PDA

View Full Version : Body acting on consciousness


BurningBush
20-01-2014, 08:50 AM
I just had a thought. I realized that I've been acting under the assumption that my mind (or consciousness or whatever) has been unhealthy and that this whole spiritual process that I've been going through has been in an effort to clean up my mind.

Is it possible that my mind has always functioning properly, but that my body is unhealthy and has given it bad inputs? Here's an example: I went out for lunch in the middle of the workday the other day and I noticed that everything around me had a striking clarity that I had not seen for a long time. I'm talking about an actual visual effect. In seeing this, I realized that the sense of derealization that I had been feeling for a long time was diminished and I wondered if it were possible that this sense of derealization had come about, at least in part, because of fuzzy visual inputs.

Could it be that my consciousness has been drawing perfectly reasonable conclusions about the world it has found itself in and that to change the world around me, I must change the lens, i.e., the body?

Identification as consciousness + realization of the independence and blamelessness of consciousness = freedom and happiness?

Thoughts?

Rawnrr
20-01-2014, 12:06 PM
Consciousness is clear.
The mind is the medium between the consciousness and the body/physical world.
If your body and mind is healthy your consciousness can act clearly through you. But you can have blocks in both your body and mind that cloud it's clarity.
With a healthy body, you will have clear inputs to the world around you.
The mind can still cloud these with blocks like "past judgements" on things. Once the mind has made judgements, it tends to skip over new input, and the connection never gets made to the clear consciousness.
Sometimes we have spontaneous moments of clarity where we , for whatever reason, drop a number of our mental blocks and can see the world in a new light. Being able to keep that vision is the work we have to do.

BlueSky
20-01-2014, 02:26 PM
You are that which allows change. To change the world, all that needs to be done is to allow it to happen. Allow doing, allow doing nothing....whatever arises in you.

Mr Interesting
20-01-2014, 06:23 PM
I've seen people, lots actually, with very healthy bodies who are basically very dumb and vice versa people with unhealthy bodies wracked by sickness with expressly clear minds and what kinda strikes me about that is not the health of the mind or the body being the reason for each but the health of the interplay between the two which is usually about the emotions.

So the body healthy and dumb heads always tend to be people who go nuts emotionally in crisis as if the normal calm that allows them to follow health is only a thin membrane of control which is ripped open under stress and they become screaming children but the people who have wisdom atop a sick body seemed to have mastered the emotional stresses that caused their sickness and are calmly finding a way clear.

I am with Tolle these days that the mind creates emotions in the body or that the emotions are the bodies reaction to the mind and that emotions not resolved will store in the body, whilst also feeding back into the mind to keep specific thought trains alive, and eventually become ill health.

This though is the concept in it's simplest form and the intricacies are a little more the subtleties of the interplay.

Adept
20-01-2014, 06:28 PM
Consciousness comes from the brain first, which is why brain issues proceed conscious issues. Your brain must function "properly" first.

BlueSky
20-01-2014, 07:57 PM
Consciousness comes from the brain first, which is why brain issues proceed conscious issues. Your brain must function "properly" first.
Are not plants conscious to some level? Rocks? Trees?

BurningBush
20-01-2014, 07:58 PM
Consciousness comes from the brain first, which is why brain issues proceed conscious issues. Your brain must function "properly" first.

Hey, at least someone here is willing to start with a reasonable approach.

What I was trying to get at is that consciousness or rather my capacity for consciousness as a distinct function of "me" was working properly even if the inputs to consciousness, i.e., the contents of consciousness were sourced from an improperly functioning body and not fully representative of the external world. At first glance, it might appear that there is no difference, but if anything, the difference is about identification. If one could step back and see that he is independent from the contents of his experience, perhaps a greater level of freedom could be had. Perhaps a fear of inaccurate experience creates the experience of inaccurate experience (yes, that's how I meant it).

BlueSky
20-01-2014, 08:24 PM
Hey, at least someone here is willing to start with a reasonable approach.

What I was trying to get at is that consciousness or rather my capacity for consciousness as a distinct function of "me" was working properly even if the inputs to consciousness, i.e., the contents of consciousness were sourced from an improperly functioning body and not fully representative of the external world. At first glance, it might appear that there is no difference, but if anything, the difference is about identification. If one could step back and see that he is independent from the contents of his experience, perhaps a greater level of freedom could be had. Perhaps a fear of inaccurate experience creates the experience of inaccurate experience (yes, that's how I meant it).
How can there be a reasonable approach to something you don't know the answer to. Sounds like you are ruling out possibilities, in which case you can only find what you want to find. No?

Adept
20-01-2014, 08:24 PM
Are not plants conscious to some level? Rocks? Trees?

I thought we were talking "human consciousness"; logic, thought, etc. In the context of this thread plants do not qualify. However if we are using the definition "awareness" then yes, plants react to their environments.

Adept
20-01-2014, 08:29 PM
Hey, at least someone here is willing to start with a reasonable approach.

What I was trying to get at is that consciousness or rather my capacity for consciousness as a distinct function of "me" was working properly even if the inputs to consciousness, i.e., the contents of consciousness were sourced from an improperly functioning body and not fully representative of the external world. At first glance, it might appear that there is no difference, but if anything, the difference is about identification. If one could step back and see that he is independent from the contents of his experience, perhaps a greater level of freedom could be had. Perhaps a fear of inaccurate experience creates the experience of inaccurate experience (yes, that's how I meant it).

I think I see what you are talking about. Are you saying that, to the less biased, experience is less defining? For example, I've had mystical experiences but when you look at it objectively you can explain it without mysticism.

Not sure if this is your point. I feel like you're pointing out that, say, someone with depression can overcome the thoughts being caused by their chemical imbalance if they understand objectively what is happening to them. Am I at all on the right page?

BlueSky
20-01-2014, 08:35 PM
I thought we were talking "human consciousness"; logic, thought, etc. In the context of this thread plants do not qualify. However if we are using the definition "awareness" then yes, plants react to their environments.
When I look, I see no difference between consciousness and awareness. It sounded like you were saying awareness requires a brain. this was why I brought up plants.

Adept
20-01-2014, 08:43 PM
When I look, I see no difference between consciousness and awareness. It sounded like you were saying awareness requires a brain. this was why I brought up plants.

Ah, apologies for the confusion, I differentiate just because consciousness is poorly defined.

Mr Interesting
20-01-2014, 08:54 PM
How can there be a reasonable approach to something you don't know the answer to. Sounds like you are ruling out possibilities, in which case you can only find what you want to find. No?

Indeed, if we decide from the outset that the questions be defined before we understand the nature of the questions then we will only have the same answers we've always had.

Tests done under scientific rigours have ascertained that outside influences are reacted to from the heart first with the brain being somewhat behind.

Chicken or the egg reasoning is silly.

BurningBush
20-01-2014, 09:10 PM
I think I see what you are talking about. Are you saying that, to the less biased, experience is less defining? For example, I've had mystical experiences but when you look at it objectively you can explain it without mysticism.

Not sure if this is your point. I feel like you're pointing out that, say, someone with depression can overcome the thoughts being caused by their chemical imbalance if they understand objectively what is happening to them. Am I at all on the right page?

Ultimately, I'm talking about identification, which I think you're also talking about from a slightly different angle. On identification, two people could witness the same event, for example someone hurting someone else, and person A could feel guilt for not having done something while person B could feel no guilt at all if he does not feel responsible for the actions of the offender. We could dig deeper into that, but that's what I mean in general.

I was specifically referring to derealization since that's a big thing I have to deal with, but the same could be said for depression or other problems. In the case of mysticism, it's much easier to step back and see that mystical experiences are not necessarily connected to the everyday physical world and because of that it's easy for us to dismiss them (although we might feel a little weird about having them). In other words, mystical experiences are seemingly compartmentalized. However, derealization or depression could be ingrained in everything we experience, including what's in our everyday life. I have what I would call mystical experiences on a regular basis and having them does not lead me to question whether I am able to correctly experience reality, whereas derealization and, to a lesser extent, depression does. Maybe others experience this differently and maybe mystical experiences and derealization and depression are part of a common spectrum.

As far as the difference between what you were saying and what I was talking about (although I didn't specifically spell it out), I'm talking about seeing that I don't have to identify with the less-than-perfect contents of my experience. In my experience and reflection, I generally don't think that making a rational case can do anything when it comes to easing the grip of a belief. To use your example of depression, I think that part of scope of depression is negative belief about oneself with the implication that oneself is to blame. If that belief is deeply ingrained, it won't budge when faced with "rational" evidence that it is some other cause that is to blame. In general, I think that the best you can do is face the belief repeatedly until you get close enough to see that it can be released.

silent whisper
20-01-2014, 09:26 PM
I just had a thought. I realized that I've been acting under the assumption that my mind (or consciousness or whatever) has been unhealthy and that this whole spiritual process that I've been going through has been in an effort to clean up my mind.

Is it possible that my mind has always functioning properly, but that my body is unhealthy and has given it bad inputs?


Here's an example: I went out for lunch in the middle of the workday the other day and I noticed that everything around me had a striking clarity that I had not seen for a long time. I'm talking about an actual visual effect. In seeing this, I realized that the sense of derealization that I had been feeling for a long time was diminished and I wondered if it were possible that this sense of derealization had come about, at least in part, because of fuzzy visual inputs.

Clarity works on all levels of the view.

Could it be that my consciousness has been drawing perfectly reasonable conclusions about the world it has found itself in and that to change the world around me, I must change the lens, i.e., the body?

You are what you eat they say, you are what you see perhaps? Or maybe things we see are just what they are, until other things get involved in the view and we draw their own conclusions. Perhaps eating fits this too.:wink:

Identification as consciousness + realization of the independence and blamelessness of consciousness = freedom and happiness?

My son the other night blamed me for his feelings of anger. I said to him your feelings are how you feel in response to what I am sharing with you. You can blame me, but I don't actually feel that blame. He walked away not sure what to say from their on in...There is freedom in that space of seeing things as they are and knowing in the truth of you and the external world as one.



Thoughts?

...........

Adept
20-01-2014, 09:28 PM
Indeed, if we decide from the outset that the questions be defined before we understand the nature of the questions then we will only have the same answers we've always had.

Tests done under scientific rigours have ascertained that outside influences are reacted to from the heart first with the brain being somewhat behind.

Chicken or the egg reasoning is silly.

The (human) consciousness and brain is not chicken and egg reasoning. Besides, the egg obviously comes first.

silent whisper
20-01-2014, 09:34 PM
The (human) consciousness and brain is not chicken and egg reasoning. Besides, the egg obviously comes first.

Why did the egg cross the road?

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 12:57 AM
The (human) consciousness and brain is not chicken and egg reasoning. Besides, the egg obviously comes first.

May not be as obvious as you think.....The brain exists as a medium between the consciousness and the physical world, so as such the consciousness came first. The brain is a device that grew and evolved to further experience this consciousness.

(yeah..I didnt start that other thread yet.......but it seems you are finding a vehicle for your perspective ;) )

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 01:01 AM
May not be as obvious as you think.....The brain exists as a medium between the consciousness and the physical world, so as such the consciousness came first. The brain is a device that grew and evolved to further experience this consciousness.

(yeah..I didnt start that other thread yet.......but it seems you are finding a vehicle for your perspective ;) )
That is not what I see when I look but regardless, what about plants?

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 01:53 AM
Capacity, this is so three weeks ago, but how do you know that plants are conscious? When I go to the grocery store and I step in front of the door, it opens automatically. Is the door conscious?

Adept
21-01-2014, 02:01 AM
May not be as obvious as you think.....The brain exists as a medium between the consciousness and the physical world, so as such the consciousness came first. The brain is a device that grew and evolved to further experience this consciousness.

(yeah..I didnt start that other thread yet.......but it seems you are finding a vehicle for your perspective ;) )

I have trouble calling consciousness "awareness". In this sense even rocks are "conscious", you kick it and it moves. Plants are conscious as they take in sunlight or shoot out spikes or secrete poison. Human consciousness is far different; self awareness, reasoning, things of that nature. This human consciousness stems from the brain.

As far as chickens and eggs, if we say it is a chicken only after it's hatched then the egg is first, laid by an ancestor with a genetic mutation that makes one a"chicken". Otherwise they came simeltaneously.

Adept
21-01-2014, 02:02 AM
Capacity, this is so three weeks ago, but how do you know that plants are conscious? When I go to the grocery store and I step in front of the door, it opens automatically. Is the door conscious?

If we define consciousness as awareness then pretty much, yeah. That's why I think it's silly to do so.

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 02:20 AM
If we define consciousness as awareness then pretty much, yeah. That's why I think it's silly to do so.

The door doesn't have to be aware in order to open. It's simply motion initiated by an external force. You wouldn't call the door aware if you opened it by hand, would you? Instead of opening by hand, the automatic door receives an infrared signal which triggers a jolt of electricity, which runs through some kind of motor, which opens the door, or something like that. The point is that all of these are physical processes and at no point does the door need to be aware of what it is doing.

Another possibility is that the door is in fact aware, but has no ability to communicate it to you.

The only thing any of us really know about consciousness as the are in possession of it. The rest is taken on belief, faith, or some combination of the two.

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 02:30 AM
The door doesn't have to be aware in order to open. It's simply motion initiated by an external force. You wouldn't call the door aware if you opened it by hand, would you? Instead of opening by hand, the automatic door receives an infrared signal which triggers a jolt of electricity, which runs through some kind of motor, which opens the door, or something like that. The point is that all of these are physical processes and at no point does the door need to be aware of what it is doing.

Another possibility is that the door is in fact aware, but has no ability to communicate it to you.

The only thing any of us really know about consciousness as the are in possession of it. The rest is taken on belief, faith, or some combination of the two.
Not so. I don't know that I am in possession of anything. I am it. I can see that. How's that, is still so 3 weeks ago? Lol

Adept
21-01-2014, 02:30 AM
The door doesn't have to be aware in order to open. It's simply motion initiated by an external force. You wouldn't call the door aware if you opened it by hand, would you? Instead of opening by hand, the automatic door receives an infrared signal which triggers a jolt of electricity, which runs through some kind of motor, which opens the door, or something like that. The point is that all of these are physical processes and at no point does the door need to be aware of what it is doing.

Another possibility is that the door is in fact aware, but has no ability to communicate it to you.

The only thing any of us really know about consciousness as the are in possession of it. The rest is taken on belief, faith, or some combination of the two.

We know plenty about human consciousness. The door example was moronic, forgive me I have insomnia. Plants still hold though, they react with their environment. Even with animals though, brains or nervous systems precede consciousness. All evidence supports brain before "higher" consciousness, and none the opposite.

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 02:35 AM
If we define consciousness as awareness then pretty much, yeah. That's why I think it's silly to do so.
But see "we" are not defining anything, we are it. Who is this "we"?

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 02:38 AM
We know plenty about human consciousness. The door example was moronic, forgive me I have insomnia. Plants still hold though, they react with their environment. Even with animals though, brains or nervous systems precede consciousness. All evidence supports brain before "higher" consciousness, and none the opposite.
So then a baby has lower consciousness than an adult?

Adept
21-01-2014, 02:49 AM
So then a baby has lower consciousness than an adult?

Of course they do.

