someone over the internet, has experienced things - second or third hand. The irony is not that you are wrong, but that you then decide it is I who need to read about certainty bias. Irony 2: your judgments are observations, mine are judgments. Your repetitions are not problematic, mine are. And yes, I can imagine you may say, Oh, they are not problems, they are a perfect part of the oneness. But that is only when it is pointed out. If you know humans, you know how words work. You know that having your own negative descriptions of other or what they say or do always being observations, while their negative descriptions are termed judgments comes off cake and eat it too or gets taken in as judgments. The internet makes this all very easy. No body language showing deeper reactions or contradictions. Here it is easy to claim transcendence and bemoan the insanity of others while saying one is not bemoaning, not judging, and in fact speaking in we. One can always jump up a meta level, and then one more.

Repeating ignorance continually does not make it less ignorance, it just spreads among the ignorant.

I certainly agree.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Nameless, I'm gonna focus elsewhere, at least for a good while.

[Namelesss]

No, I cannot.
Nor do I evaluate a philosophy by the greenhorns/beginners attempting to practice it.

...I go by the masters.

Too fast, it seems...

you talk in certainty about how I, someone over the internet, has experienced things - second or third hand. ...not that you are wrong

Because I am not.
The proof is in the pudding, Puddin'! *__-
And I do not talk in 'certainty', I talk in observation.
Laotse and Buddha and Jesus (the 'masters' to which you refer, I suppose) never recommended judging/discriminating against others, if you have read and understand their writings and demonstration.

Attacking me (ad-hom fallacy) does not refute what I am saying.
There is not anything that you can call me that is not true, so I do not have anything to defend!
So, moving on from the personal stuff, have we finished this tangent from the OP?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Attacking me (ad-hom fallacy) does not refute what I am saying.

An ad hom fallacy is when I base my conclusions about topic X on some aspect of you. You are wrong because you have red hair or whatever irrelevant factor of your being I focus on. However if my argument is about your behavior, commenting on your behavior is relevant. BUT the truly funny thing is how much ad hom focus on me there is in your posts, and then you bring up the ad hom fallacy. Hypocrisy, as you once told me, is your strong suit. You have a wondeful system where when you comment on other people, including psychic conclusions you have reached, these are observations, not judgments, observations, not ad homs. While presenting yourself as enlightened and accepting everything, you go on with the same judgmental, divisive lack of acceptance talk and behavior. Which actually is good, because there are taoists and buddhists who can hide their judgments and insults and anger much better than this. You have to pick it up through vibe, feel it when they come in the room. And some people find it harder to accept what they are experiencing because these buddhists present themselves and having transcended all that stuff. So it is appreciated how blithe you are about stuff.

There is not anything that you can call me that is not true, so I do not have anything to defend!

I love when people make these kinds of meta comments. It is as if they are not defensive and also gives them permission to do what they criticize others of being.

So, moving on from the personal stuff, have we finished this tangent from the OP?

I won't speak for we, but if you want to bring up something directly related to the OP, I'll certainly read it.

[Namelesss]

Attacking me (ad-hom fallacy) does not refute what I am saying.

An ad hom fallacy is...

I know what an ad-hom is.
As for the rest, that you are choking 'apparent contradictions' speaks to your inability to see any 'larger picture'.

So it is appreciated how blithe you are about stuff.

Yeah, I sincerely doubt that. (Despite the sarcastic stench)
Had you any experience/Knowledge of Jesus or Buddha or Laotsu, you would understand the actual 'blitheness' with which they suggested one afford to the passing, flickering dream. A process of 'detachment'.
It was suggested not to even be concerned with the duality of life and death! Treat them just as 'blithely'!
The Tao is the leveler ('blither') of ALL things!" - Laotsu
We do and think as we 'must'...

There is not anything that you can call me that is not true, so I do not have anything to defend!

I love when people make these kinds of meta comments.

So happy to bring warm and fuzzies to a neighborhood hear you!

It is as if they are not defensive and also gives them permission to do what they criticize others of being.

Yes, I understand your Perspective.
(There is no self-aware honest adult who will deny being a hypocrite! Only a self-ignorant child would deny such a thing about himself!)
What you don't understand is the (Enlightened) Perspective of what Omni- means, One! All inclusive!
You are still choking on apparent inconsistencies while unable (yet) to perceive/experience/Know the larger Harmony!
When I accepted all 'Perspectives', there is not anything 'defensive' nor exculpatory intended (it just works out that nothing flung can achieve it's goal; can't stick; great 'defense', as you suggest and, as there is no free-will/choice, 'intent' cannot be judged).
Removes certain tools of 'manipulation' from the table, doesn't it?
We all 'do' as we must, no choice, and there are numerous Perspectives.
One man's hypocrite is another's beloved President!
The difference only lies in the Perspective (Eye of the beholder).

Health, is inclusive.
Insanity is 'exclusive'.

[Atreyu]

The OP did not do a good job describing exactly what he means by 'encryption' in the context in which he's proposing it.

Perhaps he could clarify it...

[Michael McMahon]

I'm using encryption in the sense of the prevention of unauthorised access to certain information. In this case the unauthorised entity is the conscious observer. A key component of this encryption procedure is rationalisation. This is where you explain away the inconsistencies of the dream world. If you research lucid dreaming you'll come across reality checks (procedures to determine if you're awake or in a dream). One such reality check is seeing if you can read as you obviously can't in a dream. This happened in a dream I had where I was trying to read but the letters were jumbled up. I was prevented from becoming conscious because I had incorrectly concluded that I was dyslexic. The encryption will desperately use whatever it can from your memory to explain it away.

I'm using encryption in the context of open timelike curves. When I read about these I realised that it had an immense potential to help explain how we come to have free will. This is as if you could send messages backwards you could alter prior decisions allowing you to have some degree of free will. From my experience of lucid dreaming I realised that sleep could be a candidate for such an operation. I'd come across scenes that I never imagined, thought of or previously experienced. I'd simply be in a state of complete unreality. I also had these lucid false awakenings which are dreams in which you appear to wake up. Then I'd actually wake up in reality in a very derealised state. I realised that there was a qualitative continuity between dreams and reality. The quantitative aspects and content would clearly be different, but it consciously and subjectively felt the same.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I'm using encryption in the sense of the prevention of unauthorised access to certain information. In this case the unauthorised entity is the conscious observer. A key component of this encryption procedure is rationalisation. This is where you explain away the inconsistencies of the dream world. If you research lucid dreaming you'll come across reality checks (procedures to determine if you're awake or in a dream). One such reality check is seeing if you can read as you obviously can't in a dream. This happened in a dream I had where I was trying to read but the letters were jumbled up. I was prevented from becoming conscious because I had incorrectly concluded that I was dyslexic. The encryption will desperately use whatever it can from your memory to explain it away.

Some thoughts. The title of the thread is Is dreaming an encryption procedure? Generally we encrypt a message, so dreaming would be also, not just an encryption procedure, if it is one. You may have meant it that way, but I am trying to be careful because I found the OP and the links hard to understand, so I figure I'll be careful and not assume too much. I tend to think that dreams concretize cognitive processes, including emotions. So if you are feeling anxiety about realizing something true about yourself, for example, your sleeping mind will grab at something scary to be what the fear is about. A giant, a spider, whatever thing might best cause the anxiety that is really about, say, hating one's job even though it is the one Dad always wanted us to have. Complicated relations get reified. What might be best described abstractly, gets described in more concrete physical terms. Which to me is not encryption per se, though very much like it.

I'm using encryption in the context of open timelike curves. When I read about these I realised that it had an immense potential to help explain how we come to have free will. This is as if you could send messages backwards you could alter prior decisions allowing you to have some degree of free will.

t I won't claim I fully understand those links, but it seems like the information, at least as so far conceived, cannot go back to the same individual. And it must remain hidden, in the past. That is it could not grant someone free will, since they cannot open the envelope. If it is encrypted, there can be no flow of information to the individual or we get paradoxes. And it seemed like these new possible uses of sending info to the past had to do with increasing computing power in the present, and precisely NOT informing anyone in the past, especially the sender.

From my experience of lucid dreaming I realised that sleep could be a candidate for such an operation. I'd come across scenes that I never imagined, thought of or previously experienced. I'd simply be in a state of complete unreality. I also had these lucid false awakenings which are dreams in which you appear to wake up. Then I'd actually wake up in reality in a very derealised state. I realised that there was a qualitative continuity between dreams and reality. The quantitative aspects and content would clearly be different, but it consciously and subjectively felt the same.

I've had these kinds of experiences also.
I am not sure how they offer free will or what you are specifically getting at here. I tend to see dreamoes as primarily internal sensing. So what one is dreaming is yourself, rather than other people or things outside you. HOwever there is something very dreamlike underlying our waking where we are taking everything as self and projecting self on things. So our dreaming type processes infect/underlie/support/enhance/inform our experiencing of others and things and the world.

[Michael McMahon]

There are two ways we could have free will. Either consciousness affects the initial conditions or it affects the laws of physics. Whether it affects the laws of physics has been debated for a long time. But it seems difficult to conceive of how consciousness could operate in a billiard ball type of way. The initial conditions approach however has not been fully investigated. Maybe there could be some sort of information transfer. But what are the initial conditions for us? The moment we wake up from sleep. So that is why I think these false awakenings have something to do with free will.

One type of free will is free won't. This is where you have the freedom to not do something. I think this type of free will is more coherent as for all your decisions you only need one causal mechanism to veto an action. So when it comes to open timelike curves you don't necessarily need to open the message; only for it to affect one entity to give you that veto power. According to the article open timelike curves would mimic gravitational time dilation. Just for it to affect a single entity would be enough to grant you free won't.

[Michael McMahon]

I've mentioned before about how lucid dreaming could help with problems like free will and why is there something rather than nothing. I think that if more people started lucid dreaming we might be able to get a few clues as to what the answer is. But in order for that to happen more people have to take sleep seriously.

I think one reason why people dismiss dreams is that the information seems to be irrelevant. But you should consider the frame problem of artificial intelligence. I'm no expert on it but it's essentially a problem of how computers could ignore irrelevant information and get common sense. Maybe dreams could be the brain's way of figuring out what's relevant or irrelevant by creating these simulations? So I don't think you should ignore dreams just because they seem illogical. It seems to me that consciousness is a mystery because much of its processes occur behind the scenes during sleep.

[Wayne92587]

Namelesss;

Free-will/choice is impossible!

Free Will is to do or not do as you choose.

The most important thing to be Free of is your own ignorance.

Freedom of Mind brings the Chaos to Order.

[Michael McMahon]

Dreams seem to be a rearrangement of your past thoughts and memories. While dreaming, the order of events gets jumbled up. The date and time of events gets confused. One cannot remember what happened a minute ago in a dream as everything is chaotic. Perhaps an analogy would be with a transposition cipher where the identity of the characters remains unchanged, but their positions are changed to create the ciphertext. So in this case dreams function as the ciphertext and your memories would be the plaintext.

[Michael McMahon]

Could dreams be similar to a simulated virtual time travel?

"But for Friedman, the most fascinating aspect is the ability to explore philosophical questions. In a pre-print paper published in September, Friedman outlines a computational model for time travel based on automated reasoning that can track chains of causality back and forth through time...

Coding the system required Friedman to embed certain assumptions about time travel, which he says is problematic, as there is still disagreement about whether time travel is possible, impossible or only possible in a universe ordered very differently to how most physicists think it is.

He decided to simply encode a “common sense,” though most likely flawed, notion of causality into the system. But he said this opens up the intriguing possibility that physicists and philosophers could code their own theories of causality into a virtual system and explore the implications."

[Michael McMahon]

“Just as Camus talked about with the lack of intrinsic meaning in the universe, and how we must live on despite that lack of meaning, we must also accept that we are not ultimately in control of anything in our lives”.
-Daniel Miessler

Albert Camus observed that there can be an element of absurdity in our lives. In a sense we can “rebel’ against what we have been destined to do. So even if our actions are deterministic, our awareness of aspects of the absurd in the universe can lead us to be impulsive and unpredictable. Perhaps the idea of the absurd could help explain the sensation of free will. Indeed the absurd content of dreams could be relevant in this regard. Dreams could enhance our appreciation of the absurd.