Cold Hard Reality

Well TC, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. But as an agnostic skeptic, I can't be so certain of your conclusions. Do I necessarily believe in an afterlife, or a purpose to our existence beyond that which we ascribe to it out of cognitive dissonance and fear? No, not really. But I am open to the possibility.

Because you see, when taken to its logical conclusion, this line of thought leads to nihilism. Which, don't get me wrong, is a perfectly valid conclusion in my opinion. This really all could just be meaningless. We really might simply be neurological automatons with little if any free will in the classical sense. We may simply be biological sacks of meat who come into being not as a part of any purpose or meaningful existence, but simply as the inevitable consequence of billions of years of cosmic unfolding, simply to live and to die. The origin of the universe may be simply the result of a membrane collision, or whatever other theory we finally settle upon. And the origin of membranes may simply be eternal, naturally occurring dimensional interplay beyond our ability to directly understand or influence because we're "stuck like flies in flypaper" (to use the popular colloquialism) in our own universe's membrane. When we die, the specific coherent information that comprises our consciousness and subjective sense of self may disintegrate into context-less bits of information, never to be reorganized or experienced again. It really may "lights out." In fact, I more often than not feel that it more than likely is.

In short, it is quite possible that nothing matters at all, whatsoever. And that any attempt to ascribe purpose or meaning to our existence is simply the psychological desire to free ourselves from existential terror and impending mortality.

BUT...

If nothing matters... neither does this discussion. Neither does any effort to convince anyone that their beliefs are wrong. Neither does any attempt to enlighten people to the perceived futility of their ostensible self-delusions. Yet, here you are, trying to do just that.

You must believe that doing so is worth spending time and effort on. Why would that be? And is whatever that belief is any more inherent or absolute than anyone else's beliefs, other than by degrees, if indeed nothing ultimately matters?

Just some food for thought. Peace.

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by Tennessee77
When you hear a loud noise and you flinch, that is conditioning.

Absolutely not. Nobody has to 'teach' somebody to flinch at loud bangs. Infants and animals also flinch at loud sounds. It isn't taught, it's built in.

Okay i did not explain this scenario well enough. It was late and i got lazy.

What is the Unconditioned Stimulus, Unconditioned Response,Neutral Stimulus,Conditioned Stimulus, and Conditio?

Alice has a screen door that slams very loudly every time it swings shut. This noise makes her flinch. With the start of summer, Alice’s son Johnny has been leaving the house in the morning and shouting “Bye Mom” then running out and letting the door slam shut. Remember, every time the door slams shut, Alice flinches. After a few days Alice fixes the door so it doesn’t slam anymore, but when her son leaves the next morning and shouts “Bye Mom,” Alice still flinches.

I was only trying to make the point that humans are very trainable and are easily conditioned to respond to all kinds of stimuli.

It's all about perspective OP!

Where you have journeyed is not where I have been, that's for sure.

Your knowledge is different from mine, therefore I've concluded something different.

I'm off to work right now, but want to bump this thread to come back and give you what I think is knowledge that makes more sense..... Maybe not.

All I know for certain is there is a creative force that cannot be denied. Even when you think you have denied such, you can't

Jenn

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Reality….. So what is reality anyway?
 
I came here thinking someone could finally fill me in but all I’m getting is a cold hard dose of opinion of how they believe the world is as perceived through their senses (which themselves are merely tools with limitations) mixed up with more opinion of today’s primitive science to give it some legitimacy.
 
What is reality then? Is it this world of clunky physical objects, some of which we classify as ‘alive’ (which essentially means nothing if all we merely are is simple meat computers driven by inbuilt instincts and urges resting upon a framework of organic chemistry) existing in a world governed by traditional Newtonian physics? Or is it actually the world of quantum physics where particles appear and disappear and zip backwards and forwards in time and information can pass between one particle and another instantaneously no matter what the distance between them. 
 
It seems you haven’t done your homework on neurobiology too well either for we know almost nothing about what consciousness is, let alone if there are separate ones or just one all encompassing consciousness and we are simply separate awarenesses/minds each perceiving their little part of the puzzle (which logically makes more sense to me).  
 
The Double Slit Experiment shows that the human mind can affect particles beyond the confines of the human body In fact these are the very particles which make up all of ‘Creation’. Particles which are not restrained by time, space or any other natural laws which appear to govern the macroscopic behavior of the universe. This experiment is the icing on the cake of a long line of other scientific experiments which prove we know next to nothing about anything. If consciousness can affect matter outside of the brain, it shows that consciousness is not confined by the brain. Imho the next logical opinion is that consciousness does not need a brain.
 
Maybe the brain is merely a symptom of an incorporeal identity existing in a material world. Possibly the brain is a signal processor to the fleshy automation which makes up the body. What are thoughts? Simply brain activity. What causes thoughts? Simple brain activity…..? So does that mean thoughts cause thoughts? I guess in a way they do, but can something be both the cause and the result at the same time or is their more to the story?
 
You see a brain scan then tell someone to remember something and a certain region lights up. Then you tell them to work out a puzzle and some other area lights up. You then think ‘a ha, this bit is in charge of these neurological functions, and these other bits take care of this’. You then go and study people with brain injuries and see that this area is injured and now they can’t do this. But just because the processor is broken, does that automatically mean that there is no signal, or that the signal itself is faulty somehow. To an outside observer, especially one who is firm in their belief that the signal itself and the signal processor are one and the same, then superficially this may appear to be proof that consciousness is indeed localized. But if we are only just beginning to understand the signal processor, and have no idea at all where the signal itself comes from then this is faulty reasoning at its best.
 
As per Bandit’s link and Openlock’s statement we have really no idea what consciousness is. All we can do is take the available evidence and draw conclusions from. You’ve done, I’ve done it, scientists are doing it and hippies are there as well. But the evidence is merely behavioral symptoms of possessing a consciousness within a material world, and imply no causation nor any defining limits either. And the conclusions drawn from this observed behavior are also nothing but opinion. As long as each party has all facts then each conclusion drawn is equally valid.
 
Scribe, you have an interest in the esoteric and you are obviously a spiritual person. To tell you the truth I’m not sure where you stand as for the few posts of yours I’ve read you seem to waver between a hard atheist and an armchair occultist. But whatever beliefs, they are simply your beliefs. All you have done is taken the available evidence and formed conclusions from it which fits your reality. Then you’ve presented them in a thread written with the kind of tone I’d expect my grandma to display right after dealing with ‘those pesky kids from down the street’. The fact that you have written it assuming you are correct without really threshing out all the possibilities puts you in the same league as any other wannabe guru here on ATS, a fact I find a little disappointing.
 
I consider the ‘All are One’ mentality to be beautiful on not only a practical and scientific level, also on a spiritual level. I do not believe in a firm divide between the spiritual and material worlds, and if spirituality mirrors ‘reality’, which is probably fairly likely, then I believe the collective consciousness theory has a lot of merit.
 
As for forgiveness…
 
If (as your thread implies) we are merely meat computers with moving parts, then you have to consider the perpetrator of even the most heinous, depraved deed is merely acting off a mindset formed through hardwired instincts tempered with previous experience and the circumstances he found himself in at the time. And you or I would do exactly the same thing if we were in exactly the same situation. Could you forgive someone for committing an act which they were destined to commit since the dawning of time?
 
For there is no freewill in the world of the meat computer.
 
Nor does forgiveness matter anyway for it is simply a ‘thought’ in the localized consciousness of a biological automation which really has no bearing on anything whatsoever. It may enable the automation to operate out of ‘meaningless anger and hate’ mode though which tends to cause less wear and tear as well as a much smoother ride overall.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Very good post Wandering Scribe, one that may not be too appreciated by the we are one crowd. But it doesn't matter, the insults of hardcore idealists are just as light and fluffy as the clouds they live in.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


DON'T make get out the white sage LesMisanthrope...

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Sorry? If any of your theories on reality find any ground to stand on, they may even be considered by a rational human being. Until then, they remain in the clouds, and are harmless.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I was actually just trying to be funny. Obvious failure there on my behalf I guess...

However if you want my real response then check out my initial post in this thread (right above yours). Rational enough for you?

Originally posted by Tennessee77
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.

Do you live in Haiti?


Papau New Guini?



Africa?



What are these people smiling about? As you said, 'less developed' countries, what is there to be happy about? They're not 'safe' by your definition. Are they happy? Are they happier than YOU?

So what's so different about these people. Some of them do not even have DOORS, much less locks to keep them 'safe'.

The difference is, these people havn't bought into the illusion that you're drowning yourself in. For most of them, your television shows, wars, movies, music, shopping malls, gameshows, elections, tennis shoes, sports teams, hairstyles, designer watches and vacations ARE NOT REALITY.

YOUR reality is not THEIR REALITY.

YOUR reality is NOT my reality. As bad as you wish it were so, it will never be.

But it's real right? You can walk outside and touch it right? You could even show these people a picture. It would be none the more real, or apart of their lives.

And if by your definition, the wonderful world that i live in is indeed an illusion, SO IS YOURS. Now which would you rather have?

You do know that if you quit buying it, they would quit selling it right? If you stopped watching, they would stop broadcasting.

YOU live the illusion.

What's worse, is it's not even your own. You're living an illusion designed for you by those who wish to control you, and you eat it up. Here you are denying any other sort of existence.

Sad indeed.

Here is a page discussing the latest scientific research on oneness/holism...

plato.stanford.edu...

So basically this thread is nothing more than geared towards closed-minded, unhappy people. Very sad.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

I was actually just trying to be funny. Obvious failure there on my behalf I guess...

However if you want my real response then check out my initial post in this thread (right above yours). Rational enough for you?

edit on 4/9/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)

I didn't understand the reference, and you may have forgotten a word. Apologies.

I'm not sure if denying insurmountable evidence to the contrary of your beliefs is rational, but I guess it depends on how you look at it. If one gets depressed at the thought of man not possessing any superpowers or being special in any way, by all means, he should curb his depression with delightful thoughts. If one fears being compared to "meat computers," then one doesn't have to make that comparison. I for one, cannot see anything in that comparison at all. A computer is something that sits on my desk, completely void of instinct, emotion and love. But denying the facts in favour of keeping man on his pedestal, merely because anything else is too difficult to swallow, is not only irrational, but wishful thinking.

This is all opinion, of course, as you rightfully pointed out.

If we all saw reality the same way, would that be evidence of a collective consciousness? Are we not able to look into someones eyes and realize that they've been through some experience or emotion that we have felt or done before and even if we haven't, can we still feel what they experience. We might not be able to feel the full scale emotion but, even the smallest sense of empathy can lead to understanding right? I have more questions than answers and i think humanity will have to deal with an endless amount of questions, some might get answered others won't ever be answered.

ATS is a hotbed of New Age platitudes.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


It's not new age.... The philosophy is a very old one and predates Jesus, although he too taught some of the concepts as well.. If you think of time as a circle, what comes around goes around, or.... History repeats itself.... Same thing.

What you deem truth and hard cold reality is open for debate as it is not my reality nor is it truth, it's far from it.

My conscious experiences are perceived only by me

You have no proof that no one else can tap into it. You cannot prove one way or another.

Your Unconscious and Subconscious are also a part of you too. Every single deed, thoughts, even objects you saw from peripheral vision is stored or backed up in your subconscious mind. This is the real you and the one you will relate with upon passing from this planet back home. No one knows for fact where it's located in the brain, however we know it relates with the brain and spine.

Your rant about using Google is a bit of a laugh because it seems as though you have not taken your own advice.

I've used the search engine for many years and have concluded the opposite of you. Actually I cannot say whether or not we have a collective, but it sure seems as though we do to at least an extent. This is why there is said to be power in prayer because of the collective manifesting that which they are praying for.

It seems as though you have a lot to learn, and no offense but it just seems that way from where I sit and read your thread.

The love and forgiveness scenario you offered is called life. We are all playing our role and you have the right to believe anything you wish, but so do the rest of us. We have the same right and have done our homework that has lead us down another path you find yourself on.

We know what science, religion, and metaphysics, and of course what quantum mechanics are telling us. The old philosophies from where religion came is not that far off either. You would be surprised at the amount of truth you can find in expressions from reading material, art, and music.... after all it is the universe expressing itself to you. Believe it or not.

I've never understood why someone would want to box them self in within our reality. There is so much to our reality that we don't understand. It's an astronomical amount. We are mere babies in a grown up world.

Try to understand why it is you have your own perception, yet share an ultimate consciousness with others.

When you can understand this concept you are well on your way to understanding yourself and others not to mention nature herself.

Everything is alive. Dust is alive. This planet is alive and even an object emits electromagnetic radiation.

Because of light you are able to see matter. This goes for your brain as well. If it weren't for the light you would not see anything material at all.

We are one within the same creative force that created everything you are able to see and experience.

It is what it is.

My conscious experiences are perceived only by me

Oh yeah there is a way that can happen. Borrowed Genius...

reply to post by Kashai


Jung... an athiest? Ummm I think not. The man was one of the few to delve so deeply into the subject of kundalini. I assure you that anyone who has experienced kundalini is not an athiest and if they were one prior to awakening, then the moment they experienced it made them a believer.

Forgive? No, it is much better and much healthier to carry the hatred in your heart for life... Yesssss... Let the Hate flow through you! Let it consume you until you are but a remnant of the loving person bursting with life you once were...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Very good post Wandering Scribe, one that may not be too appreciated by the we are one crowd. But it doesn't matter, the insults of hardcore idealists are just as light and fluffy as the clouds they live in.

You say that...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Sorry? If any of your theories on reality find any ground to stand on, they may even be considered by a rational human being. Until then, they remain in the clouds, and are harmless.

Then say this...

So insults are ok as long as they're on your side. Oh, you're one of those.... shocking.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


May I ask what is up with your avatar? That man right there would tell you that your "cold hard reality" is objective to yourself and nothing more. Arrived at through your karma and personal projections.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by Kashai

 

Please understand that I make a distinction between Jung's Collective Unconscious, relating to cultural development and shared human experiences, like death, birth, the family unity, and war; and the New Age Collective Unconscious, or Akashik Spirit, or Christ Consciousness, or Spirit, or "energy" concept where they believe we're all one being living through six billion masks so that it can experience life for itself.

Hello friend. Both Jung and Freud believed in psychic ability. In Jungian terms psi is the archetype of mana. As an archetype of the collective unconscious it is by definition in all of us...deep down underneath the threshold of conscious awareness.

Archetypes are formless, autonomous, numinous patterns in the objective and subjective psyche. Our innate psychic ability (archetype of mana) connects the unconscious minds of us all via psi. These connections transcend time and space.

ESP isn't about separate minds connecting across space via "mental radio". It's about a single conciousness re-membering itself...transcending space. Not crossing space like a radio wave would. Consciousness transcends time and space. Do you realize what that means?

The Jungian archetype of the Self is about wholeness, completion. Its at the center of the 'mandala', so to speak, of world religion and myth. It is typically experienced in a mystical context. But it can be experienced in a secular context as well. The rise of and structure of the sci-fi/comic book mythos is evidence of that.