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 03:00 AM
Of course they do.
The Aware space that is the source of all that arises in it is what this awareness here is. I'm pretty sure a baby is there already. I see what I am and consciousness and awareness are words only attempting to define(limit ) that which is before words.
In the words of Forest Gump " that's all I have to say about that"

Adept
21-01-2014, 03:30 AM
The Aware space that is the source of all that arises in it is what this awareness here is. I'm pretty sure a baby is there already. I see what I am and consciousness and awareness are words only attempting to define(limit ) that which is before words.
In the words of Forest Gump " that's all I have to say about that"

Babies aren't self aware, they can't make conscious correlations between things, can't reason, they aren't fully conscious at our level until many years after birth. That's why developmental psychology is one of the most important fields. I have no idea what this "aware space" is, sounds kinda new agey to me.

wstein
21-01-2014, 03:50 AM
Your consciousness, mind, AND body are, from a spiritual view, your 'tools'. All tools ALWAYS provide limited and flawed 'input' (experience) to your spirit/soul. As for most people, those three tools interact, its very possible for one or all to misled the others (and itself).

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 03:51 AM
New agey? What's that exactly?

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 04:03 AM
Your consciousness, mind, AND body are, from a spiritual view, your 'tools'. All tools ALWAYS provide limited and flawed 'input' (experience) to your spirit/soul. As for most people, those three tools interact, its very possible for one or all to misled the others (and itself).
From the point of view of "you" looking, be it your consciousness, your body, your soul, everything is misleading. You are not you. You are that which you arises from. The space in which all things arise.

Adept
21-01-2014, 04:03 AM
New agey? What's that exactly?

New agey? Just kinda pseudo-occult / pseudo-science. Like quantum mysticism. That's just how the term seemed to me. If an evolved brain is necessary for high consciousness then all things cannot rise from consciousness.

Adept
21-01-2014, 04:04 AM
From the point of view of "you" looking, be it your consciousness, your body, your soul, everything is misleading. You are not you. You are that which you arises from. The space in which all things arise.

Why can't you be both?

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 04:10 AM
How's that, is still so 3 weeks ago? Lol

Because I pretty much resolved the questions I was asking in a way that was satisfactory to me. It's all in the "Problem of Perception" thread.

We know plenty about human consciousness. The door example was moronic, forgive me I have insomnia. Plants still hold though, they react with their environment. Even with animals though, brains or nervous systems precede consciousness. All evidence supports brain before "higher" consciousness, and none the opposite.

I assure you that the door example is not moronic. Unreasonable, maybe, but consciousness is not detectible in the physical world. There's a difference between, for example, brain activity, which is detectible in the physical world, and consciousness, which is not, even if one causes the other. Consciousness is the non-physical medium through which the physical world is experienced.

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 04:11 AM
Your consciousness, mind, AND body are, from a spiritual view, your 'tools'. All tools ALWAYS provide limited and flawed 'input' (experience) to your spirit/soul. As for most people, those three tools interact, its very possible for one or all to misled the others (and itself).

Just curious - how do you define the soul?

Adept
21-01-2014, 04:26 AM
Because I pretty much resolved the questions I was asking in a way that was satisfactory to me. It's all in the "Problem of Perception" thread.



I assure you that the door example is not moronic. Unreasonable, maybe, but consciousness is not detectible in the physical world. There's a difference between, for example, brain activity, which is detectible in the physical world, and consciousness, which is not, even if one causes the other. Consciousness is the non-physical medium through which the physical world is experienced.

Consciousness is detectable though.

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 04:33 AM
Why can't you be both?
Look at what is looking. That's you, now look at your dog or the mirror, look out and see that it is not you that you are looking at and yet you hold it, you are the space for it. It is the I am before Abraham was, it is the emptiness, the void talked about in the Tao, by the Buddha. It is the space that holds atoms together. It is what we are. Look at what is looking. Don't take my word for it.

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 04:41 AM
Consciousness is detectable though.

How so? I'm not talking about brain activity or physical movement. I'm talking about the capacity to experience.

Adept
21-01-2014, 05:24 AM
Look at what is looking. That's you, now look at your dog or the mirror, look out and see that it is not you that you are looking at and yet you hold it, you are the space for it. It is the I am before Abraham was, it is the emptiness, the void talked about in the Tao, by the Buddha. It is the space that holds atoms together. It is what we are. Look at what is looking. Don't take my word for it.

Interesting take. But it doesn't seem to explain why I can't be "I" AND that which creates me.

Adept
21-01-2014, 05:25 AM
How so? I'm not talking about brain activity or physical movement. I'm talking about the capacity to experience.

Haha, but that's how you measure the ability to experience. Brain scans, blood pressure measurements, physiological tests.

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 07:17 AM
Haha, but that's how you measure the ability to experience. Brain scans, blood pressure measurements, physiological tests.

None of these things actually measure the capacity to experience. Experience is non-physical. These things are physical. You can't measure something that's non-physical. You can only experience it yourself. Likewise, the physical world lies on the other side of experience so you can't know its true nature from within experience because of the potential limits of perception.

What you're talking about is an assumption that you're apparently not willing to question, which is that certain movements or bodily activities are indicative of consciousness in others, but this is just belief, faith, speculation, or the like. I'm not saying that it's not true, I'm just saying that it's not founded in certain knowledge the way that your own consciousness is founded in certain knowledge from your point of view.

Adept
21-01-2014, 07:49 AM
None of these things actually measure the capacity to experience. Experience is non-physical. These things are physical. You can't measure something that's non-physical. You can only experience it yourself. Likewise, the physical world lies on the other side of experience so you can't know its true nature from within experience because of the potential limits of perception.

What you're talking about is an assumption that you're apparently not willing to question, which is that certain movements or bodily activities are indicative of consciousness in others, but this is just belief, faith, speculation, or the like. I'm not saying that it's not true, I'm just saying that it's not founded in certain knowledge the way that your own consciousness is founded in certain knowledge from your point of view.

If you're pointing out I can't share your experiences then yes, obviously, I'm on board. But without the physical you'd never have the experiences. Touch, taste, smell, feel, hearing, thought, chemical reactions, these are all aspects of "experience".

wstein
21-01-2014, 08:38 AM
Just curious - how do you define the soul? I'm not distinguishing soul from spirit here. The soul is the formless (unmanifest) aspect of a being. As in, a spiritual being having a human experience (incarnation). The soul is outside manifest reality (that of form, matter, energy, time, etc). The soul comes from the part of reality where things are conceptual possibilities rather than substance and happenings.

wstein
21-01-2014, 08:41 AM
But without the physical you'd never have the experiences. Touch, taste, smell, feel, hearing, thought, chemical reactions, these are all aspects of "experience". Correct. More or less that is why souls choose to incarnate.

Really, experience is not at all 'necessary'. It affords a certain perspective that illuminates certain things. However, it has lots of limitations and drawbacks.

wstein
21-01-2014, 08:47 AM
Interesting take. But it doesn't seem to explain why I can't be "I" AND that which creates me. When you look in a mirror, you don't say the reflection is you (also).

Adept
21-01-2014, 08:51 AM
When you look in a mirror, you don't say the reflection is you (also).

But you do, it's a reflection of yourself. Mirrors exist so you can see yourself...

A human Being
21-01-2014, 10:51 AM
But you do, it's a reflection of yourself. Mirrors exist so you can see yourself...
But a reflection isn't the thing itself, it's a representation of the thing. It's more accurate to say that mirrors exist so you can see a reflection of yourself.

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 11:37 AM
But a reflection isn't the thing itself, it's a representation of the thing. It's more accurate to say that mirrors exist so you can see a reflection of yourself.

And it's not entirely that either. It is a reflection of what others call you seen from 3 feet away. This you looks completely different under a microscope or from space. The experience of you is as the source of what people call you.

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 11:45 AM
When u look in the mirror with your attention on what is looking, u see you looking and everything else arising in you like you are the space for what you see to be.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 01:07 PM
Wow this thread grew as I slept.
Here are some points for thought I would like to throw in.

As I see it, the capacity for something has to exist before it's manifestation.
For the brain to grow and evolve as it has over time, the consciousness that gets filtered through it already had to be in place as (for lack of better words) an energy in the universe. We as living creatures evolved eyes so that we could percieve lightwaves. It would not follow any logic to believe that light waves did not exist before we had eyes.
The same is true for sound waves, they obviously existed before we developed the sensitive membranes to pick up on them which eventually evolved into our ears. Even from a techical perspective, we could not develop radios if radio waves were not already there, we just needed a device with the right sensitivities to pick up on them.

It does not follow any logic (to me) that a brain could form and then develop consciousness, in order for such a precise tool to evolve, it must evolve around a capacity that is already there to push its specific evolution.

The brain is simply a filter through which consciousness can interact with our physical manifestation in this world. The same way our eyes filter light waves so that we can percieve them in our physical manifestation.
As our brain grows and evolves, more and more aspects of consciousness are able to be experienced.

Unlike eyes or ears, the connection of consciousness to the brain is more direct, it does not have that intermediatory device. Perhaps because the consciousness is the point of realization for our experience of life. The experience of the senses interacts with the consciousness at this one point to give us our identity in the physical manifest world. It gives us our awareness of life.

Awareness is the point where the consciousness (and the experience of the other senses) interacts with the brain. We can only be aware of things we have the capacity to experience. If we go blind, we no longer have the tools to be aware of the same spectrum of light as others do. We can be conscious that light exists, but we no longer have the awareness of those spectrums.

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 01:23 PM
Wow this thread grew as I slept.
Here are some points for thought I would like to throw in.

As I see it, the capacity for something has to exist before it's manifestation.
For the brain to grow and evolve as it has over time, the consciousness that gets filtered through it already had to be in place as (for lack of better words) an energy in the universe. We as living creatures evolved eyes so that we could percieve lightwaves. It would not follow any logic to believe that light waves did not exist before we had eyes.
The same is true for sound waves, they obviously existed before we developed the sensitive membranes to pick up on them which eventually evolved into our ears. Even from a techical perspective, we could not develop radios if radio waves were not already there, we just needed a device with the right sensitivities to pick up on them.

It does not follow any logic (to me) that a brain could form and then develop consciousness, in order for such a precise tool to evolve, it must evolve around a capacity that is already there to push its specific evolution.

The brain is simply a filter through which consciousness can interact with our physical manifestation in this world. The same way our eyes filter light waves so that we can percieve them in our physical manifestation.
As our brain grows and evolves, more and more aspects of consciousness are able to be experienced.

Unlike eyes or ears, the connection of consciousness to the brain is more direct, it does not have that intermediatory device. Perhaps because the consciousness is the point of realization for our experience of life. The experience of the senses interacts with the consciousness at this one point to give us our identity in the physical manifest world. It gives us our awareness of life.

Awareness is the point where the consciousness (and the experience of the other senses) interacts with the brain. We can only be aware of things we have the capacity to experience. If we go blind, we no longer have the tools to be aware of the same spectrum of light as others do. We can be conscious that light exists, but we no longer have the awareness of those spectrums.
This capacity you speak of is who we are and it is inherently aware. That is what I see.

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 02:25 PM
Wow this thread grew as I slept.
Here are some points for thought I would like to throw in.

As I see it, the capacity for something has to exist before it's manifestation.
For the brain to grow and evolve as it has over time, the consciousness that gets filtered through it already had to be in place as (for lack of better words) an energy in the universe. We as living creatures evolved eyes so that we could percieve lightwaves. It would not follow any logic to believe that light waves did not exist before we had eyes.
The same is true for sound waves, they obviously existed before we developed the sensitive membranes to pick up on them which eventually evolved into our ears. Even from a techical perspective, we could not develop radios if radio waves were not already there, we just needed a device with the right sensitivities to pick up on them.

It does not follow any logic (to me) that a brain could form and then develop consciousness, in order for such a precise tool to evolve, it must evolve around a capacity that is already there to push its specific evolution.

The brain is simply a filter through which consciousness can interact with our physical manifestation in this world. The same way our eyes filter light waves so that we can percieve them in our physical manifestation.
As our brain grows and evolves, more and more aspects of consciousness are able to be experienced.

Unlike eyes or ears, the connection of consciousness to the brain is more direct, it does not have that intermediatory device. Perhaps because the consciousness is the point of realization for our experience of life. The experience of the senses interacts with the consciousness at this one point to give us our identity in the physical manifest world. It gives us our awareness of life.

Awareness is the point where the consciousness (and the experience of the other senses) interacts with the brain. We can only be aware of things we have the capacity to experience. If we go blind, we no longer have the tools to be aware of the same spectrum of light as others do. We can be conscious that light exists, but we no longer have the awareness of those spectrums.

Ehh, I'm not sure about this. I think you're assuming that consciousness is something that exists independently and is "picked up" by the brain the way that light is picked up by the eyes or sound is picked up with the ears.

Bats use sonar to fly in darkness and although the possibility of sonar existed (although it was in no way actualized) before bats started using it, sonar is not something that was always present and waiting for the bats to simply "collect" from their physical environments.

The difference I'm getting to is creating an activity versus collecting external information.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 02:37 PM
Consciousness does exist independently. (I say "does", because my personal experiences have proven it to me as a definite...even though I know that may not be the experience of others)

I have had more than enough OBE experiences to know that consciousness in not connected to a particular body function. It can easily exist outside the body. This is not true just for people who have experience OBE's, but also those who remember past lives, or people who astrally project and even those who experience telepathy or channelling...and even some ghostly experiences can be attributed to connecting with a consciousness outside of a body.
All these phenomena, while may not be proof enough to everyone, do clearly indicate that there is something to look at as consciousness outside of the body.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 02:40 PM
Bats use sonar to fly in darkness and although the possibility of sonar existed (although it was in no way actualized) before bats started using it, sonar is not something that was always present and waiting for the bats to simply "collect" from their physical environments.
.

Sonar does work with sound waves...which did exist prior to bats developing the sensitivity to use them as they do

R

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 03:08 PM
Consciousness does exist independently. (I say "does", because my personal experiences have proven it to me as a definite...even though I know that may not be the experience of others)

I have had more than enough OBE experiences to know that consciousness in not connected to a particular body function. It can easily exist outside the body. This is not true just for people who have experience OBE's, but also those who remember past lives, or people who astrally project and even those who experience telepathy or channelling...and even some ghostly experiences can be attributed to connecting with a consciousness outside of a body.
All these phenomena, while may not be proof enough to everyone, do clearly indicate that there is something to look at as consciousness outside of the body.
What is it that you feel looks at consciousness?

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 03:13 PM
What is it that you feel looks at consciousness?

I dont understand your question.

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 03:22 PM
I dont understand your question.

You say there is something to look at outside the body, I'm asking what is looking.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 03:30 PM
Consciousness is what gives us our sense of "self".
The part that says "I" am having an experience.
The part of the consciousness that is tied to the physical body and its senses is the most separate individualized aspect of consciousness, but as we go beyond the body the consciousness becomes less individualized and open to more experiences (such as telepathy and such)

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 03:53 PM
Consciousness is what gives us our sense of "self".
The part that says "I" am having an experience.
The part of the consciousness that is tied to the physical body and its senses is the most separate individualized aspect of consciousness, but as we go beyond the body the consciousness becomes less individualized and open to more experiences (such as telepathy and such)

You say that consciousness as our sense of self sees consciousness outside the body or sense of self and it calls itself “I”. You say this “I” sense of consciousness can go beyond the body or “I” sense. What is it then?

I say what it is then, is what it always was, the aware space that all this stuff we are talking about arises from, except now it sees from there and simply by nature allows all that arises. Now since it always was this, then before this awakening of what it is, there is no chance understanding anything and after this awakening of what it is, there is no more need to understand anything. Your nature becomes to allow.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 04:00 PM
You say that consciousness as our sense of self sees consciousness outside the body or sense of self and it calls itself “I”. You say this “I” sense of consciousness can go beyond the body or “I” sense. What is it then?.

