Souls Versus Non-Souls

Talk about anything Tolle-related here.

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:48 am

Ash with all respect take a breather and look around you - and recognise that even within the parameters of what you 'know' - what you can 'label' 95 percent of it is as yet unknown, unquantified and unlabelled.

It may well be that humans are becoming more complex, so too are viruses and bacteria and plant life and animal species and our atmosphere - its a compounding experience. What cannot be denied is that all of it, is in, surrounded by, and made up with 95% of matter and energy whose contents, compounds, elements, experiences and capacities are not known.

My point is merely that one cannot presume to speak to and for the universe as a whole when one is blindly ignoring the 95% of it. I'd go further the human ignorance-arrogance dance also discredits the natural intelligence in all matter and energy because of this. It's an incredibly ingrained bias that has become dogma that has become bigotry.

The universe was here and working just perfectly in eternally evolving equilibrium (of creation & destruction) before humans evolved in the physical - and yet we think we are the be all and end all of its creation and intelligence (I soooo need that pppfffttt!! smiley here :wink:) It will still be in eternally evolving equilibrium when/if humans in physical form are no longer a part of the physical matter of it. What is 95% of everything - us included and every cell that makes us up is eternal and unchanging. When you put a suit on it does not change what is underneath, only the 'appearance' of it.

It's not just a matter of physics, it's also a matter of mathematics (5% + 95% = 100%), and of history and cosmology and yes chemistry, but outside of the defined and labelled it is also a matter of logic, and of honesty, and of grace - and I mean grace in the sense of humility and acceptance of the value of all, not diminishing others in order to rise above who we really are and what our place is in the greater equilibrium.

The more & more organised and ordered we become the less chance that a high entropy wave can kill us off.

That is unsupported in history and science Ash - the more and more organised and ordered we become the more and more that the universe adjusts to suit - to maintain equilibrium.

What appears out of balance and favouring one state or another in a mythical time-space separation in its own way is already moving towards rebalancing.

From the moment that we are born we are journeying to our deaths. Some see this as a 'problem', others see it as an opportunity to interact with other 'forms' in experience.

God will always live in the gaps of understanding!!!

That's pretty funny Ash, are you saying that's what you think the 95% is?
I guess one could say Equilibrium is eternal even in ignorance of it :wink:
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby ashley72 » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:13 am

Jen,

Have you heard of the expression "the invisible hand" of self regulation?

The idea is that in extremely "complex" systems, it's hard to see causation, from a very coarse-grain "simplistic" perspective.

Which is typical of a narrow-minded philosopher who equates consciousness with some "irreducible" essence... and then states that so called irreducible essence is the primordial force/causation of the whole complex system. :wink:

To achieve the goal of a maximally ordered economy in the laissez faire system, you do not regulate from above by passing explicit laws for order. You do something that, at first glance, seems utterly opposed to your goal: You simply allow individuals to struggle in an unfettered way for personal profit. In this struggle the inefficient are weeded out and the best balance each other to form an equilibrium to everyone’s benefit.


In other words, self organization doesn't have to occur from the top down, in fact it achieves a better equilibrium between the parts by self organization directed from the bottom up.

Does a Queen Ant govern her colony?

Ant colonies are self-organized systems: complex collective behaviors arise as the product of interactions between many individuals each following a simple set of rules, not via top-down instruction from elite individuals or the queen. No one worker has universal knowledge of the colony’s needs; individual workers react only to their local environment. Because of this, ants are a popular source of inspiration for design in software engineering, robotics, industrial design, and other fields involving many simple parts working together to perform complex tasks


Does Consciousness govern our Mind state?

No. Trillions of interactions between firing neurons, use neural networks to self organize complex patterns of perception.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:05 am

Ash, I am not, nor ever have denigrated the human brain or body capacity, it is an amazing thing even in as much as we know about its workings.

Complex patterns of perception may not necessarily be the be all and end all of a thing, as you well understand - a rope may not be a snake, a fright may not require the reaction built in with the perception.

