What Am I - What Are You?

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby ashley72 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:21 am

downeyjr wrote:Energy is still a physical thing in the physical world, atoms are physical. Existence of a non-physical entity has not be proven nor it can be proven, but so far what we see around is all physical, thus there is no point in believing in non-physical. This would be the same as to believe in Paradise and Hell and God :) But if you like to believe in things without facts, such as God, a flying strawberry and a non-physical entity, then nothing can be done.


Yes, but abstract objects like a "flying strawberry" still has a symbolic representation in physical space, which is formed by a unique pattern of neurons firing in the brain. Abstract objects can also lead to a man-made physical replications....of say a flying strawberry. :)

Image

Our "I" is merely a symbolic-self.... But it does exist.... and has real consequences on our physical body in a physical world.

Just ask any person who has suffered from mental illnesses, like agoraphobia, how real the symbolic-self can feel. I'm sure they will all tell you that agoraphobia manifests as a physical phenomena on their nervous system, but how is it possible if the self is merely symbolic? How can something which is merely an abstract idea have a casual effect on a physical body in physical space. Because the abstract symbols have corresponding neuron-firing patterns embedded the nervous system.... There is a link between the symbolic (abstract) and the physical world.

Therefore, a downward causality forms, allowing the abstract domain (symbolic-self) to feedback to the physical domain (nervous system).

But this feedback loop only maintains itself as long as there is symbolic content being fed back to the nervous system. To stop symbolic content being fed back, we have to stop paying attention to the symbolic content. This can be achieved by shifting our attention to empty space or silence in physical space.... Empty space has no symbolic representation in mind-space. So the symbolic content being fed back creates 'momentary' stillness in our nervous system.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby downeyjr » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:04 pm

Webwanderer wrote:
Non-physical reality has been experienced countless times, and continues to be so at an ever increasing pace. These are facts that materialists try their best to explain away by imaginative theories, or simply ignore.



I'm interested in how it has been experienced and by whom? What do you consider or call ,,experience of a non-physical reality,, ? What exactly are these facts that confuse materialists ?

Ashley72, The process of this symbolic content being fed by our mind is not so simple as you describe it, people and personalities are a bit more complicated than a thought feeding the idea of I :) Plus in reality this is not a constant process but is rather happening from time to time and I consider it healthy, I mean it's healthy to have a good self-image, to know where you are and what you can do in this world, that's why you need to know who you are, otherwise you are turning into a ,,zombie,, :) Otherwise the switching attention technique may be good from time to time for some kind of meditation , it may be relaxing :)
downeyjr
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:44 pm

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby rideforever » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:31 pm

Physical, Material, Normal.

The function of these words is only to reassure. They give you a feeling of security. This is "solid" and "material" ... we can rely on it. It's from this basis that I know the world and I act.

Do you want to live with reassurance, or do you want reality ?

Thoughts are also reassuring. In every minute there is more time without thought than with it .... but we are taught to ignore it these gaps in thought. Because the implication that for most of our lives we exist without thinking ... is very destructive to our reassurances.

The mystery of life is very plain, very unhidden. But a man lives his life seeking comforting reassurances of all sorts.

The scientist seeks comfort in knowing that it is "material" "solid" "empirical" ... like a warm blanket. Most scientists do not even have the integrity to read about the origin of the scientific method, how it can't be proven that it is real or objective. Because modelling is not reality. But this small-print is just ignored and unread by most people who claim to be scientists.

Because they are men, and they hide in reassurance. They don't want to read the details, because it would cause the reassurances to collapse.

At the end of a long day the archetypal blue collar worker hunches over his plate of sausages and chips, reassuring himself with the food ... for him there is nothing else in the world, save the struggle of living and his reassurance. This is all he has been taught, this is all he knows.
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small
User avatar
rideforever
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby rideforever » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:30 pm

Here's Alan Watts talking about symbolism and reality :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyyx_ruCJDQ&feature=plcp

He mentions Heloise and Abelard :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lo%C3%AFse_d%E2%80%99Argenteuil
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small
User avatar
rideforever
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Webwanderer » Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:54 pm

downeyjr wrote:
Webwanderer wrote:
Non-physical reality has been experienced countless times, and continues to be so at an ever increasing pace. These are facts that materialists try their best to explain away by imaginative theories, or simply ignore.


