What is your problem with "matter" ?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by rwfresh
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


You're the one dogmatically claiming that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain. Not me. Or did i misunderstand?

Yes you misunderstood. I didn't say that. You assumed so, and then proceeded to dogmatically express as fact that consciousness precedes your brain:



My declaration that my consciousness precedes my brain is 100% verifiable. But you'd have to be me to experience the truth of it though. I am assuming you understand this premise, based on your last message.

Then you continue to assume. This is exactly what I was talking about. Assuming and dogmatizing. There's no need to assume here, just ask me a question and I will answer truthfully.



I can accept that your consciousness is a byproduct of your brain because you say so. No problem. And we now know you never make assumptions about people so you should be free to accept my proof.

I didn't say so. Also, you haven't shown proof, you asserted it. Big difference.

Cheers.


You can play schoolyard tit for tat by yourself if you want. Or you can just speak plainly to me about your experience. Either you believe consciousness is a byproduct of the brain or not. We can review your messages above or you can just assume we both are able to read. I give you permission to assume..

In terms of proof.. what proof do i need to provide? That my consciousness precedes my brain? How might i empirically prove that? How might you empirically prove otherwise? So absolutely juvenile to make a declaration and then run and hide from it.

I don't mind saying again that my consciousness absolutely precedes my brain because there is nothing in my experience that offers any proof otherwise. On the contrary. And i totally believe that your experience (that is also unprovable) of yourself MAY be the opposite. Of course now you are pretending you have no belief either way so the discussion is utterly pointless.

Keep those empirical walls up Commander Data. It the safest bet in this dastardly unproven Reality.




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
You can play schoolyard tit for tat by yourself if you want. Or you can just speak plainly to me about your experience. Either you believe consciousness is a byproduct of the brain or not. We can review your messages above or you can just assume we both are able to read. I give you permission to assume..

I do assume we can both read, should I be mistaken? Review my posts and see that I didn't dogmatically express that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain like you are assuming.



In terms of proof.. what proof do i need to provide? That my consciousness precedes my brain? How might i empirically prove that? How might you empirically prove otherwise? So absolutely juvenile to make a declaration and then run and hide from it.

You mentioned I should accept your proof. I said you didn't provide any. How is that hiding from anything? What's so juvenile about it? Here's what I was replying to:



And we now know you never make assumptions about people so you should be free to accept my proof.

I'll keep waiting for the proof...



I don't mind saying again that my consciousness absolutely precedes my brain because there is nothing in my experience that offers any proof otherwise. On the contrary. And i totally believe that your experience (that is also unprovable) of yourself MAY be the opposite. Of course now you are pretending you have no belief either way so the discussion is utterly pointless.

Am I pretending? Once again, you're telling me what I'm doing without knowing. Much like the rest of your assumptions, you are wrong. I would advise against that. I am not pretending anything. I didn't share my beliefs with you because I am not being dogmatic. You on the other hand, are.



Keep those empirical walls up Commander Data. It the safest bet in this dastardly unproven Reality.

Aah my good friend ad hominem. He always arrives when my debate partner is struggling.

If everything is consciousness, why are you talking to a guy on the computer again? Shouldn't you be able to think the thoughts and I would know them?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I don't have any problem with matter. It doesn't matter to me at all.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope


You mentioned I should accept your proof. I said you didn't provide any. How is that hiding from anything? What's so juvenile about it? Here's what I was replying to:



And we now know you never make assumptions about people so you should be free to accept my proof.

I'll keep waiting for the proof...

Am I pretending? Once again, you're telling me what I'm doing without knowing. Much like the rest of your assumptions, you are wrong. I would advise against that. I am not pretending anything. I didn't share my beliefs with you because I am not being dogmatic. You on the other hand, are.

Aah my good friend ad hominem. He always arrives when my debate partner is struggling.

If everything is consciousness, why are you talking to a guy on the computer again? Shouldn't you be able to think the thoughts and I would know them?


Absolutely. But if you speak german and believe english is in fact nonsensical gibberish you will likely ignore it when you hear it. Does that mean english is nonsensical gibberish? The nomenclature of science works the same way. Deeper understandings are only communicated when there is a base of agreed understanding. Your misunderstandings on truth and reality are correlated with your inability to acknowledge the basics. You are asking for proof of 1=1.