I am saying that it is all one consciousness. You cannot divide it as what is inside and what is outside. The part connected to the body is simply the part of the consciousness that picks up the experiences of the physical senses.

The physical body is the projection of that consciousness into the physical world so that it may glean the experiences of the physical world.

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 04:20 PM
I am saying that it is all one consciousness. You cannot divide it as what is inside and what is outside. The part connected to the body is simply the part of the consciousness that picks up the experiences of the physical senses.

The physical body is the projection of that consciousness into the physical world so that it may glean the experiences of the physical world.
What is it that is conscious of it being all one consciousness?

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 04:31 PM
Consciousness does exist independently. (I say "does", because my personal experiences have proven it to me as a definite...even though I know that may not be the experience of others)

I have had more than enough OBE experiences to know that consciousness in not connected to a particular body function. It can easily exist outside the body. This is not true just for people who have experience OBE's, but also those who remember past lives, or people who astrally project and even those who experience telepathy or channelling...and even some ghostly experiences can be attributed to connecting with a consciousness outside of a body.
All these phenomena, while may not be proof enough to everyone, do clearly indicate that there is something to look at as consciousness outside of the body.

Did you ever actually remove yourself from your physical location or did you just experience that you did? I can recall the house that I grew up in, but that doesn't mean that I'm actually there when I do so.

If you could verify that you experienced and knew about something that you otherwise couldn't have known about, then we might have something, but from what I understand, there's no non-anecdotal evidence of this. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if this were possible, but I'd rather start off with a skeptical view and work towards a conclusion than vice versa.

Sonar does work with sound waves...which did exist prior to bats developing the sensitivity to use them as they do

R

Sure, sound waves existed before sonar, but I'm not talking about sound waves as something that can be collected, but rather sonar as a process that is above and beyond hearing alone. The bat both initiates and receives the sound in order for it to work. Yes, it uses a physical medium just like consciousness likely uses a physical medium, but there's just no evidence that experience and thoughts are just floating around waiting to be caught by a brain.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 04:34 PM
What is it that is conscious of it being all one consciousness?

I dont follow your need for division. One is one.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 04:41 PM
If you could verify that you experienced and knew about something that you otherwise couldn't have known about, then we might have something, but from what I understand, there's no non-anecdotal evidence of this. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if this were possible, but I'd rather start off with a skeptical view and work towards a conclusion than vice versa.

I have been around long enough to know that ones personal experience can never work as validation to another person (that is why I put the clause that it has been proven to "me")
The answer however is "Yes"



Sure, sound waves existed before sonar, but I'm not talking about sound waves as something that can be collected, but rather sonar as a process that is above and beyond hearing alone. The bat both initiates and receives the sound in order for it to work. Yes, it uses a physical medium just like consciousness likely uses a physical medium, but there's just no evidence that experience and thoughts are just floating around waiting to be caught by a brain.

The point was that the fact that quality of sound existed allowed for the development of the receptive capacity. If it didnt exist, then nothing could be developed.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 04:47 PM
I will also add that my opinions and views come out of my own experiences.
I did read alot when i was younger, but in the end found it all to be words upon words and had no real meaning to me. I found out that the only way I could really understand something was to look at it from my own point of view based on my own experiences.
Dont get me wrong, I do keep an open mind to things I read, but the value of what is read only gains worth if it somehow relates to anything from my own experience. Until then I am skeptical of everything.

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 04:51 PM
I have been around long enough to know that ones personal experience can never work as validation to another person (that is why I put the clause that it has been proven to "me")
The answer however is "Yes"

Fair enough. I was thinking the other day about the possibility of having experiences that were so synchronous that it would be unreasonable for me to conclude otherwise. Perhaps this is possible but if so, I'm just not there yet.

I wasn't trying to make it into a personal attack, so sorry if it came off like that.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 05:04 PM
Fair enough. I was thinking the other day about the possibility of having experiences that were so synchronous that it would be unreasonable for me to conclude otherwise. Perhaps this is possible but if so, I'm just not there yet.

I wasn't trying to make it into a personal attack, so sorry if it came off like that.

No worries, I felt no attack.
I like the lively discussion that comes with this place. It gets boring when people are too afraid to talk for fear of offending another persons perspective. I enjoy it when my views are challenged, it forces me to look deeper into them and as such learn more from them.
If someones perspective causes me to not find any answers in my view anymore..then I will again learn something and find a new way of looking at things.
So it is all good :)

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 05:19 PM
I dont follow your need for division. One is one.
There is no division but there is a depth that when seen changes what all "this" is. What is the source? What is its nature?

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 05:32 PM
There is no division but there is a depth that when seen changes what all "this" is. What is the source? What is its nature?

I have to be honest...I cannot follow your line of thought on this.

BlueSky
21-01-2014, 05:34 PM
I have to be honest...I cannot follow line of thought on this.
Ok...............

Adept
21-01-2014, 06:22 PM
Wow this thread grew as I slept.
Here are some points for thought I would like to throw in.

As I see it, the capacity for something has to exist before it's manifestation.
For the brain to grow and evolve as it has over time, the consciousness that gets filtered through it already had to be in place as (for lack of better words) an energy in the universe. We as living creatures evolved eyes so that we could percieve lightwaves. It would not follow any logic to believe that light waves did not exist before we had eyes.
The same is true for sound waves, they obviously existed before we developed the sensitive membranes to pick up on them which eventually evolved into our ears. Even from a techical perspective, we could not develop radios if radio waves were not already there, we just needed a device with the right sensitivities to pick up on them.

It does not follow any logic (to me) that a brain could form and then develop consciousness, in order for such a precise tool to evolve, it must evolve around a capacity that is already there to push its specific evolution.

The brain is simply a filter through which consciousness can interact with our physical manifestation in this world. The same way our eyes filter light waves so that we can percieve them in our physical manifestation.
As our brain grows and evolves, more and more aspects of consciousness are able to be experienced.

Unlike eyes or ears, the connection of consciousness to the brain is more direct, it does not have that intermediatory device. Perhaps because the consciousness is the point of realization for our experience of life. The experience of the senses interacts with the consciousness at this one point to give us our identity in the physical manifest world. It gives us our awareness of life.

Awareness is the point where the consciousness (and the experience of the other senses) interacts with the brain. We can only be aware of things we have the capacity to experience. If we go blind, we no longer have the tools to be aware of the same spectrum of light as others do. We can be conscious that light exists, but we no longer have the awareness of those spectrums.

You make a great argument... IF the brain processes consciousness. But why should we think it does? You say eyes evolved to see light waves, but that's a misunderstanding of evolution. Eyes evolved through genetic mutation and, because seeing light waves was benificial, they've stayed around. Same with consciousness, our brains grew through evolution, not to mention eating meat increased our brain capacity.

Adept
21-01-2014, 06:25 PM
Consciousness does exist independently. (I say "does", because my personal experiences have proven it to me as a definite...even though I know that may not be the experience of others)

I have had more than enough OBE experiences to know that consciousness in not connected to a particular body function. It can easily exist outside the body. This is not true just for people who have experience OBE's, but also those who remember past lives, or people who astrally project and even those who experience telepathy or channelling...and even some ghostly experiences can be attributed to connecting with a consciousness outside of a body.
All these phenomena, while may not be proof enough to everyone, do clearly indicate that there is something to look at as consciousness outside of the body.

Actually experience is not objectively sound, you can't use it as evidence.

OBEs are wholly explainable. You tell us the circumstances and such and I'll explain to you where the body is involved.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 06:41 PM
You make a great argument... IF the brain processes consciousness. But why should we think it does? You say eyes evolved to see light waves, but that's a misunderstanding of evolution. Eyes evolved through genetic mutation and, because seeing light waves was benificial, they've stayed around. Same with consciousness, our brains grew through evolution, not to mention eating meat increased our brain capacity.

No argument here...our brains grew through evolution, as did our eyes.
What did the brains grow to do? They evolved to become a better vehicle of consciousness. We have a much more pronounced sense of "self" and higher awareness than do most creatures on this planet.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 06:46 PM
Actually experience is not objectively sound, you can't use it as evidence.

OBEs are wholly explainable. You tell us the circumstances and such and I'll explain to you where the body is involved.


Better yet, maybe you can explain the root of consciousness in the brain.
What is the part of the brain that makes us conscious?
The brain has been mapped so we do know the various sections of it which respond to different actions of our thought, but where are the thoughts created?
How can we form abstract concepts? What inspires creativity that forms "outside of the box" of what we have previously known?

Can all this be pointed out within specific brain functions?

(I am an artist...not a scientist.........I live by my inspiration, so these topics always fascinate me)

Adept
21-01-2014, 06:48 PM
No argument here...our brains grew through evolution, as did our eyes.
What did the brains grow to do? They evolved to become a better vehicle of consciousness. We have a much more pronounced sense of "self" and higher awareness than do most creatures on this planet.

Not to be a better vehicle for consciousness, to create more complex consciousness. There's no reason to believe higher consciousness existed prior to our brains and the connection between a brain and consciousness is so strong it's almost fideism to ignore it.

Adept
21-01-2014, 06:53 PM
Better yet, maybe you can explain the root of consciousness in the brain.
What is the part of the brain that makes us conscious?
The brain has been mapped so we do know the various sections of it which respond to different actions of our thought, but where are the thoughts created?
How can we form abstract concepts? What inspires creativity that forms "outside of the box" of what we have previously known?

Can all this be pointed out within specific brain functions?

(I am an artist...not a scientist.........I live by my inspiration, so these topics always fascinate me)

The whole brain is responsible for consciousness, different parts of the brain do different things to contribute, process information, there are trillions of processes going on. As is well known, we don't have a full understanding of the brain. Luckily we still have leagues of evidence, not to mention logic. No matter what part of the brain is damaged, consciousness changes. Hell, ones consciousness can even vary due to genetics, your biological makeup, because the physical causes our consciousness. Thoughts are simply based off human ability to think abstractly, which fully comes into our lives at about 12 years old. Emotions are chemical reaction.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 07:08 PM
Not to be a better vehicle for consciousness, to create more complex consciousness. There's no reason to believe higher consciousness existed prior to our brains and the connection between a brain and consciousness is so strong it's almost fideism to ignore it.

No denial about the connection between the brain and consciousness...just like there is denial about the connection of our ability to perceive certain levels of the colour spectrum and our eyes.

But can things just grow randomly and it is just luck that they form into something useful?
That would be doubtful since there are billions (if not more) creatures on this planet that have evolved "similar" tools.
The evidence here would imply that the tools develop to specific purposes geared towards specific functions.....and what guides those functions is the physics of the experience they are building around. ei. Eyes develop around the specifics of the properties of light.
Similarly the brain evolves around the specifics of consciousness that ir grows to perceive more and more of.

If things grew out of pure randomness, there would be no life as we know it. Repeatable actions and occurrences dictate that they all follow some order.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 07:10 PM
The whole brain is responsible for consciousness, different parts of the brain do different things to contribute, process information, there are trillions of processes going on. As is well known, we don't have a full understanding of the brain. Luckily we still have leagues of evidence, not to mention logic. No matter what part of the brain is damaged, consciousness changes. Hell, ones consciousness can even vary due to genetics, your biological makeup, because the physical causes our consciousness. Thoughts are simply based off human ability to think abstractly, which fully comes into our lives at about 12 years old. Emotions are chemical reaction.

Yes the brain can process information......but where do the thoughts, the creativity and the ability for abstraction occur?
I have not seen anywhere in science which leads to the conclusion that the brain as a biological mechanism can "form" thoughts.

Adept
21-01-2014, 07:14 PM
No denial about the connection between the brain and consciousness...just like there is denial about the connection of our ability to perceive certain levels of the colour spectrum and our eyes.

But can things just grow randomly and it is just luck that they form into something useful?
That would be doubtful since there are billions (if not more) creatures on this planet that have evolved "similar" tools.
The evidence here would imply that the tools develop to specific purposes geared towards specific functions.....and what guides those functions is the physics of the experience they are building around. ei. Eyes develop around the specifics of the properties of light.
Similarly the brain evolves around the specifics of consciousness that ir grows to perceive more and more of.

If things grew out of pure randomness, there would be no life as we know it. Repeatable actions and occurrences dictate that they all follow some order.

This is a gross misunderstanding of evolution. Change occurs through genetic mutation and those better suited to the environment survive. For us, lacking in almost every category, developed high intelligence which, obviously, has proven beneficial.

Adept
21-01-2014, 07:16 PM
Yes the brain can process information......but where do the thoughts, the creativity and the ability for abstraction occur?
I have not seen anywhere in science which leads to the conclusion that the brain as a biological mechanism can "form" thoughts.

From the brain... If you think science is supporting thoughts magically poping up uncaused then you've been reading the wrong sites. I'd actually recommend a psych 101 over like bio, it covers it better.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 07:30 PM
This is a gross misunderstanding of evolution. Change occurs through genetic mutation and those better suited to the environment survive. For us, lacking in almost every category, developed high intelligence which, obviously, has proven beneficial.

Lets not cross the line to insults by saying things are being "grossly misunderstood" if there is misunderstanding than please explain your point of view.
I see no misunderstanding here. I am fully aware of how how genetic mutation occurs. But to believe that it is pure randomness does not add up mathematically. If it were PURELY random, then (as I posted) the likelihood for any life to evolve, let alone life with many similar traits would be very slim. There obviously has to be some structure that guides how things will evolve.
Its final from would come from the trial and error variations, but at its base pure randomness would not give us the mathematical possibilities for it to occur. Even our dna has a very structured code which it follows. Structure implies order, order implies intelligence of some sort governing it.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 07:33 PM
From the brain... If you think science is supporting thoughts magically poping up uncaused then you've been reading the wrong sites. I'd actually recommend a psych 101 over like bio, it covers it better.

The question was where in the brain do you see this occurring?
Abstraction and creativity...If you have sites that can show how they are created in the brain, I would happily look.
But to imply that I am ignorant for not looking at the right sites is not really an attempt to prove a point.

Adept
21-01-2014, 07:58 PM
Lets not cross the line to insults by saying things are being "grossly misunderstood" if there is misunderstanding than please explain your point of view.
I see no misunderstanding here. I am fully aware of how how genetic mutation occurs. But to believe that it is pure randomness does not add up mathematically. If it were PURELY random, then (as I posted) the likelihood for any life to evolve, let alone life with many similar traits would be very slim. There obviously has to be some structure that guides how things will evolve.
Its final from would come from the trial and error variations, but at its base pure randomness would not give us the mathematical possibilities for it to occur. Even our dna has a very structured code which it follows. Structure implies order, order implies intelligence of some sort governing it.

Of course there's probability involved in genetic mutation, environment effects it, etc. Then the most adaptive traits stick. I wasn't insulting you when I said it's a gross misunderstanding, it's the fault of culture and the education system. But when you say we evolve to process consciousnesness or see light it's a misunderstanding. There's no need to see light, heck there's no need for life to exist, just happened that way.

Adept
21-01-2014, 07:59 PM
The question was where in the brain do you see this occurring?
Abstraction and creativity...If you have sites that can show how they are created in the brain, I would happily look.
But to imply that I am ignorant for not looking at the right sites is not really an attempt to prove a point.

Go do searching.
"Brain scan of artist drawing"
"... of meditation"
"... of prayer"
"... Of remember"
Use your imagination, whatever you think of probably exists.

