Ayawasqero
Rising Star
gosvami said:
Great stuff, thanks!
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
The end of spiritualism
- Thread starter burnt
- Start date
Great stuff, thanks!
I don't think science has nothing to say about ethics. There are two things that should be mentioned: 1-science can explain ethics, but this does not result in ethics or a moral code 2-you can take it one step further and scientifically proof that a certain type of behaviour is 'better' than other behaviour, but there is no scientific model that is completely satisfying in this way. You can always cover just a certain field of ethics.
The hard scientific model has it's purpose; For those who use moral relativism as an escape of moral limitations for themselves. The armsdealer or businesman who distributes child-pornography can say that right and wrong do not realy exist and are only subjective statements, different for each individual...well, he doesn't realy believe this himself, because if he did he could make no objection then to being thrown into prison for his evil acts as well, wich he does. So the relativism is only used as an instrument to get away with all sort of things.
The scientific model would go like this: human biology add's up to a description of the human mind that can be used as a basic set of axiom's for human psychology. The most basic axiom would be that pain is a bad thing that has to be avoided at all cost; you could even argue that the definition of pain is that it's a sensation, you by definition don't want; pain=to be avoided.
the basic thing is that you don't have the choice, then to follow this axiom and that you could not want it to be different since this would be wanting the impossible.
This is solid ground to stand on. From here on you can justify rationalism as an instrument that can lead to the best possible results, since we have already agreed that you have no choice but to want this best possible results.
The mathematical strategic interaction models show two things: 1-that to reckon with the needs and desires of others is nessecary to get the best results and 2-that rationalism is not something you can completely determine.
The social contract is a set of rules that bring each individual further but only if everybody accepts each of the rules, even if one particular rule is not good for you or undesired. There could be a rule to sacrifice yourself in cases of an emergency and it would seem irrational to sign-up for a package that would contain this rule, but if signing-up for the package as a whole, brings benefits that outweigh this risk, you will sign it.
The moral argument is not aimed at those who do not accept ethics in the first place but to everybody who already agreed to sign the contract, to make clear that some kind of enforcement would occur. At the end there is another way of viewing any moralism: it's always 'them or us', refering to those with a different set of moral rules; for instance thiefs or rapists.
You could argue that as a social species we have evolved to such a degree that reckoning with the needs and desires of others has become part of our genetical design. There is evidence for this: the existance of so called mirror-neurons in our brain.
Nevertheless: anybody can see that there are two things, once again to be said: 1- a scientific aproach can lead to a lot more then you would initially think 2- at the end it is not completely satisfying.
The hard scientific model has it's purpose; For those who use moral relativism as an escape of moral limitations for themselves. The armsdealer or businesman who distributes child-pornography can say that right and wrong do not realy exist and are only subjective statements, different for each individual...well, he doesn't realy believe this himself, because if he did he could make no objection then to being thrown into prison for his evil acts as well, wich he does. So the relativism is only used as an instrument to get away with all sort of things.
The scientific model would go like this: human biology add's up to a description of the human mind that can be used as a basic set of axiom's for human psychology. The most basic axiom would be that pain is a bad thing that has to be avoided at all cost; you could even argue that the definition of pain is that it's a sensation, you by definition don't want; pain=to be avoided.
the basic thing is that you don't have the choice, then to follow this axiom and that you could not want it to be different since this would be wanting the impossible.
This is solid ground to stand on. From here on you can justify rationalism as an instrument that can lead to the best possible results, since we have already agreed that you have no choice but to want this best possible results.
The mathematical strategic interaction models show two things: 1-that to reckon with the needs and desires of others is nessecary to get the best results and 2-that rationalism is not something you can completely determine.
The social contract is a set of rules that bring each individual further but only if everybody accepts each of the rules, even if one particular rule is not good for you or undesired. There could be a rule to sacrifice yourself in cases of an emergency and it would seem irrational to sign-up for a package that would contain this rule, but if signing-up for the package as a whole, brings benefits that outweigh this risk, you will sign it.