I have seen zero empirical or logical evidence that implicates everything is consciousness. It's up to those who wish it to be true to prove it. Until then, I won't hold my breath.


Anything you accept as empirical or logical is only provable in the little sandbox you've agreed to with yourself. The sandbox is built entirely on assumptions. 1=1. 1+1=2. Without assumptions you have no proof. none. It's easily demonstrated but you dare not share your feeble beliefs. Prove 1=1? If this isn't your assumption then let me know what you consider empirical and i will show you the assumptions made to demonstrate the proof. Sorry, that's how logic, math and science work. Without any agreed upon assumption you cannot formulate a proof. So don't talk to me about empirical proof because it's without substance in the context of reality.


No experiment can be verified by myself unless my own nervous system is part of the equation.


The above is the basis for the only proof i can offer you with regards to my experience being MY consciousness precedes my brain. If you are unable to extend your own belief to include my experience it speaks directly to your blind ignorance. You like common sense, you base your beliefs on it. So exercise some when it comes to understanding ANY proof must be accepted with assumptions. No one can force any proof that requires an accepted nomenclature to be communicated. I can easily deny any assumptions required for proof of ANYTHING simply by arguing the meaning of the nomenclature. You are nothing but beliefs. Clinging to some nomenclature that requires acceptance of assumptions to be true does not make it true. The experience of truth is the only actual proof. I think that is what you were trying to say while also attempting to salvage your secret belief system.


I would appreciate if you didn't assume I was exactly like you. Nothing against you. I have a problem when people try to portray me as if they know me.


Me too. If you review I've openly stated the truth of my OWN experience. Not some fake objective agreed upon truth derived from a mountain of unprovable assumptions. My experience is direct and definitely not arguable by you. You can only speak from your OWN experience. And I've already agreed with it despite your inability to openly share it.

Peace and good luck!
edit on 21-8-2012 by rwfresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Absolutely. But if you speak german and believe english is in fact nonsensical gibberish you will likely ignore it when you hear it. Does that mean english is nonsensical gibberish? The nomenclature of science works the same way. Deeper understandings are only communicated when there is a base of agreed understanding. Your misunderstandings on truth and reality are correlated with your inability to acknowledge the basics. You are asking for proof of 1=1.


You're assumptions about me in regards to the quote above:

•"But if you speak german and believe english is in fact nonsensical gibberish you will likely ignore it when you hear it."

•"Your misunderstandings on truth and reality are correlated with your inability to acknowledge the basics. "

•"You are asking for proof of 1=1. "

In reality, how much do you know about me? Zero. I just want you to remember this as we go into your next quote.



Anything you accept as empirical or logical is only provable in the little sandbox you've agreed to with yourself. The sandbox is built entirely on assumptions. 1=1. 1+1=2. Without assumptions you have no proof. none. It's easily demonstrated but you dare not share your feeble beliefs. Prove 1=1? If this isn't your assumption then let me know what you consider empirical and i will show you the assumptions made to demonstrate the proof. Sorry, that's how logic, math and science work. Without any agreed upon assumption you cannot formulate a proof. So don't talk to me about empirical proof because it's without substance in the context of reality.

If you have problems with assumptions, why so much assuming? It seems you and science have much in common.

Look, I already mentioned I understand the limitations of science. Even science understands the empirical fact that science is limited. Even though you are giving hypocrisy a bad name, you're in fact preaching to the choir. Unlike others, I use science as a tool.

It is empirical that there is not a purple tyrannosaurus under your bed. It is empirical because no one has seen a purple tyrannosaurus rex. Even if you ended up pulling out your old stuffed Barney doll, my claim would still be valid. Is there a possibility that you may have cloned a purple dinosaur hidden under your bed? Absolutely, but it's not very likely. In your opinion, should one believe someone when they assert "I have a purple tyrannosaurus rex under my bed."? I know I wouldn't—not without first seeing it myself.



The above is the basis for the only proof i can offer you with regards to my experience being MY consciousness precedes my brain. If you are unable to extend your own belief to include my experience it speaks directly to your blind ignorance. You like common sense, you base your beliefs on it. So exercise some when it comes to understanding ANY proof must be accepted with assumptions. No one can force any proof that requires an accepted nomenclature to be communicated. I can easily deny any assumptions required for proof of ANYTHING simply by arguing the meaning of the nomenclature. You are nothing but beliefs. Clinging to some nomenclature that requires acceptance of assumptions to be true does not make it true. The experience of truth is the only actual proof. I think that is what you were trying to say while also attempting to salvage your secret belief system.


This is something someone without proof would say. It's actually quite typical.

I'm not clinging to anything. I'm merely waiting to be proven otherwise. I'm very open-minded. Excuse my "blind ignorance" for not believing some fellow's claims on the internet. You should admit that to do otherwise would be extremely naive. Here you are scorning myself and science for not believing you. Well consider me guilty as charged. If it's believers you seek, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

My belief system is doing just fine; besides, the topic of the discussion is your assertion that consciousness "precedes the brain." This is what we're arguing. You believe it is true, I believe it is false. If you're attempting to do the ol' bait and switch by making me question my own beliefs instead of yours, it's unnecessary, as my beliefs are the first ones I scrutinize. But here we are a couple of pages later and still not a single convincing argument has been shown on your part.

On a side note: Yes, I do believe that the propositions 1=1 and 1+1=2 are true. Please show me how I am wrong.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 

Haven't read your op yet, but my problem with matter is that I can't consider myself a "thing" and nothing more, it's absurd. Matter doesn't have the last word, or the first word. Also what bothers me, is how atheists LOVE matter because they think it shields them from God-realization or God-consciousness..



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I'm all about assumptions for communication. Just wanted to make sure we both agreed. I am making an assumption that we can come to an understanding. And i assume the only real way to do that is through agreement rather than domination. But I've been wrong before.

When i say "my experience is MY consciousness precedes my brain" that's what i mean. How would i communicate the truth of that to you? It would be a lie if i said i could "prove" that to you. I don't have any intention of lying about it. You are correct. I have no proof. Sorry if it was ever sounding like i did... wouldn't that be something. Right here on ATS. The one and only TRUTH communicated. Would be cool.

If we are on ATS waiting for someone to prove the unprovable we will all likely be waiting an extremely long time. Likely longer than ATS will be around (warning assumption). If we are here to declare information (the only thing we can share here) without empirical scientific proof is valueless than i am on the wrong site.

Peace brother!



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Correct, science is entirely based upon agreed assumptions. Many scientists hate to admit that because they like to jockey around on this notion of pure objectivism, but who are they kidding? No one but themselves. I'll tell you this, in the setting I work in, which is around all sorts of scientists, there is no shortage of dogmatism, confusion and misunderstandings. Many agreed upon assumptions have less to do with empirical data then it does with politics and funding and personalities. Most of the data is entirely up for interpretation anyways. It is crazy at times.

What I am more interested is in this notion of yours that consciousness arises before the brain. I assume you assume the brain has taken its form through the direction or force of consciousness. In other words, the brain is a derivative of consciousness. If I am correct that this is your assumption, there is a similar theory called morphic field theory. It is a term coined by Rupert Sheldrake. Go look it up.

Anyways, my question for you is, whether the brain is a derivative of consciousness or consciousness is a derivative of the brain, what does any of this matter to us if we cannot show some sort of empirical data to back up these assumptions? Right now, there isn't much, if any, science for the "brain is a derivative of consciousness theory". That doesn't mean it isn't correct, just that it is an unfounded assumption. In other words, there is no way we can agree upon that notion unless I just take your word for it. On the other hand, I can show you in many ways how my assumption that consciousness is a derivative of the brain could be correct.

Second question, if both are just assumptions and do very little to sum up our actual experience as a conscious being, why not just state that consciousness is the fundamental level of experience, and not get into origin debates? Dwelling in unattached consciousness is very tranquil and I can appreciate these teachings. But I also can appreciate the neurosciences attempt to accumulate empirical knowledge (however many assumptions its based on) about the brain to try and help people with severe mental disorders and issues. And right now all the evidence points towards consciousness being the derivative of the brain.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by IAmD1
 


Does it help pointing at invisible things with invisible fingers will it be more real than if i point with the finger you can actually see?

Since the thing is invisible, how do you know you what you are pointing at, or even where it is?

If matter is seen to behave in ways that cannot be explained materially, the metaphysicists might have an argument. Until then, it's all just wishful thinking, innit?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
In my opinion ...and I'm probably alone in this, but that's ok. In my opinion I believe focusing on the conscious and not the subconscious is an error within this discussion the last two pages or so.

Science has come a long way and even though it's based on agreed assumptions and political structures I believe the many studies on the conscious mind have some proof that our thoughts and emotions are derived from the brain, or actually the spinal chord, nervous system and the brain combined.

Science has not determined much with the subconscious though and this is where one could argue the basics within their own experience. The stored information is what we take with us upon departure of the body.

en.wikipedia.org...


The subconscious mind stores information that the conscious mind may not immediately process with full understanding, but it stores the information for later retrieval when ”recalled” by the conscious mind, or by an astute psychoanalyst who can draw out information stored in the subconscious, bringing it to the individual's conscious awareness. This can especially be observed with heightened sensitivity of victims of violent and other crimes, where victims "felt something" instinctually about a person or situation, but failed to take action to avoid the situation, for whatever reason, be it embarrassment, self-denial or other reasons to blow off instinct, as they disregard internal warning signals.


Mimd over matter? ezinearticles.com...?&id=4101673


Mind over Matter. What does this actually mean? All that weird talk about the subconscious mind and getting people to act like chickens on stage sounds a little bit bizarre doesn't it? At the very least fascinating anyway. Until you understand how the subconscious mind actually works. It could be compared to an iceberg with 9/10th's underwater, and 1/10th floating above. The conscious mind is the part above the water and the subconscious mind is the vast ocean of "stuff" hiding below. It contains everything we have ever done, thought, said, imagined, learned, forgotten, felt, in fact everything is in there. It also governs our automatic functions like breathing, digestion, blood pressure and all other bodily functions that we do without conscious effort or thought. Unlike our conscious mind, however, it cannot reason, it has no sense of humour, no rational thought process, and lives every moment as though it is the present moment. When you realise this you begin to understand why things like phobias arise, or other negative behaviours. Article Source: EzineArticles.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by IAmD1
 


Does it help pointing at invisible things with invisible fingers will it be more real than if i point with the finger you can actually see?

Since the thing is invisible, how do you know you what you are pointing at, or even where it is?

If matter is seen to behave in ways that cannot be explained materially, the metaphysicists might have an argument. Until then, it's all just wishful thinking, innit?


Well the point was how else to point at an invisible thing than with a visible finger. What is invisible to you might not be to another person. If that person is to point you in the direction it is looking it will have to do so with a finger you understand right?

When you first learn chemistry it is invisible to you... you are pointed at it's direction with pretty drawings that by no means even begin to explain the reality of the thing but at least give you a concept to start your investigation from. Hence when a metaphysical mind explains that reality to a science mind the only way to do so is to do it through using science terms is it not? How ever faulty they may be at actually describing the thing at least they will give you a somewhere to start looking.

Well your existence in itself is wishful thinking for now.... in the end what will you say if the proof eventually show that you do not at least not in the way you 'think' you do. I say this because someone who has never seen you and never interacted with you will never know you existed because once you are dead and buried in time all the science proofs that you existed will disintegrate then what are you if not just a thought in someones mind (if someone is left to think that you existed at all by that point). What then makes you you? Is it your body composition? Would you be resurrected if we could somehow rebuilt all your body parts and chemistry some time in the future? Or is there another invisible aspect to your being that we are overlooking and can not at least yet prove by science yet we can point at using matter.
i.e your body.

This invisible aspect that is called you if proven just to be the body and it's chemistry will then at that instant also be proven to be nothing other than a figment of your and my imagination.
If however it lives on beyond your body then the question is are you a figment of a greater imagination or are you an entity in and by itself though invisible to our eyes still a very real thing.

In either case at this point the question is are you of matter or matter of you ? A third question that is begged is - are both of those suppositions wrong - i.e are you something else. Innit!?




edit on 22/8/2012 by IAmD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Correct, science is entirely based upon agreed assumptions. Many scientists hate to admit that because they like to jockey around on this notion of pure objectivism, but who are they kidding? No one but themselves. I'll tell you this, in the setting I work in, which is around all sorts of scientists, there is no shortage of dogmatism, confusion and misunderstandings. Many agreed upon assumptions have less to do with empirical data then it does with politics and funding and personalities. Most of the data is entirely up for interpretation anyways. It is crazy at times.

What I am more interested is in this notion of yours that consciousness arises before the brain. I assume you assume the brain has taken its form through the direction or force of consciousness. In other words, the brain is a derivative of consciousness. If I am correct that this is your assumption, there is a similar theory called morphic field theory. It is a term coined by Rupert Sheldrake. Go look it up.

Anyways, my question for you is, whether the brain is a derivative of consciousness or consciousness is a derivative of the brain, what does any of this matter to us if we cannot show some sort of empirical data to back up these assumptions? Right now, there isn't much, if any, science for the "brain is a derivative of consciousness theory". That doesn't mean it isn't correct, just that it is an unfounded assumption. In other words, there is no way we can agree upon that notion unless I just take your word for it. On the other hand, I can show you in many ways how my assumption that consciousness is a derivative of the brain could be correct.

Second question, if both are just assumptions and do very little to sum up our actual experience as a conscious being, why not just state that consciousness is the fundamental level of experience, and not get into origin debates? Dwelling in unattached consciousness is very tranquil and I can appreciate these teachings. But I also can appreciate the neurosciences attempt to accumulate empirical knowledge (however many assumptions its based on) about the brain to try and help people with severe mental disorders and issues. And right now all the evidence points towards consciousness being the derivative of the brain.


Consciousness precedes any illusion perceived. Matter. The brain is a part of the 'matter' delusion. Seems totally real and now science allows us to admit it is without physical substance unless we assume it to be with physical substance. We know it has no substance but if we agree it does we are able to conduct science. Empirical data IS a function of the delusion and does not precede consciousness. This is why the ideology has an impossible hurdle in front of it. Consciousness is subjective objectivity. Both. It cannot be communicated/proved from one subject to another. Because in reality there aren't two subjects. It is delusional. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this truth to be communicated unless the ideology of science was somehow proved to precede consciousness itself.

These aren't my musings. This is has been written about for 1000's of years. Not necessarily in any nomenclature we can all accept. I get that. Just rest assured that 3000 years ago man was pondering these EXACT same questions and they put the same amount of effort towards hypotheses and proof as we are today. And their methods were different and as a result they accomplished things that many are literally not able to or willing to comprehend.

The base hypotheses is THE Truth. Formless, eternal, complete. without assumption. The proof cannot be communicated in the byproduct that follows it's direct experience.

If people are unwilling to conduct the experiment they will remain unsatisfied. But the hypotheses stands. I'm not articulating in it's completeness.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 


One other thing, the meaning of the word "consciousness" is not static in the world of science. It's ever evolving. If any scientist insists that consciousness is a product of the physical brain they have simply hijacked the word to mean something else as far as I'm concerned. There is no consensus in the world of science on what consciousness really encompasses or is. So trying to prove where it comes from is completely pointless and a waste of time.

If scientists look for physical activity as a CAUSE of something non-physical they would first need to prove the physical event was not a reaction to some other cause whether physical or not. Does anyone else think it is stupid to declare a physical event is the cause of a thing with an incomplete or agreed upon definition? This is the folly of a lot of science that insists physical observations in the body are the cause of some condition. We have lots of medicine designed to actually shut down the physical response to something because an ASSUMPTION made confuses the response as the cause.

Science has a long history of confusing physical response with cause of some identified condition. We apply this folly to our environment and our bodies with bad results. I believe the misunderstanding that the physical body is the cause of "consciousness" is just the epitome of this misunderstanding. If you think like this you likely support Geo-engineering, GMO and other diversity destroying farming practices, western pharmaceutical medicine, the political science of domination etc. All are short-sited approaches to responses confused for causes.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 



Why can't you agree when it is said, for example, that it is the brain which gives birth to consciousness ?

not sure how old you are or if you haven't been up to date on science news, but there are plenty theories out there, that are scientific, that are implying that it ic consciousness which gives birth to the brain and not the other way around. If that's how it works, then without consciousness, the body/mind complex dies.


You have to keep in mind that we still don't really know what matter is.

Science knows much more about matter then they do about consciousness, which was actually a taboo subject until the last 10-15 years, so there's much catching up to do.


And if you believe that consciousness can be separated from the brain, all I can say is "I don't know", because it could be true. I can easily imagine that brains are some kind of incubators for consciousness, and once the brain dies, the consciousness continues a "life" of his own. But this is speculation.

well I'm in the camp of folks who have had an NDE (Near Death Experience) except that mine was that I rmembered pre-existing prior to having a brain and body. I have also numerous times popped out of the body and floated around it, looked at it, and went back into it. So it seems for me I cannot say "I don't know" or that for me it's mere "speculation". For myself it's 100% without a doubt that I am not this body/brain, have pre-existed, and when the physical dies, I will continue on.


So, it is clear that we consider matter to be a vile thing, and we shouldn't.

Since my earliest memory, (around 4-5 years old) I have looked around and saw all of this reality as not how it's supposed to be. I saw my biological father and used to think, why him and not some other father. I used to see the news as a kid and think that this isn't right, all the fighting, wars, rapes, destruction, corruption. Almost 30 years later and I still hold that with me. I am passing through this place and it is not my home. WHen I was pure soul, I soared like an eagle unlimited and unbound ......being in the body with it's tiredness, and so easy to damage or be killed. The body is so fragile and limited and so may around us carry such low IQ's we are practically surrounded by beasts....brutes, cavemen!!!!


I want you to start considering, as a temporary medicine, that matter is something noble, something deep and complex that can give birth to everything else and to you.

I tend to side with some gnostic beliefs, that long time ago in the spiritual realm, something somewhere went wrong and we were not meant to enter the physical. I've met many others who have this really strong gut feeling that this isn't how it's supposed to be, and eventually, perhaps in a thousand years, we will get to how it IS supposed to be.

I understand your views and where you are coming from all results from your own experiential proof and theory, however I cannt ever deny my direct experiences of pre-existing and many times leaving the body.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 




Consciousness precedes any illusion perceived. Matter. The brain is a part of the 'matter' delusion. Seems totally real and now science allows us to admit it is without physical substance unless we assume it to be with physical substance. We know it has no substance but if we agree it does we are able to conduct science. Empirical data IS a function of the delusion and does not precede consciousness. This is why the ideology has an impossible hurdle in front of it. Consciousness is subjective objectivity. Both. It cannot be communicated/proved from one subject to another. Because in reality there aren't two subjects. It is delusional. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this truth to be communicated unless the ideology of science was somehow proved to precede consciousness itself. These aren't my musings. This is has been written about for 1000's of years. Not necessarily in any nomenclature we can all accept. I get that. Just rest assured that 3000 years ago man was pondering these EXACT same questions and they put the same amount of effort towards hypotheses and proof as we are today. And their methods were different and as a result they accomplished things that many are literally not able to or willing to comprehend. The base hypotheses is THE Truth. Formless, eternal, complete. without assumption. The proof cannot be communicated in the byproduct that follows it's direct experience. If people are unwilling to conduct the experiment they will remain unsatisfied. But the hypotheses stands. I'm not articulating in it's completeness.


Now hold on, I don't know what kind of pseudo-science you've been reading about or watching on the history channel, but you have totally mischaracterized sciences stance on matter. You're sounding a little like that Deepak Chopra guy,
, sorry. You have also mischaracterized those ancient eastern traditions position on this subject as well. I have study Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita Vedanta.

From sciences perspective, the perception of matter is NOT a "delusion", as in "matter does not really exist and we are merely caught in some sort of intrinsic perceptionary trap". I am a neuropsychologist. I have studied these things. Quantum physics is not saying that either, which I assume you are referring to. Please go study up on these things further because what you are saying is just plain wrong from sciences viewpoint.

As for the eastern wisdom traditions, which it sounds like you have been heavily influenced by, they too have been distorted and misrepresented by you into some extreme fundamental renunciation of the world type crap. The illusion that the Buddha spoke of is our tendency to think things are permanent, and thus grasp on to them as means of happiness and satisfaction. Included in this is the belief in a self. He did not ever say a self does not exist, just not intrinsically or permanently (like a soul or some real entity). He was some what of a existentialist. Same thing with Advaita Vedanta. Anyways, these people were interested in relieving humanity of suffering, not in making philosophical or scientific statements that could be held up by rigorous testing.

I have no problem saying science is based entirely on assumptions, it is! I also have no problem with you believing science is entirely wrong, on everything! It might be! Just don't misrepresent and distort things, it makes conversing with you not enjoyable because we now have to spend time clarifying all the goobly-gob that you said, as if it was fact.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 





One other thing, the meaning of the word "consciousness" is not static in the world of science. It's ever evolving. If any scientist insists that consciousness is a product of the physical brain they have simply hijacked the word to mean something else as far as I'm concerned. There is no consensus in the world of science on what consciousness really encompasses or is. So trying to prove where it comes from is completely pointless and a waste of time.


Oh, wow. Here we go again. I really don't know what your problem is with science, sounds bad. Anyways, the same could be said about you, you have merely hijacked the word to use for whatever meaning you like. The difference between the things you are saying and the things science is saying, is that science actually tries to show you how what they are saying makes sense, so we can agree upon something and move forward. You just say, "consciousness precedes the brain", and when we ask how you know that you reply, "I just know it.". Thus there can be no agreement or advancement between us.

Neuroscience is a very young field, they have barely even touched things like consciousness. But at least their attempts to show how consciousness works in terms of neural correlates and electrochemical energy, can be replicated by anyone. Maybe they are wrong, but sitting on the sidelines and shouting like an angry old man "they are all delusional!", without offering any explanation or evidence, makes you look insincere and delusional yourself. Go sit in a corner, you should be ashamed at the dogmatism you are spouting.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Now hold on, I don't know what kind of pseudo-science you've been reading about or watching on the history channel, but you have totally mischaracterized sciences stance on matter. You're sounding a little like that Deepak Chopra guy,
, sorry. You have also mischaracterized those ancient eastern traditions position on this subject as well. I have study Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita Vedanta.

From sciences perspective, the perception of matter is NOT a "delusion", as in "matter does not really exist and we are merely caught in some sort of intrinsic perceptionary trap". I am a neuropsychologist. I have studied these things. Quantum physics is not saying that either, which I assume you are referring to. Please go study up on these things further because what you are saying is just plain wrong from sciences viewpoint.

As for the eastern wisdom traditions, which it sounds like you have been heavily influenced by, they too have been distorted and misrepresented by you into some extreme fundamental renunciation of the world type crap. The illusion that the Buddha spoke of is our tendency to think things are permanent, and thus grasp on to them as means of happiness and satisfaction. Included in this is the belief in a self. He did not ever say a self does not exist, just not intrinsically or permanently (like a soul or some real entity). He was some what of a existentialist. Same thing with Advaita Vedanta. Anyways, these people were interested in relieving humanity of suffering, not in making philosophical or scientific statements that could be held up by rigorous testing.

I have no problem saying science is based entirely on assumptions, it is! I also have no problem with you believing science is entirely wrong, on everything! It might be! Just don't misrepresent and distort things, it makes conversing with you not enjoyable because we now have to spend time clarifying all the goobly-gob that you said, as if it was fact.



I don't think science is bad. I think the specific folly i pointed out is what it is. I don't subscribe to it. I never said anything about Quantum physics but the jury is out (not for me) regarding the actual physical nature of matter. Again the nomenclature itself is evolving so what matter was 10 years ago is something different than what it means today. Still, as far as I'm concerned there is no physicality or actuality with matter (in the traditional definition). None. The proof is in the pudding not scientific america. Call it a belief of mine. No problem! I won't take offense.

Nowhere did i ever say "matter" was bad. It holds no moral charge. It is neither good nor bad. Is a mirage bad? I guess if you walked 100 miles in the desert only to find out your effort was wasted on an illusion then yes it might be considered bad. Something like this has been said about the true nature of "matter" and our relationship to it as well.

I am neither an expert in science or an expert in religion or meditation. I am in expert in self. Not yourself, just myself. Everybody here has their own experience. You are free to declare my declarations about my experiences as beliefs. No worries. They absolutely would appear to be beliefs unless you yourself identified with them as true.

Don't ask me for proof. Lead the charge if you want. If you want proof from every statement than provide proof of your own. Honestly, neither of us could be bothered so let's stop pretending. Just speak from your experience and i will try and do the same. There is still value to be had without a bibliography attached to every message.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by rwfresh
 




Oh, wow. Here we go again. I really don't know what your problem is with science, sounds bad. Anyways, the same could be said about you, you have merely hijacked the word to use for whatever meaning you like. The difference between the things you are saying and the things science is saying, is that science actually tries to show you how what they are saying makes sense, so we can agree upon something and move forward. You just say, "consciousness precedes the brain", and when we ask how you know that you reply, "I just know it.". Thus there can be no agreement or advancement between us.


Are you sure you are reading the same messages haha. I have no problem with science. I think many scientists wouldn't find issue with what I've said. Science shouldn't be concerned with being eternally right. It should remain open to revision and evolution and that's what it's all about. Not absolute truths. It doesn't need defending. The religion of science on the other hand is different. If science becomes too dogmatic it will keep it's label and move over and join the other religions and a newer better system will arise.



Neuroscience is a very young field, they have barely even touched things like consciousness. But at least their attempts to show how consciousness works in terms of neural correlates and electrochemical energy, can be replicated by anyone. Maybe they are wrong, but sitting on the sidelines and shouting like an angry old man "they are all delusional!", without offering any explanation or evidence, makes you look insincere and delusional yourself. Go sit in a corner, you should be ashamed at the dogmatism you are spouting.


Lighten up. This conversation isn't going to be presented to the world symposium of consciousness studies. Just me and you here talking about stuff. I'm not ashamed... about this thread hahahaha. Some other things in my life.. sure. But nothing in this thread. I guess there might be some regret about upsetting or frustrating you. Wasn't my intention.

Maybe re-read my previous two messages and imagine i am not trying to push anything belief onto you.. i am just speaking from my own experience. Science isn't bad. Scientists aren't by default BAD. Assumptions are not bad. Matter is not bad. None of it is anything in the context of Reality. Peace!
edit on 22-8-2012 by rwfresh because: quotes yo



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 




Just speak from your experience and i will try and do the same.


But you see that is the whole point I have been trying to convey. A scientist sets up an experiment to try to understand something better. The results of that experiment are then compared to other results of other scientists experiments. If more testing is needed, more is done. A deduction is then made and the two scientists can feel comfortable coming to a common agreement (assumption) about what it is they are interested in. They by no means say they hold absolute conviction about anything, they very well could be wrong about everything and if you can show them how their theories are wrong they will then have the burden of trying to correct their assumptions or do away with them.

You on the other hand are just saying, "Hey, I'm right and I know I am right, but you will never know whether I am right or not." Me and you can therefore not agree on anything. It is thus useless to discuss anything with you. I am not even sure why you are posting in this thread, you can offer nothing to it, as you yourself have said. Anyways, not upset, just worried a little bit about some peoples critical thinking skills. Have a nice day.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 





Nowhere did i ever say "matter" was bad.


Of course you are saying "matter" is bad, or at least the belief in it. You have stated "matter" is illusory and any belief in it is delusional. That is a judgment call, by its very definition, lol. You even gave an example how belief in a illusion could not only be bad, but life ending. So just call it how you see it and don't try to play these semantic games with us. If you say the belief in "matter" is delusional, thus bad, then I am all ears to your argument. You might be correct. But you are going to have to give me something to work with for me to also conclude that a belief in "matter" is delusional. But you already said you can't do that, which is why this discussion is useless, as stated in the post above. Have a nice day.



new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join