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 08:16 PM
http://www.as3-web.org/discuss/Smileys/default/popcorn.gif

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 08:26 PM
http://www.as3-web.org/discuss/Smileys/default/popcorn.gif


Not gonna be much of a show if the only addition to the discussion is: "it's in the brain, go look it up"

Adept
21-01-2014, 08:42 PM
Not gonna be much of a show if the only addition to the discussion is: "it's in the brain, go look it up"

If you're not willing to do the research then there's nothing I can do. I'm not here to hold your hand and send you thousand of links which you'll never read anyways. It's up to you, but if there's one thing I've learned from these debates, just like with evolution vs creationism, just like moral objectivity vs moral relativism, the logic and evidence are irrelevant because the incorrect party simply is in the game of comfort and tradition.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 08:51 PM
If you're not willing to do the research then there's nothing I can do. I'm not here to hold your hand and send you thousand of links which you'll never read anyways. It's up to you, but if there's one thing I've learned from these debates, just like with evolution vs creationism, just like moral objectivity vs moral relativism, the logic and evidence are irrelevant because the incorrect party simply is in the game of comfort and tradition.

Your error in your belief is that if someone does the research that they will come to the same conclusions as you.
You are simply assuming I have not done research, when in fact it is just the opposite. I have done the research and have not found anywhere the facts that lead up to the conclusions that you seem to be drawing.
I base all my comments on research and personal experience/experiments. Unless you have a personal experience on which to weigh the words you find in your research, you really have not found any solid facts. You have just found other people interpretations.
This limits how well you are able to express your points, because you have no points of your own, you are just parroting what other people have said.

Adept
21-01-2014, 09:00 PM
Your error in your belief is that if someone does the research that they will come to the same conclusions as you.
You are simply assuming I have not done research, when in fact it is just the opposite. I have done the research and have not found anywhere the facts that lead up to the conclusions that you seem to be drawing.
I base all my comments on research and personal experience/experiments. Unless you have a personal experience on which to weigh the words you find in your research, you really have not found any solid facts. You have just found other people interpretations.
This limits how well you are able to express your points, because you have no points of your own, you are just parroting what other people have said.

You're not a very solid source considering you think subjective experience can be used in objective arguments. I've had many experience - mystical, OBE, etc - but I've taken the time to understand the physical behind it all. People can come to any conclusion you want - you can even say god told you the earth is flat and cite sources - but it'll still be objectively false. To be better occultists we must be able to take from myth and theory while still differentiating between objective and subjective.

Rawnrr
21-01-2014, 09:19 PM
If you are more interested in trying to prove that peoples observations are meaningless because they are different than yours, then there is not much room for discussion..and this ends here.
A closed mind only has limited room for growth.

Adept
21-01-2014, 09:29 PM
If you are more interested in trying to prove that peoples observations are meaningless because they are different than yours, then there is not much room for discussion..and this ends here.
A closed mind only has limited room for growth.

I never said that, so we've now deteriorated into fallacy, a normal aspect of fideism. You have cheap community college classes, google search, and libraries full of books that would explain the simplicity of this if you weren't so "open minded". If you or the forum offers me money I'll gladly set aside the time to teach you, until then it's really out of my hands.

BurningBush
21-01-2014, 10:02 PM
Adept,

While it might appear to the casual observer that you are the more reasonable of the two, I think you are greatly overestimating how much you know about the world although that immediately raises the question of what knowledge really is.

If you are a distinct conscious being living in the universe, the details of that universe must enter your mind before you can know about said universe. Given that model, everything you know or think you know about the world around you exists in your mind (although it doesn't necessarily exist only in your mind). For example, if you see or imagine an apple, what is in your mind is not an actual apple but a mental representation of an apple.

This means that your ability to know the reality of the external world is dependent on your ability to accurately perceive, but you have absolutely no way of going about determining the accuracy of your perceptions, because you can't perceive the world without...... perceiving it. This is the meaning of the "if a tree falls in the woods" saying. You have absolutely no information about how the tree is in the absence of your experience of it, which, if what you are saying is correct, doesn't mean a thing (experience, that is). I suggest that you also Google Agrippa's trilemma, which essentially states that knowledge is impossible.

If there is such a thing as a tree and the tree is what you believe it to be, then yes, a tree falling in the woods does make a sound. The reason that you can't conceive of the possibility that there might be nothing there in the absence of your perception or the possibility that you know nothing about the tree is that your belief that the world is an objective place that does not require you to observe it to exist is so hard-wired into your mind that it can't be questioned from where you currently stand. What do you call a belief that is not substantiated by objective evidence - how about faith?

This is not just philosophy or pointless speculation. It is possible to actually experience the world in a way that you are left uncertain of what is there in the absence of your perception of it, but I really, really don't recommend it.

The realities that you and Rawnrr live in are each determined by your perceptions. Based on your posts, it seems that you almost certainly haven not taken a deep look at perception although it is very possible that Rawnrr has and has come out the other side. Then again, Rawnrr could be unwilling to be fully skeptical and may never have released certain beliefs, but that's harder to tell.

Take a gander at this. While I think the author draws the wrong conclusion by essentially going too far, his reasons for disputing the certainty of the external world are still pretty convincing in my opinion. Seriously, read it.

http://www.uncoveringlife.com/refuting-the-external-world/

Adept
21-01-2014, 10:30 PM
Adept,

While it might appear to the casual observer that you are the more reasonable of the two, I think you are greatly overestimating how much you know about the world although that immediately raises the question of what knowledge really is.

If you are a distinct conscious being living in the universe, the details of that universe must enter your mind before you can know about said universe. Given that model, everything you know or think you know about the world around you exists in your mind (although it doesn't necessarily exist only in your mind). For example, if you see or imagine an apple, what is in your mind is not an actual apple but a mental representation of an apple.

This means that your ability to know the reality of the external world is dependent on your ability to accurately perceive, but you have absolutely no way of going about determining the accuracy of your perceptions, because you can't perceive the world without...... perceiving it. This is the meaning of the "if a tree falls in the woods" saying. You have absolutely no information about how the tree is in the absence of your experience of it, which, if what you are saying is correct, doesn't mean a thing (experience, that is). I suggest that you also Google Agrippa's trilemma, which essentially states that knowledge is impossible.

If there is such a thing as a tree and the tree is what you believe it to be, then yes, a tree falling in the woods does make a sound. The reason that you can't conceive of the possibility that there might be nothing there in the absence of your perception or the possibility that you know nothing about the tree is that your belief that the world is an objective place that does not require you to observe it to exist is so hard-wired into your mind that it can't be questioned from where you currently stand. What do you call a belief that is not substantiated by objective evidence - how about faith?

This is not just philosophy or pointless speculation. It is possible to actually experience the world in a way that you are left uncertain of what is there in the absence of your perception of it, but I really, really don't recommend it.

The realities that you and Rawnrr live in are each determined by your perceptions. Based on your posts, it seems that you almost certainly haven not taken a deep look at perception although it is very possible that Rawnrr has and has come out the other side. Then again, Rawnrr could be unwilling to be fully skeptical and may never have released certain beliefs, but that's harder to tell.

Take a gander at this. While I think the author draws the wrong conclusion by essentially going too far, his reasons for disputing the certainty of the external world are still pretty convincing in my opinion. Seriously, read it.

http://www.uncoveringlife.com/refuting-the-external-world/

You're falling victim to solipsism, I think. While perception is obviously necessary and unavoidable, we have ways to find far more objective knowledge, such as logic and the scientific method. The other members claim I had a problem with was that personal experience can somehow be used to argue objectivity. This is silly, subjective experience tends to contradict. I know people who have experienced Jesus as savior and some who've experience satan as savior. If experience is evidence of objective truths, then objective truth contradicts, which defeats the point. The objective truth of experience here is both experienced something thanks to their fancy brains, which they interpret subjectively.

I think you simply misunderstood my point.

BlueSky
22-01-2014, 12:01 AM
This thread taught me something invaluable. The simplicity of the truth cannot be conveyed. With that said I must take my leave.
Blessings

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 12:06 AM
You're falling victim to solipsism, I think. While perception is obviously necessary and unavoidable, we have ways to find far more objective knowledge, such as logic and the scientific method. The other members claim I had a problem with was that personal experience can somehow be used to argue objectivity. This is silly, subjective experience tends to contradict. I know people who have experienced Jesus as savior and some who've experience satan as savior. If experience is evidence of objective truths, then objective truth contradicts, which defeats the point. The objective truth of experience here is both experienced something thanks to their fancy brains, which they interpret subjectively.

I think you simply misunderstood my point.

I understand your point perfectly well (your point is pretty basic), but I think you misunderstood mine. I'm not saying that experience is evidence of objective truth. I'm saying that none of us can ever separate ourselves from subjectivity and can only theorize about objectivity from within subjectivity. You're judging the subjective perceptions of others relative to what you take to be your objective assessment but all parts of your evaluation are occurring within subjectivity.

You mentioned logic. Logic knows nothing of its own - even it is an act of perception. For example if all Xs are Y's and all Ys are Zs, we can reason that all Xs are Zs, but how does this come about other than through visualization, which is an internal act of perception.

I'm not a solipsist but as someone who is projecting an image of himself as a pure rationalist, you should be. Consciousness, that is, the capacity to experience, is not detectible in the physical world so how have you determined that other minds exist?

CSEe
22-01-2014, 12:17 AM
Perhaps " mind" is reflection on own condition of emotion , mind is a collection of all emotion and resulted from the emotion ...mind is just like a total packages of emotion that respresent the " self" ...the emotions . To me human had created a culture that uses knowledge as the basis ...and the attachment on these knowledge had confused human ...human confused over own knowledge . Awaken to Buddhism , one could leading into freedom from attachment on knowledge , go beyond aceptance of knowledge and one will discover all confusion ........one will realize own self , own emotion and at such , mind will truely respresent the emotion ...truely respresent the self and as one progress into that realization ...all emotion will be decreased / reduced and mind will be calm ........thats my current understanding.

Adept
22-01-2014, 12:19 AM
I understand your point perfectly well (your point is pretty basic), but I think you misunderstood mine. I'm not saying that experience is evidence of objective truth. I'm saying that none of us can ever separate ourselves from subjectivity and can only theorize about objectivity from within subjectivity. You're judging the subjective perceptions of others relative to what you take to be your objective assessment but all parts of your evaluation are occurring within subjectivity.

You mentioned logic. Logic knows nothing of its own - even it is an act of perception. For example if all Xs are Y's and all Ys are Zs, we can reason that all Xs are Zs, but how does this come about other than through visualization, which is an internal act of perception.

I'm not a solipsist but as someone who is projecting an image of himself as a pure rationalist, you should be. Consciousness, that is, the capacity to experience, is not detectible in the physical world so how have you determined that other minds exist?

Perception is not objective but logic is. A is A, I challenge you to debate it. We have ways of being more objective and unbiased than if we simply based things off experience. The earth orbits the sun, I don't care if you've experienced differently, it's an objective truth.

Again, you can look up the thousands of experiments measuring experience, you simply don't want to. Obviously arguments like "brain in a vat" hold merit, but if you accept it as true, just like accepting A can be Non-A, the only way to practice such beliefs are absolute silence. If you're a brain in a vat, debating me is pointless. If A is Non-A, communication is impossible.

If I experience having a conversation with Jesus, by our reasoning I may a well accept it happened. Luckily we have reason and science to g et to the bottom of it and understand that physical activity created an experience which I pushed my own biases onto.

wstein
22-01-2014, 01:12 AM
As I see it, the capacity for something has to exist before it's manifestation. This correlates with my experience. Potentials, as I call them, precede any manifestation (into existence/form). Many potentials are never manifested, they remain only as possibilities.

There are beings that are in parts of reality where there are these potentials but without any manifestation (into form/existence) Thus they never have 'experiences' there. From those places, one can perceive all possible outcomes of something, yet its hard to focus on one specific outcome among the (near?) infinite possibilities.

Adept
22-01-2014, 01:26 AM
Well there can be infinite potential and limited manifestation. It's like Nuit and Hadit of Thelema, and then factor in Chaos.

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 01:49 AM
Perception is not objective but logic is. A is A, I challenge you to debate it. We have ways of being more objective and unbiased than if we simply based things off experience. The earth orbits the sun, I don't care if you've experienced differently, it's an objective truth.

Logic is carried out within experience. Logic only works with assumptions. Assumptions come from experience. Have you ever looked into the mind another to see how he exercises logic?

Not that I don't believe that the earth orbits the sun, but how do you know that it does? Seriously, how do you know? How do you know that that bright light that you're viewing is "the sun"? Did you come up with the name of that bright light? Again, I'm not saying that there is no sun. I'm just asking you to think through how you came to believe that what you see is "the sun."

Again, you can look up the thousands of experiments measuring experience, you simply don't want to. Obviously arguments like "brain in a vat" hold merit, but if you accept it as true, just like accepting A can be Non-A, the only way to practice such beliefs are absolute silence. If you're a brain in a vat, debating me is pointless. If A is Non-A, communication is impossible.

I'm not claiming that I'm a brain in a vat - that would be making the same mistake that I'm claiming that you're making, which would be to claim that I know the objective state of the world external to my perception of it.

If I experience having a conversation with Jesus, by our reasoning I may a well accept it happened. Luckily we have reason and science to g et to the bottom of it and understand that physical activity created an experience which I pushed my own biases onto.

If you experienced having a conversation with Jesus then you would accept it happened. However, seeing how you think, you wouldn't believe that you had actually experienced it. That belief would change the experience of the conversation so that that conversation would be experienced as not real.

So if you haven't noticed, I'm committing the same error that I'm claiming you're committing in that I'm claiming that my view is correct and yours is not.

Here's a theory that you might like, scientist: perhaps each of us lives in his own unique universe that is perception-dependent and exists superimposed with other perception-dependent universes. Each universe is unique because of the observer effect where each observer uniquely alters the quantum state of the underlying reality, which of course determines the state of the universe. Based on conversations with those that would know better, I realize that this interpretation of the observer effect is a bit of a stretch based on what is known in the scientific community at the moment, but it's just an idea.

At this juncture, given the assumption that each of us would be subject to subjectivity, it seems more reasonable to me to think that all perceptions represent individual elements within the whole of reality, rather than the complete opposite side of the spectrum, that none of us experience objective reality. Frankly, all of this is pointless and neither of us know anything in the way that we are attempting to know something. I just like arguing sometimes.

Adept
22-01-2014, 02:46 AM
Ok let's try this, because I think we actually are on the same page. We cannot know things free from experience, even logic. A is A is an axiom because it, itself, cannot even be argued. The flaw is you cannot actually prove it. All "objective" knowledge, at its core, is based off assumption and guessing pretty much. Do you agree so far?

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 04:04 AM
Ok let's try this, because I think we actually are on the same page. We cannot know things free from experience, even logic. A is A is an axiom because it, itself, cannot even be argued. The flaw is you cannot actually prove it. All "objective" knowledge, at its core, is based off assumption and guessing pretty much. Do you agree so far?

I'm not sure how A is A could be argued against, but I would think you could experientially prove it to yourself. To prove it to someone else, I suppose that the person making the case (Person A) would have to adequately convey the concept of A is A and the person hearing the case (Person B) would have to execute logic in the same way that Person B executed logic. If those conditions were met, Person A could convey his experience of truth regarding A is A to Person B and Person B could experience A is A as truth.