The moral argument is not aimed at those who do not accept ethics in the first place but to everybody who already agreed to sign the contract, to make clear that some kind of enforcement would occur. At the end there is another way of viewing any moralism: it's always 'them or us', refering to those with a different set of moral rules; for instance thiefs or rapists.
You could argue that as a social species we have evolved to such a degree that reckoning with the needs and desires of others has become part of our genetical design. There is evidence for this: the existance of so called mirror-neurons in our brain.
Nevertheless: anybody can see that there are two things, once again to be said: 1- a scientific aproach can lead to a lot more then you would initially think 2- at the end it is not completely satisfying.
I may have not been clear enough but what I am talking about is not the traditional double split experiment. I am referring to more modern experiments in which one photon or one electron was fired at a time. So there is no two waves of interference causing the interference pattern to come about. What's causing the the interference pattern is the quantum randomness further confirming the indeterminism of quantum mechanics.
I don't mean to imply that any of this is classical nor that its like traditional statistics.
I am in no way asserting that human beings are the only consciousness in the universe. I think most animals have some form of consciousness. My point is how can consciousness exist without organized matter? I find the claim that consciousness is more fundamental then energy baseless. That's what I am disputing against.
Its not the only knowledge which I tried to state by saying when you throw a rock in a pool you know it will make a splash and ripples. You don't need science to know that. You need science to know how mechanistically its happening. Or to predict how a big object splash will be proportional to the objects size etc. People know lots of things without science. But if we want to learn more and learn deeper mechanisms behind things we need science.
Its pretty obvious a dead body is not conscious.
Its pretty obvious a living person is conscious.
Why does it have to be more complicated then that? It is more complicated then that of course. But we can measure conscious activity. I don't see why people think that it is impossible to measure aspects of conscious experience.
Sure it does. It tells that consciousness is a product of brain activity. It shows that certain aspects of brain activity such as neural pathways or specific brain regions ARE involved in very specific aspects of consciousness.
Right and wrong is mostly subjective. Its up to individuals decide what is right and wrong. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone what is right and wrong. Obviously things that are damaging like murder and stealing most people in any society consider wrong for obvious reasons. I believe in individual freedom and don't think its the role of science to dictate morals. Science can talk about evolutionary advantages but that doesn't mean its right or wrong evolution has no morals it just is.
I don't see it as boring or cold at all. I am in awe of the universe and the fact that I get to exist in it.
I don't think whatever is guiding the universe is conscious I guess that's the difference between the way I am looking at this and the way a spiritual person would look at it.
The big bang is not a myth. It may not be entirely correct but its certainly more closer to being correct then any other creation or story about the beginning of the universe. There is DIRECT evidence that the universe started out really small and grew really big and is still growing. There is no evidence for any religious creation story.
Why does it need a reason? Humans want to give it a reason to feel that they are special but to me it seems irrelevant.
Sure it is. It gets closer all the time. We map the cosmos. We test aspects of reality. How is that not getting closer to explaining things? I won't make claims that we will figure it all out because I don't know that might not ever happen but who cares? That doesn't mean science isn't any closer or hasn't learned anything.
What makes you think there is a "rest"? If there is evidence or if people can interact with this "rest" then its measurable and thus within the realm of science to learn about. If this "rest" is not measurable and does not interact with ordinary matter (which makes us) then its not important for anything we experience.
Just look at dark matter. It doesn't interact with light at all which is weird. But it does have a gravitational pull so it is interacting with matter and thus we can learn about what it might be. Of course science could be totally wrong about dark matter but I just want to show that anything that interacts with matter is within the realm of science. If it doesn't interact with matter or this universe at all then its not important and doesn't explain anything spiritual.
This guy explains the quantum myth better then I do:
Victor Stenger The future of naturalism interview
It can be found on you tube its 30 minutes.
Victor Stenger The future of naturalism interview
It can be found on you tube its 30 minutes.
