Religion Vs. Philisophy

Your comments here are based on several assumptions, logical, common, and existential ones of course, but assumptions just the same:

1.) that humans are the only sentient beings in the universe

2.) that the human mind is the only form of mind

3.) that mind exists only within the 3 physical dimensions and time. (I argue that time is physical because it is only our perception of the 4th dimension.)

4.) that observation happens only at a conscious level.

and the last one, which still gives the atheists something to work with,

5.) that it is only through mind that probability wave collapses occur and physical reality manifests in a concrete material sense.

Depending on how you answer any one of these questions can change all the others.

1.) The universe our earth is so small and immaterial to the universe that it would be horribly wrong to assume that life on earth is the only life. We don't know, but it is safe to assume that elsewhere in the 'physical' universe, there are other conscious observations being made.

2.) We don't really know what mind is from a scientific standpoint. Within this thread we have discussed Buddha-Mind (Buddha Nature, One Mind, etc.) and the religious and cultural that gave birth to that concept was one of the Atman. In Modern Culture we primarily experience mind, and focus our discussion on mind as conscious mind. Modern Man is in fact largely alienated from his own subconscious---which is why it takes a psychologist or a gyspy to even began to try to understand our dreams (and the psychologist is probably better money spent, but not always...). Philosophers since Descartes have showed time and again that Descartes was not complete with his "I think therefore I am." That, for example, there is a precognitive awareness that before you can think that you are, you must be aware that you think. In addition Sheldrake has done some interesting research that is statistically significant that even animals have higher levels of awareness that we understand as supernatural. It is through our mind that most spiritual experiences take place. In the end can we assume that spirit, for example, is not a form of mind?

3.)All we can truly prove to exist in a physical sense is the present--and yet mind transcends the present. We remember, anticipate, plan, intend, relive--the mind is not restricted to physical reality. Experiments such as the Double Slit experiment and the work at MIT suggest that the mind can produce non-local results. The Wheeler Delayed Observation version of the Double Slit experiment suggests that time is not an issue, and that we can impact the past. (Though I do not believe we can change the physical past as it happened---we are only changing phenomena as we experience it in the present from the past.) This all demonstrates that mind may have a higher dimensional aspect of it. Light, for example, is a timeless nonmaterial thing (it is zero-mass, zero-time). The Special Theory of Relativity paints light as a fourth dimensional thing. Yet we experience the phenomena of light. You cannot hold mind in your hand, just as you cannot hold light in your hand. (Yes, there are designs for objects that could be pushed through empty space via light, but the mind has been shown to move things as well...) Our experience of mind, however, is certainly not something limited by Newtonian physics, and the physical dimensions.

4.) the mind grows and expands by taking learned processes and automating them, relegating them to a non-conscious level. We gain knoweldge and insight from subconscious (or as some say, unconscious) processes. science has demonstrated time and again that an awful lot of our behavior (some even say 'all') happens based on chemical and other responses to non-conscious perceptions. There is no reason why we need to be 'consciously' perceiving something for it to manifest.

5.)Decoherence is how physical reality manifests without an observer. However is it really free of mind? That is an interpretation that is free to be determined between the various belief systems of the world---including atheists who would have their own take on it. I can certainly make a strong argument for essentialism and reality is consistent from one moment to the next. But someone else would find a different interpretation.

I wanted to write more, but I am dealing with some issues with my step kids---when it rains it pours----several need help all of a sudden...

 

A (no) Theism (belief in personal creator deity). You too are an atheist, towards the many gods of antiquity which you don't literally believe to have existed, such as Thor, Zeus, etc. Everyone on this planet is an atheist towards thousands of gods. "Atheists" just take it one god further.

I'm not dogmatically stating that there is no spirit; I just don't know to what that word points, and you haven't been able to explain. I suspect you are grouping certain mental experiences together and calling that "spirit" as though it were something separate.

I have experienced spiritual experiences, which is something different from spirit. A spiritual experience is possible without the existence of a spirit, don't let the etymology fool you. Just as a musical experience is possible without being Musicus, God of Music.

It would be confused if I were dogmatic. I'm not. I don't know whether or not there's an atman; like I said my personal explorations and research make me suspect that anatman is the truth. This comes from profound experiences of anatman. I have also had profound experiences of atman/brahman. Turns out that what you experience tends to be related to what's floating around inside your mind! Maybe in a year, or ten years, or on my deathbed, my mental formations will suddenly flip and realign with the atman principle, given new information.