I'm interested in how it has been experienced and by whom? What do you consider or call ,,experience of a non-physical reality,, ? What exactly are these facts that confuse materialists ?


You might start with consciousness itself. Yes, I know that materialist brain scientists believe that consciousness is a by-product of brain chemistry. But that is a belief, a faith if you will, as there is no real proof that the brain creates consciouness that can be cited. There are relationships between consciousness and brain functions but the rest is a leap of faith.

The reality is that what you see and hear and smell are vibrating chemical reactions that consciousness interprets into a view of the physical world. But that does not indicate the origin of consciousness. Destroy the brain and it stops functioning. But like a radio receiver, the condition of the radio has little effect on the radio waves themselves. Because the origin of consciousness has been such a difficult problem for materialists to solve they have simply assumed the brain as origin. Again, a leap of faith.

Quantum physicists have made some discoveries that could help if only they would follow the evidence to its logical conclusions. Quantum physicists have shown that you cannot separate the observed from the observer. The very act of observing effects the observed. If the brain were the origin of consciousness this would not be the case. At the quantum level, a more fundamental level than the brain, it is consciousness that effects matter more so than matter effecting consciousness.

As to the experience of non-physical reality there are many. Dreams, especially lucid dreams, NDE's, OBE's, IADC's (induced after death contacts) to name a few. Dr Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon and published scientist, who was once firmly in the camp of brain origins for consciousness, had a most remarkable NDE. His brain was being eaten by an E coli based bacterial meningitis of a type that there was no case on record that anyone had ever recovered from. He was in a brain dead coma for a week. After awakening (and making a full recovery) he was considered a medical miracle. During his time of being comatose he reported living in a non-physical conscious reality that was far broader, clear and real than anything he experienced while being physically focused.

He has now completely changed his view on the origin of consciousness, and does so from an understanding of the very science that so many cite as proof of brain origins. There is nothing quite like experience to bring real clarity to one's perspective. His interviews are on YouTube and has a great book, 'Proof of Heaven'. Highly recommended.

The people who have now had some type of NDE numbers in the millions. There are likely hundreds of books on the subject as well as lots of websites and videos that can be explored. Simply saying they are just people's imagination is just wishful thinking. Explore.

OBE's are another source of non-physical access. Check out the Monroe institute and their Gateway program.

IADC's are a more recent addition that is used to help those in grief trauma and PTSD. It involves an effective technique that allows an individual to contact a deceased individual for resolution of traumatic stress or chronic bereavement.

Of course all of these can simply be dismissed and save one's self from the fear of a new, more encompassing, paradigm. But those genuinely interested in truth have resources and opportunities to research and possibly expand their perspective without resorting to 'blind' leaps of faith. Logic and reason, based on available information, are legitimate venues for consideration of what constitutes reality.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby downeyjr » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:55 pm

First of all, thank you for the thorough answer.

There are relationships between consciousness and brain functions but the rest is a leap of faith.


- So consciousness being non-physical is 100% certain, you can't doubt about it, absolute proven fact ? It's not just a belief supported by faith but it's an actual fact that can be proven with countless arguments ? Is this what you believe in ?

Secondly, your proof of non-physical reality is lucid dreams, NDE's, OBE's, IADC's ? These things are 100% certain, you can't doubt about them, are proven facts? Are not a belief just supported by faith but an actual fact that can be proven again and again ? Is this what you believe in?

