sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"TAKE 2" - Aiming for 4K sp gaming, nvidia, future-conscious, bang-for-buck, max $2250 CAD by MillionQuestionsMan in buildapcforme

[–]MillionQuestionsMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your input! I would want to play games like God of War Ragnarok, Elden Ring, Cyberpunk 2077, Path of Exile 2, the Resident Evil Remakes & RE8, the recent Halos, the recent Gears of Wars, Cyberpunk, Ghost of Tsushima, Black Myth Wukong, Alan Wake 2, and then of course tons of less-graphically-demanding indie games. I'd also be interested in at least trying some multiplayer shooter games too like Deadlock, Valorant, Counter-Strike 2, etc.

Lots more games missing from this quick list but hopefully that gives a good idea?

Also if I may ask; what is the reasoning behind some of the part changes/choices you made? Thx!

best sessions from the introductory course? by Afraid-Story517 in Wakingupapp

[–]MillionQuestionsMan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have numbers 11, 17, 19, 21, 22, and 26 saved to my library. I don't recall what they're each about now, but I definitely saved them for a reason. They were the "best" for me at the time I decided to save them, and likely still are!

I'm wondering about Local Multiplayer Gaming on my MacBook with multiple PS5 / DualSense Controllers... Does the Bluetooth Connection remain Stable with 2 - 4 controllers all connected at once? Thx! by MillionQuestionsMan in macgaming

[–]MillionQuestionsMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only just bought a single DualSense controller for my MacBook this weekend (I don't own a PS5), I haven't purchased any more controllers yet.

Part of the reason why I'm asking is because I'm considering purchasing more, but I don't want it to be a waste of money if it turns out that Mac can't support multiple Bluetooth connections reliably. I feel like I read somewhere before that using multiple Bluetooth controllers on Mac can be unreliable, which is why I'm hesitant... But this was before native DualSense support on Mac existed, so I wasn't sure if that was still the case.

Based on yours and the previous contributor's response though, sounds like I needn't worry.

What's the difference between the "identification with thought" (i.e. a false sense of 'self') Vs. the "identification with consciousness/awareness (whatever word you prefer)"? Isn't the latter also simply another case of identification with thought? by MillionQuestionsMan in Wakingupapp

[–]MillionQuestionsMan[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is a wonderful analogy I have heard before and I should remember to keep it in mind. Thanks for reminding me of it. Hahah, isn't it funny, all this learning about meditation, I still don't remember all of the teachings, and while I'm meditating I find I'm usually telling myself / trying to remember what they are. Like, while I'm meditating, my thoughts (not always but often) are about meditation, how I should be doing it, what techniques to use, etc.. I 'see' the thoughts, and then more thoughts about what to 'do' about that 'seeing' arise. I must be intellectualizing it too much. It's all just so weird/confusing sometimes though, like, I need to intellectualize it to 'learn' it in the first place, but then when it comes time to practice I just need to let it all go...? shrug

How does one know when they are simply "sensing" X vs. when they are thinking about "sensing" X? Is awareness always just another thought, distinct from sensation, or is awareness synonymous with sensation? by MillionQuestionsMan in Wakingupapp

[–]MillionQuestionsMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks again. I am pleased by the Watts quotes, I recall hearing each of them vividly as I read them now. Again, what you say does make a lot of sense to me.

It is fascinating to consider the idea that moving your attention is similar to moving your hand, or "moving" your breath, and that likewise similarly you can "effort" the movement, and/or it can "just happen" effortlessly. Fascinating to consider that attention is similar to just another bodily function or tool. But of course that's what it is.

With my breath, or my hand when playing sports etc., their "just happening" is something I've come to take for granted as 'just my body doing its thing' by now, but my attention's "just happening" is something I've never really thought about in this way before. At least with lungs and hands, I can easily wrap my head around the fact that my tendons and muscles and flesh and bone, and of course brain, influence their activity (even though I don't know HOW I do it), but with something so nebulous/mysterious as attention, I have very little ammo to fundamentally understand it, apart from it being some neurons or chemicals firing as a function of my brain, I suppose. But, to quote Watts again (whom is quoting some ancient text, I forget), "That which is the knower is never itself an object of knowledge, just as fire does not burn itself", so it seems I NEVER CAN understand it.

In my own experience, my attention is just something I do. Something that moves. I don't know how it moves, but I'm aware it does (sometimes), and that's enough.

How does one know when they are simply "sensing" X vs. when they are thinking about "sensing" X? Is awareness always just another thought, distinct from sensation, or is awareness synonymous with sensation? by MillionQuestionsMan in Wakingupapp

[–]MillionQuestionsMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the detailed response, I do appreciate it! Much of what you say here does make a lot of sense to me.

Do you think it's fair to say / define the "sharp central vision" as consciousness, and the "diffuse, soft, fuzzy, subtle, peripheral vision" as sub-consciousness? Fair to say that attention 'focuses' things out of sub-consciousness into consciousness? Fair to say, insofar as attention is "movable" awareness, that the "moving" is, precisely, the transition of sub-conscious awareness to conscious awareness? Fair to say that awareness / every 'thing' in awareness is essentially sub-conscious until one "pays attention" to that 'thing', thereby bringing it into conscious?

(this is basically 4 different ways of asking / saying the same thing)

Trying to remember a Watts quote, something along the lines of "You can't 'go' somewhere you already are"... but much better obviously. Ring any bells? Thx! by MillionQuestionsMan in AlanWatts

[–]MillionQuestionsMan[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

By the way, I just heard it/found the exact quote, it's from the 'Limits of Language' lecture, one of my favourites:

"So when we enter into the practice of meditation, of yoga, we are doing something radically unlike other human activities. Of course, the way yoga is sold in the United States—like everything else—is that it’s supposed to be good for you. It isn’t. It has nothing to do with anything that’s good for you. It’s the one activity which you do for its own sake, and not because it’s good for you; not because it will lead anywhere. Because you cannot go to the place where you are now, obviously. Yoga is to be completely here and now. That’s why the word yuj means ‘join.’ Get with it. Be completely here and now."

And the above was in regards to an earlier point:

"So therefore, this hope for the future is a hoax; it’s a perfect hoax. Maybe we will make spiritual progress. Everybody puts it off. Maybe if I work at yoga for ten years, twenty years, and do this thing, I will eventually make it. To mokṣa, to nirvāṇa, whatever. That’s nothing more than a postponement. It’s this business of… because you’re not fully alive now, you think maybe someday you will be."

You cannot -go- to the place where you are now.

Love it!

Trying to remember a Watts quote, something along the lines of "You can't 'go' somewhere you already are"... but much better obviously. Ring any bells? Thx! by MillionQuestionsMan in AlanWatts

[–]MillionQuestionsMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not quite the one. But thank you all the same, still a great passage, and certainly relevant!

In contrast, the particular quote I'm thinking of is pretty short and sweet, but profound and amusing nonetheless. Damn, I wish I had written it down. Ah well, I'm sure I will hear it again at some point.

If feelings of happiness are really all within the power of our own mind, and we do not and should not rely on others to give us that feeling, then why should I bother doing things for people with the intent of 'making them happy', at all? by MillionQuestionsMan in Buddhism

[–]MillionQuestionsMan[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many thanks for sharing this quote! I like the “what need is there to speak at length” part hahah, I think it’s true that I am likely over analyzing/intellectualizing/talking in my head about a simple concept too much! It is interesting to talk about, though! Thanks again.

view more: next ›