I could also get into the fact that we needn't follow these philosophies indefinitely; there may come a point where our own understanding surpasses the stories we've been told and we are forced to compile our very own narrative for what we are experiencing. I find a certain symmetry between a truth that says that everything inside is inherently the deepest shining jewel of the cosmos (brahman/atman), and everything inside is inherently the deepest shining void of the cosmos (anatman). I see these as actually two spins on the same situation, two different ways of looking at the problem. Akin to atheism and pantheism; one is about how everything is non-god (homogenous) the other is about how everything is god (homogenous). Both views result in beauty and symmetry. It's a matter of perspective.

It's not like I have the answers to these questions right? Do you? I am wary of anyone who says they do, especially when they then cannot explain said answer. I say keep looking, the rabbit hole goes down even deeper. Things we take for granted today will be ridiculed in a hundred years.

 

I have experienced spiritual experiences, which is something different from spirit. A spiritual experience is possible without the existence of a spirit, don't let the etymology fool you. Just as a musical experience is possible without being Musicus, God of Music.

This is a sloppy translation. Spiritual experiences would imply Spirit, not a God of Spirit. Just as Musical experiences would imply Music, not a God of Music.

Pantheism would also imply a singular Universal Consciousness, or inner Essence or Spirit to all things in the manifest world.

And it really isn't that much of a stretch to consider that Christ Consciousness would be akin to Brahman/Atman, Anatman, and any either highest spiritual ideal that takes on its own unique flavor in every religion. Christ is referring to something that's universally within all beings. It's not referring to one guy named Jesus per se. If you can connect Buddhism and Hinduism together, you can keep going further than that.

You also need to reconcile the views on death if you can call Anatman and Atman the same thing. Atman refers to something that's an eternal essence that survives death, while Anatman refers to no essential entity or essence.

Personally, I feel that the Anatman is referring to the fact that your Ego self is composed of nothing of ultimate essence, but I still feel that there is a higher eternal Self that survives death, which would be the Atman, which you slowly discover for yourself while removing the many layers of your Ego self. I don't know about most people in regards to profound Ego-loss experiences, but my experiences with them have shown me that my sense of self is completely illusory (Anatta), and that all of manifestation is a singular expression. This singular Self I would call the Atman or Brahman. When you look into another's eyes and see with profound clarity that you are them and that they are you, this is the recognition of no-self and of Universal Consciousness.

So Anatta is the discovery that there is no Ego-self, which you could call no-self. And with this discovery, you can potentially realize the Atman, or Higher Self, or just Self. This is One Self you could call God, and it also has the potential to express itself through a variety of mythological archetypal symbols, such as the vast variety of Gods and Goddesses.

And for the record, when I use the word Spirit, I basically am meaning a Universal non-local and non-personal Consciousness, which permeates all beings and things.

Spirit is immaterial

Consciousness is immaterial (even Scientists would say so)

Spirit is aware

Consciousness is aware

Spirit can't be fully pinpointed by Science

Consciousness can't be fully pinpointed by Science

Spirit = Consciousness itself

.......

If you think that Consciousness originates in the brain, then you would argue that Spirit originates in the brain. I don't feel that Consciousness originates in the brain. I think that the brain channels Consciousness and there are even Scientists who feel this way as well. Consciousness is non-local. If you ask for where is the proof, I can also ask where is the proof that Consciousness originates in the brain?

 

while we are quibbling over sloppy translations

No mention of spirit there. Idealism is not my position but by specific definition doesn't "Transcendent consciousness" necessarily include mind?

 

nice try, but from Wikipedia:

The word spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality. The notions of a person's spirit and soul often also overlap, as both contrast with body and both are believed to survive bodily death in some religions,

.............

Many people in a variety of spiritual circles refer to Consciousness and Spirit as being one and the same as a matter of fact.

Yes, transcendent Consciousness includes the mind. I would say that a Hermetic statement such as The All is Mind would mean that all is Consciousness or Spirit, and this still includes your individual mind. There are different uses of the word "mind". mind undercased tends to be slightly different than Mind.

 

@ saying "nice try" then posting a Wikipedia entry. The official definition of spirit by the dictionary is different but I don't care to turn this into a semantic pissing match. I'm sure we could pull up some definitions of "spiritual" to make Writer's use of the term appear consistent and acceptable as well.

Even if I concede the part you quote, I'm not following where spirit deviates from mind.

 

Show me the proof that Consciousness originates in the brain. This is the primary debate that we are dealing with here.

 

Actually the primary discussion I've been involved with has been discussing the discrepancy of mind and spirit.