And considering the above mentioned, the existence of a non-physical reality is 100% certain, you can't doubt about it, is a proven fact? Is this what you believe in ?
downeyjr
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:44 pm

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Webwanderer » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:49 pm

downeyjr wrote:- So consciousness being non-physical is 100% certain, you can't doubt about it, absolute proven fact ? It's not just a belief supported by faith but it's an actual fact that can be proven with countless arguments ? Is this what you believe in ?

There is no need for extremist rhetoric. 100%? Absolute proven fact? Where in my dialog did I say that?

I am saying that, based on available information, evidence, and experience, the existence of a non-physical reality, of which the physical realm is but one unique expression, is the most likely truth. There is no need for blind leaps of faith. Simply explore the information and personal experience available with open curiosity and genuine interest, use some basic deductive and inductive reasoning, and follow where it leads.

Secondly, your proof of non-physical reality is lucid dreams, NDE's, OBE's, IADC's ? These things are 100% certain, you can't doubt about them, are proven facts? Are not a belief just supported by faith but an actual fact that can be proven again and again ? Is this what you believe in?

I am not saying there is proof of anything. Proof is an individual conclusion. I'm saying there is substantial evidence via NDE's OBE's and IADC's and other sources, that a non-physical reality exists and supersedes the physical expression in its fundamental nature. In other words, the physical is an expression of the non-physical and not the reverse.

And considering the above mentioned, the existence of a non-physical reality is 100% certain, you can't doubt about it, is a proven fact? Is this what you believe in ?

I don't live in a 100% certainty about anything. There is a truism that I like and will share. "Certainty is a sure sign of a closed mind - of that I am certain" :wink:

I live in an openness to truth as best I can. It's a constant vigil as the ego tends like its comfort zones. My perspective on life and being continues to change and evolve (grow?). I believe that it's highly unlikely that I will understand all the wondrous mysteries of life while in this human expression. One can only hope for ever more clarity as increasing insight dawns. My sense is this world is designed this way as it makes for some unique relationships and experiences valuable in ways not understood from a human context.

There is a bigger picture of life and being that anyone would be wise to explore - a theory of everything that is inclusive of all realities. It probably can't be finished in a single lifetime, but who can say what its limits are either. Imagination is key and is extremely useful in that it frees us from the chains of 'established truths' to pursue possibilities outside the box. Einstein would agree.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." ... Albert Einstein

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby ashley72 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:25 am

downeyjr wrote:Ashley72, The process of this symbolic content being fed by our mind is not so simple as you describe it, people and personalities are a bit more complicated than a thought feeding the idea of I :) Plus in reality this is not a constant process but is rather happening from time to time and I consider it healthy, I mean it's healthy to have a good self-image, to know where you are and what you can do in this world, that's why you need to know who you are, otherwise you are turning into a ,,zombie,, :) Otherwise the switching attention technique may be good from time to time for some kind of meditation , it may be relaxing :)


'Thoughts' are intrinsically linked to our physical space & behaviours, by way of metaphoric conceptual mappings.

I posted this a few days ago:

ashley72 wrote:Human Consciousness needs the property of self-reflection or Introspection.... the ability to self-examine one's conscious thoughts and feelings.

In learning environments reflection is an important part of the loop to go through in order to maximise the utility of having experiences. Rather than moving on to the next 'task' we can review the process and outcome of the task and - with the benefit of a little distance (lapsed time) we can reconsider what the value of experience might be for us and for the context it was part of.

Image

We are not born with a psychological "I" which is self-reflective. The psychological "I" is metaphorically created by mapping physical space (source domain) to mental space (target domain) in order to explain the abstract idea of "seeing" solutions and reinforced by way of a social construct. This mapping creates an analog "I" which is initially contentless. But by the way of narratizing our experiences through psychological time we can create a mind-story of the analog "I"which moves through a mind space in a temporal - spatial succession which allows the loop or self-reflection of experiences. Mental-space (target domain) acts like a physical mirror reflecting physical space (source domain).

Therefore, physical behaviour in physical space (source domain) is determined in part by perception and the meaning ascribe to the situations they are in by way of the mental space (target domain), rather than by the situations themselves. This is a tangled hierarchy in which the target domain can redefine the source domain in downward causality... when it should be upward causality.

The way to break free of this downward causality is by attending to the present moment (source domain) rather than attending to the mental space (target domain).


Tolle argues that our symbolic-self is the root of our mental suffering, as our symbolic-self relies on psychological time to navigate its mental space. All negativity is caused by an accumulation of psychological time & denial of the present. Unease, anxiety, tension, stress, worry - all forms of fear - are caused by too much future (temporal-spatial succession of symbolic mind-space), and not enough presence. Guilt, regret, resentment, grievances, sadness, bitterness, and all forms of non-forgiveness are caused by too much past (temporal-spatial succession of symbolic mind-space), and not enough presence.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Robert » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:34 am

downeyjr wrote:Robert, for me consciousness is either physical or non-physical, matter or non-matter. I consider us and the world we live in physical. If you think that consciousness is non-physical, how can a non-physical interact with physical ? Because surely we the physical humans have some kind of connection with consciousness.

Hey Downeyjr, this is a question I have pondered on from time to time. As far as I understand it now, the “connection” is the fact that consciousness is simply permeating all of existance. So it is in a rock as it is in humans, although a rock has no nervous system through which it can be aware of the fact that there is consciousness.

downeyjr wrote:
Robert wrote: I would say that to me it appears that the nature of both forms and the formless is one, which means that in essence, everything is consciousness (or Tao/God or whatever we like to call it). Also, it takes form for consciousness to realize itself, hence both forms and the formless need to exist. In our human day-to-day case, it is our nervous system that allows consciousness to focus on itself. But the nervous system is a limited form (as are all forms), which means that we are limited in what we can be conscious of.


So, you are saying that physical and non-physical have one nature and are generally one thing but then you say that everything is consciousness (non-physical)? So 1= physical + non physical and 1= non physical. It can't be both.... If both are one thing, we need a third unit to unite them, a new word perhaps, something that express that physical and non-physical are the same thing. But just thinking of that they are one thing doesn't make much sense to me....neither to the greatest physicists.

I consider these questions quite "legitimate" objections from the thinking mind .. :D It is also something that has come up in my thought process. In the end, however, I don't think we can apply such thought logic to the ultimate nature of being, simply because it is something beyond “mere” mind. But if we need an answer, I would say that this “new word” you are looking for, may be described as Tao, or God (and then I don't mean the Christian version of an entity residing in some place).

downeyjr wrote:Existence of a non-physical entity has not be proven nor it can be proven, but so far what we see around is all physical, thus there is no point in believing in non-physical. This would be the same as to believe in Paradise and Hell and God :) But if you like to believe in things without facts, such as God, a flying strawberry and a non-physical entity, then nothing can be done.

Although the following has been discussed to some extend above in this thread, I would like to add my view (which is somewhat similar to WW's). Consciousness, to me (and many here), is not physical. For sure, to science, it has not yet been proven to be physical (although science would merely tell you that it is a matter of time). The mere fact that we experience things like taste, colors, (Qualia), is by the way also somewhat of a problem to science. So your assumption that “we” like to believe in things without facts, is probably only based on your own experience (and who could blame you). But extrapolating this to other beings is a logical error :P.
By the way Sandyjoy I like your idea of a hologram, I have read somewhere an article of a scientific research, where they found that their results could point to the possibility that reality is in fact of a holographic nature.
Robert
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:20 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby ashley72 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:31 am

Robert wrote:Although the following has been discussed to some extend above in this thread, I would like to add my view (which is somewhat similar to WW's). Consciousness, to me (and many here), is not physical. For sure, to science, it has not yet been proven to be physical (although science would merely tell you that it is a matter of time). The mere fact that we experience things like taste, colors, (Qualia), is by the way also somewhat of a problem to science. So your assumption that “we” like to believe in things without facts, is probably only based on your own experience (and who could blame you). But extrapolating this to other beings is a logical error .


Have you heard of emergent complexity?

Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is irreducible to its individual constituents. Some philosophers have proposed that qualia and consciousness demonstrate strong emergence.

Emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

An example of a complex systems is the human nervous systems ability to self-reflect its physical & mental behaviors.

Human Consciousness in particular could by defined as the ability for introspection...the self-examination of one's conscious thoughts and feelings. Which is also more broadly defined as the ability to self-reflect on ones physical & mental behaviors.

Have you ever pondered how the capacity of self-reflection may have emerged in humans but not in say a rock?

It's safe to say rocks don't think and consequently don't have language at their disposal. It's not all that surprising given the far greater complexity of human composition in comparison to the simple composition of rock.

Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961), the famous physicist, had this counter-materialist take: "The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so


Maybe Erwin needed to account for it by going even higher up the ladder than optical nerve bundles in the brain, and looked at what kind of properties emerge at the top rung of the ladder of complexity! He may have found some emergent properties could not be explained on the level of the optical nerve. Qualia & Human Consciousness may just be some properties that may not be irreducible to the bottom rungs of materialism. That doesn't mean they can't have their roots in the higher rungs of materialism. :wink:

Two central themes you might want to read further about in relation to emergence... is 'clusters' & 'feedback' which are two emergent features of more complex organized systems.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Robert » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:40 pm

Hey Ashley,

It is an interesting theory which to me may hold some worth for explaining stuff like the mind (thought processes and the like), but not to the faculty of consciousness itself. Emergent complex systems still adhere to cause and effect, and I don't see that applying to consciousness itself (only to that which we are conscious of). But I realize we disagree on that and probably always will, which is fine for me.
Robert
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:20 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby rachMiel » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:30 pm

This inspired me to create a thread on emergence vs. Consciousness:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11135
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby downeyjr » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:04 pm

Webwanderer wrote:
Simply explore the information and personal experience available with open curiosity and genuine interest, use some basic deductive and inductive reasoning, and follow where it leads.



That's what I did...

I'm saying there is substantial evidence via NDE's OBE's and IADC's and other sources, that a non-physical reality exists and supersedes the physical expression in its fundamental nature.
Substantial evidence....


I don't know how good you are at spotting substantial evidence, but I would strongly disagree with the idea that anything of what is out there can be called substantial evidence for a non-physical reality. This substantial evidence wouldn't hold up in any court if it were two parties physical vs non-physical reality, no matter how good the lawyers of the non-physical reality were. And I see that you really like to believe in that, so even if I write a 10 pages post with very strong arguments why there is no substantial proof, you will still believe what you would like to believe. So case is closed I guess...



All negativity is caused by an accumulation of psychological time & denial of the present.


Right, and all deaths on Planet Earth are caused by the African children not washing their teeth regularly. Just take a second, look at the big picture and try to see how ridiculous that sounds, ALL NEGATIVITY (which is super generalization, and we all know it's wrong the super generalize about anything in our world) is caused by psychological time and denial of the present.... I don't deny the present I live in it, it lives in me, you gonna say it's my thinking mind saying that and it's actually not true, I'm in illusion, but I think that you should think twice about that and always have the option of you being in an illusion as well :)


I consider these questions quite "legitimate" objections from the thinking mind .. :D It is also something that has come up in my thought process. In the end, however, I don't think we can apply such thought logic to the ultimate nature of being, simply because it is something beyond “mere” mind. But if we need an answer, I would say that this “new word” you are looking for, may be described as Tao, or God (and then I don't mean the Christian version of an entity residing in some place).


I'm afraid, you didn't get my point, my point was to show and point out that your current beliefs and what you are saying is self-contradictory, at least in the way you are presenting it in the post. And if you like to believe in self-contradictory things, I can't help much.


The mere fact that we experience things like taste, colors, (Qualia), is by the way also somewhat of a problem to science.


