"This place is dangerous for trying to find truth"

[China Cat Sunflower]

Wil, Chris and everyone,

It's the totality, the gestalt, the pattern encoded in your DNA, and encoded likewise in the neural connections of your brain, that remembers. So even though your actual cells don't and can't remember, the totality of you remembers. In other words, what remembers is something non-physical, which it really isn't that much of a stretch to call your soul. I believe this pattern is a form of energy. And I believe it does survive death, since energy can change its form but can neither be created nor destroyed.

FWIW anyway. Obviously I can't prove it and would never try.

--Linda

Hi Linda! It's so nice to see you around once again!

This is one of those things I just don't know. Technically, I guess, we could say that babies come from a sperm and an egg. But that's not really where they come from. It doesn't explain the mystery of consciousness coming to inhabit the physical body.

On the other end I have to say that I can't imagine a non corporeal "self" which isn't an analogous creation, or extrapolation of the physical "me." Any existence beyond death that I can imagine is extrapolated from, or created by analogy from what I understand to be the present "ego based" me. I can only propose a reflection, perhaps perfected in some way, but a reflection nonetheless of the earthly me.

The problem is that it (whatever it is) can't be that. It has to be something completely different in essence that's impossible for me to extrapolate from my present experience as a carbon based life form. So whatever it is, it isn't of any use as a vehicle for the continuation of anything I can imagine as "me." Sure, it's the circle of life and all that crap, and my atoms go on or whatever, but it doesn't do "me" any good.

Chris

 

[Dream]

Thanks for your reply!

Hi Dreamy!

I don't think we can meaningfully separate religion from culture. It's not as though religion exists off in a corner by itself. I think that as a cultural vehicle, especially in the West, many of the functions of religion have been replicated within what we think of as secular society, and in the process made redundant, so that we now think of them as political or cultural processes separate from religion proper. This leaves religion, or the tip of the cultural iceberg that we think of as Religion, a seemingly anachronistic and purely nostalgic space to occupy so far as most of us are concerned. In reality, it seems to me, there is no sharply defined border between sacred and profane.

I think I agree with what you say pretty much wholesale here. There is a lot of redundancy when the government is doing a good job.

Culture itself offers transcendence through ritual and myth in the same way religion does. Nationalism, patriotism, sports...other things I can't think of right now- offer a way to transcend the unworthiness of one's individuality by placing it at the disposal of the larger cause. In the same way one comes to "live in Christ" one lives larger and transcends the limitations of this one short lifetime through affiliation with the nation, the football team, the political party... All of these functions are essentially religious in nature.

Or something...

Chris

Again I cannot really argue with most of that. So then if one culture is very successful, will other cultures copy it do you think? I'm trying to think of other cultures that have independently achieved a modicum of equality and sharing of privileges. I think Feudal Japan is interesting to compare with our culture, because it was completely unaware of Judaists. It was technologically and artistically brilliant with some cultural revolutions of its own. There was a merchant class, and there are lots of books and materials from that period so its relatively easy to compare notes. I do not see a similar emphasis on equality, though maybe there was. What about the Seattle tribe and the other native American tribes? I wonder about Africans and whether they pursued improvement in their cultural principles naturally. Its an interesting question.

 

[the breeze]

On the other end I have to say that I can't imagine a non corporeal "self" which isn't an analogous creation, or extrapolation of the physical "me." Any existence beyond death that I can imagine is extrapolated from, or created by analogy from what I understand to be the present "ego based" me. I can only propose a reflection, perhaps perfected in some way, but a reflection nonetheless of the earthly me.

This assumes that the corporeal self is real in the way you experience it. I think there's a pretty good chance this is not the case.

 

[Tao_Equus]

There is a team working in Germany that can tell with certainty what decision you will make up to 6 seconds before you make the concious choice. There is no higher self. When the electrical neurochemistry stops you stop. Science has proven this in now dozens of experiments. The only reason we have a belief in an afterlife is because we would like to believe it.

