Cold Hard Reality

Originally posted by Kashai
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?

There is no "treatment". Things are just happening. If people are put into a negative environment and then turn negative - that is just happening. "treatment" is just a code-word for "making things how I want them to be".

This is not "proof" that a mind is separate from the brain. This is just demonstrating how slave-like humans are that most cannot even think beyond their environment, by actually QUESTIONING things.

This difference between unsupported beliefs and validated science is that one has little to no meaning for anyone other than the beholder and the other can be universally adopted and understood by all. By "unsupported" I mean lacking either a sound logical argument (as in philosophy) or empirically validated experiments or studies (as in science). The thing most of these new "spiritual" ideas lack is one of these methods of support. The Buddha was a true scientist, as well as a true philosopher. Jesus was a philosopher who stood on simple but very profound principles.

Many of these new age "spiritualists" just think the world revolves around them and feel no need to support their wild and truly mind-boggling statements. That is true narcissism, and ironically, the "oneness" crowd often tend to be the strongest proponents of divisive thinking. They walk around with there nose pointed up like their ish don't stink. It is this unfounded sense of superiority and rejection of hard logic and science that turns off so many of us. It has nothing to do with our "close mindedness" or "materialist dogma". That is simply ridiculous and I would beg anyone who even semi identifies with the "oneness" crowd to take a look in the proverbial mirror to make sure they are not really just adhering to another form of cult-like divisiveness and exclusion.

Just wanted to say that. : )

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe

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.

You're right. We are not all one; consciousness is not collective, it is localized and individualized.

That said, death does open a doorway for the human being. The human brain uses residual information that is specifically attributed for use by that one brain (we call it memory) to respond to, and to anticipate, external stimuli with configured bursts of "dynamic information" that provides a wide range of survival responses. Animal brains provide instinctive responses, and the human brain provides a complex balance between instinct and established intellectual reason in response to what confronts it from moment to moment. And those configured bursts of dynamic information, like all forms of information persist with no half-life deterioration, as information is not material.

Physicists agree that information exists as physical, and yet they also agree that information can become diffused, but it can't physically deteriorate, and this is the thing to remember when you're trying to figure out the truth concerning eternal human existence. The human being is the building collection of configured bursts of brain "generated" intellectual/instinctive responses, with the whole of it as a mass possessing a developing sense of sentience (self) that emerges over the years that the brain does what it does on behalf of the overall human whole. That human brain generated dynamic informational whole is what has been called the human spirit, human soul, and the eternal human being. It is "born" when the corporeal brain dies, and this is the fully developed human being.

It's hard to conceptualize that we're each presently working through our 2nd stage of physical gestation, and that it takes corporeal death to finally complete the process of becoming a fully realized human being, but the evidence suggests that this is the case. There are those who are now fully developed, and fully functional, as human beings that know this to be true, but they also realize that if everyone knew this to be true they'd lose their advantage over the millions that cross to their realm every day.

You folks on ATS should be open to the realization that human beings have always leveraged advantage against their fellow human beings, and yet, it's as though you forget that people are who they have created of themselves when those people finally escape the confines of their material husks. The truth is that no one changes after they die. They just find new ways of getting over on others - if they've always been the sort of people who seek to take advantage over others. Religion and spirituality has been the most effective scam against those crossing from this realm to the eternal realm.

If that doesn't work, then complete rejection of life-after-death prevents the human being from preparing for the changes that await - allowing all sorts of delusion to be imposed upon it when the transition occurs. Trust me, if you're standing face-to-face with Jesus or Satan or whomever, as soon as you realize that the lights didn't go out when death washed over you, you'll believe in that Jesus or Satan or whomever is standing in front of you - and if I know this, then everyone (the good, the bad, and the God-awful horrible) knows it.

We don't reunite with God's consciousness. There is no God's consciousness. Still, it's not lights out either. It's your true birth. Just keep that in mind if you remember or embrace any of this. You are eternal, free and self-determining. Nothing can imprison you, and nothing can harm you once you've crossed. Forget all of this except for that and you'll be just fine.