Ayawasqero
Rising Star
burnt said:
Pretty long post, IMHO. I hope it´s as fundated and informative as long.
what if this "universal conciousness" or whatever, exists in the distant or near future?? I mean, you can argue that we have no real soul, and nothing concious guiding us..but what about out future than?? what we are to become? what is to be of conciousness and technology?..I dont need to look back for an origin, thats too linear for me anyway..sometime I like to look forward to a time when humans will build god.
Seems like an interesting topic. I haven't read it all, but I agree with the first post that the new age spiritualism of creating your own reality is crap.
I don't fully agree with the materialist perspective though.
I've combined smoked DMT with monoatomic gold, and during that experience, I had no trip or anything like DMT normally gives, but I saw through my eyelids apparently. My eyes were closed. And I saw. I saw my surroundings, everything, like my eyes were open. Now you say imagination of your surroundings, a good hallucination of familiar surroundings.
It lasted 30 seconds, during which I walked around with closed eyes seeing like with open eyes.
Then it faded, and came back later that day, to fade again, and come back one more time.
That last time I was in a car, totally *unfamiliar surroundings*. And I still saw.
Strange thing was, the way this time it ended (I think it lasted longer than 30 seconds that time), is that I saw like a haze of black light obstructing my sight. Yes black light, I saw this blackness as light. It was like a cloud almost or something. I could still make out the shapes of people but they were made of this black haze. Then it faded I think. There also was a white light similar to this black light that obstructed my sight, but I don't remember which was first, the white or the black. Both came, then my seeing through closed eyes disappeared.
That night I had my first lucid dream too. I just woke up consciosly in my dream like fully conscious realizing I was in it. It was pretty cool.
I don't understand how it works, but I think it's related to the monoatomic gold.
Ancient lore says this stuff is edible light.
I have thought it could be something like when this is in the body, you produce light from the inside out, instead of needing to rely on light as coming from the sun or a light source outside uhm, the observing... yeah well I don't know, it's just that I think it's related to producing light from oneself.
I have had other experiences with this gold, probably, that made me think physics is not correct.
I've had an overheating experience end 2006/begin 2007, that was probably 'kundalini energy' related. I'm not going to go into that as I don't know how this energy can be objectively measured and shown to exist, but I will say at times it felt like magnetic bands of energy you can control with your will (but sometimes it was real hard).
Either way, what happened one day, is that I started to feel inner heat, like a dry heat with rising blood pressure similar to what mushrooms give. Except this came and went in a cyclical manner. Coming for an hour, going for two hours. And it always became stronger. The longer this continued, the hotter and drier I felt on the inside, and I got an unsatiable thirst. I drank water, but this didn't seem to help.
It got so bad that I needed cold air to cool off.
In fact my brother drove me to the airport after a day or three, and when in the car, the car heater burned my skin. Literally the hot air felt like it burned. I was going at like 120 km an hour in mid december in the cold, and with the window open, the ice cold wind, felt soft and good on my skin.
You know when I had this dry inner body heat, it felt like my body would explode from the inside. Something like that. I know I wasn't happy with what I was experiencing but it was pretty unusual if you ask me.
I'm not sure it's a 'spiritual' thing but it definitely seems related to physics.
I had a dream at that time too that said I was radioactive.
I woke up with blood at my palate.
I turn on my pc, to look up radioactivity, and as a first thing I read that blood at the palate is a sign of radioactivity damage in the brain. I was totally unaware of it and not looking for info related to the blood I had at the palate.
Radioactive elements send out particles or rays? Emit energy? Maybe this was related to the heat I experienced.
It's probably related to the gold I took, as I read in an alchemical book from the 80s, that an alchemist tested her 'stone', and claimed even though it was made from gold, that it tested as a radioactive substance. It was also a very heavy powder.
The most intriguinig I found seeing with closed eyes. This violates physics as we know it I think. Light should be blocked by flesh no?
I don't fully agree with the materialist perspective though.
I've combined smoked DMT with monoatomic gold, and during that experience, I had no trip or anything like DMT normally gives, but I saw through my eyelids apparently. My eyes were closed. And I saw. I saw my surroundings, everything, like my eyes were open. Now you say imagination of your surroundings, a good hallucination of familiar surroundings.