Have you heard of the expression "the invisible hand" of self regulation?

The idea is that in extremely "complex" systems, it's hard to see causation, from a very coarse-grain "simplistic" perspective.

Would that be the same as a person who put artificially created matter into a living cell claiming that they can reproduce life artificially without acknowledging that the life element was already in the living cell?

Would that be why the effects of the 95% is being ignored in favour of the ability to manipulate the 5%, because it's all too complex to acknowledge that we know we do not know?

Trillions of interactions between firing neurons, use neural networks to self organize complex patterns of perception.

As it is within it is without, as it is above it is below - it's all very beautifully replicated in any which way you might cut it up, no matter by telescope or microscope.

Can we agree that those neural networks are made up of and simultaneously live within a framework about which we only know 5% in composition and relevance and capacity?
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby Rob X » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:08 pm

ashley72 wrote:As long as "mystery" remains there will always be people hanging onto God, Divine, Essence... God will always live in the gaps of understanding!!!

That's why he's called God of the gaps :mrgreen: !!!!

Rob, stop appealing to people's ignorance!

Where is the suggestion of gods? I think that outspoken atheist Colin McGinn would be equally perplexed by that conclusion. :D

This is not an appeal to ignorance but rather an appeal to humility in the face of reason.

You know, five hundred years ago there was the certainty that the planets and stars orbited the Earth. In other words there was the conviction that humans were at the centre of the Universe. A hundred and fifty years ago it was still believed that humans were a divine species, set apart from other animals and creatures - not just by intelligence and complexity - but that humans were of a completely different order to animals (indeed we were not considered to be animals.)

No one seriously entertains those ideas these days - yet there is still a hangover from this sort of anthropocentric conceit in the idea that humans are so constructed as to be able to cognise and understand the deepest enigmas of the Universe. That this is extremely unlikely to be the case seems to be resisted by some scientists (and philosophers.) Which is ironic since science values rationality so highly - and that reality may hold secrets that are beyond the biological grasp of an evolved chimp seems to me to be an exceedingly rational proposition.
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby ashley72 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:11 am

Rob X wrote:Where is the suggestion of gods? I think that outspoken atheist Colin McGinn would be equally perplexed by that conclusion. :D

This is not an appeal to ignorance but rather an appeal to humility in the face of reason.


Sorry, you're correct.... there wasn't any mention of God on your part, I got a little excited! :lol:

But the point I was trying to make was; the gaps in scientific knowledge offer opportunities for opponents to attack reductionists. Clearly, it's way to earlier in our evolution of scientific knowledge, to rule out the possibility of accounting for concepts, like consciousness in a deterministic way. Like I said, neuroscience hasn't even finished the wiring-diagram for the brain yet, so it's premature to make declarations, like consciousness is beyond a deterministic model of the brain.

All scientific signposts point to Consciousness being localized within a body-mind (complex living system).

Rob X wrote:You know, five hundred years ago there was the certainty that the planets and stars orbited the Earth. In other words there was the conviction that humans were at the centre of the Universe. A hundred and fifty years ago it was still believed that humans were a divine species, set apart from other animals and creatures - not just by intelligence and complexity - but that humans were of a completely different order to animals (indeed we were not considered to be animals.)


Yes, once upon a time, we had a self-centered & flat-viewpoint of our place in the Universe, but you could hardly blame that on scientific knowledge.

Science is often distinguished from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature: in contrast to art, religion, philosophy, morality, and politics, there exist clear standards or normative criteria for identifying improvements and advances in science. For example, the historian of science George Sarton argued that “the acquisition and systematization of positive knowledge are the only human activities which are truly cumulative and progressive,” and “progress has no definite and unquestionable meaning in other fields than the field of science”

Rob X wrote:No one seriously entertains those ideas these days - yet there is still a hangover from this sort of anthropocentric conceit in the idea that humans are so constructed as to be able to cognise and understand the deepest enigmas of the Universe. That this is extremely unlikely to be the case seems to be resisted by some scientists (and philosophers.) Which is ironic since science values rationality so highly - and that reality may hold secrets that are beyond the biological grasp of an evolved chimp seems to me to be an exceedingly rational proposition.


