What Makes A God?

Not so. I'll say it again, even though it is not flashy it is important. Imagination is crucial to perception. Imagination doesn't make the world what it is, it allows you to perceive it.

 

It does matter China. That's the whole point; I'm calling it "Universe", allowing me to approach it scientifically, while you're calling it "God", blocking you from approaching it scientifically.

I believe that mystical experiences allow a union with the universe in some sense, and that these experiences can be had by the very universe itself; our minds and the neurochemical solids from which they appear to emerge.

No China, because those gods were never conscious. You are conflating an object in consciousness for consciousness.

But there is no conflict with having a hallucination be a tool; for example, hallucinating an oasis in the desert is a tool to give you motivation to keep crawling across the dunes.

I also have never, EVER said that psychedelic experiences are "Mere hallucinations"; it's that word "mere" which tells me you completely miss the mark in your thinking. You might as well say we live in a "mere" universe.

Sigh, more tangled conflations.

There is nothing in atheism which espouses a position on the neurological source of consciousness. You can be an atheist and believe that the brain generates consciousness, and you can be an atheist and believe that the brain receives consciousness from an all-pervading field or potentiality. Notice that even in the receiving model of the brain, we could still have a completely biochemical explanation for this, with consciousness being akin to magnetism. STILL no need for anything supernatural!

You have to also admit that as much as you for some reason detest the idea that the brain generates consciousness, there is also just as much lack of proof of your rival theory.

This is an open question, needing data. This is science.

And if pigs could fly, maybe my stock in Boeing would rise? I wonder what my stock broker thinks?

 

when asked about itself in the OT, all God really replied is "I am".
no adjectives, no qualifying descriptors, simply a statement of being.

 

It does matter China. That's the whole point; I'm calling it "Universe", allowing me to approach it scientifically, while you're calling it "God", blocking you from approaching it scientifically.

This is ridiculous. First off, me using the word God isn't stopping me from approaching it Scientifically. It's stopping you from approaching it Scientifically. I'm the one attempting to approach God, Kundalini, Magick, Astrology from a Scientific perspective and you're the one who isn't.

And no, whether you call it the Universe or God doesn't make a damn difference. It's still what it is.


No China, because those gods were never conscious. You are conflating an object in consciousness for consciousness.

You don't have proof for this statement.

Calling it magnetism instead of something supernatural is no different than calling it 'Seasonal Biology' instead of Astrology. It's only your narrow-mindedness which is preventing you from calling it Astrology.

 

It's an open question with lots of paradigms and assumptions hinging on the notion that the brain creates consciousness, when there isn't actually proof for it. And still, we act as if this is the way it is. If we didn't, then ideas such as Magick wouldn't sound outlandish.

If Consciousness actually does supercede the brain, and exists outside of it, it's a LOT more than just Science. There's a reason why Science can't answer that question yet, and that's because it would make Science undoubtedly Spiritual, would bridge the two, and would also change and transform the entire foundations of Science itself. If Consciousness is primary, then our entire paradigm of ourselves, the world, and the manifest universe would vastly and radically shift on its heels. If Consciousness is primary, then there would be no reason to write off NDE's, Mystical Experiences, Magick, Astrology, and much more. It would also open up much evidence that Consciousness continues further than death.

And yet, at the same time, this discovery would be nothing actually new. Mind (Consciousness) before Matter is Hermeticism, and Hermeticism is ancient.




You have to also admit that as much as you for some reason detest the idea that the brain generates consciousness, there is also just as much lack of proof of your rival theory.

This is an open question, needing data. This is science.

 

I don't see what it matters if you've really been to Neptune or not. You aren't necessarily separated from Neptune; the fact that Neptune exists could arguably be called like being there. I know some of you won't understand this. We live in one universe. Everything is technically in one place. So the question of being there may not be totally relevant to size and distance between objects. It two people drop LSD and one says facetiously, "Dude, let's go to Neptune," and the other replies, "I'm already there," you can't just argue that he's having a meaningless experience because the way he has expressed himself verbally seems false to some people on the surface. It doesn't automatically seem false to me. I think someone can have a deep, perhaps spiritual, connection with the planet Neptune. I think someone can have a deep, perhaps spiritual, connection with the planet Neptune's surface.

Edit: Also if a poet is talking about going to Neptune with someone, he's either comparing Neptune to a feeling of disorientation, perhaps, or he's describing going somewhere unusual. In either case the sensation is meaningful, even if it's not actually Neptune. Right?!?

Why do archetypes exist and who is to say they aren't just as real as physics? There is an objective world called reality, but seemingly it is also made up of completely subjective matter. It isn't just made up of laws of physics. It is made up of crazy, senseless stuff that is completely abstract from definition. On the surface, this world makes no sense. That's why things were invented to explain it. But everyone is so carried away explaining it that they've forgotten that on the surface it makes no sense. It's important that it makes no sense on the surface, because you can't say that reality is the physics of something that makes no sense on the surface. Reality is also what people can imagine.