It lasted 30 seconds, during which I walked around with closed eyes seeing like with open eyes.
Then it faded, and came back later that day, to fade again, and come back one more time.
That last time I was in a car, totally *unfamiliar surroundings*. And I still saw.
Strange thing was, the way this time it ended (I think it lasted longer than 30 seconds that time), is that I saw like a haze of black light obstructing my sight. Yes black light, I saw this blackness as light. It was like a cloud almost or something. I could still make out the shapes of people but they were made of this black haze. Then it faded I think. There also was a white light similar to this black light that obstructed my sight, but I don't remember which was first, the white or the black. Both came, then my seeing through closed eyes disappeared.
That night I had my first lucid dream too. I just woke up consciosly in my dream like fully conscious realizing I was in it. It was pretty cool.
I don't understand how it works, but I think it's related to the monoatomic gold.
Ancient lore says this stuff is edible light.
I have thought it could be something like when this is in the body, you produce light from the inside out, instead of needing to rely on light as coming from the sun or a light source outside uhm, the observing... yeah well I don't know, it's just that I think it's related to producing light from oneself.
I have had other experiences with this gold, probably, that made me think physics is not correct.
I've had an overheating experience end 2006/begin 2007, that was probably 'kundalini energy' related. I'm not going to go into that as I don't know how this energy can be objectively measured and shown to exist, but I will say at times it felt like magnetic bands of energy you can control with your will (but sometimes it was real hard).
Either way, what happened one day, is that I started to feel inner heat, like a dry heat with rising blood pressure similar to what mushrooms give. Except this came and went in a cyclical manner. Coming for an hour, going for two hours. And it always became stronger. The longer this continued, the hotter and drier I felt on the inside, and I got an unsatiable thirst. I drank water, but this didn't seem to help.
It got so bad that I needed cold air to cool off.
In fact my brother drove me to the airport after a day or three, and when in the car, the car heater burned my skin. Literally the hot air felt like it burned. I was going at like 120 km an hour in mid december in the cold, and with the window open, the ice cold wind, felt soft and good on my skin.
You know when I had this dry inner body heat, it felt like my body would explode from the inside. Something like that. I know I wasn't happy with what I was experiencing but it was pretty unusual if you ask me.
I'm not sure it's a 'spiritual' thing but it definitely seems related to physics.
I had a dream at that time too that said I was radioactive.
I woke up with blood at my palate.
I turn on my pc, to look up radioactivity, and as a first thing I read that blood at the palate is a sign of radioactivity damage in the brain. I was totally unaware of it and not looking for info related to the blood I had at the palate.
Radioactive elements send out particles or rays? Emit energy? Maybe this was related to the heat I experienced.
It's probably related to the gold I took, as I read in an alchemical book from the 80s, that an alchemist tested her 'stone', and claimed even though it was made from gold, that it tested as a radioactive substance. It was also a very heavy powder.
The most intriguinig I found seeing with closed eyes. This violates physics as we know it I think. Light should be blocked by flesh no?
All I am saying is there is not two seperate objects interfering. I don't see whats so wrong with that. I never said that one photon was not interfering with itself which is a way of looking at it. However when you fire one photon you get one dot. When you keep firing them you get the interference pattern. I don't see what's wrong with that? Thats been confirmed by modern experiments.
Like I said I am not talking about the traditional double split experiments done by Thomas Young. Regardless my point was that the wave particle duality doesn't confirm spiritual beliefs about us creating reality because the idea is a bit of a misnomer. Light is photons.
I know that. I admit I am probably not explaining it well.
My point is that these subjective experiments or experiences are meaningless. They confirm nothing without objective analysis.
Throwing a rock in a puddle is fine explanation. You don't need science to figure it out. But you can use it if you want to describe it. You don't need science to know that you need to eat for example. I don't agree with this statement.
If consciousness has any interaction with matter or is a result of matter (as I am claiming) then it MUST be measurable. Don't people understand that?
We measure certain aspects of consciousness all the time. I am getting tired of people saying we don't because we do.
Sorry yes. How can you even begin to deny that?
