Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Seeking god.

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


ps. It would be good if we could not let the personal stuff (beyond banter) veer conversation, unless relevant. If you think anything overly personal or not relevant, point it out, if it appears so I will happily ask moderators to remove it. I am not inferring you are a member of any particular group. I only ask of your sources, as I do see similarities with certain doctrines from groups who professionals in the relevant field would view as unhealthy. I will take your word that any similarity I find is purely coincidental while not necessarily changing my views as to it's worth.

You seem like a nice genuine person. Nice genuine people can still be wrong. This is how it seems to go, you make definate and specific claims (about the ultimate nature of our psychology and existence itself, in this instance), other people are entitled to challenge them as vigorously as they like. Claims like this should always be challenged IMO.

edit on 23-10-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



If you could show me the reviewed and accepted paper that has science now agreeing with you

I'm assuming you didn't even watch the video. Sure right now it's speculation and theoretical, however my point is that a shift is occurring from the strict limited materialist view which limited science to only what can be seen with the physical eyes, to a more broader and open format which is emerging and is required in order to overcome the massive bias the exists and prevents scientists from studying consciousness. Some very highly respective scientists are discussing the possibility of non-local consciousness and a source.


appear to be a rehash of simplistic Judeo/Christian mythology

Well then I'm glad that in this case I'm focused on experiential states of consciousness, which has the chance to leave out all myth.


What I deny (as a separate issue to what might be the truth, or not), is being told what truth I must believe in by someone who might not really know.

Buddha said, (paraphrased) "This is what I have found to be Truth. Don't take my word for it, and see for yourself if this is true". I saw for myself directly & experientially that it is true. I also approached Jesus' teachings as well. Tested them out and saw that they were directly & experientially true. Found the same things with certain Neo-platonic philosophers, zen techniques, etc.


By someone who simply dismisses other people's experience offhand, under the guise of owning the "mystical" truth, if their conclusion don't match

I'm not dismissing your own experience. It merely comes down to Q & A. Did you spend significant times going within and if so what did you find? Have you found your awareness to be distinctly separate from the mind/intellect? Have you found the source of intuition? It's quite simple.

As for "owning"..... do you own oxygen or the patent on breathing? I own "mystical truth" as much as you own oxygen & breathing.


It assumes all who don't agree with you have no experience of what you call the "absolute". This could be very wrong, some might have looked beyond the assumptions such experience can lead to, perhaps there is more.....

Let's test this premise. You don't agree with me. Have you experienced this "Absolute" state?


I also find the self appointed title of "mystic", when used in a way to infer superior knowledge or abilities, quite a misnomer. Possibly the result of an inflated, aggrandised self image.

WHat about the self appointed title of "dentist, doctor, scientist, mechanic" ....all specialists in their craft which by far have superior abilities & knowledge to me or you. No misnomer there and whether they inflate or aggrandise their self image has no bearing to me over the fact that I have no choice but to respect that they are professionals in their branches knowledge.


The "mystical" "esoteric" know-it-alls should always be challenged.If only this happened in the past...

THese folks you speak of, only spoke of a sliver of over-all knowledge... that of consciousness and the inner realms. Some spoke of meds, evolution, physics (kanada & the atom), etc. I may be wrong on my views of meds, physics, evolution, etc ...however what I found from self investigation is that the esoteric teachings of Christ, Buddha, various Greek Philosophers, & various mystics has been true. Where is the "know-it-all-ism" in knowing the inner aspects of yourself?


The claims you make about other systems under the guise of "esoteric" is already very questionable, if understandable when your chosen faith (yes, faith) is taken into account.

please enlighten me as to what my "faith" is, if I have found bits & pieces of various faiths to be true experientially, don't belong to any of them, & instead experience and Beingness that is beyond Faith...?


I can also see the possibility of your own simplistic and seemingly crude interpretation (IMO) as being comparable in similar way to the "mystics" creation account v evolutionary biology.

There is no "versus" for me. Everything is integrated & accounted for. Evolutionary biology is a physical matter aspect of existence. So what? My takes is the Big Bang was possibly the exist of a black hole. Our Universe, one of possibly quadrillions.


anything they can in a way which could support their beliefs...er sorry...direct experience.

Well, if you don't know the difference between a "belief" & a direct "experience", you may need to go back and reread some basic studies of psychology. Are you saying there is no difference?



When that can't be done, they will just claim others are ignorant. The facts must align with the belief.

Built in defense mechanism. What is revealed when all belief is cast aside



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



Please read the relevant post again. This time allow your mind to perceive the word "fairies". You have not even rebutted the leprechauns in any genuine way.

I have never directly experienced leprechauns or fairies. When I look around the world and take note of the organized schools of thought when it comes to Existence, consciousness, and who is speaking of whether or not God or a soul exists or not, the school of "leprechauns & fairies" looks to be a blip on the radar compared to Buddhism, Mysticism, Philosophy, Esotericism, etc. I have not tried to recreate the instances of what it would take to "see" these beings except under the influence of things which ats prohibits talking about, which is where I have seen such things.


Some people believe, which makes them as relevant as anything you have said.

If you do not see a fundamental difference between an experience & a belief, then there is something fundamentally wrong in your school of thought.


You seem like a nice genuine person. Nice genuine people can still be wrong. This is how it seems to go, you make definate and specific claims (about the ultimate nature of our psychology and existence itself, in this instance), other people are entitled to challenge them as vigorously as they like. Claims like this should always be challenged IMO.

I'll repeat what I said earlier. Buddha said that reality and existence fundamentally is a certain way, and if you don't believe him. by all means go see for yourself. Christ, and many other Mystics, had similar claims.

I took the plunge and saw what's there, and in the Absolute, there is no belief, no bias, everything and all possibilities are included, Ineffable, and yet ever presently there. I understand I am taking a stance to support and argue for the existence of this, however what I refer to seems to come about when all stances are dropped leaving the reality of that untouched by anything.

Experience itself is THE fundamental aspects of existence that makes science, math, psychology, medicine, and all our knowledge possible.

Just because I have access to & experience the Absolute, doesn't make me any better, which for some strange reason, people who don't experience the Absolute seem to play this as a card. I've seen fundamentally that there is no difference between you and me besides (perspective & bias) 2 things which doesn't make anyone better. The whole "so you think your better now" is something 5 year olds do and I don't even entertain this argument as a possibility in my existence, because the view is flawed.

All my points I made in this thread, have been seriously considered by college level professors, that I personally know, and it has forced them to at least leave atheism and go to agnosticism, and some even left that stance. You seem to be the only one that is not getting any of this and seems to be because of skewed bias, because of pop culture (pop views), because you don't seem to recognize a difference between direct experience and belief, and because you've never tried to test any of the schools of thought experientially for yourself primarily because your bias doesn't allow you to be neutral to the fact that they may be right about certain things.

So you group everything into the same category as leprechauns & fairies, leaving all other stances moot and not worth pursuing, and leaving you limited to science, a branch of thought which is in its infancy in understanding consciousness, does not understand intuition, the gut, the sub-conscious, and many various other aspects that make up the human experience.

For you, all you can say is "I don't know and filter everything with Bias." For me, I can say also I don't know, however I've seen & experienced something hyper real that exists when all Bias is dropped & let go of. This Bias is the prison which keeps one from experiencing what Buddhism, Mysticism, Esotericism,Philosophy, & CHrist all have said is fundamentally there.