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by Kashai
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?

There is no "treatment". Things are just happening. If people are put into a negative environment and then turn negative - that is just happening. "treatment" is just a code-word for "making things how I want them to be".

This is not "proof" that a mind is separate from the brain. This is just demonstrating how slave-like humans are that most cannot even think beyond their environment, by actually QUESTIONING things.

Sir my background is in Psychology, part of my career has been to work with patients diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses. When you say things just happen what does that mean. Materialism has not been
an issue for treatment since the early 70's and things are vastly different from the sanitariums of the
past.

What can be proven is that after 30 years since the disaster that occurred because people insisted and were credentialed, that the mind is not separate from the brain? Abolutely, nothing has been presented by the materialist prose, that can in any way make things better than they are now.

Is there proof that aspirin treats headaches? Sure there is everyone on the planet has been exposed to aspirin and it is clear, due to world wide sales that it works. The Materialist conclusion was allowed to function, upon the scale of this planet failed, with no significant effort to replace the models by materialist?

The problem is in fact in relation to the clinical limits of the human brain. Literally your argument does not suggest that humans are incapable of subjective experiences. But inherently it places, unrealistic limit on the extent of how different humans and animals can respond.

I had a patient who had been transferred to an adult Psychiatric Unit, as a result of her having turned
21 years old. Prior to the onset of adolescents she was not schizophrenic. She was being sexually molested by her Uncle and when she did reach the age of 13, she became schizophrenic.

At this point she responded to the abuse by picking up a hammer and nails meant for concrete.

She hammered the nails into her scull, and this had been going on since she was 13.

I hope you can understand how suggesting that materialism has a problem addressing behavior
like this makes perfect sense.

Another Cold Hard Reality....

Any thoughts?

The problem is IF there were "more to it", science (at least at this time) would not be able to prove or disprove it.

I find it curious how any person can make a case for either option with any certainty. There are still many, many axioms used by science, and there is still no definitive proof of "more".

In my eyes, it is a stalemate. Science in the future will be drastically different, and perhaps then we will be able to say for sure. For now, I leave you with this: Incorrect Predictions

Never say never, old chap

Originally posted by DeliriumAquarium
The problem is IF there were "more to it", science (at least at this time) would not be able to prove or disprove it.

I find it curious how any person can make a case for either option with any certainty. There are still many, many axioms used by science, and there is still no definitive proof of "more".

In my eyes, it is a stalemate. Science in the future will be drastically different, and perhaps then we will be able to say for sure. For now, I leave you with this: Incorrect Predictions

Never say never, old chap

One Private Mental Health Facility opened up about 10 years ago in the United States. There focus was in addressing the problems of ADHD in children, and there model for treatment was strictly in respect to materialist thinking. There was a patient that was about 10 years old who was scheduled for a home visit (just for a weekend)

The child behaved well, the parents were happy. Until they found out that during the week prior to his home visit, he had been subjected to 18 separate sessions of electro-shock therapy.

The facility was shut down and by this time all the law suits that resulted have pretty much been resolved.

Suggesting "never say never" ? Means chap, that you do not understand the issues related to clinical investigations. Trying to explain how the brain works applying materialistic philosophy is akin to suggesting today the the Earth is flat. It us simply unrealistic to try to train a human being to recover from a psychosis in some way, related to teaching a dog to sit, rollover or speak.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
I had a patient who had been transferred to an adult Psychiatric Unit, as a result of her having turned
21 years old. Prior to the onset of adolescents she was not schizophrenic. She was being sexually molested by her Uncle and when she did reach the age of 13, she became schizophrenic.

At this point she responded to the abuse by picking up a hammer and nails meant for concrete.

She hammered the nails into her scull, and this had been going on since she was 13.

I hope you can understand how suggesting that materialism has a problem addressing behavior
like this makes perfect sense.

Whether the mind is in the brain or separate - isn't the problem here that she was molested by her uncle?

The problem here is the experience the person went through - the memory.