In terms of objective knowledge, I assume that we're talking about things like the earth orbiting around the sun. I think that knowledge essentially is experience or, you could say, the recognition of a truth - something that gives an "ah ha." However, you could build more complex truth/knowledge off of simpler "ah has". You don't really need to make assumptions to experience things as truth. I would say that you call it assumption when you can conceive of a seemingly opposing truth. For example, if I say the earth does indeed orbit around the sun, I don't make an assumption that the ball of gas in the middle is what's known as the sun until I conceive of the possibility that it might be something else. If, for example, my parents tell me that the ball of gas is the sun and I have absolute and total faith that parents only tell the truth, I have no basis from which to say that I'm making an assumption - it just enters my mind as straight truth. Follow?

Sorry about the long response to short questions.

Adept
22-01-2014, 05:15 AM
I'm not sure how A is A could be argued against, but I would think you could experientially prove it to yourself. To prove it to someone else, I suppose that the person making the case (Person A) would have to adequately convey the concept of A is A and the person hearing the case (Person B) would have to execute logic in the same way that Person B executed logic. If those conditions were met, Person A could convey his experience of truth regarding A is A to Person B and Person B could experience A is A as truth.

In terms of objective knowledge, I assume that we're talking about things like the earth orbiting around the sun. I think that knowledge essentially is experience or, you could say, the recognition of a truth - something that gives an "ah ha." However, you could build more complex truth/knowledge off of simpler "ah has". You don't really need to make assumptions to experience things as truth. I would say that you call it assumption when you can conceive of a seemingly opposing truth. For example, if I say the earth does indeed orbit around the sun, I don't make an assumption that the ball of gas in the middle is what's known as the sun until I conceive of the possibility that it might be something else. If, for example, my parents tell me that the ball of gas is the sun and I have absolute and total faith that parents only tell the truth, I have no basis from which to say that I'm making an assumption - it just enters my mind as straight truth. Follow?

Sorry about the long response to short questions.

Im pretty sure you just 180'd your argument.

Adept
22-01-2014, 05:31 AM
Alright, this is way off topic, though I'd certainly join a thread on knowledge.

To sum up though, high consciousness likely comes from the brain, all evidence and reason supports this. I certainly haven't always held this view but it's the likeliest to be true. Nowhere else in nature does such consciousness exist, showing it's not a fundamental aspect of reality. The logical conclusion is we gained it through evolution. Brain complexity on top of eating meat, plus the historical advancement of our ancestor species, it fits.

Even more evidence is the fact that brain damage, chemical imbalance, even genetic disorders can affect and even entire change consciousness, further proving it to stem from the physical. OBEs usually take place during meditation, intoxication, there are biological changes that affect consciousness. NDEs are misunderstood in that patients are not actually dead, not to mention the minds ability to store information, the fact that surgeries are explained in detail, hallucinations from blood loss or drugs etc, any numer of thing demystify them.

Finally, mystical experiences are even explainable. If there were truth to them then we must explain contradicting views of contradicting experiences. We tend to push our own subjective interpretations of actual experiences.

One point I almost forgot - even emotions are physical caused by chemic reactions and perceptions. All senses take in information and show consciousness to be physical. What's awesome is simple searching will yeild tons of brain scans of people meditating, drawing, thinkit, remember, Eric and show what part of the brain are active during said acts.

Honestly, denying the consciousness-from-brain view is essentially fideism, based on how we gain "objective" knowledge. It's knowledge as logical, scientific, and unbiased as possible. That's all there really is to say on the subject.

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 06:18 AM
Im pretty sure you just 180'd your argument.

Haha, I'm too tired to dig through and figure out how that might be so just tell me.

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 06:20 AM
Alright, this is way off topic, though I'd certainly join a thread on knowledge.

To sum up though, high consciousness likely comes from the brain, all evidence and reason supports this. I certainly haven't always held this view but it's the likeliest to be true. Nowhere else in nature does such consciousness exist, showing it's not a fundamental aspect of reality. The logical conclusion is we gained it through evolution. Brain complexity on top of eating meat, plus the historical advancement of our ancestor species, it fits.

Even more evidence is the fact that brain damage, chemical imbalance, even genetic disorders can affect and even entire change consciousness, further proving it to stem from the physical. OBEs usually take place during meditation, intoxication, there are biological changes that affect consciousness. NDEs are misunderstood in that patients are not actually dead, not to mention the minds ability to store information, the fact that surgeries are explained in detail, hallucinations from blood loss or drugs etc, any numer of thing demystify them.

Finally, mystical experiences are even explainable. If there were truth to them then we must explain contradicting views of contradicting experiences. We tend to push our own subjective interpretations of actual experiences.

One point I almost forgot - even emotions are physical caused by chemic reactions and perceptions. All senses take in information and show consciousness to be physical. What's awesome is simple searching will yeild tons of brain scans of people meditating, drawing, thinkit, remember, Eric and show what part of the brain are active during said acts.

Honestly, denying the consciousness-from-brain view is essentially fideism, based on how we gain "objective" knowledge. It's knowledge as logical, scientific, and unbiased as possible. That's all there really is to say on the subject.

Assumption, assumption, assumption.

I'll come back and read this and possibly reply tomorrow when I can form a cogent thought.

Adept
22-01-2014, 06:52 AM
Assumption, assumption, assumption.

I'll come back and read this and possibly reply tomorrow when I can form a cogent thought.

Right, assumption. Totally a synonym for fact, empirical evidence, testable hypothesis, and logic. Like I said, denying it is pretty much fideism, same as being a flat-earther. That's all there really is to it, I can't possibly think of more to say unless you want me to help you choose some comm college classes to help out. I'd say psych 101, logic, human evolution.

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 07:17 AM
Calling it fact skates over the most fundamental assumption of them all, that you have the ability to experience truth.

Adept
22-01-2014, 08:30 AM
Calling it fact skates over the most fundamental assumption of them all, that you have the ability to experience truth.

You bring your impossible-to-practice pseudo-logic philosophy into the scientific community :). Considering you don't seem to believe truth can be known and everything is assumption, the mere act of you arguing and even speaking is hypocrisy. I don't like hypocrisy.

Rawnrr
22-01-2014, 11:39 AM
It is becoming apparent that for some people reading words of others and trusting their validity, is their basis for building up what they consider to be logic and reason.
Whereas for others, actually taking the time to do the expiriments for themselves and look objectively at their own experience without getting caught up in the words would be the higher path.
When someone believes that "ALL evidence and reason supports something", then quite often they will choose to ignore and discredit anything that falls outside of their limited capacity to reason. Which results in lumping people with different views into different catagories. Because it is easier to dismiss a general catagory than it is to deal with the specifics of what a person says.
There are many times in human history where people or cultures have tried to force people to "accept what I say, everything else is heresy", and those always ended up bringing dark times to those around them.
Thankfully it is human nature to have a free mind that is capable of looking beyond the limits of others and not be afraid to look for real answers. The world is a much bigger place than those who choose to limit their thoughts choose to believe.....but over time, they too shall learn. That is what life is all about, it always gives us opportunity to learn.

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 04:49 PM
You bring your impossible-to-practice pseudo-logic philosophy into the scientific community :). Considering you don't seem to believe truth can be known and everything is assumption, the mere act of you arguing and even speaking is hypocrisy. I don't like hypocrisy.

1) I'm not trying to bring anything into the scientific community. I'm on a quest for happiness, not knowledge. Knowledge, or rather knowledge of knowledge, just happens to be a step on the way.
2) Openness combined with skepticism makes for an ideal scientific mind. You can't discover that the earth is round if you don't consider the possibility that it isn't flat.
3) I'm not arguing that truth can't be known. I'm telling you about what truth is from any individual point of view: perception. "Objective" truth is a meaningless term until you escape a point of view, which you can't do. I already told you that I'm making the same error that I'm accusing you of, but my conceptualized approximation of truth is a little closer than yours. Ultimately, I'm arguing with you because I want to and I'm doing so, as I do with everything else, in an effort to move closer to my desires, even the seemingly irrational, impulsive, or egotistical ones.

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 04:49 PM
By the way, Adept, how do you know that the bright light in the sky is "the sun"?

Adept
22-01-2014, 06:37 PM
It is becoming apparent that for some people reading words of others and trusting their validity, is their basis for building up what they consider to be logic and reason.
Whereas for others, actually taking the time to do the expiriments for themselves and look objectively at their own experience without getting caught up in the words would be the higher path.
When someone believes that "ALL evidence and reason supports something", then quite often they will choose to ignore and discredit anything that falls outside of their limited capacity to reason. Which results in lumping people with different views into different catagories. Because it is easier to dismiss a general catagory than it is to deal with the specifics of what a person says.
There are many times in human history where people or cultures have tried to force people to "accept what I say, everything else is heresy", and those always ended up bringing dark times to those around them.
Thankfully it is human nature to have a free mind that is capable of looking beyond the limits of others and not be afraid to look for real answers. The world is a much bigger place than those who choose to limit their thoughts choose to believe.....but over time, they too shall learn. That is what life is all about, it always gives us opportunity to learn.

Well you're not describing me. If you provided a good argument or evidence that disproved my point I'd have no choice but to change my position. But nope, all you have is passive-aggressive fallacy. Good luck with that.

Adept
22-01-2014, 06:37 PM
By the way, Adept, how do you know that the bright light in the sky is "the sun"?

That's what we've named it.

Adept
22-01-2014, 06:41 PM
Look, I'm tired of this. I've had this argument so many times it's not even entertaining. You think of an argument or find even the tiniest shred of evidence against the consciousness-from-brain POV then please PM immedietly. Pseudo-science and fallacy don't teach anything, it's just a waste of time.

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 07:01 PM
Look, I'm tired of this. I've had this argument so many times it's not even entertaining. You think of an argument or find even the tiniest shred of evidence against the consciousness-from-brain POV then please PM immedietly. Pseudo-science and fallacy don't teach anything, it's just a waste of time.

I'm getting the feeling that you haven't actually gotten my point about everything occurring within subjectivity. You're clearly an intelligent guy, so I think it's a matter of not having the right inputs in the same way that the correctness of the result of a logical conclusion is dependent on the correctness of the assumptions (although I'm only saying that you are incorrect insofar as you're missing the whole scope). You have a loose concept, maybe, but you don't have any direct experience of the possibility that things might not be how they appear. This is like me describing to you the face of someone that you've never met or seen a picture of and expecting you to actually visualize it - it just won't do the trick.

How do you believe that the people on this board, and for that matter, a large portion of the population of the world, arrived at what you seem to think are false beliefs? You seem to have no problem looking for evidence that their beliefs are false, but fail to turn that skepticism inward. Turning that skepticism inward will open up the possibility that more is true because relied-upon beliefs are, by definition, limiting.

A similar thing could be said about me, but you seem to be here to try to tell people how right you are.

What is your interest in spirituality anyway? What is spirituality to you anyway? I'm genuinely interested to know the answers to those questions.

Adept
22-01-2014, 07:09 PM
I'm getting the feeling that you haven't actually gotten my point about everything occurring within subjectivity. You're clearly an intelligent guy, so I think it's a matter of not having the right inputs in the same way that the correctness of the result of the application of logic is dependent on the correctness of the assumptions (although I'm only saying that you are incorrect insofar as you're missing the whole scope). You have a loose concept, maybe, but you don't have any direct experience of the possibility that things might not be how they appear. This is like me describing to you the face of someone that you've never met or seen a picture of and expecting you to actually know - it just won't do the trick.

How do you believe that the people on this board, and for that matter, a large portion of the population of the world, arrived at what you seem to think are false beliefs? You seem to have no problem looking for evidence that their beliefs are false, but fail to turn that skepticism inward. Turning that skepticism inward will open up the possibility that more is true because relied-upon beliefs are, by definition, limiting.

A similar thing could be said about me, but you seem to be here to try to tell people how right you are.

What is your interest in spirituality anyway? What is spirituality to you anyway? I'm genuinely interested to know the answers to those questions.

You assume that accepting something - something all evidence supports - means one is not being skeptical. That's ridiculous. People assume that if you disagree with them you must be closed minded, it's not the case. I'm sorry if everything support my point of view, I'm sorry the earth isn't flat, I'm sorry life has existed for more than 6,000 years... Don't take it out on me, it's not my fault. As I said, I'm actually very open minded, I'm asking you to proven me wrong but you refuse to even tackle the question and instead just attack the debater. I can't tell you how many times my beliefs or "truths" have been in core t in the past, but when I commited to true knowledge over what I wanted to be true, what was comforting, I really had no choice but to change my views. I still change them if there's evidence to the contrary or, ideologically, an argument that does. So stop making assumptions.

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 08:28 PM
You assume that accepting something - something all evidence supports - means one is not being skeptical. That's ridiculous.

I'm saying that you have not been presented with contradictory evidence. The type I'm talking about is experiential, but so is anything that constitutes evidence. For example, you experience that there is a consensus that the earth orbits the sun.

I'm not going to get into the vast multitude of assumptions that are inherent in determining that such a consensus does indeed exist. The idea of such a consensus is like one point within an infinitude of possibility.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." -Carl Sagan

I'm not exactly sure what Sagan was getting at with this quote, but the quote points to how assumption is inherent in any conceptualized truth.

People assume that if you disagree with them you must be closed minded, it's not the case. I'm sorry if everything support my point of view, I'm sorry the earth isn't flat, I'm sorry life has existed for more than 6,000 years... Don't take it out on me, it's not my fault. As I said, I'm actually very open minded, I'm asking you to proven me wrong but you refuse to even tackle the question and instead just attack the debater.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm pointing out assumptions that you're making when you say that everyone else is wrong. In the sun example, "we" didn't name anything. Someone (or maybe a small group of someones) named it and he told someone else, who told someone else, etc. Eventually, someone told you the name that had been told to them and you believed that person and now you probably can't separate the name "the sun" and the experience of the sun.

I can't tell you how many times my beliefs or "truths" have been in core t in the past, but when I commited to true knowledge over what I wanted to be true, what was comforting, I really had no choice but to change my views. I still change them if there's evidence to the contrary or, ideologically, an argument that does. So stop making assumptions.

There was a time when, after experiencing a very frustrating event in my life, in an effort to suppress my true beliefs, I would try to make rational cases to myself about what was "objectively" true. Eventually I realized that "reason" was insufficient against belief - reason sort of comes after the fact to explain what is already believed. The gap between what I believed and what I wanted to believe caused a massive frustration in me until I realized the uncertain nature of perception. I came to realize this when a deeply-held belief collapsed and it was as if I was living in a different world. That's the kind of experiential evidence that I'm talking about.

Adept
22-01-2014, 09:54 PM
"Reason is insufficient against belief". Fideism. We are finished here.

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 10:24 PM
"Reason is insufficient against belief". Fideism. We are finished here.

You're just making it more apparent that you don't know much about yourself. There is a difference between a belief and a believer. A belief is something that is had, not something that one is. Me saying that reason is insufficient against belief is an observation that I made by watching the interplay between the desire for things to be a certain way and the fear that that desire was not in conformity with other beliefs. At the core of belief is trapped/negative emotional energy and reason is insufficient to resolve that energy to a more healthy state. That is what I meant by that statement. If I would have believed in spirituality enough to find a message board about it 3 years ago, I would have argued in exactly the same way that you are arguing now. I'm telling you that the shell of protective certainty that you live in can dissolve in a heartbeat and if it ever did, you would be left standing in a brand new world.