Science has not found this yet, because the scientific method itself is bias, a filter, has rules that include repeatabiltiy and observers ....and to reach this "state" all repeatability is dropped, the observer, instead of observing outward, is required to observe itself devoid of bias, thought, belief.

Yet even in all of this, the experience of it is repeatable, there are literally hundreds of ways there, and there is no ownership by anyone over the methods there or the truth found there.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Sure right now it's speculation and theoretical

Thank you.



Well then I'm glad that in this case I'm focused on experiential states of consciousness, which has the chance to leave out all myth.

I can only refer you back to the bible. This is what direct experience of god can lead to, apparently. There are many other examples.



Buddha said, (paraphrased) "This is what I have found to be Truth. Don't take my word for it, and see for yourself if this is true". I saw for myself directly & experientially that it is true. I also approached Jesus' teachings as well. Tested them out and saw that they were directly & experientially true. Found the same things with certain Neo-platonic philosophers, zen techniques, etc.

This doesn't mean any of them were right, or wrong. Again, I strongly doubt there ever was a jesus (certainly no biblical version), so he is largely moot to myself.


I'm not dismissing your own experience. It merely comes down to Q & A. Did you spend significant times going within and if so what did you find? Have you found your awareness to be distinctly separate from the mind/intellect? Have you found the source of intuition? It's quite simple.

Yes, yes and yes (though later revised the last yes, finding there is more to it). I just haven't accepted the new age explanations for these experiences.


Let's test this premise. You don't agree with me. Have you experienced this "Absolute" state?

Absolutely.



WHat about the self appointed title of "dentist, doctor, scientist, mechanic" ....all specialists in their craft which by far have superior abilities & knowledge to me or you

These are not self appointed. They are earned in a particular way, there is no comparison. I doubt you even believe this (certainly hope not).


Where is the "know-it-all-ism" in knowing the inner aspects of yourself?

Feeling others should also submit to these personal "inner aspects of yourself" that you have found, that you have the unimpeachable truth, that to not agree is considered error to begin with.


please enlighten me as to what my "faith" is, if I have found bits & pieces of various faiths to be true experientially, don't belong to any of them, & instead experience and Beingness that is beyond Faith...?

You have been expressing it for some pages now.

Evolutionary biology is a physical matter aspect of existence. So what?

Yet, for millennia people thought it could have no physical explanation and "knew" it was supernatural (sadly some still do). God just put it there. It is the same today with consciousness, in many ways. We know there are definite, observable, measurable physical processes involved. It appears (so far) to need a physical biological basis to even emerge, to begin with. The "quantum" angle still rests largely on work by Penrose. No link has been established (which doesn't mean there won't be one). To claim a quantum explanation is necessary is a bit early and amounts to lumping two unknowns together, simply because they are unknown. Using the unexplained to explain another unexplained. Experiment in this area should be encouraged, though claiming unverified facts about it is not science.

It is also worth noting that many of these "highly respective scientists (sic)" might not be in as great a number as you think and can also have new age/ religious leanings. I was reading one such submission to the Royal Society today, by a scientist who also doubles as a creationist.

It is a fallacy to believe that because anyone is looking into a certain possibility, it must be true.


THese folks you speak of, only spoke of a sliver of over-all knowledge...

Using anything we have been able to verify as being correct or not, so far, they seem to have spoken utter tripe.


Well, if you don't know the difference between a "belief" & a direct "experience", you may need to go back and reread some basic studies of psychology. Are you saying there is no difference?

Anything can be "directly experienced" psychologically. It is highly subjective. What of the direct experience of mental patients, those that came up with the old testament (who many would say equate to the same thing)?



Built in defense mechanism.

Thank you Sigmund, but this is rather meaningless without further explanation. In view of the fact that entire fields of religious pseudo science operate by the principle of belief first, then find facts to fit the belief. Would you like examples? I would be surprised if you needed any.


What is revealed when all belief is cast aside

The belief that all belief is cast aside?

edit on 24-10-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus


I have never directly experienced leprechauns or fairies.

Thank you. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.


I have not tried to recreate the instances of what it would take to "see" these beings except under the influence of things which ats prohibits talking about, which is where I have seen such things.


Thanks for the honesty. Though if I have understood you, surely this doesn't hint at reliable experience?


If you do not see a fundamental difference between an experience & a belief, then there is something fundamentally wrong in your school of thought.

Agreed in principle.

Does this mean Scientology must also be correct?



I'll repeat what I said earlier. Buddha said that reality and existence fundamentally is a certain way, and if you don't believe him. by all means go see for yourself. Christ, and many other Mystics, had similar claims.

I have.

Again, using examples of a biblical christ amount to using examples of Santa, IMO.


Experience itself is THE fundamental aspects of existence that makes science, math, psychology, medicine, and all our knowledge possible.

Agreed. Not sure how this implies your truth is correct one.


Just because I have access to & experience the Absolute, doesn't make me any better, which for some strange reason, people who don't experience the Absolute seem to play this as a card.

This requires the assumption that other people have no experience.


All my points I made in this thread, have been seriously considered by college level professors, that I personally know, and it has forced them to at least leave atheism and go to agnosticism, and some even left that stance.

If you think this supports your view, it is covered by more than one logical fallacy . Your view will eventually stand or fall on it's own merits.


You seem to be the only one that is not getting any of this and seems to be because of skewed bias, because of pop culture (pop views), because you don't seem to recognize a difference between direct experience and belief, and because you've never tried to test any of the schools of thought experientially for yourself primarily because your bias doesn't allow you to be neutral to the fact that they may be right about certain things.

Perhaps not. Perhaps I "get it" far more than you might comprehend. That I don't accept your personal opinion or anyone else's as being a fact (nothing indicates it is), doesn't necessarily mean bias. Leaving options open seems to indicate the opposite. Perhaps one of us is still open possibility, while the other is showing a preference to personal bias and stating all kinds of unverified "facts".


So you group everything into the same category as leprechauns & fairies, leaving all other stances moot and not worth pursuing, and leaving you limited to science, a branch of thought which is in its infancy in understanding consciousness, does not understand intuition, the gut, the sub-conscious, and many various other aspects that make up the human experience.

Straw man again. Not what I said, far easier to address than what I did say.

Your notions of soul god etc. are, as yet, mythical. The subject of mythology, in the context presented re mystical experience, is entirely relevant.


For me, I can say also I don't know, however I've seen & experienced something hyper real that exists when all Bias is dropped & let go of.

I have yet to see that (the first part). I have only your word for the second part.


Science has not found this yet, because the scientific method itself is bias, a filter, has rules that include repeatabiltiy and observers ....and to reach this "state" all repeatability is dropped, the observer, instead of observing outward, is required to observe itself devoid of bias, thought, belief.

I have doubts that your view of science is realistic.

Have you ever read how Einstein arrived at his special relativity ideas? Why he valued intuition?

I don't so much see scientists saying "this cannot be" as saying, at the moment, there is no reason to suppose it is.

edit on 24-10-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



This doesn't mean any of them were right, or wrong. Again, I strongly doubt there ever was a jesus (certainly no biblical version), so he is largely moot to myself.

why stop there? might as well doubt the existence of buddha, muhammed, genghis kahn, napolean, nero, ....add to a never ending list of doubtful historic figures. Sure! Why not!


Yes, yes and yes (though later revised the last yes, finding there is more to it). I just haven't accepted the new age explanations for these experiences.

Have you found your awareness then to be separate from your body and have the ability to come and go, and access a source of awareness? WHy not posit your own explanation of these things and see what happens. Surely you will be attacked and doubted in the same manner as am I.


