Cold Hard Reality

ATS is a hotbed of New Age platitudes. Trite, meaningless philosophies that don't hold water in the real world, but look so quaint and enlightened on paper. This thread is meant to be a crisp, cold breath of fresh air of the cold, hard truth that is reality; a chance to pull ourselves out from beneath the weight of these superfluous sophistries. Many of you will probably not like the messages I put forth, but, as one such platitude goes: "it is, what it is."

I'll start with an old stand-by of the Philosophy and Metaphysics board: "All are One," or: the philosophy of unity. For those who have somehow overlooked this theory, it basically states that every living being is connected through some channel (variously called the Collective Unconscious, Spirit, the Godhead, or just "energy") to every other living being. This particular bit of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo, of course, comes from the misinterpretation of cosmological discoveries, specifically those in Quantum Mechanics where all life breaks down to "star stuff," and then atoms and smaller base-blocks of existence.

My problem here is: consciousness is considered to be Collective. Everyone is sharing an emanation or aspect of one "giant" consciousness, typically called God. Unfortunately, the Gurus and Illuminated who adhere to this piece of tripe must not have done their homework on consciousness. Consciousness is localized, not shared. My conscious experiences are perceived only by me; I can choose to share them through words with others, and someone might experience something similar, but I will never meet another individual who's localized consciousness is my own.

When a proponent of the theory of unity talks to me about the breakdown of matter, and how energy can neither be destroyed nor created, merely transformed, I typically ask them how much they know of neuroscience, and the localization of consciousness, because the more you know of these two elements, the more it becomes clear that consciousness is a product of the brain, and therefore restricted to only this life, lived and perceived by this body; and nothing more.

There is a really simple way to examine this as well. All you need is a keyboard, the ability to search things through Google, and to have ever had surgery requiring general anesthesia.

With the former, just Google scientific articles about what happens to people who are lobotomized, or suffer brain damage. Try starting with Frontal Lobe removal, or damage. Even Wikipedia has a section on effects of frontal lobe removal and damage. Interestingly, our ability to perceive truth; to show emotions through facials, to adequately convey thoughts, and our personality, all change when this lobe is damaged. These are all things which, according to the "All are One" theory, are elements about us not dependent on the body, but shared between all living things. Yet, damaging the body damages them.

For the latter, try to recall time spent while under general anesthesia. You cannot; and anyone who says they can, is lying. Anesthesia shuts down the parts of the brain which allow for dreaming, and recognition of time. When we go "under" for the operation we lose our sense of self, our sense of location, and our sense of time. Instead of returning to some great Collective Unconscious from whence we all came... there is just nothing. Emptiness. Not a darkness, or a bliss, or any of that; just a void of being, by all its definitions.

We are not all one; consciousness is not collective, it is localized and individualized. I'm sorry to disappoint you all, but death does not open up a doorway to the godhead, or reunification with God's consciousness. It's just light's out.

The second piece of bad philosophy which has been grating me the past few weeks has been the idea of forgiveness. I'm going to preface this, though, by saying that I do know what forgiveness is, and I am capable of forgiving. So before everyone starts quoting Bible verses, or trying to explain to me how forgiveness is necessary in life to grow as a human-being, or whatever, just stop.

I can forgive people who offend or hurt me. What really bothers me is this blanket-forgiveness, the generalization where we must forgive everyone, of everything, regardless of how profane or horrible their act was. You can find this sophism all over ATS. Whether you look into philosophy threads, threads about meditation, self-affirmation posts, religious topics, or almost anywhere else. Total Forgiveness, or as it is sometimes called: Love, seems to be one of the hot new trends of ATS and modern ill-formed life philosophies.

The best way I can think to make my opinion on this clear is through stories. I know already that some people will cry foul about that, stating that they don't operate in the realm of hypothetical situations. To them I can only say: yes, you do. Forgiveness is entirely hypothetical. You believe that your forgiveness of a deed nullifies it, and clears the worker of the offense of their crime. I propose that the perceived ability to forgive is no different than the what-if situations I'll outline below.

So, what if...

