Cold Hard Reality

Originally posted by conspiracy88

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.

Where did I say they were ok or not ok? Oh that's right, I didn't. You came to that conclusion in your head. You speak before you think. Oh, you're one of those....

In relaton to the issue of Carl Jung....

"Carl Jung did not believe in God, as we define it!"

"Jung - who unlike a true theist, only reflected on the existence of the afterlife - is barely mentioned in The God Delusion, and his "presence" is hardly an essential part of the book. The point being made could be made without him, using another more suitable example. But where he is mentioned, it gives a false impression I think. Jung did waffle on interminably about religion as if he cared, but he also came out with statements like

The wheel may lead our thoughts towards the concept of a "divine" sun, but at this point reason must admit its incompetence; man is unable to define a "divine" being. When, with all our intellectual limitations, we call something "divine", we have merely given it a name, which may be based on a creed, but never on factual evidence.

and when discussing the meaning of a dream -

The dream is in fact a short summary of my life, more specifically of the development of my mind. I grew up in a house 200 years old, our furniture consisted mostly of pieces about 300 years old, and mentally my hitherto greatest spiritual adventure had been to study the philosophies of Kant and Schopenhauer. The great news of the day was the work of Charles Darwin. Shortly before this, I had been living with the still medieval concepts of my parents, for whom the world and men were still presided over by divine omnipotence and providence. This world had become antiquated and obsolete. My Christian faith had become relative through its encounter with Eastern religions and Greek philosophy. It is for this reason that the ground floor [of the house, his home, in the dream] was so still, dark and obviously uninhabited.

- from Approaching the Unconscious, the chapter he wrote in Man and his Symbols, the last book he completed with associates before his death.

The word "belief" is a difficult thing for me. I don't believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and then I know it - I don't need to believe it."
Source and further information:


richarddawkins.net...
.
Read more: Was Carl Jung an atheist? | Answerbag www.answerbag.com...

post by arpgme
Can't psychosis happen from messing with different areas of the brain? They even took someone who believed in God and tested both sides of their brain and one side believed in God while the other side didn't [1]. That would be evidence of a physical brain to a materialist.

Then again, it COULD just mean that - like a broken TV - the brain is not receiving the signal. But, it isn't PROVEN either way, and that was my point, so until then, it is just ONE possible explanation - but there may be others - and maybe one of the others is true, who knows...

And just because there is something that we cannot fully understand yet (psychosis) does not automatically mean materialism is false - how many theories did we come up with that had misunderstandings in the beginning? A lot.

This is like saying "We do not know what causes thunder so obviously it is Zeus".

It is close-mindedness on both parts the materialists and the spiritualists.

You have not considered the Stanford Prison experiments, as mentioned they have been replicated with the same results. They did not involve people who were psychotic but there reaction to the conditions of the experiment, estabish that humans cosnsitently react negitavely to efforts at conditioning in relation to materilaist philosophy.

The relevant issue of these efforts is that they show that basing a psychology for humans puerly upon boilogical function is a non-sequeter. It shows that the sum total of materilast conclusions simply as inadequate for helping a human improve there behavior, given a certain standard.


Stanford Prison Experiment Part 1


Part 2


Qualia


As offered humans are not " walking meat computers", materilaism has exaughsted methedoligies that can imply they can somehow be considered in that sense. No mental facilities that have access to governments funding can actually practice the materialist perspective for treatment.

That includes pretty much every nation on this planet.

Any thoughts?

I really enjoyed the OP and am constantly torn between the practicality of current science and the optimism of New Age style philosophy.

Also, I am a sucker for contrary propositions.

My main issue with your discounting the theory of a unified consciousness is that everyone would not have the same amount of access. So, the fact that most experience a very local thinking pattern is not grounds for dismissal. Similar to how everyone can't do calculus, or play a guitar.

Here's something to think about:

Commonly cited examples of multiple independent discovery are the 17th-century independent formulation of calculus by Isaac Newton, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and others, described by A. Rupert Hall;[4] the 18th-century discovery of oxygen by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, Joseph Priestley, Antoine Lavoisier and others; and the theory of evolution of species, independently advanced in the 19th century by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

Multiple Discovery wikipedia

I often experience anomalous coincidence and consider the possibility that there is some type of divine synchronization between my thinking and my environment.

Is it okay to believe in your side sometimes, and the other side sometimes? Can I be a believer for God in one moment and a calculated scientist the next?


Now, your part about forgiveness struck home. Without going into too much detail, let's just say there was a great betrayal in my family involving child abuse. The perpetrator is now in jail for ten years. Today, if I saw this person I might grab the nearest blunt object and go to work. Ten years from now when wounds aren't so fresh, I may offer a hand of assistance and find myself in a better mind state with less baggage.