Absolutely.

SO you've experienced the "Absolute" state, yet you don't agree that Jesus, Buddha, many Philosophers, & mystics are all discussing the same thing?


These are not self appointed. They are earned in a particular way, there is no comparison. I doubt you even believe this (certainly hope not).

So we have all these tiles that society has agreed are earned in a "particular way" and require a certain amount of respect and value by society as a collective, but there is nothing or no titles given to an "expert in inner/outer consciousness & it's source". Funny how that works. I once went to several experts for a condition that none of them could figure out, and finally was completely healed by a chinese healer/herbalist, which the previous doctors told me couldnt or wouldnt help. Who's the expert then?

I've personally seen self taught individuals solve problems and come up with solutions that experts couldn't.


Feeling others should also submit to these personal "inner aspects of yourself" that you have found, that you have the unimpeachable truth, that to not agree is considered error to begin with.

It seems the problem here is that you seem to have some kind of issue w/ submission. Say there is a God and requires one to submit, it seems quite possibly that such an idea is a big issue for you.

Other than that, I never said anyone needs to "submit" to anything and it's logical that 99.9% won't agree because most haven't looked within.


To claim a quantum explanation is necessary is a bit early and amounts to lumping two unknowns together, simply because they are unknown.

Last time I checked, science seems to be in agreement about the basics of quantum physics, quantum states, and entanglement. Everything is already inherently a part of quantum reality. Consciousness won't be able to be explained using materialist science because consciousness is immaterial. Of course what do I know .....(as you say)


It is a fallacy to believe that because anyone is looking into a certain possibility, it must be true.

I never said though. Imagine if Einstein never looked in all his respective possibilities. Now do the same for aspects of Consciousness and you see what I mean. It will take a brilliant Einstein type and a further overall advancement in science to finally prove everything I've been talking about in this thread.


Anything can be "directly experienced" psychologically. It is highly subjective. What of the direct experience of mental patients, those that came up with the old testament (who many would say equate to the same thing)?

So what are you saying, that subjectivity is invalid? Isn't subjectivity the mode of operation for the experiencing of reality & existence.

Just like we can look back 3000 years ago and say that the world knew nothing, a person in the year 3000 can look back on our discussion and say, "Wow, those guys sure were in ignorance in their understanding of science. They hadn't eve proven non-locality and infinite source yet." It's all relative.

Somebody with an IQ of a billion and using 100% of their brain would look at all our understanding right now and say that we are all mental patients since we still have separatist thinking, wars, boundaries, compartmentalism of knowledge, and so forth.

Enlightenment is the next logic step up the evolutionary ladder. Such a person as perfect and complete disciple over themselves, access to higher intuition, does no separate, is not corrupted, the list goes on and on.


Thanks for the honesty. Though if I have understood you, surely this doesn't hint at reliable experience?

All experience is valid to degrees. Leprechaun experiences being recreated under certain substances says alot. Ergot in rye grasses have been added to food supplies and caused hallucinations in history & certain geological locations.

All my "repeatable/recreatable" experiences have been of clear sobriety and no leprechauns were never seen.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 




Experience itself is THE fundamental aspects of existence that makes science, math, psychology, medicine, and all our knowledge possible.

Agreed. Not sure how this implies your truth is correct one.

Because in "YOUR" experience, you are weighing facts and findings based on limits, rules, and regulations, then creating an experiential bias which you call your personal stance. All of that is your direct experience and you call that valid.

Yet a man experiences DIRECTLY something which is repeatable and accessible, is not understand by science, so it is not valid?

Science does not understand abstract art, enjoyable experience, the present moment, or a vast array of things all of which fall within the realm of DIRECT SUBJECTIVE REPEATABLE EXPERIENCE!!!!!

Your argument is basically that all I have is "beliefs".

I say that my argument is direct experiences, I have a large number of folks that I know who have also experienced these, they are in fact more real (Hyper real) than everyday regular reality, and will be quantified by science one day (which is lacking and is beyond in these areas).

If you think that my experiences are beliefs, then by proxy, your whole reality/experience is also nothing but beliefs, as is all of reality.


This requires the assumption that other people have no experience.

Go ask 10 random people if they have experienced themselves as pure non-local consciousness and have found the source of that aspect of them. By the way, good luck finding even 1.


If you think this supports your view, it is covered by more than one logical fallacy . Your view will eventually stand or fall on it's own merits.

What I speak of, transcends logic, merit, & is unlimited so your whole system of what constitutes logic & merit is all relative and limited.

At the end of the day, I'm saying "A" is there and you have the rest of the letters of the alphabet as blueprints to see for yourself. Those who have gone and seen "A" say it's legit. Everyone else is only speculating without having seen. How can someone that hasn't seen, tasted, touched something, possibly know anything about it, let alone be able to transcend a bias that such thing even exists?


Perhaps not. Perhaps I "get it" far more than you might comprehend. That I don't accept your personal opinion or anyone else's as being a fact (nothing indicates it is), doesn't necessarily mean bias. Leaving options open seems to indicate the opposite. Perhaps one of us is still open possibility, while the other is showing a preference to personal bias and stating all kinds of unverified "facts".

IF you do "get it" then please do posit your philosophy and see if you can defend it against all the attacks you'll get.

My defense? Same as Buddha's. This is the way it is, there's many ways there, see for yourself if its so. It's the same defense I tested when I spoke exactly the way you do against people who speak the way I do. Tested his premise, and it passed w/ Flying colors. Tested aspects of Jesus' teaching, and they passed w/ flying colors.

The Absolute State is devoid of Bias, doesn't care abut being Open to options or not. It's there, it's legit, it's untrumpable, it's the underlying foundation of all existence, and science has no clue about it. I said it.


Your notions of soul god etc. are, as yet, mythical. The subject of mythology, in the context presented re mystical experience, is entirely relevant.

A tree is still a tree no matter what one calls it. Same with the sky, clouds, water, air, soul, God, etc etc.

If something exists, it exists. Your bias seems to be against the words "soul" & "God", something perfectly interchangeable with other words that perhaps you're more comfortable with, words more stylish, modern, etc. I see past labels/bias and know that if something is it is.

Alchemy, some would consider myth, yet it was the birth of chemistry. We have many more branches of science waiting to be born.


I have yet to see that (the first part). I have only your word for the second part.

Call me a minority then, but at the end of the day, there is something there that's hyper real and I cannot deny ...and others have discovered this.


I have doubts that your view of science is realistic.

It's limited by the intellect, intuition, and bias by those at the forefront, $, & politics. Perhaps the best system we got thus far, yet it doesn't know everything. What's to disagree with?


Have you ever read how Einstein arrived at his special relativity ideas? Why he valued intuition?

yes, and it's funny how Einstein used Intuition, something science does not understand yet.
edit on 24-10-2012 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus

why stop there? might as well doubt the existence of buddha, muhammed, genghis kahn, napolean, nero, ....add to a never ending list of doubtful historic figures. Sure! Why not!

Are you joking?

If you took out the magic I could consider Homer, possibly even Socrates...but Napoleon...Nero?




Have you found your awareness then to be separate from your body and have the ability to come and go, and access a source of awareness? WHy not posit your own explanation of these things and see what happens. Surely you will be attacked and doubted in the same manner as am I.

Possibly, though I'm not certain as of yet.
If I do posit my own explanation (which I am rarely in the habit of doing), it won't be stated as fact.
So you are being "attacked"? I think this a little overly dramatic. You are being kept honest with your claims and don't seem to like it.