I get where your taking this, that our Universe may be indeterministic in nature. Quantum mechanics (at least according to the Copenhagen interpretation) the most basic constituents of matter at times behave indeterministically. But frankly, there are many theories floating around, hidden variables for arguments sake, which suggestion that once hidden variables are discovered, a deterministic model will surface.

Then of course a determinism model causes a problem for free-will advocates. If everything is pre-deterministic...are our lives already predetermined from birth?

It is a profound problem for without free will there can be no morality, no right and wrong, no good and evil. All our behaviour would be pre-determined and we would have no creativity or choice.

There is no mind absolute or free will, but the mind is determined for willing this or that by a cause which is determined in its turn by another cause, and this one again by another, and so on to infinity. ... A body in motion or at rest must be determined for motion or rest by some other body, which, likewise, was determined for motion or rest by some other body, and this by a third and so on to infinity. (Spinoza, 1673)


So in summary, Physical reality is infinite and necessarily connected - it has limited determinism, limited freedom. In this necessarily connected but non determined universe, there are many possible futures. :D
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:11 am

Science is often distinguished from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature: in contrast to art, religion, philosophy, morality, and politics, there exist clear standards or normative criteria for identifying improvements and advances in science. For example, the historian of science George Sarton argued that “the acquisition and systematization of positive knowledge are the only human activities which are truly cumulative and progressive,” and “progress has no definite and unquestionable meaning in other fields than the field of science”


You're totally forgetting the natural world does not actually need science nor mankind and his tiny little brain to BE intelligent creation in progress. It was fine before its evolution, it progresses just fine without it and it will continue to do so when the human brain is no where to be found.

This is just another part of mankind's illusion of being able to create humanistic 'order' out of what is deemed 'disorder'.

Such a dream within a dream is this Ash.
Science may well seek to separate and promote itself above all else, (more human arrogance/ignorance) can you not see in the language use - define 'progress' as anything definitive and (arrrghghghg!! I don't have the words either!!!)


Where was science when the big bang happened?
Where was science when life forms erupted?
Where was science when we grew thumbs?


Science can only look back and assume based on previous assumptions, definitions and parameters of investigation; or look forward and propose with the same limitations, and not always correctly or progressively or helpfully in remaining in natural balance with the order that it presumes is disorder and tries to 'fight' or 'fix'.

Admit that there is far more outside of the parameters and acceptances of 'science' than there is known within it. Not to diminish or denigrate the pursuit of knowledge within defined parameters, but to recognise that limiting parameters by their very nature limit knowledge and awareness.

It's another dream of creating 'order' out of what is feared to be 'disorder' from our skewed and limited perspective.

Science is a purely human past time, preoccupied not with truly understanding, but with creating 'wars' and 'problems' and then dancing the dance of creating 'solutions' that then create more 'problems' to be 'solved' and more often than not ignoring or minimising the side effects and unintended consequences with natural and political and social and cultural consequences.

All the while 'outside' of those 'boundaries' within which the human brain can feel in charge of everything and give themselves prizes and awards for 'inventions' and 'discoveries' and dismiss 95% of our universal energy and matter, what is eternally 100% flowing in unlimited pathways in and out of 'known' form, just accepts, embraces and renews itself in continuing equilibrium.

Let me 'play' scientist for a moment to illustrate just how important this concept and 'error' is - imagine that we only refer to, acknowledge and define everything in our human bodies in terms of what makes up less than 5% of it - oh look at that the maths is great - lets just totally ignore oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen and any impact or effects that they have in 'life'.
Yes we would be absolutely charging forward in knowledge about our use and the capacities and properties of calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chlorine, and sulfur and we could pat ourselves on the back and claim we are the be all and end all of intelligence.