Anyway, I don't think it's discontinuous with spirituality to act on an impulse that someone is acting in an offensive way and retaliate in some manner.

Heaven and Hell is in the bible right? Karma? Can't I myself be an agent of these things?

There's the problem with Karma, and to your point. The victims of James Holmes must of done something atrocious in this life or a previous one, right? Nonsense. If universal Karma is used as an excuse for bystanding then all practical human value in spiritual philosophy falls apart.

There's the problem with Karma, and to your point. The victims of James Holmes must of done something atrocious in this life or a previous one, right? Nonsense. If universal Karma is used as an excuse for bystanding then all practical human value in spiritual philosophy falls apart.

A problem with perception is in relation to the consistency, with which, reality, has been described as beyond, what we can observe with , the common sense's.

What we commonly relate to as perception is literally inadequate in several regards. to what actually is out their.

Another example being in Astronomy, in relation to Physics. In order for our Universe to function as it does, conservatively. Our perspective accounts for only about 3% of everything that exist.

Scientist offer terms like "Dark Matter and Dark Energy, implied in the term "Dark" is they really have very little idea (if any) as to its structure.

Hence, again my opinion that when it comes to addressing cold hard reality, materialist need more substance.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Right, we don't know jack...

But science does seem to do a better job of leveraging what we do know for real world success. Engineers generally make more than spiritual advisors and have more stability. You can say money isn't important and has no real correlation between happiness and true success, but if you want to raise a family in America finances must be taken into account. And family is certainly a major aspect of spirituality.

All this said with acknowledging the next scientific breakthrough could come from a common consciousness researcher.

Main point here is that just because we know a very small percentage of what there is, if anything at all, this shouldn't be an excuse for ignoring things that are considered knowledge. Especially when these facts can be used in practical applications for humanity on Earth.


Edit:
After rereading my post, I wanted to add that the sentiment I just expressed could be counter productive. People may stick to what they know in the name of practicality and stagnate in further discovery. Sprecifically in a time like now when economics are tight and funding is scarce.

So the strength of human progress may lie in the tolerance of a variety ideas, with some searching for what is unknown while others master what is known. We should agree that a world where the debate in this thread exists is superior to a world where everyone is on one side of the fence.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


I think you misunderstand... the fact that we cannot determine (IMO) pretty much 93% of reality as to how it is structured? Lends credence to the conclusion that materialism has failed to provide an adequate response, to either consciousness or the Universe at large.

reply to post by Kashai


My response was maybe a bit unclear but aimed at that.

What I was saying is that materialism, while probably failing in the ultimate, succeeds in the practical. It is yet to be determined whether the theories shot down in the OP are the best possible ways to describe total reality.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


The only way to differentiate the practical from the ultimate is with consciousness

The argument has a logic of its own as how can one suggest nothing exist without something existing.

The atheist response to the argument does in fact suggest "Qualia" as offered.

Any thoughts?

I think that consciousness is definitely individual and a collective. How this works is, if you belong to an organization, like a church, nation, group of friends, company or family you are going to be sharing some of your mind with that organization. The shared minds create the living organizations.

Otherwise, good job questioning the "we are all one" theory. Who knows. But it sure works well when combined with the idea of karma and the idea that we could be reincarnated as anyone.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Preach on my friend.
Amen.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


This moment is happening everywhere - it is now. It is now whenever you check, now is all there is. You cannot escape now because you are now. Now and you are inseparable.
Now is the unifying field. Now is consciousness, now is Christ. 'We' are united in Christ.

But humans believe there is other, other times and other places. In your experience it is always here and it is always now but the mind tells you otherwise. The deceiving mind with it's words blinds you from the truth.

reply to post by Kashai


I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the matter, and speaking of matter, I want to add and you may or may not agree, but something to consider is..... matter can be manipulated.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Wordy redundant and awkward. Just say what you want to say without trying for the dramatic literary flair. It ain't there and nobody likes to mop and clean before they read. Keep it simple. What are you trying to say? Is this just another ATS rant placed in the wrong section?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


No apologies necessary. White Sage is commonly burnt in smudge sticks by New Age Native American wannabes to banish negative energies. Stupid of me to assume others would know that.
 

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.