Consciousness is not considered a "thing" in the brain like an amygdala, it's a often considered an emergent phenomena of the brain by the available physical science, so pretty much ANY study which correlates neural correlates with mental response or behavior is proof that the brain is producing consciousness in a very literal sense.

 

Yes but I am equating Spirit with Consciousness so it is the same discussion.

At the end of the day Science knows that certain lights light up when certain parts of the brain get stimulated. But I wouldn't call this proof that the brain is producing Consciousness.

 

That's unintelligible to me, what are you talking about ?

 

Even if you were to explain that the brain produces consciousness, you'd be no closer to explaining what consciousness is or how the laws of physical reality pertain to it.

Saying "Consciousness is produced by the brain" and "Consciousness is the brain" are two vastly different things. The truth is that we have no idea what consciousness is, even if it is produced by the brain. It doesn't seem bound by the same laws that govern physical objects. It can't be said to be moving, really. It can't be said to be at rest. It has no mass. No forces are exerted upon it. It doesn't seem to be physical at all.

The only way it seems to be physical is if we assume it is the brain and not something extra being produced by the brain. But how do we tell if the brain is producing something essentially different than what it is as a physical object? How would we ever know if something beyond the laws of physics is being produced?

It's really quite a conundrum, and proving that the brain produces consciousness doesn't make it any easier to describe. But suppose the brain isn't producing anything extra, and is just being the brain. In that case we can't say that one causes the other, really, because they're the same things. If you cut a piece of brain away, you aren't cutting a piece of consciousness away any more than you are cutting away a piece of consciousness and making a part of the brain disappear. They're the same thing. So what is primary, then, the matter or the mind?

Clouds produce rain, but clouds aren't rain. The sun produces heat, but the sun isn't heat. Factories produce shoes, but factories aren't shoes. Explaining that one thing produces another says nothing about the other it produces.

 

It does though, I am just using it practically, as a shorthand. it's much simpler and easier to digest than saying something like oxytocin released in the hypothalamus (brain) produces sexual arousal and facilitates bonding (consciousness). Now obviously that's not comprehensive of Brain or Consciousness but it is in fact suggesting Brain is producing Consciousness and it says something about it.

 

Just that when machines are set up to study the brain that when certain parts of the brain are stimulated that certain lights light up in regards to what's being stimulated, and that this is assumed to be proof that the brain creates consciousness.

 

So is it the technology you distrust?

If so, probably the most genuine thing you could do is not post on machines anymore..

Or is it the method?

If this is it, do you have any other ideas on how to physically study the brain and behavior? I doubt we can resort to lobotomies in all studies.

 

The problem with saying that the mind is a phenomena arising from the physical brain, is that it could also be the other way around.

Once again, all we can say that truly exists in a physical sense, is the present. Physical reality exists within the present. What we understand as concrete material reality--or physical reality as mass, manifests through probability wave collapses through which the particles and quanta of that mass has a physical location in space-time. Each probability wave collapse lasts for only an infinitessimal point of time before returning to a super-positioned state. This happens only within the physical dimensions as that is where space-time exists.

If mind transcends the physical dimensions, and as I have said, it does transcend the physical now, then it could very well be that the physical manifestation of the brain is simply how mind, a higher dimensional thing, presents itself within physical reality.

Why would it do this, with all the myriad neural cells and complex structures---more connections than stars in the Milky Way galaxy? Because in order to exist within physical reality--the physical dimensions--in such a way that it can directly experience and participate within that reality, it must exist in a physical sense. If we all existed simply as spirits, we may experience the physical world, but would we experience it directly?

On the subject of spirit---I have often experienced spirit as 'the Other.' Much of Native ceremony is based on such. I have described the Lakota yuwipi or spirit calling ceremonies on this forum. There are plenty of things experienced within these--many experiences are shared between all the participants, while others are experienced individually. The main thing that everyone experiences together is the rattles. At the beginning of the ceremony, the rattles are placed at opposite sides of the Medicine Man's altar in the middle of the room. The ceremony itself is done in pitch dark---but the rattles give off blue sparks as they shake and hit each other. The rattles however move all over the room. They bounce around the ceiling, move over and behind the people and fly all over the room.

My very first yuwipi ceremony, I got stuck behind a support beam, and I thought, "Darn, what if I can't see anything." I had no idea how dark it would be, or even what I would be able to see. But then I realized why I was put there---I watched the rattles move towards me along the ceiling and then around the post--one on each side--and continued over and behind me. The rational side of me was struggling to find what kind of trick was doing this. But when the rattles moved around the post, I realized there was no trick.