Is reality so abstract that it can reflect us in some way, in which case meaningful experiences can evidently exist in real harmony between a human being and his/her environment? I think it is that abstract. Whether or not it is that abstract may be a matter of opinion now, but it may become a matter of science later. To try and describe the physics of reality would just be an abstraction, because it simply is on some level. It is certain that it is, and there's no saying what it is, because its isness is what it is.

 

Sometimes our mind can be so open, that we can hear the wind blowing through our ears. It's important that in our struggle to question authority and assumptions (even/especially scientific ones) we stand back for a moment and think about our own contributions to the discussion and ask whether we are helping anything or just "making words" which ultimately do not further us in any direction; this is called sophistry.

Do you think it is relevant to you that you are not currently inside the center of the sun? Or that you are not the size of an electron? Do you think the size and distance of objects will be an important factor on your commute to work tomorrow?

I'm sorry but this is flat bullshit. You know it's false. You know it's false more than you know it's true that you exist right now.

If you are in a room, in a house, on Earth, with two guys tripping on acid, and that conversation happens, you don't suddenly run for an oxygen canister nor attempt to suppress the hundreds of Atmospheres of pressure crushing you nor do you freeze within seconds because of the extreme cold of Neptune.

When you hear two people have that dialogue, you smirk to yourself, and think "man they are tripping", and maybe you aren't judging them for it, maybe you wish you "were there" with them, but you know more than anything else that those two dudes in your living room are not on Neptune.

And later, when they are sober, they too will tell you that they were definitely not on Neptune as well; they were tripping balls.

Tell you what, if you know of two dudes who can arrive on the surface of Neptune by ingesting LSD, you need to give NASA a call RIGHT NOW, because they are going about this whole "Space Exploration" program the wrong way, and let me tell you, they are spending WAY too much money doing the wrong things. All they need is Trevor and Jason and 5 hits of good acid and some burritos and Phish.

Please. Please. Stop and think about what you are saying before you post it. Listen to how it sounds. Remember that impressionable young people are reading these messages and trying to learn.

They can have a deep spiritual experience with their idea of the planet Neptune. The idea of Neptune's surface. How can you have a deep spiritual connection with something we can't even get a picture of? Does Neptune's surface reciprocate this spiritual connection? What if there is no surface, because Neptune is actually a Gas Giant class planet with no surface? https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=does+neptune+have+a+surface



What then does this mean for your paradigm of "spiritual experience"? If you are having "spiritual experiences" with a non-existent surface of a planet you've never been to, what does that say about other relationships in your life? About your other spiritual experiences? Casts a bit of the old shadow of a doubt, wouldn't you say?

Sure, but then we know we are listening to poetry and we know he is using metaphor. We do not mistake his literary use of the planet Neptune in typifying disorientation, with the actual eighth planet from the sun.

To clarify, because this is apparently a philosophical concept of supreme sophistication and subtlety;

Here is a picture of someone a) thinking about neptune b) writing about neptune c) using the word "neptune" how they please d) having a mystical experience with their idea of neptune




HERE IS THE PLANET NEPTUNE



Please, if you are still struggling with this distinction, may I kindly point out that you may not be the best person with which to have a serious metaphysical debate!

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/08/09/scientists-observe-man-travel-out-of-his-body-and-into-space-what-he-saw-was-remarkable/

 

This is all essentially missing the point. A metaphor, piece of poetry, mystical experience, etc. etc. is JUST AS LEGITIMATE of an experience as the planet Neptune. If someone has their own personal subjective "God experience", there's literally nothing that you can say about the planet Neptune that somehow refutes someone's personal experience. If someone looks at a picture of Jesus, and goes through a deep spiritual experience, to argue that somehow this experience isn't legitimate is ludacris. Via the archetypes and symbols, these figures DO actually have a life to them. They are interacting with the observer in a deep way. To argue that this somehow "isn't real" is like arguing that listening to music somehow "isn't real".

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. All I'm saying is that, in a sense, we aren't really separate from anything. That includes Neptune, in my mind. It also includes the landmarks on my way to work. There's no real measure of how real a thing gets, so what is "being there"? Standing on Neptune isn't going to make the experience of it any more real than just knowing it exists, necessarily. I think there's a real sense in which distance and size don't matter as far as being somewhere goes. We're sort of there, in other words.

I don't smirk to myself and think they're tripping. I take their remarks seriously and think to myself that they're describing something. It doesn't matter if they're on Neptune or not. They're either describing the sensation of actually being someplace foreign or they're describing a feeling of disorientation. Either case is interesting to me, and I don't just blow them off like they're a bunch of morons.

So what people are arguing in this thread is whether or not it's possible for someone to write meaningfully about being on Neptune? I'm just saying you can, and I think there is a deeper connection between the writer and Neptune than just something silly and trite.

I'm not struggling with the distinction at all. I'm struggling with why you think I can't make the distinction. Did I say that the planet Neptune was a human being? Depending upon how deep you want to get, I suppose one could argue that Neptune is all of us.