Now imagine making all sorts of arguments and postulations and basing premises for actualities without acknowledgement of these four ingredients that are KNOWN to have significant impact and influence on the human body, life and creation itself. Let's go further, let us denigrate anyone who dares to mention that we don't actually have enough understanding to 'conclude' anything about anything because we are confined to discussing less than 5% of energy and matter. (let alone the 95% of those 'known elements' that are not known!!)

Am I missing something here?
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby ashley72 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:49 am

smiileyjen101 wrote:Ash, I am not, nor ever have denigrated the human brain or body capacity, it is an amazing thing even in as much as we know about its workings.

Complex patterns of perception may not necessarily be the be all and end all of a thing, as you well understand - a rope may not be a snake, a fright may not require the reaction built in with the perception.


A second look determines whether a rope was mistakenly perceived for a snake.

You're aware of telescopes, microscopes, x-rays, cat scans, MRI's, spectrometers, oscilloscopes, volt meters, sound meters, radio telescopes, particle accelerators etc.?.. These are all diagnostic tools for helping scientists perceive (objects) that can't be seen with the naked eye. So naked eye perception certainly has limitation, that's why reductionist models, coupled with technology has made so many advances into many enigmas... We're not stuck in the Middle Ages any more... Have a look around you... Modern technology is solving mysteries that weren't even conceived 200 years ago.

smiileyjen101 wrote:Would that be the same as a person who put artificially created matter into a living cell claiming that they can reproduce life artificially without acknowledging that the life element was already in the living cell?

Would that be why the effects of the 95% is being ignored in favour of the ability to manipulate the 5%, because it's all too complex to acknowledge that we know we do not know?


No the invisible hand, is a metaphor to describe how self-organization in complex systems, like living systems, which tend towards maintaining order or low entropy, have unseen forces or mechanisms that appear to guide the system. In other words, the invisible hand guiding human development...arises because of inherent self-ordering process between the parts which make up the whole.

smiileyjen101 wrote:Can we agree that those neural networks are made up of and simultaneously live within a framework about which we only know 5% in composition and relevance and capacity?


The human brain is still "generally" classified as a black box, as the inner workings & many components or functionality are hidden from inspection. The most obvious difficulty is you can't tamper with the brain on a living subject in case you accidentally kill them... Which makes progress difficult, until we can find non-invasive, methods or diagnostic tools, for inspection.

Image

However, there are other ways to determine inner workers using reverse-engineering.

In cybernetics a black box was described by Norbert Wiener as an unknown system that was to be identified using the techniques of system identification. He saw the first step in self-organization as being to be able to copy the output behaviour of a black box.

You've heard of the Blue Brain project?

The Blue Brain Project is an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level. => http://bluebrain.epfl.ch
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby ashley72 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:08 am

smiileyjen101 wrote:
Science is often distinguished from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature: in contrast to art, religion, philosophy, morality, and politics, there exist clear standards or normative criteria for identifying improvements and advances in science. For example, the historian of science George Sarton argued that “the acquisition and systematization of positive knowledge are the only human activities which are truly cumulative and progressive,” and “progress has no definite and unquestionable meaning in other fields than the field of science”


You're totally forgetting the natural world does not actually need science nor mankind and his tiny little brain to BE intelligent creation in progress. It was fine before its evolution, it progresses just fine without it and it will continue to do so when the human brain is no where to be found.

This is just another part of mankind's illusion of being able to create humanistic 'order' out of what is deemed 'disorder'.

Such a dream within a dream is this Ash.
Science may well seek to separate and promote itself above all else, (more human arrogance/ignorance) can you not see in the language use - define 'progress' as anything definitive and (arrrghghghg!! I don't have the words either!!!)


Where was science when the big bang happened?
Where was science when life forms erupted?
Where was science when we grew thumbs?


Science can only look back and assume based on previous assumptions, definitions and parameters of investigation; or look forward and propose with the same limitations, and not always correctly or progressively or helpfully in remaining in natural balance with the order that it presumes is disorder and tries to 'fight' or 'fix'.

Admit that there is far more outside of the parameters and acceptances of 'science' than there is known within it. Not to diminish or denigrate the pursuit of knowledge within defined parameters, but to recognise that limiting parameters by their very nature limit knowledge and awareness.

It's another dream of creating 'order' out of what is feared to be 'disorder' from our skewed and limited perspective.

Science is a purely human past time, preoccupied not with truly understanding, but with creating 'wars' and 'problems' and then dancing the dance of creating 'solutions' that then create more 'problems' to be 'solved' and more often than not ignoring or minimising the side effects and unintended consequences with natural and political and social and cultural consequences.

All the while 'outside' of those 'boundaries' within which the human brain can feel in charge of everything and give themselves prizes and awards for 'inventions' and 'discoveries' and dismiss 95% of our universal energy and matter, what is eternally 100% flowing in unlimited pathways in and out of 'known' form, just accepts, embraces and renews itself in continuing equilibrium.

Let me 'play' scientist for a moment to illustrate just how important this concept and 'error' is - imagine that we only refer to, acknowledge and define everything in our human bodies in terms of what makes up less than 5% of it - oh look at that the maths is great - lets just totally ignore oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen and any impact or effects that they have in 'life'.
Yes we would be absolutely charging forward in knowledge about our use and the capacities and properties of calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chlorine, and sulfur and we could pat ourselves on the back and claim we are the be all and end all of intelligence.

Now imagine making all sorts of arguments and postulations and basing premises for actualities without acknowledgement of these four ingredients that are KNOWN to have significant impact and influence on the human body, life and creation itself. Let's go further, let us denigrate anyone who dares to mention that we don't actually have enough understanding to 'conclude' anything about anything because we are confined to discussing less than 5% of energy and matter. (let alone the 95% of those 'known elements' that are not known!!)

Am I missing something here?


Scientific endeavor (a scientific system) or progress is unique to the evolution of human living systems....it's the self organization of human knowledge. Why is it so central to our human nature to want to organize our knowledge in such a systematic way?

To answer this question deeply, you need to look at what central role both entropy & equilibrium play in the Universe.

Living systems survive by maintaining self order. If they don't maintain self order, they succumb to High entropy (disorder) and ultimately perish. So from a self interest point of view, living systems naturally try and predict order from disorder.

It's futile to argue otherwise, because it's built into our DNA! :lol:

Do you not want scientists coming up with new vaccines to fight the next flu virus outbreak?

I certainly want them decoding new viruses, and coming up with a code that can maintain order within a living system.

It seems I'm not the only one with this view => https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130829-decoding-flu-viruses-before-an-outbreak/

Armed with rapidly growing databases of virus sequences, scientists are now using sophisticated machine learning techniques — a branch of artificial intelligence in which computers develop algorithms based on the data they have been given — to identify key properties in viruses like H7N9. Knowing these properties will help researchers identify the most dangerous new flu strains and could lead to more effective vaccines
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:20 am

Scientific endeavor (a scientific system) or progress is unique to the evolution of human living systems....it's the self organization of human knowledge. Why is it so central to our human nature to want to organize our knowledge in such a systematic way?

None of which would have occurred without bacteria. How do you know that their 'known system' isn't assuming the same as ours with us the pesky weeds?

Do you not want scientists coming up with new vaccines to fight the next flu virus outbreak?

I don't really care, seriously. I don't have the flu vaccines.

As far as I can tell as soon as we 'create' a 'new vaccine' a 'new virus' evolves, maintaining the equilibrium.

I don't see things as good and bad, entitled to live, not entitled to live based on human ignorance and fears and limited perceptions and bigotry. (Bigotry being discrimination and intolerance that both knows the facts and simultaneously ignores them.)

Out of this magnificent 'disorder' comes life, with or without human interference, where is your reverence for your DNA ancestry that is / was a bacterial explosion? You are a part of their journey.

:idea: Biotics (inc the 95%) formed humans, humans formed anti biotics, 'biotics' upped the ante ad infinitum until >>>>> humans destroy the atmosphere and environment that supports human life and then they get it - they are/were only a tiny part of the whole, no bigger than a germ :wink: (Perfect Order!!)

It's temporary - how you spend it is absolutely up to you.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby ashley72 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:54 am

smiileyjen101 wrote:Out of this magnificent 'disorder' comes life, with or without human interference, where is your reverence for your DNA ancestry that is / was a bacterial explosion? You are a part of their journey.


Yes, and out of human life has emerged the digital world, its all just part of self organization and evolutionary process toward low entropy in isolated systems. 90% of the digital data in the world today has been created in the last two years alone... The human species is only at the dawn of a new digital information era.

smiileyjen101 wrote::idea: Biotics (inc the 95%) formed humans, humans formed anti biotics, 'biotics' upped the ante ad infinitum until >>>>> humans destroy the atmosphere and environment that supports human life and then they get it - they are/were only a tiny part of the whole, no bigger than a germ :wink: (Perfect Order!!)

It's temporary - how you spend it is absolutely up to you.


The individual doesn't have a choice in the big scheme of things... That is my point.... The "invisible hand" of self organization drives the direction of these living systems/digital systems. The little me or little you can push against the tide as much as you like... go live under a Mountain in India, and renounce human endeavor towards order... It makes no difference to the outcome of self order, which is govern by the laws of entropy and equilibrium in the Universe.

Have you heard of the Organovo?

A 3d human-tissue company => http://www.organovo.com

A company that is pioneering structurally and functionally accurate bioprinted human tissue models. They can't make full organs yet, but they can make blood vessels.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:51 am

But are you saying you have no choice but to ignore the 95% in favour of the 5%?
Which is my only issue with this line of exploring - don't forget / ignore / discount the rest - to do so puts a premise on a false foundation.

I'm saying that is a choice we do have.

The little me or little you can push against the tide as much as you like

I see the little you pushing against the tide trying to find and/or impose order in/on it, (battle this, fight that, kill this, etc)

I'm just riding it, a part of the whole ocean knowing that I do not know 95% of what makes it work and that some of the premises that are based on only the 5% are intrinsically flawed, short sighted, narrow minded and at worst fallacious if and when they ignore this basic fact of limitation.

Things like ---
Scientific endeavor (a scientific system) or progress is unique to the evolution of human living systems....

Who says?
On what authority can you say that it is unique to the evolution of human living systems.... who says bacteria are not aware or have a system? That bees, ants, trees, forests even don't knowingly play with and learn from experimenting and collecting data and making order out of their perception of life? (even if they do it differently to humans) how did the Venus flytrap evolve if not through trial and error and interaction with other forms of life?

.... how can you be so specific when you do not have the wider understanding of the whole system?
Ants think they are the top of the food chain, whales just laugh at them, trees know you would not be here without them and the wind hugs us all - the 95% that is unknown in us is also in all of them. For all we know maybe the bacteria is the intelligent part of human life form - maybe that's how Dr Alexander could have amazing clarity of consciousness when his brain was being eaten by meningitis. The truth is we DO NOT KNOW what effects & capacity the 95% have, nor do we know whether it increases or diminishes or what causes it to if it does. Human life is not the only intelligence at work here.

the point I was trying to make was; the gaps in scientific knowledge offer opportunities for opponents to attack reductionists. Clearly, it's way to earlier in our evolution of scientific knowledge, to rule out the possibility of accounting for concepts, like consciousness in a deterministic way. Like I said, neuroscience hasn't even finished the wiring-diagram for the brain yet, so it's premature to make declarations, like consciousness is beyond a deterministic model of the brain.

All scientific signposts point to Consciousness being localized within a body-mind (complex living system).


It's this sort of built on a false premise conclusion that is illogical Ash - if (and Yes I agree) it is too early to account for consciousness.... if it's too early to rule it out, it's too early to rule it in, therefore the scientific signposts don't actually point anywhere.