When certain parts of your brain are damaged or stimulated you can make certain aspects of human consciousness appear or go away. This is VERY WELL KNOWN in neuroscience.
Exactly life the universe everything has no meaning. It is only mind language and culture that gives it meaning. Which we make up.
Brainwave activity is not synonymous with consciousness but it is a wave of measuring that the brain is doing something and may be in some conscious state or another. Anyway its not an old argument. Its still the best model we got. Your conscious experience is a result of a bunch of chemicals and there is NO SINGLE PIECE OF CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that sais otherwise.
You all claim your subjective experience is that proof but I am telling you its not because if it is then something about consciousness is interacting with you with your matter. If it is we must detect it. We do detect it actually we know that psychedelic and mystical experience are also a result of chemical reactions in the brain. I am not making this up. This is how your brain seems to be working.
This may one day be possible. But anyway yes you can now with brain imaging technology for example hook someone up and show pictures of someone they love (like family love) and see the flashes going off in the parts of their brain involved in love. You can also show them something to make them feel lusty and see other parts going off. They do this kind of experiments all the time now with all kinds of behaviors and emotions.
Human beings made up the idea of ethics. We can study why we did and how it benefits or harms us but the words benefit and harm are also things humans made up.
I don't want to regress into pointless philosophical arguments about ethics. It sais nothing about us having or not having a soul.
I would say its mostly subjective minus instincts. But it doesn't matter. So what science can't dictate morals? I never claimed it should. It counters nothing about my original argument.
Are you smoking gold particles? Isn't that dangerous?
Universal consciousness would require information to travel faster then the speed of light. If that really is not possible then its not going to happen.
Who knows what we will become. If we continue to evolve we will have to adapt to our changing earth and also adapt better for space travel because our star will die. This is our only hope for survival.
Wheteher you can reduce counsciousness to just brain-activity is just what's being debated here and thus you cannot say without stating your position in this entire debate first, that any other position is a false one.
^^poly I agree and I am not saying the other view point is out right false I am just saying it lacks much needed evidence and that the material view point has an explanation for all these things.
No worries fiashly I don't see this as insulting at all. I expect this issue is quite sensitive for most people so I respect anyone who takes it this far. I also don't mean to be offensive but if I am note its not intentional.
Concerning the quantum mechanics issues. Since I can't explain it any clearer let me give you a link to an article that completely explains what I was trying to say about quantum mechanics. Its written by a physicist. Its short and has references to further material. The author has also written quite extensively on the subject of the myth of quantum spiritualism.
If you dispute with what he sais then we can discuss the specifics of that but for now lets put that issue aside.
I don't consider myself a nihilist. What I mean when I say life has no meaning is that no external force prescribes my life meaning. There is no god who sais "you live to do this" there is no human mind idea that sais "you must live for the state and society" that I follow. There is no spirit that sais "you must find inner peace".
That leaves my life open for me to prescribe it meaning as it does for every other individual who chooses to ignore dogma. I love my friends and family and the work that I do. That's all the meaning I need and I hope to spread that through having children one day. To me this way of looking at it is more open more free and more satisfying then any religious of spiritual viewpoint that someone else came up with.
I hope you can see why I then do not consider myself a nihilist. By the way I can't stand philosophers like Nietze and all those other nihilist materialists. I think they were fools.
So we are dealing with two issues:
Is everything within the realm of science?
Is consciousness strictly a result of brain activity?
Science can say that the human being feels ethics and guilt for an evolutionary purpose and I think that is why we have these emotions and ideas. Science can explain why one person feels guilt and some people have no guilt. The are wired differently or grew up with different experiences which wired them differently.
I can't think of things that are outside the realm of scientific analysis? I really can't. But just because scienctific analysis is used doesn't mean it will find the answer. But I don't understand why some things are just outside the realm of science. Maybe certain aspects are but I don't see how something like ethics is. Ethics are fully analyzable. Science doesn't decide of dictate ethics but it can study them. Its up to the individual to decide their ethics. But I believe in individual freedom so I would never ever claim science should dictate ethics.
