• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Universe from Nothing?

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Probably trying to get your attention to watch what you were doing. It cannot work with a physically drunken brain. Your ego made a decision to get drunk, pointing to the need to be mindful (conscious) of what you're doing at every moment.

What do you mean with my ego? Was that separate from that consciousness of mine? Was the connection broken before I took the first shot?

And what does it mean that my consciousness was trying to get my attention? It seems absurd.

You seem to indicate that there are two things, running independently. My ego, and my consciousness. Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
You still have not addressed the question of where this non-material consciousness ends and the outside world begins. The bony skull cannot 'contain' non-materiality as if it were water in a glass. Show me the point of transition.
There is no "non-material" consciousness or "transition". It's the brain that thinks and feels and is conscious about itself and thinks "I am" and it's only electrochemical interactions in the brain itself.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
I was not an atheist at the time. Go figure. Likewise, it took several years to drill down through this multi-layered, multidimensional experience. No doubt I will discover much more over the next several years.


Again, for the dim or slow, understanding is an evolutionary process. The huge mistake is to take such a vision at face value, pun intended. If you ever have to good fortune to have such an encounter you will understand some of what I am trying to convey. The problem is that the image is so dazzling that it is very easy to get sucked into it and miss what is going on behind the scenes. You say this is not unusual. It is the very definition of an unusual experience and is hardly a commonplace occurrence. I'm not suggesting I'm the only one to have been treated to this level of intrigue, but I clearly recognize that is very much out of the ordinary realm of endeavors.

Again, it was this experience that has helped to form the basis or foundation of a definition of personality that is well beyond what we are used to hearing. The idea is that at the core of the individual is the larger identity of the source self. You could also describe this as the entity which is an individualized aspect of consciousness that is by nature, multidimensional, in that it exists in innumerable different realities simultaneously and is aware of itself in each of those realities. In larger terms, the source self, the larger identity is what gave rise to our notions of god. God is the externalized version of our latent and highly distorted ideas or perception of the larger identity. Last, but not least, all aspects of the source self as one with the source self though inherent awareness of this internal feature is rarely conscious to the aspect self. Finally, your larger identity is not my larger identity. The much vaunted Oneness we hear about so often is a ruse and a distortion of the above.

The rinban talks about the multi-layered, multidimensional experience. I think he described it not in those terms, but layers or levels of consciousness. When you talk about dimensions, are you referring to spacetime or is there more dimensions beyond that?

What I remember most is the rinban emphasized the now. Whenever, I start overthinking the Bible or anything else, I focus on the now and realize that is what is important. He said something like (sorry I'm paraphrasing) enjoy the cherry blossoms today instead of thinking about it tomorrow when a storm may come in the middle of the night.

EDIT: Oops. Here's the exact quote.

"“Like the cherry blossom, the heart planning on tomorrow is ephemeral indeed – what sudden storm may not arise in the middle of the night”. -- Shinran Shonin.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
There is no "non-material" consciousness or "transition". It's the brain that thinks and feels and is conscious about itself and thinks "I am" and it's only electrochemical interactions in the brain itself.

Ugh. I hate to judge, but this is so primitive. Is this your own conclusion or did you read this from Dawkins or some other atheist primer? Where is the mind? There is no mind. Only the brain.

Goes back to the 50s as behaviorism.

"1. History
Attempts to understand the mind and its operation go back at least to the Ancient Greeks, when philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle tried to explain the nature of human knowledge. The study of mind remained the province of philosophy until the nineteenth century, when experimental psychology developed. Wilhelm Wundt and his students initiated laboratory methods for studying mental operations more systematically. Within a few decades, however, experimental psychology became dominated by behaviorism, a view that virtually denied the existence of mind. According to behaviorists such as J. B. Watson, psychology should restrict itself to examining the relation between observable stimuli and observable behavioral responses. Talk of consciousness and mental representations was banished from respectable scientific discussion. Especially in North America, behaviorism dominated the psychological scene through the 1950s. Around 1956, the intellectual landscape began to change dramatically. George Miller summarized numerous studies which showed that the capacity of human thinking is limited, with short-term memory, for example, limited to around seven items. He proposed that memory limitations can be overcome by recoding information into chunks, mental representations that require mental procedures for encoding and decoding the information. At this time, primitive computers had been around for only a few years, but pioneers such as John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Allen Newell, and Herbert Simon were founding the field of artificial intelligence. In addition, Noam Chomsky rejected behaviorist assumptions about language as a learned habit and proposed instead to explain language comprehension in terms of mental grammars consisting of rules. The six thinkers mentioned in this paragraph can be viewed as the founders of cognitive science."