 

[wil]

There is a team working in Germany that can tell with certainty what decision you will make up to 6 seconds before you make the concious choice. There is no higher self. When the electrical neurochemistry stops you stop. Science has proven this in now dozens of experiments. The only reason we have a belief in an afterlife is because we would like to believe it.

This is what I love. There is just hardly anyone that doesn't insist that there way is the only way, and everyone else is off target.

Yes science has gone into the afterlife and proved it doesn't exist....so nice of them.

This from the same person who when someone is working on cutting down on alcohol consumption has a retort of the amount he is insisting on consuming. Oh and the same fellow that talks bad about fatties because they lack self control. What does science say about excessive drinking?

 

[Tao_Equus]

This is one of those things I just don't know. Technically, I guess, we could say that babies come from a sperm and an egg. But that's not really where they come from. It doesn't explain the mystery of consciousness coming to inhabit the physical body.

It is no mystery. Much of what we are is programmed into our DNA. DNA codes cultural memories, learned behaviours and the likes. There are some truly clever and amazing experiments with birds and mice that have proved this beyond all doubt. The concious self is really the poor servant of the unconscious. Which is why giving up things things we know may even be harmful to us is still difficult. And why all the best techniques to help are based on training the unconscious mind a new set of rules. We only actually use concious decision making for about 1% of concious decisions, the rest of the time the fat controller is at the helm. Our normal concept of our our concious selves is highly over-inflated. It is the veneer on a great hunk of wood that is the body and substance of who we are.

 

[the breeze]

There is a team working in Germany that can tell with certainty what decision you will make up to 6 seconds before you make the concious choice. There is no higher self. When the electrical neurochemistry stops you stop. Science has proven this in now dozens of experiments. The only reason we have a belief in an afterlife is because we would like to believe it.

Why are they bothering to do the experiments? Why aren't they out having a good time? They only have a few years, if that, then they, like you, will disappear forever.

So why do you waste precious time posting here?

 

[nativeastral]

why do they bother? they are trying to find truths or rather improve on what we think are truths.
there was a programme on recently [horizon] on why/how we talk, which is an expression of thought [chomsky for instance thinks it is innate] . this scientist biologist separated baby finches, before they learned from their father how to chirp, and were subsequently snubbed by the [mute]females until one got desparate enough. their offspring were still crap singers but the generations improved on their descendents until they were just as good as 'normal' finches.

they can't do the 'forbidden experiment' of isolating babies to find out more 'truths' concerning consciousness, thought/speech processes etc.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Why are they bothering to do the experiments? Why aren't they out having a good time? They only have a few years, if that, then they, like you, will disappear forever.

So why do you waste precious time posting here?

Why? Because the truths we reveal when we look for genuine answers are so very very beautiful. Natures infinite complexity is - in no matter which direction you look - just so infinitely diverse and wonderfully adapted through chance, cause and effect. I would not miss these brief years for anything. And I also try not to waste them overly much on banal fictions of greed, control, power, guilt and blindness. Maybe I like nature, the cosmos, so much because it does not have to pretend to be. It just is. And that is enough, with the gift of my limited senses and mind, for me.

 

[wil]

they can't do the 'forbidden experiment' of isolating babies to find out more 'truths' concerning consciousness, thought/speech processes etc.

Oh how I wanted to. When my twins were born I wanted them to tell me what things were, what they thought, but then I needed to tell them the words in which to communicate and live in this world and forever stunted their vocabulary and controlled their thinking.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Oh how I wanted to. When my twins were born I wanted them to tell me what things were, what they thought, but then I needed to tell them the words in which to communicate and live in this world and forever stunted their vocabulary and controlled their thinking.

That is where you are probably wrong. You did not need to. If you had not then they would have developed their own language which you, by reviewing the footage from your cellar, could then have deciphered.
I think I hear sirens Wil

 

[Raksha]

There is a team working in Germany that can tell with certainty what decision you will make up to 6 seconds before you make the concious choice. There is no higher self. When the electrical neurochemistry stops you stop. Science has proven this in now dozens of experiments. The only reason we have a belief in an afterlife is because we would like to believe it.