Actually there are some very specific kinds of damage that lead to some very specific kinds of loss of consciousness type behavoirs. Such as visual neglect.
But I do not think or claim each part of consciousness is in a specific physical region of the brain. Its too spread out and interconnected for that.
Yes consciousness does exist in my world view. You just can't get over the fact that it might all be a result of your brain chemistry. Most people can't get over that. Most people can't even begin to fathom that's all there is. I have and I am quite comfortable with it.
Actually there are experiments being done on exactly this kind of awareness. They can be found in any modern neuroscience text.
I said something that is true about meaning and where it comes from. YOU GIVE YOUR LIFE MEANING. Nothing else can force that on you no matter how brutal your government or family or friends or priest are. Most people just give an accept. You obviously have found your own meaning and that's good but you think that meaning comes from some spiritual realm when I am saying it comes from you, your life, your experiences.
Ok now your just ignoring what I am saying. Your ignoring all the experiments and data we have that prove aspects of what I am saying are correct. Do you want more specific examples of more specific experiments?
Again its not that specific. Its spread out an interconnected. But yes we can tell when you are paying attention too and observing the squirrel as opposed to day dreaming. There is a CLEAR difference in neural activity.
Right and wrong is 100% subjective. I think certain things most people could never stomach. Like mass murder rape etc. We are wired and brought up to see those things as bad. But there are some people who can and who engage in things and who do not care about others. Just look at certain animal behaviors. Male bears go around and kill female bear cubs and then rape the female. Is that right or wrong? You can't say whether it is right or wrong. Its nature. We are part of nature.
I don't believe in the spirit realm. I do not think it exists. I think it is a construct of the human mind which is a result of brain activity. So no nothing you have said has changed my mind. That doesn't mean I don't feel compassion or love for people. That doesn't mean I don't care about my life. It just means I don't believe in things that aren't real. I don't believe in faries for the same reason.
No worries fiashly I don't see this as insulting at all. I expect this issue is quite sensitive for most people so I respect anyone who takes it this far. I also don't mean to be offensive but if I am note its not intentional.
Concerning the quantum mechanics issues. Since I can't explain it any clearer let me give you a link to an article that completely explains what I was trying to say about quantum mechanics. Its written by a physicist. Its short and has references to further material. The author has also written quite extensively on the subject of the myth of quantum spiritualism.
If you dispute with what he sais then we can discuss the specifics of that but for now lets put that issue aside.
I don't consider myself a nihilist. What I mean when I say life has no meaning is that no external force prescribes my life meaning. There is no god who sais "you live to do this" there is no human mind idea that sais "you must live for the state and society" that I follow. There is no spirit that sais "you must find inner peace".
That leaves my life open for me to prescribe it meaning as it does for every other individual who chooses to ignore dogma. I love my friends and family and the work that I do. That's all the meaning I need and I hope to spread that through having children one day. To me this way of looking at it is more open more free and more satisfying then any religious of spiritual viewpoint that someone else came up with.
I hope you can see why I then do not consider myself a nihilist. By the way I can't stand philosophers like Nietze and all those other nihilist materialists. I think they were fools.
So we are dealing with two issues:
Is everything within the realm of science?
Is consciousness strictly a result of brain activity?
Science can say that the human being feels ethics and guilt for an evolutionary purpose and I think that is why we have these emotions and ideas. Science can explain why one person feels guilt and some people have no guilt. The are wired differently or grew up with different experiences which wired them differently.
I can't think of things that are outside the realm of scientific analysis? I really can't. But just because scienctific analysis is used doesn't mean it will find the answer. But I don't understand why some things are just outside the realm of science. Maybe certain aspects are but I don't see how something like ethics is. Ethics are fully analyzable. Science doesn't decide of dictate ethics but it can study them. Its up to the individual to decide their ethics. But I believe in individual freedom so I would never ever claim science should dictate ethics.
Actually there are some very specific kinds of damage that lead to some very specific kinds of loss of consciousness type behavoirs. Such as visual neglect.
But I do not think or claim each part of consciousness is in a specific physical region of the brain. Its too spread out and interconnected for that.