I will argue with you for days about this and you obviously want to argue too. Why else are you here? Is it not to tell these spiritual people how stupid they are because of their lack of agreement with the scientific community? Is that not clear evidence of an emotional motivation?

Adept
22-01-2014, 10:33 PM
You're just making it more apparent that you don't know much about yourself. There is a difference between a belief and a believer. A belief is something that is had, not something that one is. Me saying that reason is insufficient against belief is an observation that I made by watching the interplay between the desire for things to be a certain way and the fear that that desire was not in conformity with other beliefs. At the core of belief is trapped/negative emotional energy and reason is insufficient to resolve that energy to a more healthy state. That is what I meant by that statement. If I would have believed in spirituality enough to find a message board about it 3 years ago, I would have argued in exactly the same way that you are arguing now. I'm telling you that the shell of protective certainty that you live in can dissolve in a heartbeat and if it ever did, you would be left standing in a brand new world.

I will argue with you for days about this and you obviously want to argue too. Why else are you here? Is it not to tell these spiritual people how stupid they are because of their lack of agreement with the scientific community? Is that not clear evidence of an emotional motivation?

I'm a very spiritual person, but you just keep them coming :)

I'm totally on board with the fact that people will argue out of desire for things to be a certain way and fearing reality won't conform, hell you're prove positive of it. I used to be too. That's what fideism seems to stem from, once you convince yourself logic and science are invalid you can believe any contradictory, fictional thing you wish, like consciousness not being tied to the physical. So you keep going, friend, this is hysterical.

BurningBush
22-01-2014, 10:57 PM
I'm a very spiritual person, but you just keep them coming :)

I'm totally on board with the fact that people will argue out of desire for things to be a certain way and fearing reality won't conform, hell you're prove positive of it. I used to be too. That's what fideism seems to stem from, once you convince yourself logic and science are invalid you can believe any contradictory, fictional thing you wish, like consciousness not being tied to the physical. So you keep going, friend, this is hysterical.

Fine. In what sense are you spiritual?

I challenge you to find a post of mine where I argue that any standard scientific consensus is definitively incorrect. I'm not doing that - I'm simply saying, to the extent that assumptions can be conceived, they are always there. A reasonably intelligent person could quickly create a long list of assumptions for any idea that is thought to be an "objective" fact.

What are you trying to gain by accumulating "objective" truth?

Adept
23-01-2014, 01:03 AM
If you can give me a reason to explain my spirituality to you I shall.

I desire objective truth because I think it's important to understand myself and the world I live in. Understanding the objective aspect is probably equally as important as the subjective, if not more. You need to know your limits, you need to understand how things work, you have to be able to trouble shoot and act on your feet.

For example; when you have depression you can accept the emotions and thoughts it causes as true, or you can understand the objective truths behind depression to better combat it.

BurningBush
23-01-2014, 04:43 AM
If you can give me a reason to explain my spirituality to you I shall.

Either you want to or you don't. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to guess how to make you want to.

I desire objective truth because I think it's important to understand myself and the world I live in. Understanding the objective aspect is probably equally as important as the subjective, if not more. You need to know your limits, you need to understand how things work, you have to be able to trouble shoot and act on your feet.

That sounds perfectly reasonable, but I don't think it's ideal.

For example; when you have depression you can accept the emotions and thoughts it causes as true, or you can understand the objective truths behind depression to better combat it.

Do you know what happens when you accept emotions and thoughts as true? I do.

How does understanding the objective truth of depression help to combat it?

Adept
23-01-2014, 05:50 AM
Do you know what happens when you accept emotions and thoughts as true? I do.

It varies from case to case, obviously. For example, if I start feeling the thoughts and emotions that I am worthless, and I accept them as true, I become worthless. If I feel loved, I allow myself to be loved and it will generally improve life.

How does understanding the objective truth of depression help to combat it?

Well I can safely assume you've neither study depression nor have it! Haha. That a good thing, the latter. Here is an example; often when ones depression acts up they begin to see that world very negatively, their bias is negative, even towards themselves. The ignorant call them drama queens many of the times that this happens. So, when you are sitting around feeling worthless, like all your friends hate you, like you should kill yourself, etc, if you understand the objective science behind depression you come to understand, and hopefully be able to realize, that these are not truths, but rather negative thoughts being caused by chemicals in your brain. You are not worthless, your friends don't hate you, your brain is simply acting up. Further, understanding the objective science behind depression allows us to help combat it through counseling and medication.

Rawnrr
23-01-2014, 12:39 PM
Well you're not describing me. If you provided a good argument or evidence that disproved my point I'd have no choice but to change my position. But nope, all you have is passive-aggressive fallacy. Good luck with that.


..and yet, there is no aggression.
You are obviously a guy who is on the verge of a major realization.
The way you are ready to argue, but your inability to state specific facts of your own, clearly show your own inner turmoil. You want to see more, but you are afraid to fall into traps such as Fideism which you seem to think will crush the "reason" you are clinging so desperatly to. But you are also faced with people here who are also obviously "reasonable" but are not afraid to go beyond that wall you built for yourself.
There really is no need for arguments, and open mind does not corrupt reason, reason will always be there and is a valuable tool to get rid of nonsense. But if what one has previously considered reasonable does not fit the experiences around them, then it will naturally have to expand and evolve.

BurningBush
23-01-2014, 03:31 PM
It varies from case to case, obviously. For example, if I start feeling the thoughts and emotions that I am worthless, and I accept them as true, I become worthless. If I feel loved, I allow myself to be loved and it will generally improve life.

That's what happens at first, but if you relentlessly seek and unconditionally accept your inner truth, which includes the experiential reality of negative thoughts and emotions, something different will eventually happen, but the only way to become willing to do that is to value a way of being over a temporary outcome.

You mentioned "knowing your limits" earlier and to me that says fear-based decision making and living, i.e., mere survival. It seems to me that acting merely out of survival is faulty thinking. We survive in order to experience something better down the road, but if that something never comes, we are just surviving to survive and there's no point to that. Respecting your fears will keep you safe and it takes a small amount of courage to even acknowledge what you already know to be the full reality of your fears (which is why they bring you down), but that small amount of courage, if repeatedly sought, is enough to eventually unwind the underlying fear. There's much more to this, but hopefully that makes sense.

Well I can safely assume you've neither study depression nor have it! Haha. That a good thing, the latter. Here is an example; often when ones depression acts up they begin to see that world very negatively, their bias is negative, even towards themselves. The ignorant call them drama queens many of the times that this happens. So, when you are sitting around feeling worthless, like all your friends hate you, like you should kill yourself, etc, if you understand the objective science behind depression you come to understand, and hopefully be able to realize, that these are not truths, but rather negative thoughts being caused by chemicals in your brain. You are not worthless, your friends don't hate you, your brain is simply acting up. Further, understanding the objective science behind depression allows us to help combat it through counseling and medication.

I've had depression and still have it by some definitions of the word. I've also had what I thought was much worse than depression, which was an inescapable terror that lasted for about a month at it's worst and for a few months to a lesser degree. My state of mind during that period was unfathomably bad, but I got out of it by allowing myself to fully experience it, essentially by accepting it as reality. Going through that gave me a level of confidence that I didn't have before.

Despite the fact that I still deal with depression-like symptoms, there's no question that there's a direction to the whole thing. I'm starting to find ecstatic states that are not caused by ideas about the future or comparisons to the past - I am truly ecstatic in the moment. Seemingly, I just need to smooth the whole thing out and I'll be good to go.

I suppose that counseling could help some people, but only insofar as it helps you to find the truth that you already believe. Counseling intended to give you coping strategies is inferior. It just is.

Adept
23-01-2014, 04:19 PM
..and yet, there is no aggression.
You are obviously a guy who is on the verge of a major realization.
The way you are ready to argue, but your inability to state specific facts of your own, clearly show your own inner turmoil. You want to see more, but you are afraid to fall into traps such as Fideism which you seem to think will crush the "reason" you are clinging so desperatly to. But you are also faced with people here who are also obviously "reasonable" but are not afraid to go beyond that wall you built for yourself.
There really is no need for arguments, and open mind does not corrupt reason, reason will always be there and is a valuable tool to get rid of nonsense. But if what one has previously considered reasonable does not fit the experiences around them, then it will naturally have to expand and evolve.

I did state facts of my own... Is this some sort of joke?

I think my realization is I need to stop arguing with fideists.

Adept
23-01-2014, 04:23 PM
That's what happens at first, but if you relentlessly seek and unconditionally accept your inner truth, which includes the experiential reality of negative thoughts and emotions, something different will eventually happen, but the only way to become willing to do that is to value a way of being over a temporary outcome.

You mentioned "knowing your limits" earlier and to me that says fear-based decision making and living, i.e., mere survival. It seems to me that acting merely out of survival is faulty thinking. We survive in order to experience something better down the road, but if that something never comes, we are just surviving to survive and there's no point to that. Respecting your fears will keep you safe and it takes a small amount of courage to even acknowledge what you already know to be the full reality of your fears (which is why they bring you down), but that small amount of courage, if repeatedly sought, is enough to eventually unwind the underlying fear. There's much more to this, but hopefully that makes sense.



I've had depression and still have it by some definitions of the word. I've also had what I thought was much worse than depression, which was an inescapable terror that lasted for about a month at it's worst and for a few months to a lesser degree. My state of mind during that period was unfathomably bad, but I got out of it by allowing myself to fully experience it, essentially by accepting it as reality. Going through that gave me a level of confidence that I didn't have before.

Despite the fact that I still deal with depression-like symptoms, there's no question that there's a direction to the whole thing. I'm starting to find ecstatic states that are not caused by ideas about the future or comparisons to the past - I am truly ecstatic in the moment. Seemingly, I just need to smooth the whole thing out and I'll be good to go.

I suppose that counseling could help some people, but only insofar as it helps you to find the truth that you already believe. Counseling intended to give you coping strategies is inferior. It just is.

All I'm going to bother pointing out is, on the note of knowing your limits apparently meaning mere survival (straw man), I'd challenge you to fly. You yourself, not with technology. I think proof of spiritual advancement is surviving a jump of a very tall building, so since you're not limited by the fear of knowing your limits, give it a try! (I'm joking of course, I'd hope that's obvious but based on some of your "reasoning"... anyways do do this, you'll die).

BurningBush
23-01-2014, 06:03 PM
All I'm going to bother pointing out is, on the note of knowing your limits apparently meaning mere survival (straw man), I'd challenge you to fly. You yourself, not with technology. I think proof of spiritual advancement is surviving a jump of a very tall building, so since you're not limited by the fear of knowing your limits, give it a try! (I'm joking of course, I'd hope that's obvious but based on some of your "reasoning"... anyways do do this, you'll die).

Desires can be surrendered in the face of deeper desires. If you truly wanted to fly, that desire would not go away simply by thinking "this is ridiculous - I have limits" - that would only suppress the desire. It could, however, go away by facing the extreme frustration of trying to fly and being unsuccessful and making the decision to choose peace of mind over the desire to fly.

As I see it, spiritual advancement is about closing the gap between what is desired and what is perceived. In my experience to date, that occurs through better prioritizing desires and changing perceptions (which can occur in a lot of different ways).

If it weren't for fear, you would do whatever you wanted whenever you wanted, agreed? Of course you could say that you could do something like help someone else over helping yourself, but you'd still be doing that because you wanted to. Your statement about the building seems to imply that you want to jump off of the building. If you really wanted to then I guess you could - many people have knowingly acted in ways that would and did lead to their deaths. If you desired to live more than you desired to jump, then you wouldn't. I was not saying that survival is inherently pointless - I was saying that if you're not living the way you want to live, there's no reason to survive, but that's up to the individual to decide.


Fear of death, even certain knowledge of death, is not enough to stop some people from doing what they want.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2011/1101/360_bh_self_immolation_0119.jpg

Adept
23-01-2014, 08:23 PM
Fear of death is pointless, it's certainly not universal.

Adept
24-01-2014, 04:35 AM
Here - consciousness from the brain:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=0fu_k8_tae0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0fu_k8_tae0

Rawnrr
24-01-2014, 11:33 AM
Here - consciousness from the brain:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=0fu_k8_tae0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0fu_k8_tae0


You did listen to the whole of your video right?
About how at death all the "information" of our lives "returns to the realm of pure consciousness". This is exactly what I have been saying, that the consciousness exists on its own as data (if you will) and this data exists outside of our 3d manifest universe, which is (as you saw in that other thread about quantum theory) what I believe to be happening on the quantum level.
Consciousness existing on its own, and being interpreted by the brain.

It even calls the brain "a processor", a processor processes information, it is not the information itself...the information itself in this case IS consciousness.

So basically, you have shown that science does accept the realm of pure consciousness, at least mathematically in this experiment. But even then, just because science has worked out the math for something, still doesnt make it fact, it is still just theory.

Rawn

Adept
24-01-2014, 04:47 PM
You did listen to the whole of your video right?
About how at death all the "information" of our lives "returns to the realm of pure consciousness". This is exactly what I have been saying, that the consciousness exists on its own as data (if you will) and this data exists outside of our 3d manifest universe, which is (as you saw in that other thread about quantum theory) what I believe to be happening on the quantum level.
Consciousness existing on its own, and being interpreted by the brain.

It even calls the brain "a processor", a processor processes information, it is not the information itself...the information itself in this case IS consciousness.

So basically, you have shown that science does accept the realm of pure consciousness, at least mathematically in this experiment. But even then, just because science has worked out the math for something, still doesnt make it fact, it is still just theory.

Rawn

Yeah... That's not what it says. It gives a poetic take on the fact that the physical information which makes "us" is eternal, and when we die the information starts acting differently (no longer creating life) and eventually just returns to the mix of things. The particles that made our consciousness just join back up with the universe.

Good straw man though! Imagine if you put your efforts in fallacy toward sound reasoning.

Rawnrr
24-01-2014, 04:59 PM
wow.....you are a master of hearing only what you want to hear and denying anything else. You completely missed what that video was all about.

But I guess you cannot describe colour to someone who is colour-blind. There is just not enough frame of reference for it to make sense.

Adept
24-01-2014, 06:05 PM
wow.....you are a master of hearing only what you want to hear and denying anything else. You completely missed what that video was all about.

But I guess you cannot describe colour to someone who is colour-blind. There is just not enough frame of reference for it to make sense.

The video is about the theory that consciousness is partially based on untraceable quantum functions in the brain, not just the known processes involving neurons, synapse, etc. Even without the math it's a plausible felty as quantum processes exist everywhere in the universe. Obviously physical information is neither created or destroyed, it changes form. Death is an example of these processes changing form. After death the physical infomantion returns to the swing of things. "We come from the stars and return to the stars". So, technically, everything that creates "us" is eternal, it's simply starts functioning in a way that creates our lives and consciousness.

Theres a huge difference between closed mindedness and accepting what seems objectively true. I'm actually surprisingly open minded, but not enough to deny the earth orbits the sun. I'll leave that to you fideists.

Rawnrr
24-01-2014, 06:25 PM
I'll leave that to you fideists.

A wise man once said "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means" LOL

The video is about the theory that consciousness is partially based on untraceable quantum functions in the brain

AT least we are getting closer.
Only difference is that you somehow believe that the brain is creating the quantum functions. While the quantum functions are occurring, there was nothing in that video that evidenced the brain as the cause for them. Granted it also didnt say that the brain merely reacts to them either, and there lays the gulf of reason, which is cause and which is effect.

I can see where you are coming from in your point of view, however that point of view is far too limiting to experiences in this world. But since you fear looking at the larger picture may lead to becoming a fideist, it would likely be hard for you to see.
Truth is...I am far from a fideist...I just slice the bread a bit larger than you LOL

BurningBush
24-01-2014, 07:12 PM
I'm actually surprisingly open minded, but not enough to deny the earth orbits the sun.

Who denied that the earth orbits the sun?

Adept
24-01-2014, 07:48 PM
A wise man once said "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means" LOL

A fideist is essentially one who chooses faith over science / reason, thinking the former is more valid in the pursuit of truth. This may even include going as far as rejecting solid reason and evidence over faith. You keep saying I'm afraid when I'm the one commited to accepting what is true whether I like it or not.


AT least we are getting closer.
Only difference is that you somehow believe that the brain is creating the quantum functions. While the quantum functions are occurring, there was nothing in that video that evidenced the brain as the cause for them. Granted it also didnt say that the brain merely reacts to them either, and there lays the gulf of reason, which is cause and which is effect.

*sigh*, straw man. Obviously the brain does not cause quantum fluctuation but those processes are still tied to the brain . The quantum world is not mystical and magical, it's just a more fundamental aspect of the physical world. Quantum operations taking place on the brain are no different than the processes we already know of, the quantum processes are simply (currently) untraceable and more 'randomized'.

I can see where you are coming from in your point of view, however that point of view is far too limiting to experiences in this world. But since you fear looking at the larger picture may lead to becoming a fideist, it would likely be hard for you to see.
Truth is...I am far from a fideist...I just slice the bread a bit larger than you LOL

My big picture simply doesn't include magical events free from cause, such as would be required for consciousness free from the physical. Considering I've provided science from psychology, neuroscience, and physics as well as valid (if not sound) logic And you've provided NOTHING, obviously YOU don't understand fideism.

Adept
24-01-2014, 08:04 PM
Who denied that the earth orbits the sun?

Nobody, proof positive that even those who reject logical inference based on solid empirical evidence won't follow their own line of thought to the end.

BurningBush
24-01-2014, 08:41 PM
Nobody, proof positive that even those who reject logical inference based on solid empirical evidence won't follow their own line of thought to the end.

No one rejected logical inference as a process. You might need to re-read the thread.

Adept
24-01-2014, 08:52 PM
No one rejected logical inference as a process. You might need to re-read the thread.

I'd say rejecting a logical conclusion rejects the process as well, unless evidence supports multiple conclusions (which in this case it doesn't seem to).

BurningBush
24-01-2014, 09:10 PM
I'd say rejecting a logical conclusion rejects the process as well, unless evidence supports multiple conclusions (which in this case it doesn't seem to).

What I have been saying over the last 15 pages of this thread is essentially, "let's take a look at what constitutes evidence."

Adept
24-01-2014, 09:12 PM
What I have been saying over the last 15 pages of this thread is essentially, "let's take a look at what constitutes evidence."

So go for it. "Empirical Evidence" is a clear cut term, I first heard it in second grade.

BurningBush
24-01-2014, 09:17 PM
Here's another way to put it: "you" exist inextricably inside of consciousness (if you can't see that then we'll never agree), but the things we have been talking about such as the sun and whatnot, by your understanding, exist outside of consciousness. Regardless of what external (to consciousness) processes might create consciousness, the distance between the two is infinite. You have to place full faith in the translational abilities of your consciousness to know that your experience, e.g., your experience of the scientific consensus on the earth and sun, actually represents what is outside of consciousness.

BurningBush
24-01-2014, 09:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

BurningBush
24-01-2014, 09:28 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Kind of the same thing, but what I'm saying is that the ideas that I've painstakingly tried to explain are already understood by the scientific community.

Adept
24-01-2014, 09:46 PM
I'm well aware of all this, but you know what? It's irrelevant. Just like you have to take it in faith that you're not a brain in a vat. You want to sit around saying we can never know anything? Fine, I'll get you a cup to drool, stop preaching what you won't practice or get a stool and slip into an eternal dazed confusion to at least avoid hypocrisy. As pointed out pages ago, when we disuse loci and science they're already based on axioms that, by definition, cannot be argued against. So, now that we have addressed your "mind blowing" point, we can say that as far as knowledge goes, based on axioms we cannot argue against, consciousness from the brain is the only view supported by reason and evidence.

Adept
24-01-2014, 09:47 PM
Actually, BurnigBush, I'll help you out. I'll reject the faith in possible knowledge with you and therefore act as if there are no means of communication and everything is incoherent drivel.

Or should I say: €{*\ )$heo. &:010( t&@gio 5ghopa<|+_ '

BurningBush
24-01-2014, 09:54 PM
Just like you have to take it in faith that you're not a brain in a vat.

You're the one taking that in faith. I have no such opinion. Fideist!

You want to sit around saying we can never know anything? Fine, I'll get you a cup to drool, stop preaching what you won't practice or get a stool and slip into an eternal dazed confusion to at least avoid hypocrisy.

How am I being hypocritical? I can do whatever I want.

As pointed out pages ago, when we disuse loci and science they're already based on axioms that, by definition, cannot be argued against. So, now that we have addressed your "mind blowing" point, we can say that as far as knowledge goes, based on axioms we cannot argue against, consciousness from the brain is the only view supported by reason and evidence.

Who says we can't argue against these axioms? There's a difference between "don't" and "can't."

Actually, BurnigBush, I'll help you out. I'll reject the faith in possible knowledge with you and therefore act as if there are no means of communication and everything is incoherent drivel.

Or should I say: €{*\ )$heo. &:010( t&@gio 5ghopa<|+_ '

U mad bro?

Adept
24-01-2014, 10:27 PM
Argue A as Non-A. Go ahead.

Adept
24-01-2014, 10:28 PM
And faith isn't fideism. Seriously man, community college classes are relatively affordable. Logic, PHI 101.

wstein
24-01-2014, 11:28 PM
Here's another way to put it: "you" exist inextricably inside of consciousness (if you can't see that then we'll never agree) AND outside of it.

Adept
24-01-2014, 11:46 PM
AND outside of it.

Yup. In fact that's probably the majority. All of "you" functioning outside consciousness is keeping you alive.

Well not all, that's a misstatement, but you see my point.

BurningBush
25-01-2014, 12:28 AM
Argue A as Non-A. Go ahead.

This statement itself is an axiom based on a definition of what it means to be a something and a non-something based on the way the mind handles concepts and language. The axiom looks like this:

If something is an A, it is not a Non-A

So, by definition, I can't argue against it. Or can I? "A" and "Non-A" are just terms - they mean nothing without references to other things, kind of like what I was getting at by asking you why you call it "the sun." The experience of the bright light in the sky is not the same thing as the conceptualized "sun" in your mind and certainly not the same as the term, "the sun."

If something is an A, it is a Non-A

I did it. I'm the champ.

BurningBush
25-01-2014, 12:31 AM
AND outside of it.

Can you elaborate?

Adept
25-01-2014, 02:02 AM
This statement itself is an axiom based on a definition of what it means to be a something and a non-something based on the way the mind handles concepts and language. The axiom looks like this:

If something is an A, it is not a Non-A

So, by definition, I can't argue against it. Or can I? "A" and "Non-A" are just terms - they mean nothing without references to other things, kind of like what I was getting at by asking you why you call it "the sun." The experience of the bright light in the sky is not the same thing as the conceptualized "sun" in your mind and certainly not the same as the term, "the sun."

If something is an A, it is a Non-A

I did it. I'm the champ.

Yeah.... No. Go ahead and try again.

What's funny is all one have to see to know you failed is a response.

wstein
25-01-2014, 06:44 AM
Here's another way to put it: "you" exist inextricably inside of consciousness (if you can't see that then we'll never agree), AND outside of it. Can you elaborate? In short, consciousness is not the foundation of reality. Part of you as a spiritual being is composed of the stuff more fundamental than consciousness. So while part of you is conscious and thus inside it, part of you is also outside consciousness.

BurningBush
25-01-2014, 08:16 AM
In short, consciousness is not the foundation of reality. Part of you as a spiritual being is composed of the stuff more fundamental than consciousness. So while part of you is conscious and thus inside it, part of you is also outside consciousness.

When you say "stuff more fundamental than consciousness," are you referring to the physical world, which, when it comes to the topic of "you" or "me," means our bodies?

If there is life after death, that wouldn't be accurate. If I can continue to exist without this body, then I don't know how you say that the body is me.

Otherwise, I think it's just a matter of definitions. My body is something that I perceive, but if I don't associate it with "me," then it's not. If I do associate it with "me," then it is me. My body could be a necessary condition for me to exist, but I don't think that makes it me. If I am what I need to survive, I am also air, food, the sun, etc. That just seems like a stretch.

A human Being
25-01-2014, 11:16 AM
When you say "stuff more fundamental than consciousness," are you referring to the physical world, which, when it comes to the topic of "you" or "me," means our bodies?

If there is life after death, that wouldn't be accurate. If I can continue to exist without this body, then I don't know how you say that the body is me.

Otherwise, I think it's just a matter of definitions. My body is something that I perceive, but if I don't associate it with "me," then it's not. If I do associate it with "me," then it is me. My body could be a necessary condition for me to exist, but I don't think that makes it me. If I am what I need to survive, I am also air, food, the sun, etc. That just seems like a stretch.
I think wstein is talking about the formless Source of everything. I used to think consciousness was this Source, but I've been reading 'I Am That' by Nisargadatta Maharaj and apparently that's an incorrect assumption.

I could be completely wrong, like.

Rawnrr
25-01-2014, 11:49 AM
Your insults aside Adept.

If the brain is the centre of self and consciousness, then how do you explain phenomena such as OBE/astral projection, Past life recollections, telepathy, Ghost/spiritual encounters, channeling, precognition, and all those other experiences that involve consciousness acting in ways greater than the sum of the brains parts?
You are in spiritual forums, and there are alot of people here who can validate that such experiences occur.
The brain is a great tool for bringing consciousness to physical awareness, no one doubts its connectivity to consciousness, but if all the pieces do not fit in the puzzle, then it can obviously not be the entire answer. That is where "reason" dictates that you need a bigger picture.

THAT is what I mean by you being afraid to look at the bigger picture beyond the walls you built for yourself.


(and grow up..there is no need for your insulting comments, we are all adults here and can have adult discussions without the need for school-yard ****ing contests)

Adept
25-01-2014, 05:01 PM
Apologies, I did not mean to offend you. "Fideist" isn't really an insult, it's like calling someone an objectivist or a nihilist, it's just a title for a way of thought.

OBEs are, essentially, imaginations. I can imagine I am floating outside of my body any time I want. Add into that intoxicants, meditation, exhaustion, whatever it may be and the feeling can increase 10 fold. OBEs increase as we become less aware of the rest of our bodies, my friend said the craziest one he had was in a sensory deprivation tank (proof positive consciousness is affected by the body). Astral projection is essentially the same, just more controlled.

Past life recollections are simply mind games. I don't even know many who claim they have them. You get one life, there's no reason to believe otherwise.

Telepathy certainly is no more magical than psychic readings are. Just because you are good at reading others does not support consciousness free from the brain or magic.

Ghost encounters are explainable 99.9% of the time. It is well known that the mind can play tricks on an individual, you can sit in a dark room and lure yourself into an utter panic about entities that are not there. This actually happened to me yesterday; I heard a sound of an unknown cause, I kept thinking that someone might be trying to sneak up on me as a joke, I couldn't see well in the dark and ghost stories kept running through my head and I freaked and left the area, hahaha. As for the supposed unexplained ones, there are other possible explanations. Since this debate leaves room for ideas of various ridiculousness and possible pseudo-science, have you considered that ghosts are essentially a 'glitch' in space time? The quantum world is crazy who says it is not possible? Actually, ghost encounters almost perfectly mimick a "glitch".

As for precognition, again, just because you are good at reading situations does not prove all related fields are supernaturally inclined. Also, do not forget that we change our own memories, especially to fit our preconceived beliefs sometimes. A dream of a car wreck becomes a prophecy of a friend's deadly car accident only after the fact.

I'd like to note that it's interesting you say I am afraid of looking into these things when I've taken hours upon hours to study them and reach conclusions outside of the normal, blind assupmtion of "obviously it's magic". Further, in areas I feel still lack explanation (ghosts) I have come up with new theories that fit scientific understanding rather than drooling into a cup and repeatedly whispering "obviously it's magic..."

Now I would like to pose questions for you, Mr. Open-Minded.

Why does brain damage affect consciousness drastically if it is not produced by the brain?

If consciousness is not physical, how come nature and nurture form who we are through genetics, creation of neural pathways, conditioning, etc.

Why can we create mystical experiences by stimulating the brain with the "god helmet"?

Why can we take brain images and see exactly what parts of the brain are in use during activities?

Also, what are your qualifications in this area?

Oh, and why do drugs affect consciousness?

Rawnrr
25-01-2014, 06:51 PM
Apologies, I did not mean to offend you. "Fideist" isn't really an insult, it's like calling someone an objectivist or a nihilist, it's just a title for a way of thought.

No it was the "strawman" and the comments to the other person how they should go to college to learn to be "as smart as you". The Fidest comment is no bother, it just shows you really have no idea about me, and is kind of funny.


So basically you have written off all those experiences as non-entities, and disregarded them rather than looking at them as something real in this world.
When there are more than enough people who have had experiences and know the reality of them. I know many of my personal experiences could not be so easily written off as what you have stated, and hence the need for "thinking bigger".

I am always the biggest skeptic when it comes to my own experiences, and will always boil them down to the least mystical of theories, but some just cannot be completely written off like that.
Which I know i could never get you to see, so I wont even bother explaining them.



Now I would like to pose questions for you, Mr. Open-Minded.

Why does brain damage affect consciousness drastically if it is not produced by the brain?

If consciousness is not physical, how come nature and nurture form who we are through genetics, creation of neural pathways, conditioning, etc.

Why can we create mystical experiences by stimulating the brain with the "god helmet"?

Why can we take brain images and see exactly what parts of the brain are in use during activities?

Also, what are your qualifications in this area?

Oh, and why do drugs affect consciousness?


I have always acknowledged that the brain is the filter for consciousness in our physical/personal experience. If the filter is damaged (brain damage), then obviously the consciousness could not flow through properly.

The brain (like all of our body) is a living and growing thing, it will be affected by its own experiences and develop accordingly. I never said the brain is not part of who we are in the physical world, The mind (where the consciousness meets up with the sensations from the physical world) will always grow and learn and develop, so that eventually both the consciousness and the personal understanding will be as one (which may take many generations for humans to grow to that point)

If you stimulate the areas of the brain artificially you can create artificial experiences. That should be obvious.

Drugs are just another form of stimulant in the brain that can create artificial experiences...and I am not a drug user, apart from the occasional beer.
The drugs do not affect the consciousness, they just affect the brain so that it does not process the information properly...temporarily.....if it truely affected consciousness, then consciousness would never be the same again after doing drugs. However unless there is physical brain damage, then that does not happen.

Pretty simple really

Adept
25-01-2014, 07:03 PM
Hahaha, a straw man is a type of fallacy, not an insult. This explains my community college recommendation. I never said "be as smart as me". If ones sick I recommend a doctor, if one is having trouble grasping concepts I recommend classes on them.

Adept
25-01-2014, 07:04 PM
No it was the "strawman" and the comments to the other person how they should go to college to learn to be "as smart as you". The Fidest comment is no bother, it just shows you really have no idea about me, and is kind of funny.