Tao,

That's absolutely fascinating, but what about it makes you immediately jump to the conclusion that "there is no higher self"? The fact that they can tell six seconds before you make a conscious decision what that decision will be suggests the complete opposite. To me, it suggests that there *IS* a higher self, but that higher self exists outside of linear time, in a realm (or state of being) where past, present and future are one.

I am making a connection here with the meaning of the divine name Ehyeh, which some of us were just discussing on another thread. The full name is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, which is usually tranlated "I am that I am." Shawn posted a link informing us that it would more accurately be translated, “I have been what I am what I will be,”
with the tenses either deliberately ambiguous or in a progression from past to present to future.

It kinda-sorta goes along with the "God is a verb" idea, don't you think? I guess I really like the idea of a dynamic, evolving God more than a static and unchanging one. But then I'm more comfortable with ambiguity than most people, who seem to want absolute, fixed, concrete answers to everything. I guess they find things like catechisms reassuring--books of concrete answers to abstract questions. What a bizarre notion! To me, those are dead answers or maybe I should say dead-end answers, and they just don't interest me very much.

--Linda

P.S. I have a friend on another forum who is very much into quantum physics. I'm going to see if I can drag him over here to interfaith.org/ so everyone can get REALLY confused!

Half the time I don't understand what he's talking about (or just barely), but he's totally brilliant and truly gets the concept of spacetime like nobody else I've ever known.

Chris: You already know who it is. Am I being sadistic or what?

 

[Raksha]

the truths we reveal when we look for genuine answers are so very very beautiful. Natures infinite complexity is - in no matter which direction you look - just so infinitely diverse and wonderfully adapted through chance, cause and effect. I would not miss these brief years for anything. And I also try not to waste them overly much on banal fictions of greed, control, power, guilt and blindness. Maybe I like nature, the cosmos, so much because it does not have to pretend to be. It just is. And that is enough, with the gift of my limited senses and mind, for me.

Tao,

Oh...beautiful! Now that's more like it!

So how can you say "there is no higher self" when your own higher self was clearly in play when you posted that note? You were looking through it and not at it...which is what you're supposed to do, of course. But sometimes it's worthwhile to look at it and become aware of it, just so you know it's there.

Come to think of it, I believe that's what meditation is supposed to be all about, not that I'm any expert on that particular subject.

--Linda

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao,

That's absolutely fascinating, but what about it makes you immediately jump to the conclusion that "there is no higher self"? The fact that they can tell six seconds before you make a conscious decision what that decision will be suggests the complete opposite. To me, it suggests that there *IS* a higher self, but that higher self exists outside of linear time, in a realm (or state of being) where past, present and future are one.

Perhaps on some level time does not have the linear procession we see, I suspect that is true. But the phrasing and implications you steer toward are countered by the tests themselves that show we are mostly unconcious automatons capable of employing a modicum of conciousness in emergencies, yet even there it is directed very firmly by the unconcious Time is not the illusion, free will is. This of course makes perfect sense when you look at our evolutionary line over geological timescales. Most of our evolutionary history was not as primates but as very simple animals that had unconcious survival adaptations. It is only our bipedal, omniverous and social evolution of the past few million years that selected for the development of language that led to this illusion of a self in the control seat. The reality is the vast majority of all action, reaction and the processing it requires happens in the subconcious. These tests I alluded to clearly define our primitive origins and paint a picture not of some quantum smoke and mirror game of time but the very real fact we are just ordinary animals. I suggest that it is not time that masks deeper truths but that mans flirtation with his god given nobility across time and religions has created such an endemic self-importance that it becomes difficult to accept we are just biological machines like every other living thing.



[/QUOTE]

So how can you say "there is no higher self" when your own higher self was clearly in play when you posted that note? You were looking through it and not at it...which is what you're supposed to do, of course. But sometimes it's worthwhile to look at it and become aware of it, just so you know it's there.