What if you loved someone very much, enough to want to marry them. Loved them enough while married to want to have a child with them. Loved them so much that you completely trusted yourself, and your child with them. What if one day this person you loved and devoted your life to being with violated your child? After violating the child you had together, they paralyzed you, and stole all of your money and possessions. What if they burned your house down with you still inside, and fled the country?

Now, what if you survived? Maybe a neighbor saw the fire, called the fire department, rushed in, and heroically saved you from the flames. What if your neighbor could not save your child though, and before he could save you, your body was exposed to third degree burns in several places.

Finally, what if, years later, you met this person you had once loved. This person who had caused you so much ruin, and so much hard. What if they had no regret about what they had done, and had, in fact, done it again, three more times since? Would you forgive them? Could you forgive them? Why would you forgive them? Would forgiveness ease your pain, or make them into a better person? Would it bring back what they took from you? Are you a better person because you can pretend egregious offenses are ephemeral?

My question is, what is the better route? To portray all heinous acts as admissible because they can be forgiven... or to refuse forgiveness so that those who commit atrocities are never justified in their ways?

The world is cold, and hard. Forgiveness blinds us to real depravity, real vulgarity, and real evil; worse, Total Forgiveness, or Love, permits and makes admissible those things. By that same coin, believing that we are all an emanation of the same celestial and eternal being, means that we are all rapists, murderers, child-violators, thieves, and liars. The philosophy of Love and Unity, in reality, is an invitation to depravity and cruelty.

I know that many will say, "but, by this logic, we are all also angels, saviors, heroes, and defenders of righteousness!" That just isn't true though. Are you still a defender of righteousness if you commit cold-blooded murder? Are you still an angel if you force someone to suffer for your pleasure? Those who are good fall from grace with a single act of evil; but those who are evil are not raised from perdition by one noble deed.

All-in-all, just some things to ponder. I imagine this thread will not be well received, since we as a species like to believe in frivolous junk that makes us feel special and warm inside. I've never been one to lie to myself for comfort's sake though. There is no Collective Unconscious from which we all come; while Love and Forgiveness only make us blind to the reality of our deeds and actions.

~ Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe

The world is cold, and hard. Forgiveness blinds us to real depravity, real vulgarity, and real evil; worse, Total Forgiveness, or Love, permits and makes admissible those things. By that same coin, believing that we are all an emanation of the same celestial and eternal being, means that we are all rapists, murderers, child-violators, thieves, and liars. The philosophy of Love and Unity, in reality, is an invitation to depravity and cruelty.

You've created a horrible world for yourself ... Your description of "The World" dosn't match my description of "THE World" at all. So what does this mean?

Which one of us has fallen for an illusion? Both of us?

If this is the case, i'd prefer my own illusion any day. You live in a world where Love leaves you vulnerable.

This sounds like prison.

I don't live within those walls. Those walls couldn't hold me there if they wanted to.

You've been worn thin.

i work with people with abi (aquired brain injury) and it is actully pretty scary how unhuman some people are. But on the flip side there are some of the most open minded nicest people aswell. I would love to believe in the collective conciouss but after seeing people struggle day in day out i realise that our brain is a complex machine which can make or break like that *click* there is something special about our brains and our concious. But it is not a collective.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

The term "Collective Unconscious" was originally coined by Carl Jung. Carl Jung was an Atheist who allowed himself to be exposed to Indigenous Cultures. Because of that experience he considered that access to information related to the past, by consciousness was accessible to those uf us in the present under certain circumstances.


Very few if any scientist since Jung have actually made the same attempt, this of course livning with an indigenous culture for years.

The problem with materialism is that it, as a philosophy has found no realistic was to explain consciousness. This in relation to practical applications, with psychiatric patients in real settings.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe


Consciousness is localized, not shared. My conscious experiences are perceived only by me; I can choose to share them through words with others, and someone might experience something similar, but I will never meet another individual who's localized consciousness is My own.

consciousness is a product of the brain, and therefore restricted to only this life, lived and perceived by this body; and nothing more.