I'm not sure how this relates to the mind being "materialistic" or "spiritual".

And yes, you are correct that sometimes the medicine (aspirins) does not work. It could be placebos.

However, there are materialistic methods and medicines that work very well...

And there are spiritual methods and alt-medicine that works very well, too...

So maybe it is not "spiritual" vs "material" maybe we do not see the whole picture.

reply to post by Kashai


I think you misunderstood me. I was not replying to your post, rather to the OP.

When I said "Never say never" I was referring to the link I supplied, which showed many scientific "truths" of the time, which were of course later proven wrong. I agree with the poster above me, who said something to the effect of perhaps we are simply not seeing the entire picture.

reply to post by arpgme


There are women that have been molested by there uncles that have done great things in there lives. A point being that the level of diversity is beyond the materialist conclusion. The problem was not that she was molested by her uncle. The problem was that her ability to cope with what is in fact something that can happen in reality, results in self-destructive behavior.

Take the idea of a seeing a cat drink from your favorite cup. Some people would react by turning on some hot water, getting some dish-washing liquid and cleaning the cup completely. Others would require and admission to a mental hospital, feel suicidal and start hallucinating (for the record I am bringing up an account related to a patient, Sigmund Freud had).


Clearly mankind does not see the whole picture, to be certain the materialist has, absolutely no idea, how to define consciousness.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by DeliriumAquarium


No problem

reply to post by 1littlewolf

Nicely put littlewolf. I enjoy your ideas.

However, let's clear up the air around your assertions, at least to not give anyone the wrong idea about a few facts.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
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
 

I don't think the statement "everything is merely energy" is proven. Everything has energy in it, but is not merely energy. Yes energy and mass are interconnected, and much mass is derived from the interactive energy between quarks in protons etc. but all is not energy. A quark is a particle.

Nasa theorizes that 72% of the universe is energy, dark energy to be exact. Indeed a lot of energy, but not quite 100%: Contents of the Universe

If you meant something else when you said 'energy,' then I apologize. I am only looking for clarity.

Also there's nothing to show that energy is affected by conscious thought. There's no evidence of that. Yes, there's speculation on it. I've argued this before, but refuse to do it again. Maybe in private if you wish. Check out this experiment: A quantum delayed choice experiment. It's recent and pertains to the topic.

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.

Be careful, I am not limiting anything. A man can imagine himself on the other side of the universe for all I care—which I do fairly often enough. One shouldn't limit himself strictly to the realm of his thought. For new agers, Idealists, materialist, atheists, theists, every thought, idea and dream is derived from their own experience—those 'clunky senses' and the memory, what people label 'materialism,' limiting human potential, ignoble and irreligious—yet the very source of every single thought and memory they've ever fathomed. I don't see anything limiting about it. People should be embracing and thanking their senses and the body, not scorning them. If one scorns his senses, he should also scorn his own mind, which is directly related to the senses and rest of his body.

Although I'm not a materialist, I sometimes take a materialist stance because I fear the alternative—extinction.

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?

Yes. And I know our opinions will differ on what those are, but either way, despite our difference in opinion on what constitutes physics, we can at least both agree that man isn't meat computers.

Cheers. Thanks for the good reply.

reply to post by JarredAus

reply to post by Kashai


Because I can't see the magician or explain some of its magic, I can't fully dismiss the notion that magic exists.

I've been tweaking with self hypnosis for a time and that has opened to me a real insight on the power of beliefs and how mind can shape the perception of reality. Considering that its fully understood that we do not perceive reality at its fullness and that what we perceive as reality is often not really there, the focus then becomes the mind where your reality really lives, we all pass trough life in a very personal delusion that is often then not created and enhanced by our subconscious...

