It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists See God on the Brain

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 





Perhaps what we consider "so horribly wrong" has simply been a developmental stage.



Yes, that thought did cross my mind.

Then that would , let's say, create a group of people more highly evolved,

Kinda like natural selection?




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

How is contemplating a scientific theory not the same as meditation?

Could it be the same thing?


Well, I am a philosopher. And, I also concentrate highly on science. Although many scientists today "pooh pooh" the idea, philosophy is the parent of science. A good course on the history of science will demonstrate that quite readily, though many science majors only study the fruits of science, and not the tree itself. Philosophy initially was also tightly interwoven with spirituality, before modern philosophers came along and decided to separate themselves from it.

I think that the insights gained into all three, spirituality, philosophy, and science, all do originate from the same sort of thinking. Although the "memorizers" those who learn science and philosophy rather than participate actively in the thinking that produces it, may disagree vehemently.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Yes, if you get the chance, I recommend you read the article on Kin selection. It is a bit lengthy, but it is a very interesting piece that shows that on the way to altruism, one must be discriminating. (Destroy those who would take advantage of your altruism without themselves providing the same benefit.)

One would like to think that you can just be all loving, all giving and all kind, and have that be rewarded. But thats not how nature (or God) has designed things. Even along the path to Oneness, it seems a little bloodshed may be necessary.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


See IAG, I'd have to disagree with one thing. I have found that selfishness, true selfishness, is the key to altruism and philanthropy.

There are really two kinds of selfishness...

The first is a short sighted selfishness which reacts based on a short term view. This type of selfishness sees everything as very final, so the emotional response is typically violent.

Then you have the second form of selfishness which reacts based on the long term view. For example, someone hits me, my ego is bruised, so my short term selfishness might want to strike back at the person. Knowing that this could lead to many other problems for myself in the long run, I don't strike back.

In the sense of giving, it's the same thing again. Why do I give?
1. It feels good... selfish
2. If you believe in Karma, Amra, or Reap what you Sow, then selfish once again
3. If I give in someone's time of need, the chance is higher that someone will give to me in my time of need... once again... Selfish.

As a matter of fact, there is NOTHING which is done by the human, which is not selfish. Everything, indeed everything they do is selfish.

For example... see Mark Twain's essay on What is Man?

The trick is not to introduce some false dichotomy which distinguishes the outside from the inside, but to realize a truth in the narrative that the outside IS the inside... and thus what you do to the littlest of these, you do unto ME.

It's really quite simple actually. :-)



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 





I think that the insights gained into all three, spirituality, philosophy, and science, all do originate from the same sort of thinking.


I bet they do.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 





In the sense of giving, it's the same thing again. Why do I give?
1. It feels good... selfish
2. If you believe in Karma, Amra, or Reap what you Sow, then selfish once again
3. If I give in someone's time of need, the chance is higher that someone will give to me in my time of need... once again... Selfish.

As a matter of fact, there is NOTHING which is done by the human, which is not selfish. Everything, indeed everything they do is selfish.


I understand this as well.

But I think once it is realized one can rise above it.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


For example... see Mark Twain's essay on What is Man?

I am going to save that for later, would you give me a synopsis.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 





The trick is not to introduce some false dichotomy which distinguishes the outside from the inside, but to realize a truth in the narrative that the outside IS the inside... and thus what you do to the littlest of these, you do unto ME.

If this is true, then wouldn't the difference between selfishness and altruism be a false dichotomy? Wouldn't all selfishness be "outish"ness, since the dichotomy between self and other is false?
I think its impossible to prove that such and such an action is unselfish, but that doesn't mean that altruism does not exist (unless there is no real difference). The basis of most transcendental belief systems is a focus on dissolving the ego. By your reasoning however, the act of attempting to dissolve the ego would be an egoic act. I suppose it could be, but what happens if a person actually reaches that state of egolessness? Or do you believe such a thing is possible?
The egoless state is reported as being a blissful state, where a state of complete unity with everything else, and a complete loss of sense of self. Usually this state does not involve interaction or participation with the environment (what would be the point, you are the environment), but some people have claimed to people to hold this state while interacting with others and performing seemingly selfish tasks.

edit- added last paragraph


[edit on 13-3-2009 by outsider13]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Yes, if you get the chance, I recommend you read the article on Kin selection. It is a bit lengthy, but it is a very interesting piece that shows that on the way to altruism, one must be discriminating. (Destroy those who would take advantage of your altruism without themselves providing the same benefit.)

One would like to think that you can just be all loving, all giving and all kind, and have that be rewarded. But thats not how nature (or God) has designed things. Even along the path to Oneness, it seems a little bloodshed may be necessary.


Alright, Kin selection, you have a link?

Thank you

Is this one ok?
www.utm.edu...

[edit on 123131p://bFriday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by outsider13
 





I suppose it could be, but what happens if a person actually reaches that state of egolessness? Or do you believe such a thing is possible?



I think it is possible, every once and a while we make a breakthrough and get a glimpse of the possibility.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


For example... see Mark Twain's essay on What is Man?

I am going to save that for later, would you give me a synopsis.



In a nutshell?

We are all deterministic meat puppets who's only motivation is an internal sense of comfort. Even if we are sacrificing, we do so, because we would feel bad about ourselves otherwise...

Yep... that's pretty much what he showed in the essay...



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by Aeons
A spot in the brain to enforce herd/hive functions.


Then you are saying the ME is the positive, and the US is the problem?

[edit on 123131p://bFriday2009 by Stormdancer777]


When either is over emphasized, the whole being and the system breaks down.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 

HI HUNKA, HUNKA, BURNING LOVE,




We are all deterministic meat puppets who's only motivation is an internal sense of comfort. Even if we are sacrificing, we do so, because we would feel bad about ourselves otherwise...


Are you spiritual at all?

I do not see how seeing us as meat machines helps us evolve.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by Aeons
A spot in the brain to enforce herd/hive functions.


Then you are saying the ME is the positive, and the US is the problem?

[edit on 123131p://bFriday2009 by Stormdancer777]


When either is over emphasized, the whole being and the system breaks down.


OK, I will have to think about it.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


You should read Kant.

He claims, and I agree, that there are some things which are not done from selfishness. He actually goes over in detail why certain acts, while appearing "selfless" are actually selfishness in disguise. Which is much the same argument you are making. While he acknowledges these types of acts exist, (and he labels them by type revealing their underlying selfishness quite nicely) he simply comes to a different conclusion. He believes that there are acts that are purely "moral" or selfless.

en.wikipedia.org...


A categorical imperative is an unconditional obligation; that is, it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires (Contrast this with hypothetical imperative)[33] In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) Kant enumerated three formulations of the categorical imperative which he believed to be roughly equivalent[34]:

Kant believed that if an action is not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value. He thought that every action should have pure intention behind it; otherwise it was meaningless. He did not necessarily believe that the final result was the most important aspect of an action, but that how the person felt while carrying out the action was the time at which value was set to the result.


I would tend to agree. In my own experience, I have done many things that I did not get a reward in terms of public acclaim for, and which offered me no material benefit, and which not only did not offer me a sense of personal satisfaction, but pained me in the doing. I did these things because I felt they were my moral obligation. A duty.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


The kin selection study link is this one Storm,

www.msu.edu...

Its a bit dry, but if you like thinking about these sorts of things, I think it may be useful in showing how altruism and selfishness actually compete in evolutionary terms. There isnt a whole lot of data on the subject, but there is a program, (Avida) which allows modeling of evolution via computation which allowed this study.

It is very enlightening, and definitely changed my thinking a bit on the value of "discrimination." I started out just flat out opposed to it. But after considering this piece, I had to change my mind. Discrimination based only on the superficial, (skin color, gender, etc) I still think is detrimental to humanity. But this made me realize that we need to be doing more behavioral discrimination. As a society, one of the things I see is that the most altruistic among us may actually be hindering a move towards greater overall altruism in the species, by not discriminating at all against those who would exploit the altruistic among us.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 





but that how the person felt while carrying out the action was the time at which value was set to the result.


Yes, you will know.

At times it can become quite natural, maybe we are not evolving but coming full circle.

You should start a philosophy topic, Illusion, I love some of it, yet most is hard for me to get my mind around, you should start a topic and help people like me.

A part of me thinks philosophy and spirituality should come naturally.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

OK, thank you, I will check this out.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by outsider13
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 





The trick is not to introduce some false dichotomy which distinguishes the outside from the inside, but to realize a truth in the narrative that the outside IS the inside... and thus what you do to the littlest of these, you do unto ME.

If this is true, then wouldn't the difference between selfishness and altruism be a false dichotomy?


Yes... that is exactly the case in the abstract. However, as most people see a difference between these, they still must be mentioned





Wouldn't all selfishness be "outish"ness, since the dichotomy between self and other is false?



Nope not at all... outishness would presuppose no innerness.





I think its impossible to prove that such and such an action is unselfish, but that doesn't mean that altruism does not exist (unless there is no real difference). The basis of most transcendental belief systems is a focus on dissolving the ego.



And I would argue you your quickest route would be a frontal lobotomy.

In my own experiences and path, I have found that there is nothing, including the process of ego dissolution which is not motivated by the ego.

They trick is not annihilation of the ego, but the enlightenment of it.




By your reasoning however, the act of attempting to dissolve the ego would be an egoic act.




Yep...


Let me use an example from Rumi....

Rumi said that the last thing an aspirant must let go of is their own scriptures, as they are nothing but soap.

He goes on to say that soap is simply the dirt we buy, to remove the dirt that we don't want.



I suppose it could be, but what happens if a person actually reaches that state of egolessness?



Well, there are many different layers of experience that comes from that path. And keep in mind, I too practice TM, etc.

One of the experiences is not so much a sense of selflessness, although it is referred to as such, as it is a sense of Self.

For example,

(I is being used to refer to the location of consciousness)


State 1. I am Jimmy... Jimmy is blah blah blah... Jimmy has blah blah blah and Jimmy loves blah blah blah, and Jimmy hates blah blah blah... Jimmy Hopes... etc

State 2. I am Jimmy, but I am also John.... Jimmy is one of my hands, and John is another....

State 3. Jimmy and John disappear and now I am simply a motive... Many people confuse this state with selflessness, when in fact, it's simply JimmyandJohnlessness to a certain degree. However, now the motive takes on the sense of importance, and this is where many people get sidetracked into a sense of a messiah complex...

Now there are many many more states from here on out, and these states are not necessarily constant, although some avatars have, in the past, maintained them for lengths of time. However, eventually, it comes back to this saying...

Before enlightenment, Chop wood.... carry water....
After enlightenment... Chop wood.... carry water....


Also, if your path is one of removing desire... then you will find yourself at a point where the only thing you desire, is to desire something ;-)

And that is an apocalyptic time for the individual sense of self, which ends up being a renaissance with the end result being a redefinition of all things as seen from the perspective of that individual self.






Or do you believe such a thing is possible?
The egoless state is reported as being a blissful state, where a state of complete unity with everything else, and a complete loss of sense of self.



To be honest, it's not so much a loss of sense of self that the bliss comes from, but the liberation from the trappings of the sense of self as one sees these things from a more abstract perspective.

If you are spending your life struggling with the needs and desires of the Jimmy, then it can get down right painful dealing with all of that...

But if you take the path of devotion, as the Hare Krsnas do, you can find joy through the sublimation of this. In fact, what you are doing is simply saying "I don't matter, but You do". And if you can trust your guru... this is great news, as it relinquishes you from all responsibility for a time... and believe me who doesn't want to drop responsibility! :-)

But this is not the goal, it is simply a technique which can free your mind from one set of patterns by giving it yet another set of patterns, which causes contrast, and enlightenment to ensue.



Usually this state does not involve interaction or participation with the environment (what would be the point, you are the environment), but some people have claimed to people to hold this state while interacting with others and performing seemingly selfish tasks.



It's like the actor on a stage, who realizes he is an actor, plays his part to his best, all the while everyone who is watching is, at least temporarily, deluded that he actually is the character he is playing.



To be honest though.... the whole Path analogy is simply that.

If you are on this path looking for bliss, then I guess we can see the egoic nature of it can't we ;-)

However, if you are on this path looking for whatever might happen to be there... then I encourage you to have fun with it... but realize that as you traverse it, as some artifacts of mind begin to appear smaller, others will appear bigger.

Now... I will say that for me, enlightenment is a continual process. I've experienced many different states, and expressions of mind. But the real bliss that all of this as taught me is that everything is a matter of perspective, and that perspective is the only thing I ultimately have control over. The world you live in, depends greatly on what you decide to name the animals in it.


The last thing I will say, is that this entire post of mine, was in line with my egoic nature. I, Jimmy, really enjoy discussing these things... so I do... because it makes me feel good :-)



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ctjctjctj
Wake up, sheeple!


I have only few words for you:

Baaaaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaa


I'm sure that your superior gray matter have much more sophisticated insight into greatest mysteries of the world and that you know the ultimate truth.

And while you think that what you are seeing on your monitor is the Matrix passing by, please, do tell, how would you know that you took a red pill if you were color blind since birth ?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join