And science-oriented people are suffering from the bizarre delusion that a future exists in which to make scientific predictions when there is not, nor has there ever been, any evidence of a future whatsoever...

...not to mention that any definition of anything is essentially a miniature theory of it, and without a comprehensive Theory of Theories, every single scientific experiment conducted in the history of mankind is fundamentally flawed due to the assumed infallibility of human perception and interpretation.  Forget all those operational definitions for your variables -- it's all a load of unfounded assumptions.  And then you get other scientists claiming things like "evolution is scientifically proven" when it's not even a scientific theory in the first place.

I think you guys should listen a little more to what Sovereign Investor was saying about absolutes...you might learn something.

I wouldn't discredit Sovereign Investor so fast...

Lol I was waiting for this post.  It's essentially perfect.

At a syntactic level, subject and object are fundamentally the same.

Any two relands, x and y, must always share a common medium.  If, suppose, you were to say "x and y are absolutely different from each other," then they would still share the common medium of "absolute difference."

So, if subject and object are fundamentally the same, reaching an objective conclusion about the distribution of human rights (or lack thereof) must also include a subjective component.

If someone thinks people objectively have certain rights, then they do.  But if someone else thinks people objectively do not have rights, then they don't.  It's not either/or; it's both/and, either/or, and neither/nor (depending on who is determining).  In other words, people figure out for themselves.  Neat eh?  The principle distributes to everyone (syntactically and objectively) in that they get to choose.  And, they have their own subjective opinions about the matter.

And, if it's a computational Universe, then at the highest level I would expect a sum determination, though not necessarily a utilitarian one.

Thanks!  That's good to know.  I'll learn more about it.

Figured you would.  But seriously, I love philosophical jargon like this so hard that my nuts hurt.

I agree, but to make sure I'm agreeing with I think you're saying...

Perception is the reality?  Perceived objects are the reality?  The system containing the perceiver, the act of perceiving, and the objects perceived are the reality?

What are your thoughts about being fully aware of nothing to perceive?

I simply took it as "reality is how we interpret it" in which case I give +1

It's an end in itself.  It can be described as "chosen" if one has chosen/intended to systematically dismantle the ego to let love/compassion shine through.  But really, the love and compassion is always there.  It's kind of like the sun on a cloudy day....love/compassion is the sun and all the shit the ego identifies with are the clouds.  People naturally become more loving and compassionate when their ego is passive.

PET scans show the dopamine production region lit up like a lightbulb in meditation.

Return my call when you understand EVERYTHING is linguistic.

You need to wait 116 blocks for it to show.

Congrats on solving a block!    Better hope the price doesn't drop to 0 in the next 24 hours   

I think it's a very important topic.

Yes, and I have.  I've worked with murderers at my job.

I agree completely.  However Christopher Langan has a tested IQ above 180 (he broke the ceiling on a normed IQ test administered by 20/20, the researcher was quoted to say that he's never seen anybody ever test so high in his 25 years of psychometric testing; it was published in a Popular Science magazine article called "Smartest Man in America").  And while Langan seems like kind of a dick, and while a high IQ means nothing in terms of fabricating information, my guess is that he didn't need to make up a region of the brain just to add an extra line to a 100 page book.

Compassion, yes, that's a good word for it.  It's unconditional compassion.  Why love a person who does cruel things to you?  Because wisdom can tell you that a person who does cruel things only does cruel things because they are not happy inside, or because they are ignorant, etc., and so you can begin to feel compassion for the poor state they are in.  You want them to become better, to become happier, and then they will not do such cruel things.  It is no wonder why happier people have more patience with others, are more tolerant of others, and are more willing to sacrifice their time or possessions to those who need them.

Love only causes loneliness when the ego gets involved.  The ego is what identifies with things.  The ego tells us, "Hey, I invested MY time and MY feelings and MY effort into this relationship, and now the object of my investment is gone.  NO!!!!!!!!"  But, we can systematically train the ego to sit the fuck down  

Honestly, I don't know.  I have a book called "The Art of Knowing" by Christopher Langan and he mentions it in almost the same way I mentioned it (except I believe he said it was located in the rear/top part of the brain).  Most of his writings are full of a bunch of words I've never even heard of before, but this book was specifically intended for the very casual and average reader.  My guess is that he didn't include the name not because he didn't know it, but because it was simply one of many 'scientific jargon' words that was omitted for the sake of an easy read.  I've actually wanted to know this myself, but I didn't really question it as it already aligned with what I have directly experienced (and direct experience is the purest form of knowledge).

Loneliness and love are not the same.

Only your ego makes you feel lonely when a person you love is gone for some time.

With no ego involved (the ego can be systematically dismantled, just as it has been systematically constructed throughout the course of your life), there is no requirement to feel lonely when a person you love is gone for a long time.

It depends on the frame of reference.

In normal experience, we are subjects surrounded in a world of objects.  We view these objects as conditional and we identify with certain conditions.  This is selfish experience as the self (subject) is separated from everything else (object).

In a meditative state, subject and object become one.  This is verifiable.   There is a region of the brain that allows an individual to distinguish between their self and their environment;  in meditation, activity in this region of the brain ceases such that from the meditator's perspective, he literally becomes one with his environment.  It's also subjectively testable.  "I've" had this experience on several occasions.  I put "I've" in quotes because "I" takes on an entirely different meaning in a meditative state.  It is not a human experience in any way, shape, or form. There is also no way to accurately describe it in words.

The whole matter becomes confusing to understand because there are multiple frames of reference operating simultaneously.  Love can be selfish when it is experienced in the unified frame of reference (where subject and object are the same).  Love is selfless when the subject/object dichotomy is erected.

Focus is determined, not love.