Belief systems have been give extraordinary importance based on my self realization, I can now fully understand why people fight for them (or even over them) and I respect the empowerment they provide to those that have the capacity to have a strongly believe but to shape it to their benefit. Today I understand some of mechanisms on how the mind can be shaped to serve your own purposes. I've also become more aware how these mechanisms used everywhere and permeate societies and cultures

To me this was a real eye opening realization, before that I understood that the field was a bit gray, we had the placebo effect (and nocebo), religious faith, homeopathy and a great lot of other phenomena that I couldn't frame into my view of reality, today I've become open to accept some of this things by the realization that (for those that truly believe in them) they can in fact be real experiences, observations or tools. The exercise of directing my own self delusions has granted me a broader view of what the mind is capable of.

I'm not religious in the aspect I require a personal savior or an intervening good to justify, explain or help me cope with reality, even if I now comprehend those that not only opt but require this type of constructs). One of the few things that I have absolute certain of is that I'm an individual conscience, all else is open to discussion, but as I realize my existence, I'm also aware of the fact that I've not always been (at least myself) and so the next step is to acknowledge non-existence, that will most probably become evident by my own death. The main question to me then becomes the purpose of my existence.

I refute the notion that as an individual I have been granted any meaningful purpose, this of course does not invalidate that I can strive for meaningful and long lasting achievements, but I do not see that as the point of having come into existence. This view of mine also extends to any other sentient creature, that there is no individual destiny to be filled, at best I could accept a collective potential destiny, a function to be fulfilled.

We today have the capacity to understand that the conditions of this universe have been set like in a mathematical formula, the components are set in such a away that the simplest of things couldn't have been done in another way to permit life as we know it to emerge. This to me is sufficient indication to accept a grand design. It still does not provide a solution to this question, of why I exist. But taking in all of what I know and observed the concussion I've come is that there must be a purpose, since in this universe we increasingly know better, all things seems to serve some kind of purpose.

The best theory that I defend is that life and I as part of it exist only to experience reality. I like the notion of each sentient individual being part of a universal conscience not as a fully independent unit but like a two way sensor of a broader entity that may probably benefit from our existence and experiences.

PS: I do believe many have experienced the phenomena but I discard most past lives reports beyond an individual experience, especially those under hypnosis where it is extremely easy to replicate not only the experience but to create those memories. As well as most near death experiences, even if I find some of the more complex reports involving out of body experiences supportive of the theory of an unifying conscience.

Energy is commonly defined as the ability to do work, this is why an internal combustion engine capacity is often related to, "horsepower".

Originally posted by openlocks

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.

Cheers openlock.

I guess when I said 'conclusions' I was more referring to the broader implications of what the results of a particular experiments may indicate as opposed to the results of the experiment itself.

Originally posted by MamaJ

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.

Maybe…. But atonement implies we have done something ‘wrong’ to begin with prior to our journey here on Earth. And as right and wrong are on the whole purely subjective the whole atonement idea creates a lot more questions than it answers. Although I do really like your play on the word at-one-ment

I lean more towards the ‘Source experiencing itself to know itself’ hypothesis…

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Nicely put littlewolf. I enjoy your ideas.

Cheers, you’re actually one of my favourite posters to disagree with.

However, let's clear up the air around your assertions, at least to not give anyone the wrong idea about a few facts.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
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

I don't think the statement "everything is merely energy" is proven. Everything has energy in it, but is not merely energy. Yes energy and mass are interconnected, and much mass is derived from the interactive energy between quarks in protons etc. but all is not energy. A quark is a particle.

Nasa theorizes that 72% of the universe is energy, dark energy to be exact. Indeed a lot of energy, but not quite 100%: Contents of the Universe

If you meant something else when you said 'energy,' then I apologize. I am only looking for clarity.

I will admit I have a bad habit of writing posts at 2am which tend to be long winded and a little generalised. I’m also not going to pretend to be a particle physicist but one thing you must realise is that all of these elementary particles are only ever hypothesised when there is a need for them in a particular theory. Then they are ‘proven’ through experimentation and the theory which relied upon them to work is carried on forwards. We know nothing of their other properties, or even whether or not they are in fact one and the same particle with different properties for whatever reason.

I myself am in favor of a theory which suggests ultimately at its smallest level everything is one and the same. It’s just that we’ve never looked deeper than what is now theorised as there is no need to and we don’t have the technology capable of detecting them anyway.