Consciousness
First published Fri Jun 18, 2004; substantive revision Tue Jan 14, 2014
Perhaps no aspect of mind is more familiar or more puzzling than consciousness and our conscious experience of self and world. The problem of consciousness is arguably the central issue in current theorizing about the mind. Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory of consciousness, there is a widespread, if less than universal, consensus that an adequate account of mind requires a clear understanding of it and its place in nature. We need to understand both what consciousness is and how it relates to other, nonconscious, aspects of reality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

Cognitive Science
First published Mon Sep 23, 1996; substantive revision Fri Jul 11, 2014
Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary study of mind and intelligence, embracing philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics, and anthropology. Its intellectual origins are in the mid-1950s when researchers in several fields began to develop theories of mind based on complex representations and computational procedures. Its organizational origins are in the mid-1970s when the Cognitive Science Society was formed and the journal Cognitive Science began. Since then, more than ninety universities in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia have established cognitive science programs, and many others have instituted courses in cognitive science.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/

The Philosophy of Neuroscience
First published Mon Jun 7, 1999; substantive revision Tue May 25, 2010
Over the past three decades, philosophy of science has grown increasingly “local.” Concerns have switched from general features of scientific practice to concepts, issues, and puzzles specific to particular disciplines. Philosophy of neuroscience is a natural result. This emerging area was also spurred by remarkable recent growth in the neurosciences. Cognitive and computational neuroscience continues to encroach upon issues traditionally addressed within the humanities, including the nature of consciousness, action, knowledge, and normativity. Empirical discoveries about brain structure and function suggest ways that “naturalistic” programs might develop in detail, beyond the abstract philosophical considerations in their favor.

The literature distinguishes “philosophy of neuroscience” and “neurophilosophy.” The former concerns foundational issues within the neurosciences. The latter concerns application of neuroscientific concepts to traditional philosophical questions. Exploring various concepts of representation employed in neuroscientific theories is an example of the former. Examining implications of neurological syndromes for the concept of a unified self is an example of the latter. In this entry, we will assume this distinction and discuss examples of both.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/
 
Last edited:

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Ugh. I hate to judge, but this is so primitive. Is this your own conclusion or did you read this from Dawkins or some other atheist primer? Where is the mind? There is no mind. Only the brain.
Of course there is a mind. It's the brain. Brain is a synonym for mind.

Mind.

"1.
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
"a lot of thoughts ran through my mind"
synonyms: brain,"

I don't know how to link to this. It's what comes up first when putting "mind definition" in Google.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
What do you mean with my ego? Was that separate from that consciousness of mine? Was the connection broken before I took the first shot?

And what does it mean that my consciousness was trying to get my attention? It seems absurd.

You seem to indicate that there are two things, running independently. My ego, and my consciousness. Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

“Upon the same tree there are two birds, one on the top, the other below. The one on the top is calm, silent, and majestic, immersed in his own glory; the one on the lower branches, eating sweet and bitter fruits by turns, hopping from branch to branch, is becoming happy and miserable by turns. After a time, the lower birds eats an exceptionally bitter fruit, and feeling miserable, he looks up and sees the other bird, that wondrous one of golden plumage who eats neither sweet nor bitter fruit, who is neither happy nor miserable, but calm and centered in the Spirit. The lower bird longs for this condition, but soon forgets it, and again begins to eat the fruit, which makes him once again feel miserable, and he again looks up, and he tries to get nearer to the upper bird. Once more he forgets, and after a time he looks up again, and so on he goes again and again, until he comes very near to the beautiful bird and sees the reflection of light from its plumage playing around his own body. He feels a change, and as he comes nearer, he seems to melt away, and everything about him melts away until as last he understands this wonderful change. The lower bird was, as it were, only the shadow, the reflection of the higher; he himself was in essence the upper bird all the time. This eating of the fruits, sweet and bitter, this lower little bird, weeping and happy by turns, was merely a vain dream: all along the real bird was there above, calm, and silent, glorious and majestic, beyond grief, beyond sorrow. The upper bird is God, the Lord of this universe; and the lower bird is the human soul, eating the sweet and bitter fruits of this world.

Now and then comes a heavy blow to the soul. For a time, he stops eating and goes toward the unknown God, and a flood of light comes. Yet again the senses drag him down, and begins to as before eat the sweet and bitter fruits of the world. Again, a hard blow comes. Again, his heart becomes open to the divine light; thus gradually he approaches God, and as he gets nearer and nearer, he finds his old self melting away. When he has come near enough, he realizes that he is no other than God, and he exclaims, “He who is the One Life of this universe, as present in the atom as in the suns and moons – He is the basis of my own life, the Soul of my soul and I Am That.

https://theheartofawakening.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/two-birds-in-a-tree-knowing-our-essence/
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
There is no "non-material" consciousness or "transition". It's the brain that thinks and feels and is conscious about itself and thinks "I am" and it's only electrochemical interactions in the brain itself.

Yeah, my kidney is acting up and declaring it's independence. Now my stomach wants in on the action too. 'I digest, therefore I AM', they mumble Of course, we don't know who or what the original 'I' was that started it all.

For the brain to establish a consciousness of self that it can call 'I', it would need to have 'I' already in place. Think about it.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
"“Like the cherry blossom, the heart planning on tomorrow is ephemeral indeed – what sudden storm may not arise in the middle of the night”. -- Shinran Shonin.

In Zen, we call this The Wisdom of Insecurity. The equivalent in the Bible is the Parable of the Lilies of the Field. Of course, this comes to the Bible compliments of Eastern wisdom and the original man, Yeshua, and not the myth of Jesus.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
When he has come near enough, he realizes that he is no other than God, and he exclaims, “He who is the One Life of this universe, as present in the atom as in the suns and moons – He is the basis of my own life, the Soul of my soul and I Am That.

https://theheartofawakening.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/two-birds-in-a-tree-knowing-our-essence/
So you think you are God? Blasphemy! "the act of claiming the attributes of deity"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
 
Last edited:

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Yeah, my kidney is acting up and declaring it's independence. Now my stomach wants in on the action too. 'I digest, therefore I AM', they mumble Of course, we don't know who or what the original 'I' was that started it all.
So you can't see any difference between a kidney, a stomach and a brain?
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Of course there is a mind. It's the brain. Brain is a synonym for mind.

Mind.

"1.
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
"a lot of thoughts ran through my mind"
synonyms: brain,"

I don't know how to link to this. It's what comes up first when putting "mind definition" in Google.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mind+definition

Well, you only referred to the brain. There is a difference between brain and mind.

Basically, the brain is the organ of the body in the head that controls functions, movements, sensations, and thoughts and ability to think and reason.

The mind thinks, reasons, feels and remembers.

Then there is consciousness which is the mind and thoughts.

Mind vs brain has been debated for centuries in philosophy, especially when it comes to consciousness and unconsciousness.

Examples are this thread and on quora:
https://www.quora.com/topic/Brain-vs-the-Mind
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
In Zen, we call this The Wisdom of Insecurity. The equivalent in the Bible is the Parable of the Lilies of the Field. Of course, this comes to the Bible compliments of Eastern wisdom and the original man, Yeshua, and not the myth of Jesus.

Oh brother. What do you mean by the last part? It's why you can be dismissed.

I'm okay on the Wisdom of Insecurity. The Parable of the Lillies of the Field and Birds of Heaven is different though and you miss the key points. Jesus taught (normally, I don't use wikipedia, but here it's sufficient):

"From Matthew 6:2433 (King James Version "KJV"):

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one,
and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

Then he taught about the the ravens.

I think what you mean though is from the 1800s:
"Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) often referred to Matthew 6:26. For him the birds of the air and the lilies of the field represented instructors in "religious joy", an appreciation that "there is a today". For him learning joy was to learn to let go of tomorrow, not in the sense of failing to plan or provide, but in giving one's attention to the tasks of today without knowing what they will have meant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birds_of_Heaven
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
There is no "non-material" consciousness or "transition". It's the brain that thinks and feels and is conscious about itself and thinks "I am" and it's only electrochemical interactions in the brain itself.

poppycock! (this position is the latest in the materialist paradigm: there is no consciousness; there is only the material brain and it's chemistry....fizzzzzzzz, lol...too bad the chemical brain creates illusions, as you say, such as 'I', rendering it an unreliable organ. Oh, well, onward to Higher Consciousness and the Perfection of Wisdom)
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
What do you mean by the last part?

Here. Read, esp. the section on Paul and the Mystery Religions:

http://30ce.com/

Essentially, Paul overwrote the teachings of Yeshua the Nazarene with those of Mithra AS A CLEVER DEVICE TO CONVERT THOUSANDS INTO HIS NEW RELIGION. The inner spiritual practices of the Jewish mystical cult known as the Nazarenes had no wide appeal to Rome. The new doctrine, which only required that one submit to Jesus as one's personal Lord and Savior, did not require that the initiate had to know anything. It was a slam dunk and you were saved. This had widespread appeal to Rome and Constantine as a means of political control over the populace.

The Church did much the same thing in Mexico when it 'adopted' the Aztec goddess of fertility known as 'Tonantzin' and converted her into Our Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo AS A CLEVER DEVICE TO CONVERT SOME 2 MILLION INDIGENOUS INDIOS INTO CHRISTIANITY!. The Indios simply followed where their goddess dwelt, as theirs was a matriarchal culture.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Then there is consciousness which is the mind and thoughts.

No. They are not equivalent. Consciousness is before Mind. Consciousness is without thought, and just sees things as they are; Mind is the faculty of thinking, and the illusory 'I', as in 'I think, therefore, I exist', crap (cogito ergo sum), which is flawed, as Kierkegaard points out:

Søren Kierkegaard's critique:


The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:


  • "x" thinks
  • I am that "x"
  • Therefore I think
  • Therefore I am
Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
*****

"Yoga [divine union] is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind"
Patanjali, The Yoga Sutras
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Of course there is a mind. It's the brain. Brain is a synonym for mind.

Mystics, yogis, and other meditators have the ability to bring a complete halt to all thought, and expand consciousness far beyond the ordinary man with his limited and conditioned consciousness. The mind is completely stilled to the point that there is 'no-mind'. But the brain is still present, of course, which higher consciousness has now caused to emanate very high rates of Alpha waves. This does not mean there is more brain activity in terms of thinking, but indicates a brain in a more relaxed state. Therefore, the brain is not the mind. Mind is an illusion; a self-created principle, as an elevated state of conscious awareness clearly demonstrates. In addition, clinical studies now show that experienced meditators (esp monks) have actually grown thicker cerebral cortexes via the brain's exposure to many years of meditative experience. IOW, consciousness grows the material brain, and not the other way around.

There have been actual cases of people without much brain material at all, who have high IQ's and normal function.

 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
There is no "non-material" consciousness or "transition". It's the brain that thinks and feels and is conscious about itself and thinks "I am" and it's only electrochemical interactions in the brain itself.

That it thinks 'I am' is its delusion. (read post #1967 re: cogito ergo sum).

According to you, the chemical reactions result in a non-material experience we call 'consciousness', which is obvious just by by being aware of one's own consciousness. My question is, where does this experience end and the Universe begin? Do you understand my question? Bear in mind that who and what you are is integrated 100% with the Universe. Therefore, what you think of as 'YOU' is a total action of the Universe, in the same way that a wave is a total action of the entire ocean. Get it?
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
What do you mean with my ego? Was that separate from that consciousness of mine? Was the connection broken before I took the first shot?

And what does it mean that my consciousness was trying to get my attention? It seems absurd.

You seem to indicate that there are two things, running independently. My ego, and my consciousness. Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

Two Birds In A Tree

“Upon the same tree there are two birds, one on the top, the other below. The one on the top is calm, silent, and majestic, immersed in his own glory; the one on the lower branches, eating sweet and bitter fruits by turns, hopping from branch to branch, is becoming happy and miserable by turns. After a time, the lower birds eats an exceptionally bitter fruit, and feeling miserable, he looks up and sees the other bird, that wondrous one of golden plumage who eats neither sweet nor bitter fruit, who is neither happy nor miserable, but calm and centered in the Spirit. The lower bird longs for this condition, but soon forgets it, and again begins to eat the fruit, which makes him once again feel miserable, and he again looks up, and he tries to get nearer to the upper bird. Once more he forgets, and after a time he looks up again, and so on he goes again and again, until he comes very near to the beautiful bird and sees the reflection of light from its plumage playing around his own body. He feels a change, and as he comes nearer, he seems to melt away, and everything about him melts away until as last he understands this wonderful change. The lower bird was, as it were, only the shadow, the reflection of the higher; he himself was in essence the upper bird all the time. This eating of the fruits, sweet and bitter, this lower little bird, weeping and happy by turns, was merely a vain dream: all along the real bird was there above, calm, and silent, glorious and majestic, beyond grief, beyond sorrow. The upper bird is God, the Lord of this universe; and the lower bird is the human soul, eating the sweet and bitter fruits of this world.


Now and then comes a heavy blow to the soul. For a time, he stops eating and goes toward the unknown God, and a flood of light comes. Yet again the senses drag him down, and begins to as before eat the sweet and bitter fruits of the world. Again, a hard blow comes. Again, his heart becomes open to the divine light; thus gradually he approaches God, and as he gets nearer and nearer, he finds his old self melting away. When he has come near enough, he realizes that he is no other than God, and he exclaims, “He who is the One Life of this universe, as present in the atom as in the suns and moons – He is the basis of my own life, the Soul of my soul and I Am That."

https://theheartofawakening.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/two-birds-in-a-tree-knowing-our-essence/



Our higher nature is always trying to subtlety prompt us to awaken from our ego-sleep, but is drowned out by the noise of the discursive mind.
 
Top