There is absolutely no evidence you will find to my beliefs for I have offered up nothing (at least in this thread) which can or has been disproven. What I have done is looked at the available evidence and though my own logic and beliefs based on experience have come up with one that is contrary to what many in mainstream science (though not all) believe may to be ‘unlikely’. Why? Because the very nature of science discourages most with theories of which there’s no way yet known to prove, few are willing to challenge ideas which shake the very foundations upon which most of science is built (especially is it is hard to get ‘solid’ evidence), and like most of us the majority of scientists are simply following status quo or working on a practical level with stuff that we already know.
 
You are made entirely of energy and empty space. Energy which not only zaps across space and time, but also responds to conscious thought. The one thing that has been proven is that the reality your senses perceive is as remote from true reality as it could possibly be. And yet you don’t believe that there is something remarkable that society as a whole is somehow missing? It has been hypothesized that there isn’t actually a sharp divide between the quantum world and the macroscopic world, it’s just we are do not as yet have the technology to measure the macroscopic effects the quantum world has on our perceived reality.
 
So when I break it all down…..
 
We (and everything around us) are merely energy – proven. This is the same energy that responds to conscious thought – proven. This energy is not bound by the concepts of neither time nor space as we perceive them – proven
 
…….It become imho illogical to completely discount many of the core teachings which are shared by not only the New Agers, but by many other belief systems through the ages. These are not new theories on the whole; they are simply rehashed old ones.
 
I’m not going to deny for a second that there are not a large number of scam artists operating within the New Age genre. But hey that’s life. You see it everywhere. Its acceptance of many different beliefs also leaves the New Age world wide open to many people who may well be better off under professional psychiatric care. But at least it keeps things interesting.
 
My beliefs are (almost) entirely rational when compared to the evidence we have available at present.
 

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.

 
If you believe the prevailing opinion as expressed in the OP, what you are essentially doing is limiting (whether rightly or wrongly) human potential to the physical constructs of the body. Emotions – humor, fear, love – all are merely preprogrammed responses and are essentially no different to a computer. Your computer has instinct – its software. It has a body – the hardware. Now if your computer was in fact an advanced robot it would seem as full of life and emotion as you do.
 
If in 50 or less years when computer technology has advanced to be at least as intelligent than humans, will it (once it’s been uploaded with the correct software) also classify it as being ‘conscious’ or does being a computer made of flesh and bone somehow confer some special properties that those made of metal and plastic do not have?

Is it okay to believe in your side sometimes, and the other side sometimes? Can I be a believer for God in one moment and a calculated scientist the next?

Why not believe both? Science shows 'how' but is limited by technology in its ability to gather evidence. Spirituality asks 'why' and 'what if' and is limited only by imagination. The two go hand in hand. In fact the more many learn about the true intriquacies of the universe, the more deeply spiritual they become.

There does not need to be a divide between the physical world and the spiritual world. For they are both the same place...

Wow, I did not expect this thread to garner this many replies so quickly. I apologize for not responding right away to them all. This week is shaping up to be a very time-consuming one. I'll do my best to reply to everyone as I have the opportunity. Thanks for the patience, and continued discussions everybody.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by 1littlewolf

But the evidence is merely behavioral symptoms of possessing a consciousness within a material world, and imply no causation nor any defining limits either.

Very true. Great thinking here. Most people, even scientists, completely overlook the obvious fact that all we are doing is studying relationships and behavior, not an actual substance.

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.

Yes and no. Obviously a conclusion is an opinion, but for it to be empirically valid then it must meet certain requirements. Any experiment or study I conduct must be done in a way so that my previous assumptions do not disturb or pollute the results. Also, I cannot use wildly abstract definitions to base my conclusions on. If I want to prove vision is processed in the occipital lobe region of the brain, then I have to use the standard definitions for things like neurons, neural pathways, axons... and so on. If I want to introduce a new definition for a word, then I have to offer a series of explanations for why this new definition is more appropriate. Either way, as long as me and another person are in agreement of the definitions, and the study or experiment is done in a valid way, then they should be able to reproduce the same results. If they can, then it is valid. We should come to the same conclusion for the theory to be valid, otherwise something is wrong with the theory or method of verification.

Awesome post by the way.

Dp

reply to post by 1littlewolf


I know my journey is not the same as yours, however I find a lot of what you say to be in line with my thinking as well. Would you mind reading my posts here www.abovetopsecret.com... and giving me feedback. I think you may find some truth in my words as I do yours.

Combining all truths to come up with your own is where I'm at and always been. Science cannot close them self in just as religion or philosophy cannot close them self in without the science. It takes all of it.
:-)

Thanks,

Jenn

reply to post by 1littlewolf


I do wonder if we are actually fallen consciousness trying to make it BACK to ...


At- one- ment.

As the true essence of who we are is just that.... At one with the creator.