Hey, Chinacat likes my posts, so I guess I am contributing something. I am also fairly proud of my own thoughts on this subject, despite the way you and bedlam choose to abuse me. I find the whole subject quite fascinating, and I do think I'll stick around, so instead of constantly accusing me of trolling or in your words having a lack of sophistry, you might as well get used to me hanging around.

 

There is plenty of proof, as in correlating evidence of "modes of consciousness", that specific brain regions activate and function with specific observable behaviors, activities, diseases, etc. In fact, in the ~ 75 years or so, the brain has been imaged (closer to ~50 years in any sense as many of us understand it) The evidence is pretty overwhelming. Although I might ascribe to a weak reductionist type view of consciousness, because I'm not entirely comfortable with some of the resulting implications of strong reductionism.

However we would need to come up with new explanations to phenomena such as mental retardation (intellectual disability), disorders, disease, and probably a whole host of common phenomena.


For instance, one question that 'comes to mind', if consciousness supercedes the brain and the brain is just like an antennae, why would mental retardation be such a peristent condition in an individual?

Pretty much a rhetorical question.

 

uhhmmm, because the hardware is broken?

 

Writer feels that everything is essentially separate from everything else. So his scoffing at the "madness" of saying that a person and the planet Neptune aren't essentially separate and are actually connected in a deep Spiritual way is exactly why he scoffs at Astrology and Magick and also why he feels there are no deities and also that nothing happens after you die. It all reflects his own beliefs in essential Egoic Separation.

 

There is plenty of proof, as in correlating evidence of "modes of consciousness", that specific brain regions activate and function with specific observable behaviors, activities, diseases, etc. In fact, in the ~ 75 years or so, the brain has been imaged (closer to ~50 years in any sense as many of us understand it) The evidence is pretty overwhelming. Although I might ascribe to a weak reductionist type view of consciousness, because I'm not entirely comfortable with some of the resulting implications of strong reductionism.

Once again they are seeing certain parts of the brain light up that are attributed to certain behaviors and assuming that therefore one region of the brain is responsible for CREATING certain behaviors, rather than looking at that region of the brain as the SPACE that CHANNELS a certain behavior.

It's once again a topic of looking at the brain as creating behavior, or looking at the brain channeling something prior to itself (something i would call Consciousness, aka the God essence). When you decide to pick up a cup, is it YOU who is deciding it, or your brain deciding it? I would say it's You.

The region of the brain lighting up every time that I decide to pick up a cup is expected and predictable but that doesn't mean that the brain itself is the one responsible for the cup being picked up. It's simply reflecting that area of the brain just like it's also predictable that my arm will raise every time i decide to pick up a cup.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. All I'm saying is that, in a sense, we aren't really separate from anything. That includes Neptune, in my mind. It also includes the landmarks on my way to work. There's no real measure of how real a thing gets, so what is "being there"? Standing on Neptune isn't going to make the experience of it any more real than just knowing it exists, necessarily. I think there's a real sense in which distance and size don't matter as far as being somewhere goes. We're sort of there, in other words.

I really resonate with that sense of Nonlocality that you are speaking of. I mentioned it once in another thread, and much of the esoteric studies go far into the sense that we are directly connected to the Sun, for example. And we really actually are. If it weren't for the Sun, we wouldn't even be here, comfortable in a room. But for some reason Scientists like to stop there, and disregard the rest of the planets. Makes no sense to me.

I don't smirk to myself and think they're tripping. I take their remarks seriously and think to myself that they're describing something. It doesn't matter if they're on Neptune or not. They're either describing the sensation of actually being someplace foreign or they're describing a feeling of disorientation. Either case is interesting to me, and I don't just blow them off like they're a bunch of morons.

Yeah he sounds like a bummer to be tripping with.

I would recommend checking out the concept of Faculty X by Colin Wilson, to further elaborate on the sensations and senses of being somewhere foreign. He describes it as a dormant power that occasionally arises in humans now that we don't have to be as concerned about our survival instincts. This power for the mind to take us to other locations.

 

I don't think writer is trying to say that these people aren't having some sort of meaningful experience or thought. I think he's just trying to say that those experiences don't prove the existence of anything.

Mr. Writer I think you are right-er.

 

Yes, but the existence of Myth and Archetypes brings in a Reality to so-called fantastical ideas. Even in an energetic way. If a symbol impacts someone deeply then who is to say that that presence isn't real? You can explain it away neurologically all that you want and it doesn't change anything.

 

Also if a poet is talking about going to Neptune with someone, he's either comparing Neptune to a feeling of disorientation, perhaps, or he's describing going somewhere unusual. In either case the sensation is meaningful, even if it's not actually Neptune. Right?!?

It's awesome that you said this, because it just so happens that Neptune Astrologically represents mystery, fogginess, disorientation, illusion, etc. Neptune is about Transcendence, and Transcendence is conceptually foggy to this little brain of ours.

http://www.astrology.com/article/planets-neptune.html

 

We aren't saying the sensations and feelings aren't real though. No one ever said that. They are very real and meaningful, the just aren't a planet.

 

.