SO you've experienced the "Absolute" state, yet you don't agree that Jesus, Buddha, many Philosophers, & mystics are all discussing the same thing?

Possibly. Though (imaginary) jesus and Buddha were worlds apart. You will need a lot of imaginative largesse and poetic licence to lump them together.

Perhaps if the words jesus and god were replaced with something else, I can view it as as a metaphor having beautiful philosophical meaning (from my experience). Still, then we are left with a book of fiction and its ridiculous rules, prohibitions, claims and explanations.



So we have all these tiles that society has agreed are earned in a "particular way" and require a certain amount of respect and value by society as a collective, but there is nothing or no titles given to an "expert in inner/outer consciousness & it's source". Funny how that works. I once went to several experts for a condition that none of them could figure out, and finally was completely healed by a chinese healer/herbalist, which the previous doctors told me couldnt or wouldnt help. Who's the expert then?

I know that certain alternative healing modalities work, in some instances. This is very different to what we are talking about. A herbalist is a bit different to a philosopher in that we get to see clear unambiguous results, that don't require "mystical" understanding..

It's not "funny how it works" at all, it's common sense. I refer you to Marshall Applewhite, Maharishi Mahesh, Koresh, Blavatsky, Gomez-Rodriguez, Rampa, ...and countless others who "pierced the veil".


I've personally seen self taught individuals solve problems and come up with solutions that experts couldn't.

So have I. These are exceptions to the rule, rather than the rule itself.


It seems the problem here is that you seem to have some kind of issue w/ submission. Say there is a God and requires one to submit, it seems quite possibly that such an idea is a big issue for you.

Why shouldn't it be an issue? If the biblical god were found to be true, I would have no problem acknowledging it. Submitting to such an insane creature (the celestial version of a cross between Stalin and Madame lash) would not be so easy, perhaps I would be looking for Satan to join in the resistance movement.

I have seen too many obviously deluded people and followers to settle for others version of the truth too easily.

Other than that, I never said anyone needs to "submit" to anything and it's logical that 99.9% won't agree because most haven't looked within.

How do you know? Because they don't drop everything and agree with you?


Last time I checked, science seems to be in agreement about the basics of quantum physics, quantum states, and entanglement. Everything is already inherently a part of quantum reality. Consciousness won't be able to be explained using materialist science because consciousness is immaterial. Of course what do I know .....(as you say)

Last time I checked I found the opposite, that science is in agreement it doesn't understand the quantum world yet. They also don't see why a quantum explanation is necessary for consciousness (as yet) because the processes involved are magnitudes beyond what quantum physics would be relevant to. It is a complete assumption to say consciousness cannot be explained other than by quantum physics. Perhaps it will involve forces completely unknown at this point? Perhaps not. Who knows (apart from yourself)?

I would say you don't know very much from both sides. Deepak and "what the bleep" give a very biased view. Why not consider genuine science, nothing you have said indicates you have researched it enough to give it genuine consideration.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
I never said though.

You certainly implied it.

Imagine if Einstein never looked in all his respective possibilities. Now do the same for aspects of Consciousness and you see what I mean. It will take a brilliant Einstein type and a further overall advancement in science to finally prove everything I've been talking about in this thread.

How do you know brilliant scientists are not doing this now? It might lead us to the truth. Not necessarily finding your view will be the truth.


So what are you saying, that subjectivity is invalid? Isn't subjectivity the mode of operation for the experiencing of reality & existence.

I'm saying the truth will more than likely be objective. It will be one thing, not countless different things.


Just like we can look back 3000 years ago and say that the world knew nothing, a person in the year 3000 can look back on our discussion and say, "Wow, those guys sure were in ignorance in their understanding of science. They hadn't eve proven non-locality and infinite source yet." It's all relative.

Or laughing at the new agers, same as many laugh at the old testament now.


Enlightenment is the next logic step up the evolutionary ladder. Such a person as perfect and complete disciple over themselves, access to higher intuition, does no separate, is not corrupted, the list goes on and on.

New age nonsense. You don't know this. Nature might have different ideas. Perhaps we will become extinct instead.


All my "repeatable/recreatable" experiences have been of clear sobriety and no leprechauns were never seen.

Then the fact we can derive from this thread is that you know nothing of Leprechauns.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



Are you joking? If you took out the magic I could consider Homer, possibly even Socrates...but Napoleon...Nero?

Even as a strict materialist/atheist, I never saw enough to completely dismiss the historical existence of Jesus. Now what was attributed to him, I did wonder about it & doubt.

Your in a very tiny fractional minority of folks who doubt Jesus existed, & majority of scholars/Atheists don't doubt his existence. I believe much of your doubt & bias is a result of the supernatural claims about Jesus, in which case there were similar claims to such feats performed by Buddha (and many other historic Buddhists) Socrates, and may other characters which no one seriously refutes the existence of. Regardless its a topic for another thread.


You are being kept honest with your claims and don't seem to like it.

It's all theater. I honestly am beyond liking or not, knowing that what I have found to exists, stands on it's own accord.


Possibly. Though (imaginary) jesus and Buddha were worlds apart. You will need a lot of imaginative largesse and poetic licence to lump them together.

Not really. There a ton of brilliant & well respected minds that theorize that most religions are talking about the same thing, esoterically speaking.


I know that certain alternative healing modalities work, in some instances. This is very different to what we are talking about. A herbalist is a bit different to a philosopher in that we get to see clear unambiguous results, that don't require "mystical" understanding.

well then please enlighten me as to how you would define direct, ineffable, transcendent, beyond understanding experiences.... if we can't call the "mystical. Even branches of neurology/psychology officially accept the term as something valid.


It's not "funny how it works" at all, it's common sense. I refer you to Marshall Applewhite, Maharishi Mahesh, Koresh, Blavatsky, Gomez-Rodriguez, Rampa, ...and countless others who "pierced the veil".

What a moot point!!! Do you want me to provide you with a list of scientists who have murdered others, cheated on their wives, beat their kids, or ended up in jail ? ....and then use all those examples to flip your aforementioned moot point? WHy do you keep bringing this up when it doesn't apply to anything? None of my professional atheist professional friends have ever brought this point up because it is inherently flawed logic. Might as well say then that all blacks are criminals, all asians are bad drivers, all whites can't dance...


So have I. These are exceptions to the rule, rather than the rule itself.

So penetrating the depths of reality to find consciousness to be non-local and have a source is not an exception to the rule?


I would say you don't know very much from both sides. Deepak and "what the bleep" give a very biased view. Why not consider genuine science, nothing you have said indicates you have researched it enough to give it genuine consideration.

I could care less about deepak or what the bleep. I always consider genuine science however know that it has limits and in many respects is in its infancy compared to what will be known a thousand years from now. A large portion of Quantum Physics is already supported by mathematical models/formulas proving that certain quantum states should exist. Take for example Bose/Einstein Condensate which was mathematically theorized 60-70 years ago using Math, and just recently with our current tech was found to be so.

I already posted a VID back a few posts that ties together a bunch of theories/studies from well respected minds in science & academia, study quantum physics as a side hobby, however since I don't have a PHD and am self taught, well why should I say have any merit.

When I compare what is factually substantiated in quantum physics and material science, its like day and night. It is to science what chemistry was to alchemy.


How do you know brilliant scientists are not doing this now? It might lead us to the truth. Not necessarily finding your view will be the truth.

they're gonna find it, I'd bet all my savings, house, clothes, job, everything I got on the existence of non-local consciousness and it's source. Sure it'll be called by another name/terminology. On the other hand how much are you willing to bet that it isn't so.


I'm saying the truth will more than likely be objective. It will be one thing, not countless different things.

Oh u mean just like a tree is true, objective, is one thing, not countless things, but everyone see's it differently based on age, gender, mood, whether or not they are color blind, understand biology, understand photosynthesis, etc etc....

Does subjectivity exist? Is it true or not?



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 




Just like we can look back 3000 years ago and say that the world knew nothing, a person in the year 3000 can look back on our discussion and say, "Wow, those guys sure were in ignorance in their understanding of science. They hadn't eve proven non-locality and infinite source yet." It's all relative.

Or laughing at the new agers, same as many laugh at the old testament now.

sure why not. When I look at old testament, I see bias, nationalism, social commentary, record keeping, opinion pieces, poetry, geneaology, and so forth.



Enlightenment is the next logic step up the evolutionary ladder. Such a person as perfect and complete disciple over themselves, access to higher intuition, does no separate, is not corrupted, the list goes on and on.

New age nonsense. You don't know this. Nature might have different ideas. Perhaps we will become extinct instead.

"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as fraud" - C.G. Jung

New age is just a label. There is something called "Perennial Truth/Wisdom" For example 2+2=4 has always been so even prior to the existence of humans. I'm by no means defending New Age, but many of the points they take are from schools of thought, thousands of years old, which means there is nothing new about it.

Sure nature evolves and may have different ideas. However, we are not "just nature & material based beings." Non-Local consciousness has with it, inherently a higher form of intelligence and transcendent faculties.

Who's that say the physical evolution is not guided by the source of consciousness. There is a bunch of philosophers that say the birth of logic & reason comes from non-local consciousness.

Another theory I have, is that after experiencing the transcendent ineffable things, it felt like I was now using a higher percentage of the brain, fell in love with Physics, quantum studies, infinite Math, and many branches of cosmological studies.

We will eventually merge with tech and have access to higher percentage of brain use which will give us access to these experiences, to loosen consciousness from the body, to access the source of consciousness, etc. We will be headed there regardless, because if its there, it will be discovered regardless of what bias anyone has against this stuff, and mystics are at a certain advantage in that regard, having experiential access.

The mainstream atheist strict materialist movement is on the rise and getting bigger, and may one day become the majority, which in my opinion, would bring on a dark age of it's own since intuition & heart would be cut off. I feel like those that are speaking about (soul/awareness/non-local consciousness) and (God/Infinite Source of Consciousness) are to the mainstream scientific community, what those who said that the world was round and the earth revolves around the sun were to the religious communities back when the mainstream status quo said other wise.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Even as a strict materialist/atheist, I never saw enough to completely dismiss the historical existence of Jesus. Now what was attributed to him, I did wonder about it & doubt.


I said I strongly doubt the historicity of Jesus. Yet there were any number of religious nutjobs around at the time, seems like it was a popular pastime, so it can't be dismissed entirely. I don't doubt the biblical jesus, I dismiss it completely as myth.





Not really. There a ton of brilliant & well respected minds that theorize that most religions are talking about the same thing, esoterically speaking.

Because you say so? Even if there were, they could be wrong. It's obvious that religions began as an attempt to understand the universe and mankind's place in it. I also don't accept your "esoteric" claims as making you any different to anyone else, or "wise" in any way. Nor do I necessarily accept anyone's claims this way, even if they double as a scientist.


well then please enlighten me as to how you would define direct, ineffable, transcendent, beyond understanding experiences.... if we can't call the "mystical. Even branches of neurology/psychology officially accept the term as something valid.

It's also deeply personal, filtered through the beliefs of the "mystic", as your claims of soul and god clearly demonstrate. I will say it again...claims about the truth, are not the truth itself.



What a moot point!!!

No, it's completely relevant. People should be wary of claims like yours. That you seem to take umbrage at this very reasonable point of view in itself should make people even more wary. Bringing science it to it would be moot, they are completely different systems. Science welcomes such scrutiny, it doesn't make claims and then tell people if they meditate on it for years they might find the same thing, but even if they do that, should they find different they are wrong by default, just because. Science backs it's claims up.


So penetrating the depths of reality to find consciousness to be non-local and have a source is not an exception to the rule?

You are not quite as special as you seem to think and this experience is far more common than you might believe. It is not the experience itself, but your own personal opinion/interpretation/claims about it which are debatable.


I could care less about deepak or what the bleep.


Yet you seem to echo the pseudo science precisely. You give us a lot of vague and meaningless "quantum woo woo". Another "god of the gaps" where where god fits into an area of scientific ignorance. The 21st century version of Ra dragging the sun across they sky, because you don't know how it really happens. Unless you can explain precisely what consciousness is (no vagaries please like "it's a force"), give us the direct link that makes it relevant to quantum physics (please not the double slit experiment, unless you can genuinely explain exactly why this happens, to physicists) and further explain just how it works at the quantum level. Generally physicists (those that are unbiased) respond to "non local" type woo explanations with phrases like...wtf are you even talking about?


they're gonna find it, I'd bet all my savings, house, clothes, job, everything I got on the existence of non-local consciousness and it's source. Sure it'll be called by another name/terminology. On the other hand how much are you willing to bet that it isn't so.

You do realize not too long ago in this very thread I stated my thoughts that science will understand soon enough. While you claimed they certainly wouldn't/couldn't for some centuries yet...........
Been known to change like the wind much..?


Oh u mean just like a tree is true, objective, is one thing, not countless things, but everyone see's it differently based on age, gender, mood, whether or not they are color blind, understand biology, understand photosynthesis, etc etc....

Does subjectivity exist?


A tree is not the source of the mind, something beyond notions of duality, in fact beyond all notions. Subjectivity exists, sadly people such as yourself confuse your subjective and vague notions about something objective, with the thing itself. You cannot accept that your opinions are only that, your opinions.


edit on 27-10-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus




Just like we can look back 3000 years ago and say that the world knew nothing, a person in the year 3000 can look back on our discussion and say, "Wow, those guys sure were in ignorance in their understanding of science. They hadn't eve proven non-locality and infinite source yet." It's all relative.

Or laughing at the new agers, same as many laugh at the old testament now.

sure why not. When I look at old testament, I see bias, nationalism, social commentary, record keeping, opinion pieces, poetry, geneaology, and so forth.


New age is just a label. There is something called "Perennial Truth/Wisdom" For example 2+2=4 has always been so even prior to the existence of humans. I'm by no means defending New Age, but many of the points they take are from schools of thought, thousands of years old, which means there is nothing new about it.

Sure nature evolves and may have different ideas. However, we are not "just nature & material based beings." Non-Local consciousness has with it, inherently a higher form of intelligence and transcendent faculties.

Who's that say the physical evolution is not guided by the source of consciousness. There is a bunch of philosophers that say the birth of logic & reason comes from non-local consciousness.


Are you aware there are other speculative hypotheses (of which your "facts" also most definitely are)? One of them sounds fascinating even to this "materialist atheist" (as all who disagree with new age woo are, apparently). No doubt a lot of credit will go to Einstein if there is found to be any truth to it. It has the advantage of actually addressing the experience directly (in view of "the light that casts no shadows", the "illuminated void", "seeing the light" etc,) and gives a speculative, yet at least plausible (IMO) explanation. One that doesn't rely solely on our ignorance of why the quantum world is what it is. It would also not only make the "non local" and quantum woo woo irrelevant, it in no way discredits the physical explanation. If it has the potential to give science an explanation, it also has some possibility to unite physical science and "mystical" philosophy. Yet it also suffers from (among other things) the fact that no one has defined the exact properties of "consciousness" (in the scientific sense). It could well have some form of electromagnetic origin, if we consider the properties of em radiation (ie. light) to the experience itself, who knows? How would the universe appear, from the point of view of light itself? That question has been answered and could be relevant.

I disagree we are not just nature. IMO that is what we are 100%.

Science has almost completely destroyed gods like those of christianity. Abiogenesis might soon further reduce his sphere of influence. Consciousness looks like one of the last areas of scientific ignorance to place him, for a while at least. The claims that other systems agree with christianity seems like a ridiculous last gasp to cling on to the myth. It might be time to grow and move on.

I wonder why people ever venerate and idolise another person to the point of placing them above human status, it's a strange practice especially particular to religion. Science doesn't hold prayer meetings for Newton or Einstein. They appreciate the genius and what they left, using it as a basis to further expand our knowledge.

I also wonder why the self proclaimed "mystics" don't stop telling science what it has to find and concentrate more on the mystical truth apparent in such experience. A great truth apparent in such experience that is (or should be) the heart of every religion. Something practical, that doesn't care who had the best magic tricks thousands of years ago, who's parables might sound "wiser", or which tribe has the better mythical being.

It makes me wonder whether these people are not just "mystical" parrots, who lack the experience they claim to know the truth of. If you believe this experience to have the qualities of a "being" in any way, I doubt you also.

No use praying to it, it won't hear you. No use asking for personal help or favors, it can give none. It is so far beyond any of these notions, as to render them complete absurdities. It's something that is always there in some form. Though yet to be understood by science or mystics, but it's there anyway.


edit on 27-10-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



Because you say so? Even if there were, they could be wrong.

Not because "I say so", but because there are many historically intellectual and respected individuals in all sorts of different academic field who also concluded upon investigation that the esoteric teachings and experiences of most religions is Universally viable and similar.


I also don't accept your "esoteric" claims as making you any different to anyone else, or "wise" in any way. Nor do I necessarily accept anyone's claims this way, even if they double as a scientist.

Why do you continuously bring this up? I never said I was different than anyone else. However wiser is a different story. There are clearly people that exist that are wiser then others. If it were not so, then we wouldn't have titles such as mechanic, dentist, doctor, or any sort of specialist.


No, it's completely relevant. People should be wary of claims like yours. That you seem to take umbrage at this very reasonable point of view in itself should make people even more wary.

If I can't make my claim, then no one else can claim anything either. If Truth exists, then it is accessible and it doesn't mean that it is currently accessible by the scientific method. Considering we are still trying to figure out what reality is ...quantum, material, both, or none....


Bringing science it to it would be moot, they are completely different systems. Science welcomes such scrutiny, it doesn't make claims and then tell people if they meditate on it for years they might find the same thing, but even if they do that, should they find different they are wrong by default, just because. Science backs it's claims up.

Why different? Why compartmentalize reality? The scrutiny can be turned around on everyone else ..."Prove the mystics wrong..."


You are not quite as special as you seem to think and this experience is far more common than you might believe.

Did I say I was special in this thread anywhere? Why the assumptions. Of course it's common because it's inherently real and accessible to everyone, if they know how to tune into it.


It is not the experience itself, but your own personal opinion/interpretation/claims about it which are debatable.

So your saying the experience itself is not debatable? Well then were finally on common grounds.

On the other hand I can say that, how everyone experiences a piece of art, subjectively, is debatable according to your logic here


Yet you seem to echo the pseudo science precisely. You give us a lot of vague and meaningless "quantum woo woo". Another "god of the gaps" where where god fits into an area of scientific ignorance.

Did you not watch the video at all? Well respected scientific journal published scientists are saying that consciousness may be quantum and would explain it being non-local. How is that Pseudo?


Unless you can explain precisely what consciousness is (no vagaries please like "it's a force"),

For the millionth time, watch the vid below, write down the scientists' name's, findings, theories, then google it. So simple and no "pseudo" there:



You do realize not too long ago in this very thread I stated my thoughts that science will understand soon enough. While you claimed they certainly wouldn't/couldn't for some centuries yet........... Been known to change like the wind much..?

It still could take a hundred years. There's still much materialist old thinking separatist compartmentalized biased filled scientists that run things in town that really don't want consciousness to be figured out because of the spiritual religious implications.

I recently found the vid posted above and was extremely surprised to find that some scientists are actually treading ground towards quantifying non-locality, so I had to change my opinion. I was utterly shocked when I watched the vid and researched the theories. The tide is changing.


A tree is not the source of the mind, something beyond notions of duality, in fact beyond all notions.

A tree is beyond all notions of what we think it is, beyond all labels and concepts. We see it as roots, trunk, branches, but the tree does not know any boundaries.


Subjectivity exists, sadly people such as yourself confuse your subjective and vague notions about something objective, with the thing itself. You cannot accept that your opinions are only that, your opinions.

Opinions are the tools of conversation. If my opinions are only that, then so are everyone else's opinions, including those of science, who used to view quantum physics as pseudo and not take it serious at first.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



The claims that other systems agree with christianity seems like a ridiculous last gasp to cling on to the myth. It might be time to grow and move on.

Unless your a scholar and expert or extremely well learned in esoteric Christianity, and other religions & philosophies, coupled with experiences that have been had from exploring those branches of thought, all you really end up being is a window shopper completely blinded by bias & skepticism. There is no need to cling. If it is true, then it stands of its own accord.

All these experiences have brought with them the discipline to not cling to anything here on earth. We are all merely passers by.


I wonder why people ever venerate and idolise another person to the point of placing them above human status, it's a strange practice especially particular to religion.

It's built in to the human psyche. The majority of humanity idolizes. Look at Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, Obama, U2, etc the list goes on and on. That's entertainment & politics. As far as I go, I don't Idolize Jesus. I see him, Buddha, and many other Kings of Consciousness realizations as my brothers, friends, as leaders of thought when it comes to the Inner realms.


Science doesn't hold prayer meetings for Newton or Einstein. They appreciate the genius and what they left, using it as a basis to further expand our knowledge.

People flock to religions because it's already built into the psyche/heart/intuition/subconscious, that we are merely parts of a Grander Whole. There is a built in, inner longing to reunite, with the Source.

There is a schism between the head, (logic & reason), and the psyche/heart/intuition/subconscious which is (Love, intuition, artistic creativity, and the access point for consciousness to reach it's source). This is ultimately why there is science and religion.

Yet, just like logic & reason can conclude that they are limited faculties, they can also realize that there are deeper aspects to the self, and begin to plumb the depths of psyche/heart/intuition/subconscious.

So too, science is starting to slowly make its way towards studying the depths of the individual Observer, as consciousness, and plumb the depths of it all. This is going to destroy the skepticism of the strict materialist.


Something practical, that doesn't care who had the best magic tricks thousands of years ago, who's parables might sound "wiser", or which tribe has the better mythical being.

That's the difference between esoteric and exoteric. The former is pretty much all in agreement. The latter divides and produces separatist thinking arguing over who's got it right or wrong. The Mystics are saying, forget the differences of the exotericists, and asking science to study consciousness and the experience of Oneness with its source.


It makes me wonder whether these people are not just "mystical" parrots, who lack the experience they claim to know the truth of. If you believe this experience to have the qualities of a "being" in any way, I doubt you also.

Doesn't matter if there are "pretenders" or "parrots". If the experience is legit and genuine, and even if only 1 person in all of history seen this Truth, it's still legit. You doubting me doesn't bother me and that's fine. I've seen that you're so stuck in your bias and skepticism, that it's impossible for you to even for 1 second entertain that I may be right. I'm fine with it, because sooner or later we are heading there scientifically and they will find this.

We're going to have technological machines that activate people's consciousness which, with additional practice, non-locality will become a common occurrence. If we don't get there in your life time, rest assured, when your physical body dies, you'll be forced to witnessed a vast existence based on immaterial consciousness. Death, the great equalizer and bearer of Truth.


No use praying to it, it won't hear you.

There is no prayer in my reality. It's merely acknowledgement and awe of the Ineffable Infinite. It's a constant stream of epiphanies, gratefulness for every day of existence, for having food, clothes, and a roof over my head when there are others worse off than me. There is also asking for guidance through intuition. You'd be surprised if you knew many examples of what this means. One woman put it out there long enough, using intention & visualization, and won the Lotto. Yea it took 3-4 months, but still. I've seen crazy things as well. Regardless for it to work requires persistence and being genuine. Yes I don't understand these things myself, so not much to say. Definitely possible

There is also the phenomenon of the body reacting to events before the mind knowing of whats about to happen. Google, “time-reversed interference”.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus

Not because "I say so", but because there are many historically intellectual and respected individuals in all sorts of different academic field who also concluded upon investigation that the esoteric teachings and experiences of most religions is Universally viable and similar.

Appeal to authority fallacy. It infers all these people agree with you (might not be so) and that due to numbers, this must make you correct.

We were sure Newton was correct for centuries. Einstein showed his understanding was incomplete. Perhaps Buddha's is too.



Why do you continuously bring this up? I never said I was different than anyone else. However wiser is a different story. There are clearly people that exist that are wiser then others. If it were not so, then we wouldn't have titles such as mechanic, dentist, doctor, or any sort of specialist.

Your whole thread rests on the unverified assertion of your knowledge and abilities to discern truth. This is a claim only. Please don't flatter your "field" by comparison with genuine professionals. Not that you are a quack, but any quack can make the claims you do.



If I can't make my claim, then no one else can claim anything either. If Truth exists, then it is accessible and it doesn't mean that it is currently accessible by the scientific method. Considering we are still trying to figure out what reality is ...quantum, material, both, or none....




Why different? Why compartmentalize reality? The scrutiny can be turned around on everyone else ..."Prove the mystics wrong..."

Another fallacy. You make the claim, you back it up. You have no more done this than those who peddle "how to manifest your own reality" (aka there's one born every minute) or "the Secret" (aka how to separate gullibles and their money).


Did I say I was special in this thread anywhere?

Being able to discern the ultimate truth of reality certainly implies special knowledge, which implies special ability, or possibly that you could simply be mistaken or exaggerated in your claims. So far, I lean towards the latter.



On the other hand I can say that, how everyone experiences a piece of art, subjectively, is debatable according to your logic here

Art is both debatable and highly personal. People are known to debate whether a piece of art is beautiful or what meaning it might hold. This doesn't imply any personal opinion is true or false.

IMO, the truth is not debatable or subjective. Personal interpretations of it (like yours) are.


Did you not watch the video at all? Well respected scientific journal published scientists are saying that consciousness may be quantum and would explain it being non-local. How is that Pseudo?

,

For the millionth time, watch the vid below, write down the scientists' name's, findings, theories, then google it. So simple and no "pseudo" there:


I am already aware of some of this work. Basically seems panexperientalism, and collapsing wave function = god, we are living in a virtual reality etc. I like some of his ideas and feel that whether he is right or not, we need more "out of the box" thinkers like this. It actually seems to support certain possibilities I have mentioned in this thread. At the same time I see no support for your "separate soul" religious notions.

It might be better to spend some time seeing how he responds to other genuine physicists critique of his work and why it is generally considered more of a fascinating "curio" by many of them.

It doesn't matter how many scientists names and theories it can claim to use, what is more important are the conclusions. This would generally be considered more qualified "woo", if anything, at this stage.

I enjoy science philosophy more at present, rather than very speculative quantum type science. Though I agree people should be looking into quantum possibilities, it should not overlook classical science either.

Now back to my question, without pulling random you tube clips if you can, thanks...

"Unless you can explain precisely what consciousness is (no vagaries please like "it's a force")"


edit on 29-10-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
You doubting me doesn't bother me and that's fine. I've seen that you're so stuck in your bias and skepticism, that it's impossible for you to even for 1 second entertain that I may be right. I'm fine with it, because sooner or later we are heading there scientifically and they will find this.


So far you have proved you have a strong belief which you feel everyone else should hold as truth, because you say so. All who question or don't agree are simply wrong and biased because they don't agree.


This seems more than a little bit unreasonable.

It assumes science can only find your claims true, with no other possibility. It also assumes I doubt you simply because of some offhand bias. It doesn't take into account how many decades of work went into it or what what was held as possibility before arriving at said perceived "bias" .

It doesn't take into account just how unconvincing you might have been, or whether your claims have massive holes and problems of their own. Ones that you possibly haven't even thought of yet. At least so far there has been no real conversation to even get to that as a possibility, other than you say you are right and that's about it. Taking other people's work on you tube might seem a convenient shortcut, but it doesn't work either.

This is different to claiming a personal opinion/strong personal belief etc based on experience. People make all sorts of claims here, whether or not I agree with them, they at least seem to realise they are stating something personal, a personal conviction/belief and therefore should be respected in this way.

Some of them even seem to have shared the same experience I have (whether an illusion of the mind or not), obvious by the simple truth they seem to get from it. One you have never mentioned. The most obvious things, completely overlooked as if mesmerized by quantum possibilities.Therefore I can only conclude the experience you mention is vastly different to what I find and possibly involves collapsing wave functions, quarks and leptons?

You should be doubted because you make wild claims of fact, expecting others should accept as truth, without any genuine substantiation. No different to religious fundamentalists.

edit on 29-10-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



Appeal to authority fallacy. It infers all these people agree with you (might not be so) and that due to numbers, this must make you correct.

and yet our world's history is written by the winners of wars. All our scientific knowledge is based on a set of materialist and limited rules, which do not account for immaterial & unlimited.


We were sure Newton was correct for centuries. Einstein showed his understanding was incomplete.

Which means all of science right now can be wrong about our current understanding of everything, and 1 single finding, can complete uproot and change everything we think we know. So now there is no surety left, except that we exist and we experience.


Your whole thread rests on the unverified assertion of your knowledge and abilities to discern truth. This is a claim only. Please don't flatter your "field" by comparison with genuine professionals.

Unverified according to who's rules? Those that dared go there, so for themselves and it became verified to them that it is true. Are you saying something can only be verified if scientists (who are not looking for this) verify it? There is no flattering my field, but one cannot dismiss it as a field either.


Another fallacy. You make the claim, you back it up. You have no more done this than those who peddle

So your saying the few thousands, or more, of people who looked for this Absolute state, and found it for themselves, that doesn't count for anything? When I was a neutral agnostic, if I were a scientist, I would be looking into this and taking it serious.


Being able to discern the ultimate truth of reality certainly implies special knowledge, which implies special ability,

That's just your own bias attaching the terms "special" to something that others see as a normal part of investigating the Inner self, consciousness, and reality. "Special" is relative ...and I certainly don't see myself as that.


IMO, the truth is not debatable or subjective. Personal interpretations of it (like yours) are.

Who's to say Truth can't be both objective & subjective? Are we now going to limit truth to rules & limits? If there are 10 people in a room, and all of them are experiencing the same thing, does that not make the experience, objective? How many people need to experience something for "objectivity" to be true.


At the same time I see no support for your "separate soul" religious notions.

like I said, if "separate soul" = non-local consciousness, then there really wouldn't be much schism besides some minor details.


It doesn't matter how many scientists names and theories it can claim to use, what is more important are the conclusions. This would generally be considered more qualified "woo", if anything, at this stage.

The number, name, and respectability of certain scientists is just as important to these topics as the conclusions. It is what separates these topics between genuine possibilities, and relative "woo"


"Unless you can explain precisely what consciousness is (no vagaries please like "it's a force")"

I don't know the proper labels myself, other than knowing that it Is, and does not need a body to exist. My main frame of reference is direct experience, and then I'm limited to the English language and what science itself knows about it as far as terminology goes. Add to that I don't have a phd and am not officially a scientist. I'm self taught and read the same books the pro's read to pass all their classes to get their phd's.

I would say it's Awareness, which exists whether there is thought or not. If I told a person to think of a teacup, that part of the person that is aware that a teacup is being thought, is Awareness (Consciousness) ...and then investigating and observing This inner Observer, is what eventually begins to loosen it from the body and allows it to be non-local.


you have a strong belief which you feel everyone else should hold as truth, because you say so. All who question or don't agree are simply wrong and biased because they don't agree.

I've said like "Buddha"...see for yourself. There is pure confidence in this statement and I've showed others the hundreds of ways to see for themselves, and they seen it too! I don't feel everyone should "believe', but that they should see for themselves. This would surely begin to quel the issues we have in the world when people discover we are all inherently One/United.

Questioning and not believing is fine, however if it prevents you from ever seeing for yourself, then your missing out on seeing the Truth for yourself.
edit on 29-10-2012 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



It doesn't take into account just how unconvincing you might have been, or whether your claims have massive holes and problems of their own.

I've convinced super duper hard core atheist materialist college level professors, who's whole professional reputation rests on the fact that they are atheist, .....convinced them to at first be neutral/agnostics, and then to see for themselves if such experience exists, they looked, they found, and had to leave their old positions.

I don't care about convincing. I'm merely putting it out there that such a thing exists and it's up to each individual to see for themselves, most of which are so biased in their views, it prevents them from even trying.

I don't see the massive problems or holes. The claim stands. Your consciousness can be loosened from the body, making it non-local and upon further exploration there is a source of consciousness. See for yourself if this is so.


You should be doubted because you make wild claims of fact, expecting others should accept as truth, without any genuine substantiation. No different to religious fundamentalists.

a religious fundie is based on belief. My whole premise is based on direct experience and for others to check and see for themselves if this experience is there ......which is not something that exists for a fundie.

Someone's gotta talk about this experience and make a claim for others to hear about it so they can see for themselves. To not say anything about is just stupid. You can disagree, doubt, and say whatever you want, and by no means would anything you have to say, in any way, trump a source for consciousness as an Absolute Beingness.

So at the end of the day, I guess agree to disagree. You have nothing else except to keep trying to poke holes, but there is nothing to poke at when there is an offer on the table for one to see for one's self.

No cult, nothing to join, no One person over any one, no belief system, no books, no priests, no church, etc etc.... very simple.... see for yourself, and when you find this, kudos to you. You'll be in touch with something I have found years ago, and thousands of others have too.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus

and yet our world's history is written by the winners of wars. All our scientific knowledge is based on a set of materialist and limited rules, which do not account for immaterial & unlimited.

You continually confuse empirical science with new age theology. You might want them to be the same thing, they are not. Limited science might be, with much it is yet to learn, but it doesn't necessarily support the ideas in your head just because you want it to.


Which means all of science right now can be wrong about our current understanding of everything, and 1 single finding, can complete uproot and change everything we think we know. So now there is no surety left, except that we exist and we experience.

Scientific knowledge is being refined all the time.



Unverified according to who's rules?

Unverified according to any sane rules ie. an empty statement. Personal truths don't automatically become empirical truths. You don't understand this as yet.

Your claim of "see for yourself" fails, because many have and disagree with your explanations. This leaves you with only a religious type claim, no more.



So your saying the few thousands, or more, of people who looked for this Absolute state, and found it for themselves, that doesn't count for anything? When I was a neutral agnostic, if I were a scientist, I would be looking into this and taking it serious.

No, I'm saying (as I have said continuously and which you are yet to comprehend) the experience counts for a lot, I have found it myself. The explanation, faculties and interpretation you give personally to such experience is questionable. Again, I am not doubting the experience, I doubt YOU. Do you understand?


That's just your own bias attaching the terms "special"

Ok, we agree you are not special (no more than anyone else).


Who's to say Truth can't be both objective & subjective?

I say it can't (and back it up the same way you do). So do the "mystics" you claim do the opposite. Your interpretation of it can be. If you find it subjective, keep looking, because you haven't found it yet.


like I said, if "separate soul" = non-local consciousness, then there really wouldn't be much schism besides some minor details.

Your idea of "non-local" sounds quantum and all, but...I take it you mean a separate and distinct entity called a soul that can leave the physical body?

Ever wondered how a scientist could fathom light, by studying it (at least in part) from the point of view of light, while obviously still in body?

Why genuine mystics (ie. truth seekers who don't cling to religious bias) claim the "mystical" truth of just about anything can be discerned this way (no leaving the body required)?

Ever tried it? Ever studied something like compassion in yourself, incorporating this method? What did you find, how many years did it take?

Ever wondered why these same "mystics" don't mention soul or god and seem to indicate that by stopping the mind, illumination comes on it's own?

Ever pondered how could be universal, yet exist in one place (soul), but not another? How can this be universal?

Ever genuinely considered classical scientific explanations (seems unlikely).

Have you tried to understand what this person is claiming, or did you just put it up because it sounds "quantum"?

Apparently everything in this universe/existence that we experience is god's dream. A fascinating concept. It might be better to look into it to see if it supports such substance dualism ( christianity in new clothes) and cute cuddly little souls leaving the body and fluttering here and there around the universe. There might be more to it. You might even find some of the objections other scientists have.



The number, name, and respectability of certain scientists is just as important to these topics as the conclusions. It is what separates these topics between genuine possibilities, and relative "woo".

Rediculous.

Not when the "respectable" scientist has nothing to do with the conclusion. Anyone can throw respected (and sometimes less so) theories together, put in some philosophy and claims to cover gaps and reach "conclusions". It happens all the time, it's called woo (Chopra and "what the bleep" for instance). This doesn't mean they are true, or that the "respected" scientist necessarily endorses it, or is necessarily even aware of it.

Again, without saying this is definitely woo, at least try to look at some peer review. It might help discernment and overcoming your biased habit of clinging to anything which might superficially look like it supports you.

Still waiting for anything indicating you genuinely have the experience you claim. A couple of simple words could have done it. Keep looking, you might stop making religious claims about it and start finding it one day.

You might even consider other explanations, even scientific ones, who knows?


edit on 30-10-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.






top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join