Animal spirits come into the ceremony, and you hear and feel their presence. I could go on with a lot of stories. Many of the Natives I do this with have been going to these ceremonies since they were little kids. They have not only experienced them through their lives, but have seen the power of them, as prayers are answered, and amazing things happen. For them, this is not a matter of debate. It is a fact of life.

 

I feel the argument about whether the brain produces consciousness or consciousness produces the brain is an outdated question. It's like arguing about which way the window should be looked through. Either way you look at it leads to a different view of creative and evolutionary possibility..

The brain is an awesome console and once the dynamics of it's influence can be understood and utilised it holds amazing potential to be able to direct and induce certain states and flavours, but I think without an intimate understanding of consciousness beforehand, it will inevitably wreak havoc on our species.
I feel the average age of humanity is that of a spoiled adolescent prick. We've worked hard, bought our first car, tweaked around with it and therefore think we can drive around like a fucking maniac because we're badasses.. the possibility that we could ever crash still seems to be beyond us.
We're fuck ups, and materialism has retarded our development as a species(materialism as a state of consciousness, by this I mean to include popular religious dogmatic beliefs and the rational approach to understanding the universe - though the latter is preferable in most cases, simply because it's slightly more useful).

The common blockage between the two is the limited capacity of mind. It's naturally disconnected since it's function is to divide.
Even if the links between phenomena can be distinguished, the method in which the mind accomplishes this is still inherently disconnected since it can only focus on one point at a time.
Attempting to stitch the pieces together and creating a rather impressive tapestry, it still leaves holes. The holes it leaves are filled with the same absence as the rest of the room it's hanging in, and everything else that room doesn't even contain because the room itself is even a construct with even bigger holes.

How do we align the intention and excitement of the mind and it's awesome capabilities with the delicately balanced nature of arising, the womb from which every thought, breath and particle was birthed? Is it really a good idea to actually go any further with things, because most actions I witness are primal and reactive, due to an undeveloped ego rebelling from the parent system rather than taking care of it whilst it dies out naturally.


It's a huge task on a global scale, but luckily we're only really responsible for ourselves. Fuck other people, we're just as lost and confused as each other. Bring it back home... and on that note, I've got a dog to walk.

 

To play with Wolf's post again, I've likened the physical plane as the surface of water.. very distinctly a surface, but it exists only as a concept due to the meeting of substances with differing densities.

Exploring these different atmospheric conditions requires a psychological death of some kind, particularly in the west since our gestalt is so complete within the confines of the rational mind.. I can quite safely say I stumbled into some altered state and have been living(?) there for the past 2 or 3 years, horrifyingly confusing and... "liquid".
I considered the psychiatrist at many points, but I'm glad I didn't go because I would have been put away, or severely medicated because my train of experience will NOT have likened to the concepts of some "qualified professional' just dealing with another patient after a day filled with alcoholics and abused mothers.

I can now gladly say I am quite sane, and my life circumstances prove it since I seem to have merged practicality and idealism quite well, somehow... and I have to actually give a shoutout to Wolf, Meagain, Dope, Themnax and Tikoo for your presence on these forums. And everyone else here that puts up decent information.. the mental sparring really kept me on my toes and you guys offered an amazing skeleton within an expansive vacuum.


It feels really awkward posting this, but I feel that the conceptual reality is tearing at the seams and awareness of potential circumstances that can follow are required. There's a horrifying amount of new-age horseshit "knowledge" out there, so I would urge both skepticism and open mindedness.. Science beyond the mind.

 

A famous study by Libet showed that the process of acts such as moving a finger happen before participants are conscious of it.

Another study by Ammon and Gavenida used transcranial stimulation to influence which hand the participants move in a study.

Could probably go on for awhile with related studies, the available evidence is not so thorough that I would expect one entrenched in their views to give them up, as most are dealing specifically with movements but other than perhaps parts of What the Bleep do we know, which I've since come to learn is chalk full of pseudoscience, I haven't really seen anything to the contrary.

 

In regards to the floating rattles aneceote, can you go to another one of those events and bring a go pro or something? That would be fascinating to capture on video.

 

The conclusions that are being made is what I disagree with.

Just because you're studying certain parts of the brain being stimulated regarding various moods, behaviors, etc., does not mean that the brain is creating your consciousness. If I raise my right arm, there can be a correlation to the brain for that as well. But there is still an Observer who decides when to raise the arm and not the arm. You can't find this Observer in the brain. Even if my arm automatically jerked up every 30 seconds due to some disorder, there is still the Observer that is experiencing this state of physical restriction. The subjective I is what Consciousness is, and you can't find that in the brain.