So basically you have written off all those experiences as non-entities, and disregarded them rather than looking at them as something real in this world.
When there are more than enough people who have had experiences and know the reality of them. I know many of my personal experiences could not be so easily written off as what you have stated, and hence the need for "thinking bigger".

I am always the biggest skeptic when it comes to my own experiences, and will always boil them down to the least mystical of theories, but some just cannot be completely written off like that.
Which I know i could never get you to see, so I wont even bother explaining them.





I have always acknowledged that the brain is the filter for consciousness in our physical/personal experience. If the filter is damaged (brain damage), then obviously the consciousness could not flow through properly.

The brain (like all of our body) is a living and growing thing, it will be affected by its own experiences and develop accordingly. I never said the brain is not part of who we are in the physical world, The mind (where the consciousness meets up with the sensations from the physical world) will always grow and learn and develop, so that eventually both the consciousness and the personal understanding will be as one (which may take many generations for humans to grow to that point)

If you stimulate the areas of the brain artificially you can create artificial experiences. That should be obvious.

Drugs are just another form of stimulant in the brain that can create artificial experiences...and I am not a drug user, apart from the occasional beer.
The drugs do not affect the consciousness, they just affect the brain so that it does not process the information properly...temporarily.....if it truely affected consciousness, then consciousness would never be the same again after doing drugs. However unless there is physical brain damage, then that does not happen.

Pretty simple really

You know, that's not a half bad cop-out. Let me think on it.

Rawnrr
25-01-2014, 07:13 PM
Not a cop-out...thats what I have been saying from the beginning ;)

Adept
25-01-2014, 08:09 PM
Not a cop-out...thats what I have been saying from the beginning ;)

No it's a copout, you're giving untestable theory as opposed to one evidence can be gathered for. It's not a hypothesis because it cannot be falsified, it's pseudo-science like ancient alien theory.

I tell you what, link me just one scientific source of high consciousness independent of the physical and I'll yeild.

You'll notice the catch.

Rawnrr
25-01-2014, 08:49 PM
Which is why people dont play poker with you.....you stack the deck.
"I want you to do this, but only if you do it like this"

Obviously if science had the answers to these things, if it did, then they would not even be up for discussion.....but guess what....science does not have the answer for everything yet.
Just because science doesn't have an answer yet, doesn't mean something doesn't exits. It just means science has alot to learn.
It also does not mean that reason cannot be applied to try to figure it out.

I know the reality and validity of my experiences...and as such I have to look for explanations that will encompass them.
Will they suit you?...hell no......unless you have an experience that defies current scientific understanding you will obviously remain blind to it.
Thankfully the world is not limited to your experiences...and those that do have them will do the work to sort them out.

BurningBush
25-01-2014, 09:01 PM
Past life recollections are simply mind games. I don't even know many who claim they have them. You get one life, there's no reason to believe otherwise.

What's the difference between memories of this life and memories of past lives? I'm not saying that there is no difference, but they both occur within a similar frame. If memories of past lives are invalid, maybe memories of this life are too. Maybe all of the knowledge that you've accumulated in order to write your posts about scientific consensus is invalid.

Why does brain damage affect consciousness drastically if it is not produced by the brain?

If consciousness is not physical, how come nature and nurture form who we are through genetics, creation of neural pathways, conditioning, etc.

Why can we create mystical experiences by stimulating the brain with the "god helmet"?

Why can we take brain images and see exactly what parts of the brain are in use during activities?

The observations that you speak of are not observations of consciousness. Consciousness and observations of the actions of others or physical phenomena are different things. The only consciousness you can observe is your own.

Adept
25-01-2014, 09:39 PM
The observations that you speak of are not observations of consciousness. Consciousness and observations of the actions of others or physical phenomena are different things. The only consciousness you can observe is your own.

False. You may not be able to prove others around you have their own identity, aren't robots, etc, but what we observe as consciousness can be tested. One example is the mirror test.

Why am I trying to explain this to you though? You're a skeptic, shouldn't be be sitting in silence?

BurningBush
25-01-2014, 10:04 PM
False. You may not be able to prove others around you have their own identity, aren't robots, etc, but what we observe as consciousness can be tested. One example is the mirror test.

By mirror test, I assume you mean if I look at my own reflection I can determine that I am a consciousness within a body? Even if I use the mirror, the existence of other consciousnesses is not proved. I'm still dealing with my own consciousness, and I don't even need the mirror. I can just look down at my body.

Why am I trying to explain this to you though? You're a skeptic, shouldn't be be sitting in silence?

It doesn't seem like you want to sit in silence.

BurningBush
25-01-2014, 10:08 PM
I looked up the mirror test. The test deals with observing actions, not consciousness.

Adept
25-01-2014, 10:50 PM
I looked up the mirror test. The test deals with observing actions, not consciousness.

Self awareness is part of high consciousness.

And no, I don't want to sit in silence because understanding and knowledge has led to a decent existence for humanity. I'm not a hardcore skeptic. You're the one who wants to sit around trying to imagine A as Non-A, and the only way to practice such skepticism is silence of thought and action.

wstein
26-01-2014, 02:24 AM
When you say "stuff more fundamental than consciousness," are you referring to the physical world, which, when it comes to the topic of "you" or "me," means our bodies? I am not referring the physical world. The physical world is markedly less fundamental than consciousness. It is a mixture of many, many elements of which consciousness is only one.

If there is life after death, that wouldn't be accurate. If I can continue to exist without this body, then I don't know how you say that the body is me. I would never say the body is you.

You being a conscious being require consciousness to be who you are. However, you are more than consciousness.

Otherwise, I think it's just a matter of definitions. My body is something that I perceive, but if I don't associate it with "me," then it's not. If I do associate it with "me," then it is me. My body could be a necessary condition for me to exist, but I don't think that makes it me. If I am what I need to survive, I am also air, food, the sun, etc. That just seems like a stretch. It’s not a matter of definition or semantics to me, it’s a product of experiences I have had.

I suggest you consider what ‘elements’ (not the things on the periodical table) things are made of. What properties do they have? Anything that has more than one property is not fundamental in nature. Even the simplest subatomic particle has hundreds of properties. From what I can tell, consciousness has dozens of properties (that does not include its contents). It would be possible to define consciousness very narrowly as to only have a dozen or so properties. Either way , to me that makes it removed from ‘fundamental’ by many degrees. So I suggest you write out a definition of consciousness and examine it closely. Did you refer to concepts like ‘process’, ‘knowledge’, ‘awareness’, ‘memory’, ‘facts’, ‘I’, ‘identity’, ‘beingness’? Those things are more fundament than concousness.

wstein
26-01-2014, 02:25 AM
I think wstein is talking about the formless Source of everything. I used to think consciousness was this Source, but I've been reading 'I Am That' by Nisargadatta Maharaj and apparently that's an incorrect assumption. Read above, there is vast amount of reality between the formless source and emergent things like consciousness.

Neville
26-01-2014, 02:26 AM
Could it be that my consciousness has been drawing perfectly reasonable conclusions about the world it has found itself in and that to change the world around me, I must change the lens, i.e., the body?

It's all to do with the lens , in my experience. How we feel about a thing is a direct correlation to how we perceive a thing.

Rawnrr
26-01-2014, 12:45 PM
Saw this in another thread, and thought adept might be interested......while it may not be "proof".....there does seem to be alot of evidence collected by someone with a well trained background

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=924022#post924022


.

BurningBush
26-01-2014, 05:06 PM
I suggest you consider what ‘elements’ (not the things on the periodical table) things are made of. What properties do they have? Anything that has more than one property is not fundamental in nature. Even the simplest subatomic particle has hundreds of properties. From what I can tell, consciousness has dozens of properties (that does not include its contents). It would be possible to define consciousness very narrowly as to only have a dozen or so properties. Either way , to me that makes it removed from ‘fundamental’ by many degrees. So I suggest you write out a definition of consciousness and examine it closely. Did you refer to concepts like ‘process’, ‘knowledge’, ‘awareness’, ‘memory’, ‘facts’, ‘I’, ‘identity’, ‘beingness’? Those things are more fundament than concousness.

I see what you're saying, but don't some of (if not all of) the things you listed constitute contents of consciousness or at least categories of contents?

I'm not sure that I'd say that each of us is consciousness. If there's anything I associate myself with, it's probably desire, which could also be considered content, but without desire, there's not much reason for existence. Consciousness needs to be there for desire to exist, but I'm not sure I'd consider it "me."

wstein
27-01-2014, 04:28 AM
I see what you're saying, but don't some of (if not all of) the things you listed constitute contents of consciousness or at least categories of contents? By 'contents' I meant experience, knowledge, instinct.

BurningBush
27-01-2014, 05:48 AM
I suggest you consider what ‘elements’ (not the things on the periodical table) things are made of. What properties do they have? Anything that has more than one property is not fundamental in nature. Even the simplest subatomic particle has hundreds of properties. From what I can tell, consciousness has dozens of properties (that does not include its contents). It would be possible to define consciousness very narrowly as to only have a dozen or so properties. Either way , to me that makes it removed from ‘fundamental’ by many degrees. So I suggest you write out a definition of consciousness and examine it closely. Did you refer to concepts like ‘process’, ‘knowledge’, ‘awareness’, ‘memory’, ‘facts’, ‘I’, ‘identity’, ‘beingness’? Those things are more fundament than concousness.

By 'contents' I meant experience, knowledge, instinct.

Now I'm confused. You used the same terms/ideas to describe contents and processes. Are you differentiating between, for example, the capacity for knowledge versus specific knowledge?

wstein
27-01-2014, 07:15 AM
Now I'm confused. You used the same terms/ideas to describe contents and processes. Are you differentiating between, for example, the capacity for knowledge versus specific knowledge?
Yes.

Sorry about knowledge appearing above and below consciousness. Circular referencing was not intended.

More fundamental than consciousness should have been reference-able and that which is in consciousness as knowledge (instance of a specific reference to something).

The more fundamental 'stuff' is simply the possibility of a property; as in this is a property something less fundamental can have. That there even can be 'fundamentals', 'properties', and 'possibilities' is close to the most fundamental stuff there is. Think of the less fundamental stuff (like consciousness) as a mixture of more fundamental stuff.

As an example 'reference-able' is such a fairly fundamental property. Consciousness requires that property in order to process symbols. (Symbolic) Information processed within a consciousness also has that property. Consciousness is not more fundamental than 'reference-able' because it deals with information which also has the 'reference-able' property. Information is not made up of 'consciousness', it is merely manipulated or contained by consciousness.

I don't know if that will clear anything up for you or not. This sort of stuff kills brains in frighteningly large numbers.

BurningBush
27-01-2014, 03:20 PM
Yes.

Sorry about knowledge appearing above and below consciousness. Circular referencing was not intended.

More fundamental than consciousness should have been reference-able and that which is in consciousness as knowledge (instance of a specific reference to something).

The more fundamental 'stuff' is simply the possibility of a property; as in this is a property something less fundamental can have. That there even can be 'fundamentals', 'properties', and 'possibilities' is close to the most fundamental stuff there is. Think of the less fundamental stuff (like consciousness) as a mixture of more fundamental stuff.

As an example 'reference-able' is such a fairly fundamental property. Consciousness requires that property in order to process symbols. (Symbolic) Information processed within a consciousness also has that property. Consciousness is not more fundamental than 'reference-able' because it deals with information which also has the 'reference-able' property. Information is not made up of 'consciousness', it is merely manipulated or contained by consciousness.

I don't know if that will clear anything up for you or not. This sort of stuff kills brains in frighteningly large numbers.

I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure it does anything for me. I just don't identify with, for example, my abilities to compare and contrast, which I would say are the most fundamental of the properties (without them awareness wouldn't be possible because there would be nothing to reference anything against and I think that lacking either would result in the same nothingness). I know that I have those abilities, but I don't think of them as "me," just like I don't think of consciousness as "me."

Also, there are some who would say that none of the other properties would be possible without a medium, the medium being awareness. I guess you are saying that these properties are inherent in awareness, but I don't think that all of them are. For example, we wouldn't need a capacity for memory to be aware, at least in theory.

Maybe this will be of some use down the road.

wstein
28-01-2014, 03:42 AM
I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure it does anything for me. I just don't identify with, for example, my abilities to compare and contrast, which I would say are the most fundamental of the properties (without them awareness wouldn't be possible because there would be nothing to reference anything against and I think that lacking either would result in the same nothingness). I know that I have those abilities, but I don't think of them as "me," just like I don't think of consciousness as "me."

Also, there are some who would say that none of the other properties would be possible without a medium, the medium being awareness. I guess you are saying that these properties are inherent in awareness, but I don't think that all of them are. For example, we wouldn't need a capacity for memory to be aware, at least in theory. As for awareness without memory, certainly possible. Many of the most simple single cell organisms have awareness but very limited memory.

I do think you got what I said. While I differ, I don't see any hard evidence to suggest if either of us is more correct.

Adept
28-01-2014, 03:56 AM
As for awareness without memory, certainly possible. Many of the most simple single cell organisms have awareness but very limited memory

Exactly why differentiation is needed between low and high consciousness. If we get technical, even atoms are "aware". They interact, combine, move, etc. However, you would not call atom conscious entities, even saying they are aware pushes it. Humans have the most advanced brain we know of and are one of the only species exhibiting high consciousness, they're related.

wstein
28-01-2014, 06:10 AM
Exactly why differentiation is needed between low and high consciousness. If we get technical, even atoms are "aware". They interact, combine, move, etc. However, you would not call atom conscious entities, even saying they are aware pushes it. Humans have the most advanced brain we know of and are one of the only species exhibiting high consciousness, they're related. I'm not so sure about 'need' but certainly very helpful for mental based beings.

One of the difficulties is aligning 'higher' and 'lower' to the really big picture, which is more or less what BurningBush and I were discussing.

The 'problem' is that while differentiation aids clarity, it leads away from the 'ultimate' whatever it is.

Most people either start and or end up at totally uniformity nothing or totally uniformity oneness. Differentiating to or from those 'endpoints' brings clarity but doesn't actually explain anything. How did oneness become more than one (if it did), or how did nothing cease to be nothing. Where did all this apparent stuff come from?

Still, I have found a 'map' of differentiation very useful in exploring reality. The specific differentiations 'present' allow me to know roughly where I am in the infinity. Though it has allowed me access to a lot of reality, it hasn't provided much of a clue as to how permanently move around in it.

Adept
02-02-2014, 05:53 AM
How does differentiating between high and low consciousness not, ultimately, help us understand it? Saying that things either end up as nothingness or oneness seems... Well I don't know I don't see what you mean.

wstein
02-02-2014, 07:14 AM
How does differentiating between high and low consciousness not, ultimately, help us understand it? I did not say it doesn’t help understanding. In fact I said it brings clarity. I said it is not necessary to differentiate or understand.
Saying that things either end up as nothingness or oneness seems... Well I don't know I don't see what you mean. oneness and nothing are the obvious extremes of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’. As one ‘differentiates’ further and further, one often ends up at one or other of the extremes. Things don’t end up anywhere, they are as they are. What ‘ends up’ somewhere is your understanding.

While using a framing like higher and lower helps understand consciousness at work or in context. It does not actually help clarify what consciousness is.

The other problem with ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ is that is implies a ranking. However this turns out to be misleading. What does ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ consciousness actually mean? Is not consciousness well just consciousness?

Adept
02-02-2014, 06:58 PM
Higher simply means more advanced / complex. That's rather simple to infer.