I think some here think I do not get what spirituality is. Or that my atheism has to be some nihilistic decent into futility. But what many here call spirituality is an emotion I know well. And my atheism is uplifting because it accepts only evidence, not purported truths. Together they give me a great appreciation of my time and place in space. I feel lucky to live now, very lucky. Whatever now is

 

[wil]

But the phrasing and implications you steer toward are countered by the tests themselves that show we are mostly unconcious automatons capable of employing a modicum of conciousness in emergencies, yet even there it is directed very firmly by the unconcious


Time is not the illusion, free will is.

I think some here think I do not get what spirituality is. Or that my atheism has to be some nihilistic decent into futility. But what many here call spirituality is an emotion I know well. And my atheism is uplifting because it accepts only evidence, not purported truths. Together they give me a great appreciation of my time and place in space. I feel lucky to live now, very lucky. Whatever now is

Namaste Tao,

Lastly firstly.... If your Athiesm only accepts evidence....do you have QED evidence that Spirit, Soul, G!D does not exist? If not shouldn't you be a little more open and be agnostic?

As to time, linear or Now isn't that being discussed in scientific circles as well? And you think Free will is an illusion? So you have no choice as to whether to go to the pub or not and I have no choice in this response?

Now Firstly lastly....this is an interesting one..that whole flight or fight thang? Isn't the latest and greatest concept that we are not unconcious but super conscious? That that whole experience of time slowing down when we are in an accident is actually because we have a reflex whereby when our head is in danger of getting smashed it tears apart 99% of our neuronet and only leaves in tact the highways we need to use to respond to the situation, ie eyes, ears, direct muscles, reflexes, hence time slows because everything is conentrated firing down those channels...and allows us to react to the stimulus at hand....also the reason the emergency people like to ask do you know your name, what day it is, who is the president, what year etc....to see how much of your neuronet is damaged or put back together....

 

[Paladin]

Lastly firstly.... If your Athiesm only accepts evidence....do you have QED evidence that Spirit, Soul, G!D does not exist? ....

Ummm. Wil ol buddy I jes got one question:

Really?

 

[the breeze]

I think some here think I do not get what spirituality is. Or that my atheism has to be some nihilistic decent into futility. But what many here call spirituality is an emotion I know well. And my atheism is uplifting because it accepts only evidence, not purported truths. Together they give me a great appreciation of my time and place in space. I feel lucky to live now, very lucky. Whatever now is

I think the use of a word like 'uplifting' is very loaded given your overall argument. After all isn't this just some chemical process taking place in your brain? I'm inclined to ask if you feel 'uplifted' (just another emotion) then so what?

Also wouldn't it be more precise to say you accept certain types of evidence from certain sources - and this is data that you yourself mostly can't check. Of course it could be that in ten or twenty years time another group of scientists will come up with evidence that contradicts the evidence you now base your opinions on.

Your decision to take seriously only information that appears in scientific journals is just as emotional as the decision to accept a spiritual idea. Maybe the ground beneath your feet isn't so solid as you like to think it is.

 

[Saltmeister]

There is a team working in Germany that can tell with certainty what decision you will make up to 6 seconds before you make the concious choice. There is no higher self. When the electrical neurochemistry stops you stop. Science has proven this in now dozens of experiments. The only reason we have a belief in an afterlife is because we would like to believe it.

lol So you are saying that this team in Germany can think six seconds faster than each of us alone? Tell me what device or technology do they use to achieve such speeds in thinking processes?

CPU manufacturers Intel and AMD develop, design and produce a faster CPU every two to three years. If someone can find a way to speed up our thinking processes that would be a revolution in business and commerce. Imagine that. A faster human brain every two or three years. Imagine the possibilities of a world driven by faster thinking and thought processes.

 

[the breeze]

Also Tao,

There is no higher self. When the electrical neurochemistry stops you stop. Science has proven this in now dozens of experiments.

Could you provide some links or references to show how and when science has 'proven' there is no higher self. Personally I think the 'higher self' idea is pretty dubious but I'm also pretty sure science has never directly addressed this question. The usual argument is that there is no positive scientific evidence for an 'afterlife' therefore there isn't one. Another dubious argument.

 

[nativeastral]

I agree Breeze, dubious is the word