I'm sorry, what do you mean by somewhat of a problem to science ? That's completely false and even if there was some confusion about how are experience taste, colors etc. this has nothing to do with the fact that your current believes are not based not proven facts but rather on false assumptions. Plus I never said anything about taste, colors etc, so you don't know my beliefs in regards to that, so even if science is confused with it, it's not my problem, and doesn't prove anyhow that I like to believe in things without proof :) So that's simply wrong.

So your assumption that “we” like to believe in things without facts, is probably only based on your own experience (and who could blame you). But extrapolating this to other beings is a logical error :P.


It's not an assumption, it's a fact that you like to believe in things without facts and the only way this can be proven is by pointing out the erroneous ideas you have grown in yourselves and putting them into a test, using your own intelligence, which by the way you refuse the use, since the ,,thinking mind,, is something bad for you, it's kind of a trap, the only tool you can actually use to realize if something is false or not is getting rusty by intentionally not using it :(


Anyway guys, my aim was to try and get you thinking about what you believe in since if approached properly it doesn't hold up much, but unfortunately I've noticed something that is very very true, it's very difficult to change the ideas of a person even if you point it out in his/her face, with pure logic that his/her believe are a lie. Even if it's obviously false and not worth believing he/she will believe in it. And the stronger the reward for believing it is, the harder you can convince the person he/she is wrong. And in our case here, your reward is kind of big, eternal happiness and ALL NEGATIVITY removed. What fuels the desire for your beliefs is the need to be happy, pain-free, and that is one of the strongest desires in humans, so even if I proved that you believe white is black and then proved again that white is actually white, it wouldn't change a thing, since deep down in you , you just don't want to, you're not ready to. You will jump again to some false argument , try to beat my argument with pseudo-logic and say - I'm right.
So I guess, case is closed. See ya :)
downeyjr
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:44 pm

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby rideforever » Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:02 pm

downeyjr wrote:I would strongly disagree with the idea that anything of what is out there can be called substantial evidence for a non-physical reality. This substantial evidence wouldn't hold up in any court if it were two parties physical vs non-physical reality, no matter how good the lawyers of the non-physical reality were.

if I write a 10 pages post with very strong arguments why there is no substantial proof

all deaths on Planet Earth are caused by the African children not washing their teeth regularly.

try to see how ridiculous that sounds

your current believes are not based not proven facts

pure logic

Hi there.

Your "position" seems to be exactly the default position in this society. The things you say are basically what the dominant ideology is in this era. Science, facts, proofs, arguments.

Doesn't it give you pause for thought that your beliefs, your position, your view of the world ... is exactly what you have been taught ? Is exactly the dominant ideology.

You see ... growing up in a culture, the culture tries to create robots with it's beliefs. Through education. Through media. Through the entire culture.

And most people walk out of their education with robotic minds ... they have totally absorbed the culture. They repeat it. They justify it in exactly the way they have been taught to justify it. As you seem to do.

It's only a few who have the desire to exist on their own basis. To have their own thoughts. To start from scratch and understand what is actually real rather than what they have been fed. It's only a few who break the programming. It's only a few who want to live enough to hate being brainwashed.

The programming is designed to keep you very busy. With thoughts. With arguments. With sarcasm. Just going round and round. It just keeps you busy. Ideally you are so busy that you don't wake up before you die. Actually it doesn't matter what you are busy with - because the goal of the conditioning is just to keep it going. And if you wake up, if you become free, you would reject the ideology.

We can criticise the poor kids who grow up in a Christian family and are true believers. They repeat their Christian conditioning and don't think twice. Their conditioning is an ideology that includes defences, for instance the defences include :
- God is true and nothing else is real.
- God with hurt you if you don't believe in him.
- Believe in God and you go to Heaven

The dominant Western ideology is a different system from the Christian one. In this ideology the defences include the following :

- Nothing other than thought is valid
- People in the past were stupid, we are not stupid
- Arguments lead to knowledge
- "everybody knows" ... something

You have absorbed these defences and repeat them verbatim.

Although you might not understand what the truth is, the fact that your views are identical to the dominant ideology should give you cause to question what is inside your mind. If it is identical to what you have been pressured to believe ... is any of it "yours".
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small
User avatar
rideforever
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:23 pm

downeyjr wrote:
Webwanderer wrote:
Simply explore the information and personal experience available with open curiosity and genuine interest, use some basic deductive and inductive reasoning, and follow where it leads.

That's what I did...

Really? Nothing you have written so far suggests an extensive knowledge of the NDE evidence - from other than the materialist choir explaining how NDE's are simply illusions. Don't be afraid, explore.


I'm saying there is substantial evidence via NDE's OBE's and IADC's and other sources, that a non-physical reality exists and supersedes the physical expression in its fundamental nature.
Substantial evidence....

I don't know how good you are at spotting substantial evidence, but I would strongly disagree with the idea that anything of what is out there can be called substantial evidence for a non-physical reality.

This is the perfect demonstration of your lack on knowledge on the NDE material from the NDE literature that is supportive of it. The body of supporting evidence is massive. However, you will not likely see it so long as you live through a strong materialist bias. It's a bias that simply excludes that which does not fit the template no matter how convincing it is on its own merits.

This substantial evidence wouldn't hold up in any court if it were two parties physical vs non-physical reality, no matter how good the lawyers of the non-physical reality were. And I see that you really like to believe in that, so even if I write a 10 pages post with very strong arguments why there is no substantial proof, you will still believe what you would like to believe. So case is closed I guess...

I have considerable actual experience helping prepare cases for court. Your position is simply expressive of the strength of your belief. When it comes right down to it there is no physical evidence for a physical origin of consciousness. It's all conjecture born of a strong materialist bias. An informed and able lawyer would have an easy time exposing the error in the theory.

On the other hand, the evidence for a non-physical reality would generate a long presentation indeed. Countless numbers of witnesses to actual out of body experience, complete with supporting corresponding testimony, could be presented. Clairvoyance, remote viewing, reincarnation, OBE's, and NDE's to name a few. Of course these are quickly rejected without any real consideration from the materialist mindset, but an unbiased jury would look quite differently at such evidence as in most cases, somewhere in their own experience, they will be able to relate to it directly. Unless you can pack the jury with close minded materialists, you stand no chance of winning your case.


Anyway guys, my aim was to try and get you thinking about what you believe in since if approached properly it doesn't hold up much, but unfortunately I've noticed something that is very very true, it's very difficult to change the ideas of a person even if you point it out in his/her face, with pure logic that his/her believe are a lie. Even if it's obviously false and not worth believing he/she will believe in it.

Thanks for trying to save us. May I suggest some time in front of a mirror while you make this argument. It could be time well spent.

And the stronger the reward for believing it is, the harder you can convince the person he/she is wrong. And in our case here, your reward is kind of big, eternal happiness and ALL NEGATIVITY removed. What fuels the desire for your beliefs is the need to be happy, pain-free, and that is one of the strongest desires in humans, so even if I proved that you believe white is black and then proved again that white is actually white, it wouldn't change a thing, since deep down in you , you just don't want to, you're not ready to. You will jump again to some false argument , try to beat my argument with pseudo-logic and say - I'm right.

Yes it's difficult to convince someone who has actually experienced non-physical consciousness that they just imagined it - especially coming from one who hasn't, at least not in their conscious memory. The case for non-physical reality is not going away. There is far too much evidence, shared by far too many intelligent and fair minded people, and the pace of growing clarity amongst the greater population of the reality is increasing. Scientific blindness is on its way out. Too many of their own are seeing what they once rejected. Watch closely over the next several years as more and more evidence comes to the fore. We live in fun and interesting times.

So I guess, case is closed.

Not likely. The only thing that can be closed on this issue is one's mind.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests