Scientific explanations?

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
presentlybythesea
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:45 pm

Scientific explanations

Post by presentlybythesea » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:02 pm

Goldenflutest

As you said:

"I have found myself looking at other people, and for a moment, I can look completely past the form and see the true essence that they are, and it is beautiful to behold."

I think you see the true essence as beautiful because you are seeing yourSelf, the Oneness. It's there, even in those who don't know it is.

Paraphrasing "A Course in Miracles": We should see only the good in people that is always there. When you see the good in them, they see that you see them as good and it brings out the good. Conversely I feel, when you only see negative traits that they reveal, they see that you see them as that also. And that would tend to support the negativity they may feel is their identity. It would only bring out more negativity.

And even if some of us don't "see" the One in all of us we might do well to just realize the practical implications on acting as if there is One. It just might make people better people.

Please keep seeing the beauty in others Goldenflutest. It helps you, them, and all of Us.

Ninjin

As you responded:

"Yepp that is how I live my life. A lot of suffering in the world is caused by people wanting everything to be done their way. If we all just worked together for one world goal at the time we would get a much happier planet a lot faster. But as it are now there is tons and tons of organizations that value their own cause most and that just doesn't work. A lot of ego is involved when it comes to helping other people. UN has the power but its driven only by egos."



Yes, certainly, "A lot of ego is involved when it comes to helping other people." The basic problem with the egos involved, as you say, is that it's all tied to ethnocentricity. There is always an agenda. But when our globe's nations see the other as ourSelves we may create the globalcentric world that would work better.

Maybe we can complete the circle from your original topic of brain physiology:
Even if you only believe what brain scans reveal and nothing interior, a "Scientific flatlander" as Ken Wilber calls them. Even if you don't believe in Spirit or Oneness; I think operating in a manner as if it did exist would still bring about the change needed.

But before nations can change, we as individuals need to change to start the impetus. Maybe when more of us see the other, our neighbor, as ourselves, and treat them well without an agenda, without manipulation for our own selfish ends, egocentricity would dissolve, then ethnocentricity. It seems that national consciousness throughout the planet would grow.

I believe Tolle has awakened me and from what I read on this site most of you, to what real consciousness is. What we need to do now I think is to try raise the global consciousness through individual acts.

I know there are almost a thousand of Us throughout the globe on this site alone.
And, we are not alone.

As Gandhi said: "Be the change you wish to see in the world."

I wish you both peace,
Presentlybythesea
Every encounter in the present, an opportunity to affect collective human consciousness.

User avatar
rosalind
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Graz, Austria

the scientific approach

Post by rosalind » Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:12 am

Dearn ninjin,
I wholoheartedly understand your urge to prove things and transfer thoughts that you feel are right into your preconditioned world of thoughts, so that they fit.
Sometimes I think I don't really want to go all the way to enlightenment and am scared that it would mean leaving things, thoughts, conditions behind that have become dear to me. I feel I would miss them and often deliberately step out of it into a superficial state which is familiar to me.
In this state it is also easier to communicate with certain people who are mainly into superficial things like shopping or gossip.
I feel that you just don't want to leave the familiar ground of science since it has become so dear to you. :wink:

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:32 pm

presentlybythesea yes you can act like its all one or something like that but it all comes down to what ethical framework we should build our society on.
But all change has to start somewhere and it is usually with the individual effort.


rosalind
Well from my understanding there is no contradiction between being enlightened/realized/self aware and our scientific explanations of our world. We basically lack knowledge about enlightenment because there hasn't been any research regarding it. It would be interesting if enlightened people were studied so we can have an explanation and maybe help people reach that state of awareness in a more efficient way.

User avatar
Seancho
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:44 am
Contact:

Post by Seancho » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:00 pm

Thank you for the sceptical perspective ninjin, it forces us to focus on the question...what is real?

more questions..

Why do you want an explanation of enlightenment rather than enlightenment itself? Is the explanation of the experience more important to you than the experience?

If you were lost in the desert and very thirsty and someone with a wet face and wet hair approached you and said there was water over the next dune, would you ask that person for a description of the water or would you just go over there and see for yourself? What do you need to know other than the fact you are thirsty and this guy has just pointed you toward water?

Im curious, why do you believe in enlightenment at all given that there really isnt any scientific proof that it exists?
If you stop believing in fear, is it still scary?

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:12 am

Why do you want an explanation of enlightenment rather than enlightenment itself? Is the explanation of the experience more important to you than the experience?
Well that is not actually true. Never wrote I preferred one thing over the other. But I rather be enlightened than have an explanation of it.
Im curious, why do you believe in enlightenment at all given that there really isnt any scientific proof that it exists?
The experience seems to exist its the explanation of the experience that we lack.
Look at love: We can see that people are in love and that people are not in love. But what makes someone fall in love we do not know and yet the experience is real. People also say the have fallen in love but we have no proof of that either some of us do not even have that experience so we just have to believe what other people say =).

User avatar
Seancho
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:44 am
Contact:

Post by Seancho » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:36 am

ninjin wrote: Look at love: We can see that people are in love and that people are not in love. But what makes someone fall in love we do not know and yet the experience is real. People also say the have fallen in love but we have no proof of that either some of us do not even have that experience so we just have to believe what other people say =).
A fine example.

So then if you want to fall in love, and know what it is to be in love, what use are brain scans? Anyone who is in love will tell you that an MRI machine is about as un-romantic as you can get.

Falling in love, and observing people in love are two mutually exclusive experiences. The latter does not help at all with the former. Further, as long as you are occupied analyzing and attempting to explain the phenomenon of love, the experience is likely to elude you.
If you stop believing in fear, is it still scary?

Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:44 am
Location: Oregon

Ninjin's question

Post by Student » Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:43 am

I like Ninjin's original question regarding a scientific expanation of enlightenment. As Eckhart wrote "the mind loves a puzzle, like a dog loves to chew on a bone." He also wrote that investigating things is fine as long as it is not compulsive (ie self seeking). Overall, I agree that knowing peace is better than a scientific explanation about peace.

This is the closest I have been able to come to a "scientific" explanation of the peace that I am able to feel by applying Eckhart's recommendation to surrender and observe what is.

When we think that there is anything that we "need to get" in order to be at peace, and demand that we get it, we place ourselves into suffering. But when we de-escalate the false need and demand to the level of a want or preference it doesn't seem to produce the suffering. For example, when we mistakenly think that we "need to get certainty" about surviving tomorrow in order to be at peace now, and demand certainty about surviving tomorrow, we suffer the fear of not surviving tomorrow. This is because we are fighting with the reality of impermanence. But we seem to be able to want survival as a preference, and to take actions in the present moment to keep this body alive, without plunging into suffering.

I think this involves an internal shift from a "demanding to get" mode of living to a "giving attention" mode of living. The demand to get mode of living is what seems to drive the compulsive thinking. So if I demand to "get" enlightnment, and work really hard to stop my complulvie thinking, I haven't really shifted out of the "demand to get" mode of living into the "giving attention" mode of living.

So, this is my guess as to why surrender, which means dropping demands, and giving attention works to bring peace.

User avatar
heidi
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2703
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:37 am
Location: 42nd parallel, Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Post by heidi » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:15 am

Wow Student! Maybe you should change your name to Student/Teacher. :)
...shift from a "demanding to get" mode of living to a "giving attention" mode of living. ... why surrender, which means dropping demands, and giving attention works to bring peace.
Thank you for the excellent post. I needed that right Now.
Heidi
http://www.heidimayo.com
wonderment on the third wave

Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:44 am
Location: Oregon

Post by Student » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:13 am

Thanks Heidi,

The Course in Miracles says that every thought we think teaches the belief system that we are operating in.

So we are all teachers and students. The real question is what belief system do we teach; Belief in illusory needs, or in giving attention; Are we extending condemnation and attack thoughts or extending peace? And whatever we give, we have.

I have been studying a Course in Miracles and ET for a long time, but I very much still consider myself a student, because I so often notice that I am not present. The good news though is that ET's method of simply observing the demanding thoughts works so well to restore presence and peace.

eseward
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by eseward » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:57 pm

Student wrote:The Course in Miracles says that every thought we think teaches the belief system that we are operating in.
I think that is a terrific quote, Student. Thanks very much for posting it. :)

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6779
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Post by Webwanderer » Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:21 am

I ran across this article on brain surgery and how it has been demonstated that awareness, or the essential observer, is separate from the brain's funtion. It's a little lengthy but very readable.

http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2007/07 ... could.html

For our scientifically oriented friends.

User avatar
summer
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:42 am
Location: California

Post by summer » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:40 am

Thanks for that interesting article, Webwanderer.

I still get a kick out of scientific experiments proving what the metaphysicians have been saying for centuries. We really have very little idea about the functions of a major part of our brains.
To paraphrase Eddington, not only is the mind-brain interface stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.

User avatar
rosalind
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Graz, Austria

what the bleep to we know

Post by rosalind » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:03 am

As far as scientific explanations is concerned. Has anyone seen the film "What the bleep to we know"? :?:
It's scientists trying to explain the human mind and phenomenons. It is brillant and was quite an eye-opener for me.
rosalind :D

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:24 am

Webwanderer wrote:I ran across this article on brain surgery and how it has been demonstated that awareness, or the essential observer, is separate from the brain's funtion. It's a little lengthy but very readable.

http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2007/07 ... could.html

For our scientifically oriented friends.
If it were taken from a peer-reviewed science journal that would hold more value. She just quote a book of which we have no knowledge. Also Mike Egnor is also a creationist and has made it his job to deny evolution.
Don't know about Wilder Penfields work, he was a very good neurosurgeon. But lack of explanation for a experience is not a proof for soul-body duality.


And there is no science in What the bleep movie just psuedoscience. Green is no scientist. His department was closed at Princeton because their research didn't provide any proof for their theories that human emotions affect random number generators i think it was.

Goldenflutist
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:43 am
Location: North America
Contact:

Post by Goldenflutist » Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:52 am

To my horror, I am going to have to agree with you ninjin. :shock: I honestly don't know why the journalist had to post her religion for all to see either.
There is always tons of articles floating around is cyberspace to promote anyone's agenda.

I am glad you found it Webwanderer, thanks for sharing.

GF
A dog's eyes reflect the innocence and beauty of nature.

Locked