Yes consciousness does exist in my world view. You just can't get over the fact that it might all be a result of your brain chemistry. Most people can't get over that. Most people can't even begin to fathom that's all there is. I have and I am quite comfortable with it.
Actually there are experiments being done on exactly this kind of awareness. They can be found in any modern neuroscience text.
I said something that is true about meaning and where it comes from. YOU GIVE YOUR LIFE MEANING. Nothing else can force that on you no matter how brutal your government or family or friends or priest are. Most people just give an accept. You obviously have found your own meaning and that's good but you think that meaning comes from some spiritual realm when I am saying it comes from you, your life, your experiences.
Ok now your just ignoring what I am saying. Your ignoring all the experiments and data we have that prove aspects of what I am saying are correct. Do you want more specific examples of more specific experiments?
Again its not that specific. Its spread out an interconnected. But yes we can tell when you are paying attention too and observing the squirrel as opposed to day dreaming. There is a CLEAR difference in neural activity.
Right and wrong is 100% subjective. I think certain things most people could never stomach. Like mass murder rape etc. We are wired and brought up to see those things as bad. But there are some people who can and who engage in things and who do not care about others. Just look at certain animal behaviors. Male bears go around and kill female bear cubs and then rape the female. Is that right or wrong? You can't say whether it is right or wrong. Its nature. We are part of nature.
I don't believe in the spirit realm. I do not think it exists. I think it is a construct of the human mind which is a result of brain activity. So no nothing you have said has changed my mind. That doesn't mean I don't feel compassion or love for people. That doesn't mean I don't care about my life. It just means I don't believe in things that aren't real. I don't believe in faries for the same reason.
hey vlad, you said
"You know when I had this dry inner body heat, it felt like my body would explode from the inside. Something like that. I know I wasn't happy with what I was experiencing but it was pretty unusual if you ask me."
I constantly feel like I am exploding from the inside. I am always working on suppressing it's intensity. What did you do to overcome this?
"You know when I had this dry inner body heat, it felt like my body would explode from the inside. Something like that. I know I wasn't happy with what I was experiencing but it was pretty unusual if you ask me."
I constantly feel like I am exploding from the inside. I am always working on suppressing it's intensity. What did you do to overcome this?
DMTripper
John Murdoch IV
Science is good but is based on laws of the physical world. It explains the physical world in a good way. But it doesn't cover things beyond that.
And before saying the spirit or spiritual experiences are not real, people need to define what's real. And if your definition of real is that only things that fit into the laws of the physical world are real, then that only tells me that your mind is limited to the physical world.
For me spiritualism is just a word for the next level of awareness. Awareness of the higher dimensions. Which science has no explanation for because it's based on the laws of the physical dimension. Only string theory and quantum physics are anywhere close.
I know what's real for me
And reality for me is sooooo much more than reality for most people And I'm quite happy with my reality. It is fukkin awesome and exciting
And before saying the spirit or spiritual experiences are not real, people need to define what's real. And if your definition of real is that only things that fit into the laws of the physical world are real, then that only tells me that your mind is limited to the physical world.
For me spiritualism is just a word for the next level of awareness. Awareness of the higher dimensions. Which science has no explanation for because it's based on the laws of the physical dimension. Only string theory and quantum physics are anywhere close.
I know what's real for me
And reality for me is sooooo much more than reality for most people And I'm quite happy with my reality. It is fukkin awesome and exciting
MagikVenom
Rising Star
slidewinder said:
That is common and documented after the heat and burn comes the light bla bla bla.............. the bardos ,limbo ,bla bla bla
There is no reason what so ever to consider this common event to any mystical thing. Its deserves no discussion in todays world.
Yeah its me straight from hell to spread the kind word:lol:
PEACE/TRUTH
MV
We define what love is. We define what happiness is. That is done through our language and culture. We say that when we feel love it feels a certain way. We try to describe it. We notice that it brings us close to someone or others etc. But we made the word love. If no one ever told me the words for emotions I wouldn't be able to describe them I would just feel them and attach no word or description too it. But its still real and its still a result and cause of brain chemistry.
Neurochemically when we feel what we describe as love there is a specific set of chemical reactions going on. There is also a different neurochemical set of reactions going on in lusty type love and in long term family type love. We know this. This doesn't mean love is not real. It just means that this is what goes on in your brain when you feel love. Also its important to realize that its not just the chemical reactions and neurotransmitters spilling into the synapse that creates consciousness. Consciousness is the SUM of that activity.
Science is not built on faith thats the big difference with science and religion/spirituality. The assertion that science is built on faith is wrong.
Materialistic science can explain why you have spiritual experiences without having to add on any higher levels of awareness or other dimensions or whatever else people claim explains these experiences.
This is an important point that I want to cover.
The human brain is capable of free will. Human beings are both rational and irrational beings. I completely believe in free will and do not think it contradicts anything modern neuroscience says about how our brain and consciousness works in fact I think it confirms it.
Its not all deterministic.
Ok so then I see what you mean though. That I don't need science to tell me what love is. But science can still analyze and describe love. No big deal again.
I think science is now ready to prove that these experiences are nothing more then the circuits in your brain misfiring. In fact in many cases it already has just look as psychosis and schizophrenia. We know its brain mistakes.
Your brain puts a lot of effort into making your picture of reality. Drug or excercises or damage that change this have a profound impact on your perceptions.
I think maybe it was Carl Sagan who said extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations.
You are not giving any explanation except the "spirit world" for your extraordinary claims. I am giving an explanation that is FULLY backed by scienctific evidence and reasoning.
Your sucking me into a circular argument that's going nowhere. I already explained we don't need science to say "I am in love" (emotions). Or "I don't like to hurt people" (ethics). But science can analyze why we feel all those these. So what I am saying is nothing is outside the realm of scientific analysis NOT all knowledge must be science based.
Therefore your claim that consciousness is the fundamental to the make up of the universe is subject to scientific analysis and it fails dead in the water. The universe does not require consciousness to exist. We know this because the universe exists before we or any other conscious life form on this planet.
Neurochemically when we feel what we describe as love there is a specific set of chemical reactions going on. There is also a different neurochemical set of reactions going on in lusty type love and in long term family type love. We know this. This doesn't mean love is not real. It just means that this is what goes on in your brain when you feel love. Also its important to realize that its not just the chemical reactions and neurotransmitters spilling into the synapse that creates consciousness. Consciousness is the SUM of that activity.
Science is not built on faith thats the big difference with science and religion/spirituality. The assertion that science is built on faith is wrong.
Materialistic science can explain why you have spiritual experiences without having to add on any higher levels of awareness or other dimensions or whatever else people claim explains these experiences.
This is an important point that I want to cover.
The human brain is capable of free will. Human beings are both rational and irrational beings. I completely believe in free will and do not think it contradicts anything modern neuroscience says about how our brain and consciousness works in fact I think it confirms it.
Its not all deterministic.
Ok so then I see what you mean though. That I don't need science to tell me what love is. But science can still analyze and describe love. No big deal again.
I think science is now ready to prove that these experiences are nothing more then the circuits in your brain misfiring. In fact in many cases it already has just look as psychosis and schizophrenia. We know its brain mistakes.
Your brain puts a lot of effort into making your picture of reality. Drug or excercises or damage that change this have a profound impact on your perceptions.
I think maybe it was Carl Sagan who said extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations.
You are not giving any explanation except the "spirit world" for your extraordinary claims. I am giving an explanation that is FULLY backed by scienctific evidence and reasoning.
Your sucking me into a circular argument that's going nowhere. I already explained we don't need science to say "I am in love" (emotions). Or "I don't like to hurt people" (ethics). But science can analyze why we feel all those these. So what I am saying is nothing is outside the realm of scientific analysis NOT all knowledge must be science based.
Therefore your claim that consciousness is the fundamental to the make up of the universe is subject to scientific analysis and it fails dead in the water. The universe does not require consciousness to exist. We know this because the universe exists before we or any other conscious life form on this planet.