But sticking with this line of thinking I believe if consciousness can affect one part of the subatomic substrate of the universe, there’s no reason it cannot affect other parts as well either directly or indirectly.

Also there's nothing to show that energy is affected by conscious thought. There's no evidence of that. Yes, there's speculation on it. I've argued this before, but refuse to do it again. Maybe in private if you wish. Check out this experiment: A quantum delayed choice experiment. It's recent and pertains to the topic.

You are right, and no let’s not argue as I was also involved in a 7+ page debate on this recently and am still waking in with cold sweats.

I do believe it does though for there are not too many other explanations which make sense to me. I’m guessing your delayed choice experiment is similar or the same as the Quantum Eraser Experiment (see below), unfortunately my computer is old and doesn’t like your link so I’ll have to look at it once I move to a machine which has less than 5 years on the clock before I read it

Be careful, I am not limiting anything. A man can imagine himself on the other side of the universe for all I care—which I do fairly often enough. One shouldn't limit himself strictly to the realm of his thought. For new agers, Idealists, materialist, atheists, theists, every thought, idea and dream is derived from their own experience—those 'clunky senses' and the memory, what people label 'materialism,' limiting human potential, ignoble and irreligious—yet the very source of every single thought and memory they've ever fathomed. I don't see anything limiting about it. People should be embracing and thanking their senses and the body, not scorning them. If one scorns his senses, he should also scorn his own mind, which is directly related to the senses and rest of his body.

True. Unfortunately all information we have is filtered through those clunky senses so it is really hard to actually step back and look at everything objectively.

When I mean ‘limiting’ what I mean is that when you imagine you’re on the other side of the universe it is simply an ‘imagining’ confined within your head whereas for the reason I outlined in my earlier posts I like to think there’s a little more to it.

reply to post by Kashai


A materialistic can argue that the different reactions are from the diverse personality (genetic, etc.)
You are saying that because there are different responses... therefore a separate brain?

Like I said before, I am open minded to the idea, but I don't think it's fair to argue something by saying we don't "understand this or that" therefore it must not be true and the other idea must be...

That is not proper evidence.

A materialist can say for example " if the mind is separate why don't many people remember anything before the body?" - or any other thing that we don't have an explanation of evidence for, then from their side, they can try to use that as some sort of so-called evidence saying "spiritualists can't explain that so the mind is physical".

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Also there's nothing to show that energy is affected by conscious thought. There's no evidence of that. Yes, there's speculation on it. I've argued this before, but refuse to do it again. Maybe in private if you wish. Check out this experiment: A quantum delayed choice experiment. It's recent and pertains to the topic.

I did a little research and it said that the present can determine the past. I still don't understand the experiment though, can you explain how it means that?

I don't think the statement "everything is merely energy" is proven. Everything has energy in it, but is not merely energy. Yes energy and mass are interconnected, and much mass is derived from the interactive energy between quarks in protons etc. but all is not energy. A quark is a particle.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Energy is not a substance, it's an attribute of other things.

Quarks have energy.

I think what's important and really cool is Light.

If I could be anything I wanted to be in the Universe it would be light. :-)

Maybe…. But atonement implies we have done something ‘wrong’ to begin with prior to our journey here on Earth. And as right and wrong are on the whole purely subjective the whole atonement idea creates a lot more questions than it answers. Although I do really like your play on the word at-one-ment

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Some of us could have fell while the rest of us are trying to help the fallen.

It makes more sense to me everyday.

Fell as in became separate from the one consciousness so here and now on earth we find ourself incomplete and separate from God, which in this realm we are.

We are learning daily how to decipher between good and bad because it was created by us in the material world.

The further away we go from God, the worse ( bad) it gets and the darkness tries to envelope the soul.

I agree with your statements on consciousness being singular, however I do believe that there is an energy to the universe that gives life to all living creatures, and the energy that inhabits a person's body goes back to that pool when they die. As to if that energy is conscious or not, well.. no idea.