All 'scientific' knowledge is missing 95% of the equation.


it's the self organization of human knowledge.

With the bias of ignorance and arrogance, without acknowledgement of them.

Why is it so central to our human nature to want to organize our knowledge in such a systematic way?

It's actually not - not central to our nature - that is learned, instructed, imposed as a means to an end, and those other two buddies of ego go hand in hand with it - creating 'enemy' and 'obstacle' of things that are.

Which is why life and death and everything in between is seen as a 'problem' to be 'solved', creation something to be recreated and 'improved upon', instead of a life to be lived in harmony with all that is as it is evolving naturally or unnaturally no matter, it is all accommodated.

These are two distinct ways of being human. One is living in grace - effortless beauty or charm of movement, form, or proportion and not inflating the proportions to suit perspectives.

The other is living with and in the knowledge of good and evil. (sometimes referred to as man's fall from grace - but it was not universal we have evidence :wink: ).

In grace one is living in and with the equilibrium - there is no separation of soul/non soul, it is embraced that one cannot be without the other.
There is no knowledge without equal ignorance, there is no peace without equal suffering, etc etc etc and that none of this is species or planet specific.

Interesting isn't it that if scientific man was to replicate a brain in its own image how much it would be missing if it stuck to the 'science' laws.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby ashley72 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:13 pm

Image

smileyJen wrote:But are you saying you have no choice but to ignore the 95% in favour of the 5%?


How much of your Pseudoscience accounts for the other 95%?

I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true. ~ Carl Sagan

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. ~ Carl Sagan

smileyJen wrote:maybe that's how Dr Alexander could have amazing clarity of consciousness when his brain was being eaten by meningitis.


I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. ~ Carl Sagan
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby ashley72 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:02 pm

Jen,

You like to reference the neuroscientist Dr Eben Alexander's NDE experience regularly in your posts.

Apart from the fact NDE's have been scientifically explained as acute brain activity after cardiac arrest or during stages of dying.

http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23672150

Not to mention that Eben had been subject to several malpractice suits, he had been terminated from multiple hospital positions and two involving medical error cover ups. Doesn't give a lot of credence to his claims given his poor reputation.

Below is excerpt from his Wikipedia entry.. He seems like he's become a big embarrassment to the medical community.

He's obvious written the book for the money, so many people are interested in this pseudoscience stuff. :roll:

In a wide-ranging investigation of Alexander's story and medical background, Esquire magazine reported (August 2013 issue) that prior to the publication of Proof of Heaven, Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error. The magazine also found what it claimed were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, according to an account of the Esquire article in Forbes, was that "Alexander writes that he slipped into the coma as a result of severe bacterial meningitis and had no higher brain activity, while a doctor who cared for him says the coma was medically induced and the patient was conscious, though hallucinating."

Alexander issued a statement after the Esquire article's publication: "I wrote a truthful account of my experiences in PROOF OF HEAVEN and have acknowledged in the book both my professional and personal accomplishments and my setbacks. I stand by every word in this book and have made its message the purpose of my life. Esquire's cynical article distorts the facts of my 25-year career as a neurosurgeon and is a textbook example of how unsupported assertions and cherry-picked information can be assembled at the expense of the truth."

Alexander’s book and publicity campaign have been criticized by scientists, including neuroscientist Sam Harris, who described Alexander’s NDE account (chronicled in Newsweek, October 2012) as “alarmingly unscientific,” and that “everything — absolutely everything — in Alexander’s account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity.' The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate — it suggests that he doesn’t know anything about the relevant brain science.” “Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline.” Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, saying that "to deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific — it is antiscientific."..."The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one."
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby Rob X » Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:29 pm

Ah (straw man alert), I'm not blaming anything on scientific knowledge. I'm simply pointing out that there are likely to be things that are beyond the capacity of the human brain - therefore, science.

