Have You Achieved Enlightenment through Meditation?

Ozimodo on 22/11/2022 - 09:17
Last edited 22/11/2022 - 09:38 by 1 other user

The world seems full of accounts of people who have achieved spiritual enlightenment through meditation. Whether that be aligned with the practices of Yoga, Buddhism or even Western religions.

My question is, does anyone here have first hand experience with this? Have you achieved what the Buddhist and Hindus call "A divine, transcendent experience. Sometimes described as a sudden, transformative moment of awakening and other times seen as a more gradual process of being liberated from the bondage of the mind."

Curious about how common this actually is and how difficult people found it is to attain. Not so much talking about glimpses of something during meditation, more about some sort of profound life-changing realization. Does that really happen?

Health & Beauty

Comments

  • Nugs on 22/11/2022 - 09:27
    +4

    poll?
    .

  • boomramada on 22/11/2022 - 09:27
    +14

    As far as I know, buddha is the only person who achieved enlightenment. Rest are try to follow his path to be a better person.

    • jv on 22/11/2022 - 09:50
      +5

      buddha is the only person who achieved enlightenment

      really???

      • boomramada on 22/11/2022 - 09:55
        +1

        You almost got me but not with that hair.

    • geek001 on 22/11/2022 - 10:08
      +3

      What about these people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_named_Buddhas

      • boomramada on 22/11/2022 - 10:16
        +1

        oh wait, I was wrong, you always learn something in Ozb :)_

      • capslock janitor on 26/11/2022 - 10:24

        What about THE Buddha, Gautama

        • aoiro on 26/11/2022 - 22:26
          +2

          Oh I saw his new trailer on Netflix, Gudetama is so cute!

    • anonymous01 on 23/11/2022 - 20:32
      +11

      I disagree. Buddha is what you can call the most famous "celebrity" of promoting enlightenment. It's not a rare phenomenon.

      Enlightenment is a simple realisation that "I" or the "EGO" does not exist. It's simply walking through a gateless gate. Once you are on the other side, everything is same as it was before, you know "Chop wood, carry water", and yet, everything is not the same. There is a brief moment, if I could call it that, between before and after enlightenment, where you see everything as it is, the veil of the mind briefly drops. I find it even hard to describe on how long it lasts, because that moment is timeless and space-less, but your life changes forever after that.

      As for OP's question, no it's not an easy process. Going through the gateless gate, or seeing your true face is pretty common, but to integrate that into your everyday life is a very painful process. You have to face all your fears, let go of all your desires/attachments etc.

      You will start seeing the world as a crazy show, good and bad will be alike, without any distinction between the both. Just like a movie, enjoy it. There will be tears, and there will be joy, until even all of that also comes to an end. Then there's 'NOTHING', a great big 'NOTHING', this is what Buddha called 'Emptiness'.

      If you want to know a bit more about it OP, I highly recommend the triology books by Jed Mckenna called "Spiritual Enlightenment, the Damnedest Thing", "Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment" and "Spiritual Warfare".

      If you are beginner, you should start with the free book "Gateless Gatecrashers" at https://www.liberationunleashed.com/books/gateless-gatecrash…

      Read more into Zen (Plenty of great masters, but I really like Dogen) and Sufism (I really like Rumi)

      Edit: Some people claim to have achieved Ego Death on psychedelics, and confuse it with enlightenment. Enlightenment has nothing to do with drugs, it doesn't even have anything to do with meditation. All that matters is how badly you want it, and it will be given to you.

      • Reggyscum on 24/11/2022 - 14:39
        +1

        I found your articulation of it accurate - from my own experience.

        Really, to question the existence of "enlightenment" is to reveal the lack of understanding of it. Once the truth is seen - there is zero doubt about it, and it is never forgotten. You no longer perceive the "normal" world of duality as you once did. You still play the game, but you know it's a game.

        One of my favourite sayings, from whom I can't remember is "He who says, does not know. He who knows, does not say."

        • Hangryuman on 24/11/2022 - 17:34

          'One of my favourite sayings, from whom I can't remember is "He who says, does not know. He who knows, does not say."'

          'He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know' - Lao Tzu according to the internet - so it must be true, right ?

        • Hangryuman on 24/11/2022 - 18:09

          having browsed the thread to date, I'll posit youse two above as the only ones that seem to me likely to have achieved satori

          plus one other I'm too lazy to find again

          meh - I'll check back later -

          in person I've only ever met one other guy who I felt might have also - he told me he'd had his motorcycle front tyre blowout at 100mph on the Nullabor Plain highway, had apparently hit something that ripped his stomach open, and crawled under a bush where he remained unconscious for a few days until someone found him and took him to hospital where they also completely reconstructed his face so he no longer looked anything like his brother - if you're reading this, hi Robin !

          • anonymous01 on 24/11/2022 - 18:59

            @Hangryuman: If you can recognise the 'Satori' in others, I assume you've also perceived it?

        • anonymous01 on 24/11/2022 - 18:12
          +1

          Once the truth is seen - there is zero doubt about it, and it is never forgotten. You no longer perceive the "normal" world of duality as you once did. You still play the game, but you know it's a game.

          I couldn't have said it better myself.

      • epic on 26/11/2022 - 13:16

        Want it, not oz bargains :-) or such, and it may be given to you.

    • shuklix on 24/11/2022 - 13:41

      trying to know more.. there are plenty, before him, after him :)

    • payless69 on 06/12/2022 - 13:31

      Every time Albo takes a bribe from me I get the ultimate ASMR sensation.
      The gift that keeps on giving, the man that takes and protects us all.
      When Scotty was holding up the Bible he kept on losing followers.
      So I traveled to Rome see the Pope. Yep they do take bribes but their organisation is so large that you never see a return.
      So I traveled to China to give to the Buddha. They told me I had not enough money to corrupt him.
      So I traveled to India to gave money to the Hari Krishnas. Yes they are greedy but they also admit it and start negotiations early.
      On to Pushkar to bribe Brahma: Oh they are not very transparent! On to meet the Dalai Lama: OMG the guy has some fan club!
      One could run out of money to find salvation! Back to the local JW's. So much easier to bribe them! On to the 7th day Adventists: Easy target but small force.
      A mate took me to the Freemasons: Wow that is an inbred brotherhood!
      Now I found my own secret society: So much ASMR I do get exhausted from it!

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 22/11/2022 - 09:32
    +34

    i found my peace when i realized that i have been watching myself from a distance my entire life rather than actually living in the moment, never really enjoying or feeling anything, an apathetic self-observer as if my life were merely television, weighed down by the existential burden of conscious self-awareness

    :')

    • wayfastwhitie on 22/11/2022 - 09:43

      very deep

      • Ozimodo on 22/11/2022 - 09:50
        +3

        Yes, but it would seem that this is a more common experience than most people would expect

    • Blahness on 22/11/2022 - 13:18

      What does watching myself from a distance mean? I wonder if I’m doing that myself?

    • peacefulpeanut on 23/11/2022 - 09:24
      +2

      Theoretically speaking, you're practicing mindfulness rather than being enlightened :-)

      • Ozimodo on 23/11/2022 - 12:24
        +1

        That's ok thought, mindfulness is probably one of manty paths to enlightenment so its a valid point

        • vinnychase on 26/11/2022 - 15:57

          A panty for your thoughts?

    • Loopholio on 23/11/2022 - 20:12
      +1

      I need to film myself reacting to this comment!

    • McSquintus on 24/11/2022 - 16:33

      Curious how you became to realise this, was it a random moment, practise (e.g., meditation) or something else?

    • Reggie74 on 04/12/2022 - 20:12

      Feels like a version of The Truman Show

  • Cheaplikethebird on 22/11/2022 - 09:32
    +6

    Do mushrooms count?

    • boomramada on 22/11/2022 - 09:35

      Death cap would reached the enlightenment faster, not sure about magic ;)

    • kaoz on 23/11/2022 - 18:42
      +4

      There are many people who believe that a psilocybin mushroom experience is equivalent to a spiritual experience brought on by deep meditation. There were even some experiments where old yogis in India had been given a strong dose of magic mushrooms and they did not notice any effects, due to their mind being used to this kind of experience. Michael Pollan described this in his book How To Change Your Mind. Very interesting read!

      EDIT: many scientists also believe that mushrooms are the root of most, if not all, modern day religions.

      • Hangryuman on 24/11/2022 - 17:36
        +3

        'many scientists also believe that mushrooms are the root of most, if not all, modern day religions'

        I don't have mushroom for that belief

  • bobbified on 22/11/2022 - 09:37
    +3

    Is Kama Sutra classified as meditation?

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 22/11/2022 - 09:43
      +16

      Nothing beats that post-nut clarity.

    • axlfan on 22/11/2022 - 10:59
      -1

      The greatest achievement of India.

    • a-friend on 24/11/2022 - 01:30
      +2

      It's considered yog, when performed to conceive a child.

      It's considered bhog, when performed for pleasure.

      • redfox1200 on 24/11/2022 - 10:07
        +2

        I took a bhog this morning, but it wasn't for pleasure.

        • Hangryuman on 25/11/2022 - 10:11
          +1

          reminds me of uni toilet graffiti - an engineering student saying taking a bhog was a similar feeling to having sex, and it cost him nothing - so way to go for engineers, right ?

    • Serapis on 24/11/2022 - 17:48
      +1

      Does jerking off count?

      You gotta stay relaxed. I myself, I jerk off at least twice a day. Once in the morning, right after I work out. And then once right after lunch.

      You gotta feed the geese to keep the blood flowing. I keep the rhythm below the belt.

      • monkeyfood on 24/11/2022 - 21:31

        yeah just don't have a big lunch

  • iNeed2Pee on 22/11/2022 - 09:37
    +4

    I Have You Achieved Enlightenment through this website reading forum posts.

    • Ozimodo on 22/11/2022 - 09:52
      +8

      Nope, but I got some good insights into what the benefits of oled tv screens are

    • yewman on 24/11/2022 - 20:11
      +1

      I haven't really been so far as to even go want to look more like

  • Adredocto on 22/11/2022 - 09:52
    +5

    I use the Calm app regularly. Got the discount lifetime sub (thanks OzB). Im far from being any good at meditation but find it is a great tool to help me take time out to just 'be' and use it regularly to help with insomnia.

    Living in the moment is particularly difficult in modern day i think. Props to anyone who is able to stick at it.

  • AustriaBargain on 22/11/2022 - 09:59
    +1

    I haven't. Am thinking of trying yoga, maybe it'll take working my body to see results.

  • ForkSnorter on 22/11/2022 - 10:03
    +7

    In my opinion enlightenment is a myth. Religions like to claim things without backing them up with evidence. People like to believe the claims because it makes them feel good.

    You can only be free of suffering (physical/emotional pain) temporarily. There is always something that is going to cause you pain or anxiety. Our instincts and our neural pathways are geared for it. Pain and suffering are the result of 3 billion years of evolution, and they are fine-tuned to ensure our survival and reproduction.

    The notion that you can have a meaningful spiritual experience that can't be put in words is, in my opinion, baloney.

    The word spiritual itself is very vague. If you felt deep feelings one day, why not just call them "deep feelings"?

    Feelings are not meaning. People feel strong emotions for all kinds of reasons. This doesn't necessarily mean they have realised something important about the universe.

    The greatest realisations you can have, in my opinion, are those that are informed by science, combined with a bit of life experience and hard thinking. These are proper factual realisations about yourself, the world, the universe, that you can explain in detail to other people.

    When I finally understood the geometry of the surface of last scattering of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the physical evidence verifying the expansion (big bang) model of the cosmos, it was quite a large realisation for me, and it has made the universe a more interesting and beautiful place, while also allowing me to put other scientific knowledge into context. I was only able to fully understand this after reading quite a number of physics books explaining various concepts, including Einstein's theories of special relativity and general relativity. And I was only able to fully understand those books after attempting to put what I had learned into my own words in a way that others could understand. It took quite a bit of mental effort.

    Probably the best way to be free of anxiety and enjoy life is to switch off your ruminating thoughts, but it's very difficult and I'm not very good at it.

    • boomramada on 22/11/2022 - 10:11
      +15

      Its not a myth, you can almost reach it, I think I'm almost there, specially when there is a deal in ozb with a price error and you get refunded. I feel so charm, collective and I can let it go.

    • Roman Sandstorm on 22/11/2022 - 11:59
      +1

      Yes. This. Humans are basically organic machines, and tend to follow pretty much deterministic pathways.

      Just about every religion which offers 'salvation', 'enlightenment', 'meaning', etc wants to control its adherents; prescribe to them what to do, how to live. And just about every shaman, witch doctor, guru, priest, etc, wants you to give them money. Even those 'wonderful, gentle' Buddhists are riddled with classism, sexism and adhere to the absurdity of karma (another means of control).

      @Fork, you sound like you listen to, (or should listen to), Sean Carroll's podcast, Mindscape.

      • ozhunter on 22/11/2022 - 21:53

        Even those 'wonderful, gentle' Buddhists are riddled with classism, sexism and adhere to the absurdity of karma

        Is that good or bad? who decides?

        (another means of control).

        What do you think about all the laws we make that have no religious reference/origins?

        • Roman Sandstorm on 23/11/2022 - 00:14
          +1

          Is that good or bad? who decides?

          I think it is bad. My opinion.

          My main point was that even the admired (by many progressives and some less 'religious' types) Buddhists have a dangerous, damaging core concept which still implies an all-knowing supernatural power.

          Thus further to the OP's initial question, I'd take the idea of 'enlightenment', and other such spiritual concepts with a healthy does of skepticism, and an open-minded and rational viewpoint.

          What do you think about all the laws
          Secular laws make no claims of enlightenment, or salvation. They make no reference to your 'soul'.

          Laws ostensibly exist for the benefit of all in a society, regardless of their belief system.

          • Ozimodo on 23/11/2022 - 12:23
            +1

            @Roman Sandstorm: I think the trick here is to separate any sort of faith from the religions that try to represent it. Sure, religions are generally flawed, that's the human condition, but it seems hasty to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It basically comes down to how convinced you are that anything that cant be scientifically measured therefore must not exist. It seems a pretty arrogant position on the part of science though

            • Roman Sandstorm on 23/11/2022 - 12:55
              -1

              @Ozimodo: @Ozimodo

              I think the trick here is to separate any sort of faith from the religions that try to represent it.

              So what are you left with? At least religions (as you suggest, admittedly flawed) attempt to provide an explanatory framework, however poorly. But just accepting an amorphous and undefined 'spirituality', or 'unseen power', or 'universal somethingorother' is just lazy and irrational thinking.

              comes down to how convinced you are that anything that cant be scientifically measured therefore must not exist

              Straw man argument. Science accepts many things that cannot be measured with instruments. There are entire fields of philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc, dealing with humans, and human behaviours. Morality or love, for example do not imply a 'soul', or 'spirits'. They are human constructs.

              seems a pretty arrogant position on the part of science though

              Always the comeback of science deniers.

              One could argue that the belief in the supernatural, without evidence is also arrogant. At least science can list a blackboard full of equations and formulae, derived from first principles to describe an object falling under gravity. The faith-based answer for this is: God (or deity of choice) makes it happen.

              • RefusdClassification on 25/11/2022 - 03:40

                @Roman Sandstorm: Science is just one of many ideologies. Ideologies aren't real, they are constructs the human mind invents in order to give power and privileges to a particular group (academics in this case). Ideologies all claim to have a monopoly on the truth and persecute those who disagree (eg science deniers). Scientists write a conclusion and then fabricate evidence or rig experiments to get the result they want. Science has never been the selfless pursuit of truth it's adherents claim. Climate scientists are the worst of them, constantly making dooms day predictions that never come true: ice age by 2000; it will snow no more; the world will run out of food and water; coastal cities will drown. These charlatans even want you to believe that cold weather is caused by global warming.

                • Ozimodo on 25/11/2022 - 11:50

                  @RefusdClassification: Nicely put. Don't forget dark matter :) it needs to exist before physics can make sense, but it's undetectable. The only reason it exists is because we made it up to cover some holes in physics. It's certainly convenient for supporting scientific dogma but is utterly undetectable. I'm ok with that, but have difficulty understanding how these same people dismiss the potential for supernatural simply because it's undetectable.

            • ForkSnorter on 23/11/2022 - 17:24
              +2

              @Ozimodo:

              I think the trick here is to separate any sort of faith from the religions that try to represent it. Sure, religions are generally flawed, that's the human condition, but it seems hasty to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It basically comes down to how convinced you are that anything that cant be scientifically measured therefore must not exist.

              Science is simply careful observation. If something can't be scientifically observed, measured, analysed, etc., this means it has no observable direct or indirect physical effect on anything in the universe. This means to you it is invisible, silent, odourless, tasteless, formless, shapeless, and has utterly no observable influence on your life. What is the difference between this and non-existence?

              It seems a pretty arrogant position on the part of science though

              Science doesn't take positions. Science is a process/method.

              • kaoz on 23/11/2022 - 18:50
                +3

                @ForkSnorter: Just my five cents but science has forever struggled to describe what the mind is. Don’t get me wrong, science over religion for me any day of the week, but we have to acknowledge that science is an ongoing undertaking and just because we can’t explain something scientifically(yet?), doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

                • Kangal on 25/11/2022 - 01:25
                  +1

                  @kaoz: There's no "science" the way people are making it out to be here. It's not tangible thing like Anthony "I am Science" Fauci.

                  What Science is, is Knowledge.
                  That's the root word. And it is a process to accrue Knowledge by slowly getting closer and closer to the truth.

                  And the way we achieve this is, we guess it. We make some observations. We look at the data. We draw conclusions. Then we make a new guess and repeat it over and over.

                  ….so far we know so much about the human mind about how little we actually know! There's too many pathways, too many variables, and too many unknowns. Nature is parsimonious. One hormone regulates many things. We don't know all the ways that make our brains tick, because it's not just about the signal but the entire cell which adds another order of complexity. We're 50+ years away from making a True AI as envisioned in Sci-fi stories, but in terms of faux-AI we've had that for decades.

            • thepigs on 24/11/2022 - 06:35
              +1

              @Ozimodo: Thats a bit harsh on science IMO. It's not that if it can't be measured it can't exist, it's that if it can be repeatably measured we can agree on something. We can find some absolute truth in the material world, for what its worth. Truth in subjective consciousness is hard as everyone's experience is unique by definition.
              Can you explain everything with science? That's where belief can creep in and open the door to fanaticism. If it helps you to believe in a higher power go for it. Just be aware its only a belief.

              • Ozimodo on 25/11/2022 - 11:54

                @thepigs: I'm ok with that, as long as the science guys understand that they are caught up in a belief system as well. Ultimate truth is a worthwhile goal, most agree on that. But religion says that this truth can only be reached through their faith/belief frameworks and science says the same thing about its frameworks. I really dont see the difference between the two, or how someone can say that absolute belief in science as the only path to truth is not a faith?

                • leiiv on 25/11/2022 - 12:10

                  @Ozimodo: It comes down to what type of things the faith are in. Let's say there is a religion thay says the earth is flat. At first science may say the same, but then it progresses and come up with a lot of proves that earth is a ball. Few religion will change their faith because of new science discovery.
                  The faith in science can change to a different frameworks as well.

      • TightLikeThisx on 25/11/2022 - 06:49

        Even those 'wonderful, gentle' Buddhists are riddled with classism, sexism and adhere to the absurdity of karma (another means of control).

        I am not going to argue that religion can and has been weaponized as a method of population control however karma can just be thought of as the deterministic chain you are experiencing.

    • trapper on 23/11/2022 - 19:13
      +3

      Think of enlightenment as the decoupling of your brain from your external senses, all those animal instincts, your ego and desires.

      So sitting in a prison cell would be no different to sitting in a luxurious mansion.

      Which is why a lot of these enlightened types end up wandering the world without possessions, or sitting in a temple all day lost in their own thoughts.

      You can cheat a bit and get a taste of this using psychedelic drugs.

    • leiiv on 23/11/2022 - 21:43
      +4

      The difference between enlightenment as a theory vs religions in general is that you can try to prove the theory yourself. Only you yourself can find the evidence by walking the path. If it does not work for you then it is just not for you. No need to have faith or to believe in something blindly.
      But just like learning anything, some people are better than the others.
      Also note that there are a lot of types of meditation and only some are about achieving enlightenment.
      Some experiences just cannot be put in words. It is not baloney. Well, it can, but it would just be like explaining to a blind man what an elephant look like. For example, you can study and come to understand (intellectually) everything about the acceleration, gravity force, etc. But there is no word can describe the experience of having to sit in a jet plane doing acrobatics.

    • zoe hart on 24/11/2022 - 15:01

      When I finally understood the geometry of the surface of last scattering of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the physical evidence verifying the expansion (big bang)

      Care to expand?

      Can you put in dumb words what your revelation was? I am really keen to have an understanding.

      • ForkSnorter on 24/11/2022 - 15:41
        +2

        As somewhere to start, I highly recommend you read this excellent and eloquent introduction to the surface of last scattering.
        https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_lss.html

        Read it slowly and read it several times if any of it doesn't make sense. If there is a term you don't understand, just look it up. You really need to understand the redshift phenomena to understand this properly.

        Then, if you want to continue, try reading "Five Photons" by James Geach.

        But if you want to understand all of this fully, you will probably need to read about 10-15 books about physics, astronomy, relativity, etc.

        • zoe hart on 24/11/2022 - 19:16

          Okkayyyy…. Thanks. For someone like me- no science background - I could make sense of parts of the article. It was written for lay person in part I think. I understood the paradox of photons simultaneously moving away whilst moving towards us (good echo analogy) I could get a miniscule understanding too that , in essence the beginning of creation (unevenness of temperature) cannot translate to an equilibrium of temperature that would make life as we know it now, possible.

          I might be interpreting right?

          Lots more to research. Thanks for the link.

          cosmic photosphere & redshift next 👍

          • ForkSnorter on 25/11/2022 - 11:05

            @zoe hart: Science is all about prediction.

            Observe phenomena → Develop theory that explains the observations → Make predictions based on the theory, or see what prediction arise from the theory → Make further observations to test the accuracy of the predictions → If the predictions were inaccurate, modify the theory and start again.

            Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted that starlight would be deflected (bent) as it passed by the sun, due by the gravity of the sun. This prediction was confirmed by observations during a total eclipse in 1919. Since then, hundreds/thousands of experiments have confirmed the predictions of Einstein's theory with absolute accuracy.

            Similarly, observations of redshifting throughout the universe led to the theory that the universe was much denser and hotter in the distant past. This was the origin of the "big bang" model (although the term "big bang" is misleading). This theory and our understanding of interactions between elementary particles predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation, which was produced by the decoupling of matter from light approximately 300,000 years after the "big bang". In the 1960s, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation was detected by accident, confirming the theory. Since then, the CMB has been examined in great detail, massively increasing our understanding of the early universe.

            I understood the paradox of photons simultaneously moving away whilst moving towards us (good echo analogy)

            There was no echo analogy. The analogy was a surface of last screaming, where you hear the screams of those closest to you, followed by those further away, followed by those even further away, creating a surface (circle) of screaming that recedes away from you at the speed of sound.

            The photons are moving away while travelling towards us because of the expansion of the space in between them and us. The universe is expanding, the expansion is speeding up, and the furthest parts are receding away from each other faster than the speed of light (the space in between them is expanding faster than the speed of light).

            This means that some areas of the universe have never had any physical interaction with each other. Not even light has crossed the distance between them. They are therefore blind to the existence of each other, and will possibly always be so. This has led to the theory of the multiverse (multiple independent universes).

            • leiiv on 25/11/2022 - 11:39

              @ForkSnorter: Yes, the prediction can easily be calculated using the math formulas.
              But at quantum level, when talking about the "why" and the implication to reality as normal people understood, science is as "difficult" to understand as myths.
              For example, try to explain why a double slit experiment results in the way it is.

            • Ozimodo on 25/11/2022 - 11:57
              +1

              @ForkSnorter: Most scientists agree with Big Bang, or something like it. Plenty dont however. I would agree that its the best theory we have now, but it still seems a bit wank

            • zoe hart on 25/11/2022 - 12:57

              @ForkSnorter: @ForkSnorter ohhhh thanks for this explanation. Actually, this whole interaction has changed my understanding & thinking of big bang.
              I thougt about science in terms of theories. Your explanation of it being predictions is better.
              I'm still calling the last screaming an echo. I accept I'm potentially inaccurate - that is how my non science brain is currently making sense, even tho I know you are way more educated.

              I will think about it more.

              Thanks again. I didn't really get the concept of the multiverse - your explanation is so clear.

              I was VERY briefly reading about inflation theory & how that could 'solve' the horizon problem - that when the universe was smaller (3x I think) then all parts might have been in contact at one point?

              The evidence might be sketchy?

              Huge thanks for your generosity in taking time to explain.

              I always thought this kind of thing was way beyond me. Obviously, my understanding is hardly anything - I'm surprised that I do actually get it.

            • trapper on 26/11/2022 - 13:06
              +1

              @ForkSnorter:

              This means that some areas of the universe have never had any physical interaction with each other. Not even light has crossed the distance between them. They are therefore blind to the existence of each other, and will possibly always be so. This has led to the theory of the multiverse (multiple independent universes).

              Some location half way to the 'edge' of our universe would have its own sphere of universe that extends far into an area that isn't a part of our sphere.

              So it's not really like there are these totally independent and separate universes. They overlap.

    • 4foxache on 27/11/2022 - 17:24

      It's pretty obvious you're very cerebral but switching off your ruminating thoughts and continuing along that path will get you closer. Switching off the thoughts or really becoming an observer of them is the first step

    • creamandpaper on 27/11/2022 - 21:20

      The greatest realisations you can have, in my opinion, are those that are informed by science, combined with a bit of life experience and hard thinking. These are proper factual realisations about yourself, the world, the universe, that you can explain in detail to other people.

      I don't think the realisation will be of any value to others though. It only has meaning because of the mental journey you took to get there.

      to me spirituality means trying to understand my emotions, my desires and thinking about how to live a good life. I currently lean towards Stoicism because it is so full of this stuff and relatively accessible

      • ForkSnorter on 02/12/2022 - 06:47

        I don't think the realisation will be of any value to others though. It only has meaning because of the mental journey you took to get there.

        Did you seriously just say that factual realisations about the world are of no value to others?

        to me spirituality means trying to understand my emotions, my desires and thinking about how to live a good life. I currently lean towards Stoicism because it is so full of this stuff and relatively accessible

        Scientific knowledge is extremely helpful in understanding emotions, desires, and how to live a good life in my opinion.

        • creamandpaper on 02/12/2022 - 13:31

          Did you seriously just say that factual realisations about the world are of no value to others?

          I don't even know what a "factual realisation" is. You realised Australia has the same population as Shanghai?

          Scientific knowledge is extremely helpful in understanding emotions, desires, and how to live a good life in my opinion.

          And I would broadly disagree, the best material on these topics have been written hundreds or thousands of years ago by great philosophers. Ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Islamic etc.

          And how on earth will science be helpful when it comes to morality and virtue?

          • ForkSnorter on 03/12/2022 - 06:27

            @creamandpaper:

            I don't even know what a "factual realisation" is. You realised Australia has the same population as Shanghai?

            It’s easier to have factual realisations if you read a lot. For example, reading about human evolution, genes, and instincts can help you understand why you tend to behave in certain ways. Behaviour is often driven by unconscious urges that increase the probability of survival and reproduction. If you examine any aspect of your behaviour or emotions, you can usually come up with a reasonable explanation for it, including how you socialise, any anxiety you have, depression/heartbreak, preferences (eg. which tastes, smells, shapes, textures, faces, body types, and environments your prefer).

            This is just one example. For help with this example, you could also read books about evolutionary psychology.

            And I would broadly disagree, the best material on these topics have been written hundreds or thousands of years ago by great philosophers. Ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Islamic etc.

            The problem is that these works are usually simply opinions or based on myths, and not evidence-based. Ancient Greek myth-based philosophy (the humors) misled western medicine for thousands of years. It’s important to exercise skepticism when reading ancient books that make bold claims without evidence,

            And how on earth will science be helpful when it comes to morality and virtue?

            In regard to mortality you could read Sam Harris’s “The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values“.

            • creamandpaper on 05/12/2022 - 17:39

              @ForkSnorter:

              This is just one example. For help with this example, you could also read books about evolutionary psychology.

              I find evolutionary psychology largely a load of crap. Psychology already struggles to be accepted as a "real" science, let alone evolutionary psychology. It's also very susceptible to interpretations the same way as religion, if Jordan Peterson is any indicator. The way he espouses what he presents as evolutionary psychology as facts is very off-putting and feels very unscientific

              The problem is that these works are usually simply opinions or based on myths, and not evidence-based. Ancient Greek myth-based philosophy (the humors) misled western medicine for thousands of years. It’s important to exercise skepticism when reading ancient books that make bold claims without evidence,

              If we are discussing ethics, morality and the path to living a "worthwhile" life, I don't see how it can ever be free of personal opinion. I don't know why we should avoid opinions, if we try break everything down to 1's and 0's we will just become robots.

              Of course, we now reach the point where we have to ask, "who cares what the right answer is". One can use religion to live virtuously, stoicism or science.

              In regard to mortality you could read Sam Harris’s “The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values“.

              From what little I know of Sam Harris (his ignorance/ bad takes when it comes to Islam), I'm not a big fan. But I'll check it out

              • ForkSnorter on 05/12/2022 - 18:49

                @creamandpaper:

                I find evolutionary psychology largely a load of crap. Psychology already struggles to be accepted as a "real" science, let alone evolutionary psychology. It's also very susceptible to interpretations the same way as religion, if Jordan Peterson is any indicator. The way he espouses what he presents as evolutionary psychology as facts is very off-putting and feels very unscientific

                Jordan Peterson is an arrogant nutcase. But evolutionary psychology is well-worth investigating. Evolution has shaped not just our bodies, but also our minds. Any argument against this statement cannot be taken seriously, in my opinion.

                You mentioned psychology struggles to be accepted as a real science. I think this understanding of psychology is very out of date. A lot of psychology is now robust science, supported by statistical evidence (scientific studies), and thorough investigation of the brain.

                From what little I know of Sam Harris (his ignorance/ bad takes when it comes to Islam), I'm not a big fan. But I'll check it out

                I don't think you can form a proper judgment of someone based on a few lines you've read in the press or a clip on YouTube, if you haven't read their work. He has always been a big critic of religion. For example, his first two books thoroughly criticised Christianity. But he means well. He is trying to persuade people to think more rationally and to question dogma, in order to make the world a better place.

            • creamandpaper on 05/12/2022 - 18:19

              @ForkSnorter: found this interesting quote about the Sam Harris book

              Dawkins: You’re facing the classic problems that moral philosophers have been facing for a long time… You appear to be bringing to those problems a new thought, which is that science, as opposed to just philosophic thinking — reason — could help. Now, moral philosophy is the application of scientific logical reasoning to moral problems. But you are actually bringing your neurobiological expertise to bear, which is a new way of doing it. Can you tell me about that, because I’m not quite clear about how doing neurophysiology adds insight into these moral problems.

              Harris: Well, I actually think that the frontier between science and philosophy actually doesn’t exist… Philosophy is the womb of the sciences. The moment something becomes experimentally tractable, then the sciences bud off from philosophy. And every science has philosophy built into it. So there is no partition in my mind.

              It seems like I won't even bother reading it. He is just co-opting moral philosophy and re-labelling it as "science"

              • ForkSnorter on 05/12/2022 - 18:41

                @creamandpaper:

                It seems like I won't even bother reading it. He is just co-opting moral philosophy and re-labelling it as "science"

                I don't see how you can conclude that you know what the book is about without reading it. This is actually not true. The book is a long argument that is well-reasoned, well-researched, and well-written. He is essentially arguing that we should use reliable evidence to guide our moral principles, instead of inconsistent statements written down thousands of years ago by people who had very little knowledge, and did not practice science.

                • creamandpaper on 06/12/2022 - 12:50

                  @ForkSnorter: well as you've read the book, would love to hear your reaction/response to this (pretty concise) article critiquing the book.

                  http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/11/sam-harris-is-w…

                  have a quick glance at the comments too if you can. Its a pretty interesting discussion.

                  You are right though, unless I read a book I don't have the right to disregard it totally. But I have limited time, and can only read so many intellectually stimulating books in a year so I have to choose wisely. But its under 300 pages which is rare for such a book, so I think I can give it a quick read

                  • ForkSnorter on 06/12/2022 - 13:16

                    @creamandpaper: It's not at all surprising that there are many critics of this book. After all, the overwhelming majority of the people on this planet are religious and believe we should get our morals from books written thousands of years ago by superstitious, racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, short-lived people who thought the world was flat and that the best treatment for any disease was to cut open the person's skin and let the blood out.

                    Furthermore, by attempting to move the discussion of morality from mainstream philosophy to science, Harris is offending philosophy academics who see this as falling within their realm.

                    I have read hundreds of those nit-picking criticisms claiming "well-being is subjective", or that it's a philosophical concept.

                    They get so carried away with this nitpicking that they fail to see Harris's fundamental argument:

                    If science can provide us with reliable information about what does and doesn't cause emotional and physical pain in sentient beings, what does and doesn't reduce/eliminate that pain, and what does and doesn't contribute to subjective happiness/life satisfaction and human flourishing, then it is immoral to ignore that information.

                    It's such basic common sense, I have difficulty taking anyone seriously when they argue against it.

                    • creamandpaper on 06/12/2022 - 14:46

                      @ForkSnorter: I think you are being a little harsh there. The obvious flaw in Harris' argument is the questioning science (especially the science existing in our lifetime) is capable of giving us absolute answers. At the end of the day, any results that science gives us will not be in a single unit (i.e AUD $$), and the process of "converting" results will be largely unscientific

                      I made up that last point of conversion, but hope it makes sense.

                      I think most people would 100% agree with Harris' basic idea, its not that radical at its core and similar things like Ethical Altruisim and Utilitarianism exist. But what riles some people up is Harris' claim that this is THE answer, and all others are wrong. That science can lead us to the absolute truth.

                      Just thinking about this stuff is super stimulating so I'm gonna take a break. But I'll try read the book in the next few weeks and give you my own thoughts that aren't reliant on others

                      • ForkSnorter on 06/12/2022 - 16:10

                        @creamandpaper:

                        The obvious flaw in Harris' argument is the questioning science (especially the science existing in our lifetime) is capable of giving us absolute answers.

                        I think you are slightly misrepresenting his argument. To answer your criticism here, I'm going to quote directly from Harris's book, so you can see the kind of language he uses:

                        "While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known about it. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical. Clearly, such insights could help us to improve the quality of human life - and this is where academic debate ends and choices affecting the lives of millions of people begin.

                        I am not suggesting we are guaranteed to resolve every controversy through science. Differences of opinion will remain - but opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts. And it is important to realise that our inability to answer a question says nothing about whether the question itself has an answer."

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join