We are not all one; consciousness is not collective, it is localized and individualized. I'm sorry to disappoint you all, but death does not open up a doorway to the godhead, or reunification with God's consciousness. It's just light's out.

I couldnt agree more. This is very well written and just a little research can put folks on the right path. There are thousands of experiments to confirm that there is no basis to believe there is any signal produced or received between humans.

As you stated above, all evidence points to the localisation of conscience within the brain. All belief to the contrary is just belief, and has never been shown to be otherwise. We are very much like organic machines and when a part breaks you can diagnose where the failure is by noticing which operations are interupted.

People have many beliefs. But they are called beliefs because they cant be proven as fact, you merely believe it to be true. This is a very dangerous methodology as you are only building a fantasy world not based on facts.

Originally posted by OneEleven

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe

The world is cold, and hard. Forgiveness blinds us to real depravity, real vulgarity, and real evil; worse, Total Forgiveness, or Love, permits and makes admissible those things. By that same coin, believing that we are all an emanation of the same celestial and eternal being, means that we are all rapists, murderers, child-violators, thieves, and liars. The philosophy of Love and Unity, in reality, is an invitation to depravity and cruelty.

You've created a horrible world for yourself ... Your description of "The World" dosn't match my description of "THE World" at all. So what does this mean?

Which one of us has fallen for an illusion? Both of us?

If this is the case, i'd prefer my own illusion any day. You live in a world where Love leaves you vulnerable.

This sounds like prison.

I don't live within those walls. Those walls couldn't hold me there if they wanted to.

You've been worn thin.

The world can seem horrible when you live in a comfortable illusion and then someone shows you something which contradicts your belief. The truth is, this world is a horrible place for a lot of people who cannot afford to live under such illusions. No matter how much you believe the world is safe, there is someone having a legitimately horrible time. Believing the world is safe is a good cop out for not going out and helping those people.

I find real beauty all around in peoples resolve to make the world a better place one action at a time. The real travesty is believing the world is safe and then denying all evidence to the contrary. You are not helping to sort the horrible from the beautiful at that point.

To prove something is fact one need test an entire population. Meaning that in order to prove telepathy, every scientist in the world would have to drop whatever they are doing and test humans for telepathy.

Until they tested every human on the planet.

Suggesitng that Telepathy is impossble without doing the above. Would be like offering that Gravity is the same throughout reality, despite having not actually observed that. In a funny way to provide evidence as a reuslt of the scientific method, one would need a double blind.

In other words proving telepathy would require access to a several droppelganger universe's, so that double blinds could be preformed.

Alternaively there is the issue of human evolving to a state where access to quatum states is phisically possible.

For me the latter makes more sense.....

The Cold hard reality, is that reality is beyond what we currently, are capable of perceiving.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
To prove something is fact one need test an entire population. Meaning that in order to prove telepathy, every scientist in the world would have to drop whatever they are doing and test humans for telepathy.

Until they tested every human on the planet.

Suggesitng that Telepathy is impossble without doing the above. Would be like offering that Gravity is the same throughout reality, despite having not actually observed that. In a funny way to provide evidence as a reuslt of the scientific method, one would need a double blind.

In other words proving telepathy would require access to a several droppelganger universe's, so that double blinds could be preformed.

Alternaively there is the issue of human evolving to a state where access to quatum states is phisically possible.

For me the latter makes more sense.....

The Cold hard reality, is that reality is beyond what we currently, are capable of perceiving.

Any thoughts?

edit on 3-9-2012 by Kashai because: added content

Ok, you have made several points here that i am going to nit pick. I dont mean to call you out but i want to mention that we have evolved to a point where we can affect the quantum world and have been since before the atomic bomb. We have a really good understanding of the causals and effects of the mechanical parts of the quantum world, so much so, that we can make very accurate predictions on what to expect from the world around us.
Secondly we do not have to experiment on everybody because we know that in order to send and recieve signals there would be an organ which serves this purpose, like a transmitter and a reciever, and there is not. It would show in our dna and its not there.

Thirdly, even though gravity is a theory which we are still expanding our knowledge of, it is still a constant and it does affect all planets and large masses the same and can be used to make very accurate predictions.

Originally posted by Tennessee77
The truth is, this world is a horrible place for a lot of people who cannot afford to live under such illusions. No matter how much you believe the world is safe, there is someone having a legitimately horrible time. Believing the world is safe is a good cop out for not going out and helping those people.

Afford? Safe? What are these things? What's your definition of afford, and what's your definition of safe?

It's your own definitions of such realities.

These definitions DEFINE you. You understand that right?

What is safe? People not crossing your borders? Does a lock on your door make you safe, or does an open door make you feel even safer?

What do you mean by afford? Afford to live on a good side of town? Monetarily afford? Can you afford a Mercedes? Can you afford to wait a few minutes? Afford more things and energy?

You're talking about materiel possessions, while i'm talking about letting them go.

It's a trap. A mucky swamp. By your tone you're out of breath from trodding through it. You think you've been 'awakened' to a horrible truth, but you've actually been TRICKED into believing such a truth even exists.

The weak never fight back. What's the use? What's the point? It's a horrible world and you're all alone.

I've created my own atmosphere. My own universe, and my own understanding. You're caught in a snare.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
I'll start with an old stand-by of the Philosophy and Metaphysics board: "All are One," or: the philosophy of unity.

Check out the Holographic theory by David Bohm and Karl Pribram.

With the former, just Google scientific articles about what happens to people who are lobotomized, or suffer brain damage. Try starting with Frontal Lobe removal, or damage. Even Wikipedia has a section on effects of frontal lobe removal and damage. Interestingly, our ability to perceive truth; to show emotions through facials, to adequately convey thoughts, and our personality, all change when this lobe is damaged. These are all things which, according to the "All are One" theory, are elements about us not dependent on the body, but shared between all living things. Yet, damaging the body damages them.

www.sciencemag.org...

but death does not open up a doorway to the godhead, or reunification with God's consciousness. It's just light's out.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
I'll start with an old stand-by of the Philosophy and Metaphysics board: "All are One," or: the philosophy of unity. For those who have somehow overlooked this theory, it basically states that every living being is connected through some channel (variously called the Collective Unconscious, Spirit, the Godhead, or just "energy") to every other living being. This particular bit of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo, of course, comes from the misinterpretation of cosmological discoveries, specifically those in Quantum Mechanics where all life breaks down to "star stuff," and then atoms and smaller base-blocks of existence.

It's not "pseudo-science", It is an actual theory (explanation with evidence - not FACT - but EVIDENCE) just like any other. So unless you want to call all theories "pseudo-science" - then that is a bad definition.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
My conscious experiences are perceived only by me; I can choose to share them through words with others, and someone might experience something similar, but I will never meet another individual who's localized consciousness is my own.

And you know this... how?

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
I typically ask them how much they know of neuroscience, and the localization of consciousness, because the more you know of these two elements, the more it becomes clear that consciousness is a product of the brain, and therefore restricted to only this life, lived and perceived by this body; and nothing more.

Obviously, it isn't so "clear" if it can't even be proven. That is still just a theory that you subscribe to, and others subscribe to the theory that it works more like a radio (brain) and a radio signal (mind).

Both are just theories now, so why argue as if your theory's view is a proven fact?

but death does not open up a doorway to the godhead, or reunification with God's consciousness. It's just light's out.

Again, you are speaking as if you "Know" this, when you don't. Many people have strong beliefs which they feel like they "know" to be true, but they really aren't. Just understand that this view that you are presenting is just one of many theories. It is not proven either way.

What really bothers me is this blanket-forgiveness, the generalization where we must forgive everyone, of everything, regardless of how profane or horrible their act was.

The act is done and it is already done and you can not reverse it. It already happened. So, if you choose to keep looking back on that memory and not forgive it - only you are hurting in the end.

What if they burned your house down with you still inside, and fled the country?

Do whatever you have to do to protect yourself and loved ones. However, That does not mean that you should keep thinking about what happened all day every day 24/7, you should try to heal yourself and your loved ones and then focus on your life to create better memories. Look forward to the next thing. When you hold on to anger, even after the damage is done, and even after the person was punished, you will make the suffering more than necessary.

What if they had no regret about what they had done, and had, in fact, done it again, three more times since? Would you forgive them?

When I talk about forgiveness, I mean letting go of the past, mostly the hate and anger we hold on to, so yes. If they do not regret it, make your choice about whether or not you want this person in your life, and then if not, simply stay away from such a person, but don't "hold on" to the anger. In other words, move forward in life and focus on other things - instead of that person.

The world is cold, and hard.

Yea, but only if you are looking at HALF of the world. Right now the other half is in sunlight, in beauty, in warmth, in growth, in comfort...

Metaphorically speaking,

I'm basically saying that when you only see the "toughness" or "coldness" of the world, you are not looking at the other half, because BOTH exists, and when you forget of BOTH, you have a view that is not in alignment with actual reality.

Those who are good fall from grace with a single act of evil; but those who are evil are not raised from perdition by one noble deed.

The reality is that there is no morality. Morality is social agreements which happens with species of social animals (humans, elephants, etc.)

so if you say one act of evil and you can never be redeemed, then that is just your personal moral outlook.

There are many others...

Originally posted by Tennessee77

Originally posted by Kashai
To prove something is fact one need test an entire population. Meaning that in order to prove telepathy, every scientist in the world would have to drop whatever they are doing and test humans for telepathy.

Until they tested every human on the planet.

Suggesitng that Telepathy is impossble without doing the above. Would be like offering that Gravity is the same throughout reality, despite having not actually observed that. In a funny way to provide evidence as a reuslt of the scientific method, one would need a double blind.

In other words proving telepathy would require access to a several droppelganger universe's, so that double blinds could be preformed.

Alternaively there is the issue of human evolving to a state where access to quatum states is phisically possible.

For me the latter makes more sense.....

The Cold hard reality, is that reality is beyond what we currently, are capable of perceiving.

Any thoughts?

edit on 3-9-2012 by Kashai because: added content

Ok, you have made several points here that i am going to nit pick. I dont mean to call you out but i want to mention that we have evolved to a point where we can affect the quantum world and have been since before the atomic bomb. We have a really good understanding of the causals and effects of the mechanical parts of the quantum world, so much so, that we can make very accurate predictions on what to expect from the world around us. Secondly we do not have to experiment on everybody because we know that in order to send and recieve signals there would be an organ which serves this purpose, like a transmitter and a reciever, and there is not. It would show in our dna and its not there.

Thirdly, even though gravity is a theory which we are still expanding our knowledge of, it is still a constant and it does affect all planets and large masses the same and can be used to make very accurate predictions.

Take the issue of the theory that aspirin cures headaches...we know this is true because everyone on the planet has access to asprin. To prove something a population must be tested. Predictions are based upon statistics and with respect to the paranormal? How often are there actually tests upon the indigenous? The actual origins of religions....

Proving something requires that all involved are tested and there is a result, because of this testing. One can potentially run a double blind upon the separate hemisphere's, as far as paranormal activity But providing an absolute for gravity would require direct observation of all possible permutations. In other words it is technologically more feasible to prove paranormal activity in humans, than it is to prove Gravity, as we understand it, as a absolute.

reply to post by OneEleven


By "afford" i certainly did not mean financially. However money does have a bearing on how "safe" you can be.

I was simply pointing out that you stated you would rather live in your own illusion. I think that living in your own illusion is a dangerous way to live. Like locking your doors only gives you the illusion of safety. If someone wanted to harm you, they can break your window or just kick the door in. Shattering illusions in an instant.

Luckily i live in a place where i can assume a decent amount of safety, but i would never assume absolute safety. Think of those who live in less developed countries. They cannot assume any amount of safety. that is legitamately horrible.

Take the issue of the theory that aspirin cures headaches...we know this is true because everyone on the planet has access to asprin. To prove something a population must be tested. Predictions are based upon statistics and with respect to the paranormal? How often are there actually tests upon the indigenous? The actual origins of religions....

Proving something requires that all involved are tested and there is a result, because of this testing. One can potentially run a double blind upon the separate hemisphere's, as far as paranormal activity But providing an absolute for gravity would require direct observation of all possible permutations. In other words it is technologically more feasible to prove paranormal activity in humans, than it is to prove Gravity, as we understand it, as a absolute.

Ok again aspirin thins the blood, therefore relieving pressure on the cardiovascular system and strain on the heart. We know this because it works on a broad demographic of people and animals. We did not have to test this on every being in the universe to come to this conclusion.

Indiginous people? we have tested lots of stuff on lots of people. We simply do not have an organ that transmits or recieves any signals it would require a physical organ which would carry out this process. We do not have one. No one does. There are no building blocks of this sort in any dna that has been tested.

reply to post by OneEleven


Do you find it interesting that you assume there are only two right answers to your inquiry?

1. my "world view" is illusory, and wrong.
2. your world view is illusory, but it is better to live in that illusion than to embrace reality.

You've overlooked option three: the one where we don't hide in a false worldview, but instead embrace reality head-on and work to make it better.

Just because my world scares you, doesn't mean you can't try and tame it.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by JarredAus


While not working with any, there are several members of my extended family who have suffered acquired brain injuries. I know first-hand as well how consciousness can be directly affected by injury, drugs, and even just time itself. Sometimes I think it is the fear of this life being the only one we get, which really causes people to shy away from the truth which is right before them. Just my opinion though.

~ Scribe

Originally posted by Tennessee77

Take the issue of the theory that aspirin cures headaches...we know this is true because everyone on the planet has access to asprin. To prove something a population must be tested. Predictions are based upon statistics and with respect to the paranormal? How often are there actually tests upon the indigenous? The actual origins of religions....

Proving something requires that all involved are tested and there is a result, because of this testing. One can potentially run a double blind upon the separate hemisphere's, as far as paranormal activity But providing an absolute for gravity would require direct observation of all possible permutations. In other words it is technologically more feasible to prove paranormal activity in humans, than it is to prove Gravity, as we understand it, as a absolute.

Ok again aspirin thins the blood, therefore relieving pressure on the cardiovascular system and strain on the heart. We know this because it works on a broad demographic of people and animals. We did not have to test this on every being in the universe to come to this conclusion.

Indiginous people? we have tested lots of stuff on lots of people. We simply do not have an organ that transmits or recieves any signals it would require a physical organ which would carry out this process. We do not have one. No one does. There are no building blocks of this sort in any dna that has been tested.

edit on 3-9-2012 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2012 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)

Testing everyone on Earth could result in the conclusion that the brain is the organ you are looking for. Again operant conditioning, or Skinner-an psychology does not work on human beings. That was proven during the 50's and 60's when such models were applied world wide and failed miserably. The human consideration simply goes beyond themes in materialist thinking, consider that the Standford prison experiment is repeatable.

The issue is therefore one of Qualia.....

Any thoughts?

I had a hard time clicking on your thread title because my fear of reality.
With that behind us i do know that what you say is just part of the truth because i have had memories taken from at a time of great suffering and later returned to me at a time that i could handle the cold hard reality that they embodied.
The mind is a terrible thing to waste.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

When a proponent of the theory of unity talks to me about the breakdown of matter, and how energy can neither be destroyed nor created, merely transformed, I typically ask them how much they know of neuroscience, and the localization of consciousness, because the more you know of these two elements, the more it becomes clear that consciousness is a product of the brain, and therefore restricted to only this life, lived and perceived by this body; and nothing more.

humm, lets take a closer look at these two elements consciousness and science (any type of science). simply put, Science is the study of matter.The brain is matter. matter can not produce anything on its own. an atom can not split itself. Consciousness has nothing to do with science, and science can not study it, as it is not a material thing. now think about this; If we are continuously producing things which have no attribute of matter, wouldnt it be reasonable to conclude that there is in us some element which is not matter to produce them? this element is not held in this time/space continuum and is not restricted to or by anything.