As I see it, it's as if we are looking through a keyhole and science attempts to explain (or describe) what's on view. But it's wholly reasonable to deduce that the view through the keyhole does not constitute the full extent of reality itself. The keyhole view represents the frequencies of reality available to the currently evolved biology of the human organism.

There is no evolutionary necessity to have a view that goes beyond these frequencies. Science does a fine job at accounting for what is empirically available. But it might become clear that it would be a wholly anthropocentric conceit to assume that this represents a full (and to some degree, accurate) picture.

Even now, reality is probably multi-layered/multi dimensional in ways that humans can have no cognition of - in the same way that the universe holds vast depths of potential comprehension and understanding that are withheld to an earthworm.
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Souls Versus Non-Souls

Postby smiileyjen101 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:20 am

Healthy scepticism opens the mind to possibilities and plausibility - it's not a battle (or rather need not be), its exploring and experiencing without fear or favour.

Ash on the first page of this thread you started with an interesting 'noticing' of differences between the past-times of the human mind and its environment, and went on to link this to human behaviours & 'rituals' that some adhere to.

In recent posts you've shared of your wisdoms in learning that facing and accepting elements of experience that used to create fear in your mind and reactions in your body that reinforced the fears in your mind. What you've been sharing is that by opening yourself up, you have realised that the power of fear was all in your mind. There was nothing really scary 'out there'. Yes it might be unknown, yes it might be uncomfortable but it was not what your mind had previously believed.

Those fears were based on false premises, but reinforced with vigour and energy into making them seem 'real'. Particularly when you had full belief in what your mind was telling you something 'might' mean without testing it.

I'm saying this 'battle' you think is going on, is also based on false premise, and reinforced with vigour and energy and indoctrination.

Its like a battle is constantly going on between living systems (souls) & non-living systems (non-souls)

I'm basically trying to discover what might be the primordial life force or "soul" driving the inherent survival instincts of living systems. In other words, why do we battle?


It's only a 'battle' if one believes a narrowly conceived perception that fails to take into account the 100% of the whole system being in constant equilibrium. Just the same as the paranoia and fears did / do not take into account the 100% of an experience, this mind view is of narrow focus.

How much of your Pseudoscience accounts for the other 95%?

What pseudoscience? I'm only saying factor in our relative ignorance.

Either you believe & accept & factor in that we only relatively understand 5% of energy and matter, or not. I understand that 'science' does in a broad stroke accept this as a fact. It stands to reason in matters of life and living systems that this would be acknowledged as a 'factor' - that is the ignorance (unknown-ness) of it is a factor. When it is not, as in the case of Dr Venter 'announcing what he calls the 'world's first synthetic life', then for me, it falls into the area of claiming achievement beyond actuality - the 'life' element was already in the living cell.
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.


Dr Venter said: "I can't explain consciousness yet, but like anything else it will be explainable at the molecular level, the cellular level and therefore the DNA coding level.


Jen said:
Maybe it's not like 'anything else'. 'Anything else' known is only five percent of what is known to be knowable but as yet 95% is unknown. If consciousness is part of the 95% of energy and matter that is not explainable at the molecular, cellular and therefore DNA coding level that might explain why they haven't been able to explain it in those terms.


Which one of the above is 'pseudoscience'? and which is healthy scepticism?

I'm saying you will not find 'grace' in science, or in life, unless you embrace the 100% - and I am aware that there are many in science who do.
I'm saying this 'battle' you see in narrow view making enemy, obstacle, means to an end of everything, is actually a wonderful dance when you open up the lens of awareness into acceptance, enjoyment and enthusiasm - interestingly ET says one is ego, the other awareness.

The difference can also be noticed by whether or not you have swallowed the indoctrination of good and evil/bad, or not. For me my ignorance is a thing of grace, as is my awareness, I'm not ashamed to admit that I know very little about very little about what makes a thing work or the workings of it, but that doesn't stop me fully dancing with it - I'm here for the full experience.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Eckhart Tolle Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests