Consciousness

[godnotgod]

So, unless you can provide evidence to go with your assertions and made-up logic, we have nothing further to discuss. Don

Dwarfed by the genius of Carl Jung. aaarggh! a fate worse than death itself!..it's ok...it's ok...happens to the best of us...

 

[godnotgod]

Here Maya means God's creative potency, not illusion. It's a power that God\Brahman has by which it manifests within it the diversified world of forms while retaining the unity in essence. While I agree with the test of your statements, I disagree that Maya is an illusion created by God. God does not seek to delude anyone.The illusion is on our part, of missing the inherent unity within the diversity, that is missing the tree among all the leaves and branches. The great upside down world tree is what it is, the error comes in not being able to perceive the unity of this tree.

Maya

- māyā - माया
Cosmic illusion; literally, ‘the measurer.” Maya is the power in creation by which limitations and divisions seem to exist in the Oneness that is true reality. (1)

According to Paramhansa Yogananda, the ancient Vedic scriptures say that the physical world operates under one fundamental law of maya, the principle of relativity and duality. Since God in his absolute form is Complete Unity, the only way He can appear as the separate and diverse manifestations of creation is under a false or unreal veil of maya, or illusion. (3)

https://www.ananda.org/yogapedia/maya/

 

[sayak83]

Maya

- māyā - माया
Cosmic illusion; literally, ‘the measurer.” Maya is the power in creation by which limitations and divisions seem to exist in the Oneness that is true reality. (1)

According to Paramhansa Yogananda, the ancient Vedic scriptures say that the physical world operates under one fundamental law of maya, the principle of relativity and duality. Since God in his absolute form is Complete Unity, the only way He can appear as the separate and diverse manifestations of creation is under a false or unreal veil of maya, or illusion. (3)

https://www.ananda.org/yogapedia/maya/

Yogananda belongs to the Sankara school of thought. Many (most) Hindu schools don't agree. This is specifically true when we are discussing the Maya mentioned in the Gita.

Role of Yogamaya

"Yogamaya is the Lord’s divine power by which creation is enabled".

"There is only Brahman, with Devi (Maha Maya) or Paramesari latent in it"

The Devi Bhagavatam teaches us that the Brahman is the undecaying principle of fullness—the ultimate substratum of everything. It is totally without desire or qualities. Therefore it is not able to create or accomplish any action without the help of its inherent force or Shakti—Maha Maya, the feminine principle, the great goddess—Parameswari. All the gods—Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Indra, and so on—can do their respective work only if they are united with Shakti. So Maha Maya can be considered the sole cause of this entire universe of movable and unmovable objects. She is the cause of all causes and manifests as Maha Lakshmi, Maha Saraswati, and Maha Kaali. We should worship her with all adorations. Even the gods worship her in order to do their allotted tasks."

I hope it's obvious from my profile pic that I am from the Sakta tradition of Hinduism?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That is not what I said. I said that consciousness, the fundamental reality, did.



The obvious requires no proof.

I have stated repeatedly that higher consciousness is not a belief; that it is an experience; that it is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis; that it is beyond proof via these tools; and that if you want confirmation, you need to go see for yourself. And yet you continue to ask for 'proof'.

Not too smart.

So what is your IQ?

insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Dolph Lundgren, Steve Martin, Reggie Jackson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Madonna, James Wood, and Shakira, all have very high IQ's(135-180). Are they smarter than Carl Jung or Einstein? Did you know that some, if not most great minds in history(Newton, Jung, Tesla, Ford, Darwin, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Shaw, and many many, many more, are all thought to have Asperger's syndrome. It seems to be the price to pay for having above average intelligence. Their behavior matches the five diagnostic criteria for Asperger's. They are, social impairment, preoccupation with "special interests," impairment in non-verbal communication, lack of emotional reciprocity, and inflexible adherence to non-functional routines. So am I smarter, I have no idea. But, I certainly am smarter than some, and not as smart as others.

Also, unless you are "Vaas" in "Far Cry 3", that is NOT the definition of insanity. Even if Einstein also said it, it doesn't mean that it is the true definition. Try the dictionary. You seem to base most of your evidence, on the opinions and ideas of dead people. Don't you have any evidence, that is supported by your own research? Just MOTSS.

My statement was, " If the brain is dead, missing, or sedated, does conscious awareness still exist?". The answer is obviously NO! So why are you talking about people missing portions of the brain, or asking how much of the brain does one need to continue functioning? More misrepresentation and equivocation errors. So the only prove you can offer is, "it's obvious", "it is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis; that it is beyond proof.", " ..you need to go see for yourself.", and that I'm, "Not too smart".

In other words, NO EVIDENCE AT ALL! Just more of the same backpedaling intellectual dishonesty, to avoid your burden of proof. If this is only your belief, then there is no need for any evidence and we're done. But if you are making a truth claim, then present at least ONE objective type of evidence(physical or logical). So far, more of the same self-serving rhetoric, more of the same silly editorializing, and even more of the same faulty logic and obvious fallacies. This is really becoming sad and intellectually futile. Don

 

[ajay0]

Sayings of Sri Ramakrishna on Maya, who was Shakta and a devotee of the Divine Mother, for perspective....

"Remember that Daya, compassion, and Maya, attachment, are two different things. Attachment means the feeling of 'my-ness' towards one's relatives. Compassion is the love one feels for all beings of the world. It is an attitude of equality. Maya also comes from God. Through Maya, God makes one serve one's relatives. But one thing should be remembered: Maya keeps us in ignorance and entangles us in the world, whereas Daya makes our hearts pure and gradually unties our bonds."

"To love only members of the Bramho Samaj or of one's own family is Maya ; to love one's own countrymen is Maya. But to love the people of all countries, to love the members of all religions, is Daya."

 

[godnotgod]

Dolph Lundgren, Steve Martin, Reggie Jackson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Madonna, James Wood, and Shakira, all have very high IQ's(135-180). Are they smarter than Carl Jung or Einstein? Did you know that some, if not most great minds in history(Newton, Jung, Tesla, Ford, Darwin, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Shaw, and many many, many more, are all thought to have Asperger's syndrome. It seems to be the price to pay for having above average intelligence. Their behavior matches the five diagnostic criteria for Asperger's. They are, social impairment, preoccupation with "special interests," impairment in non-verbal communication, lack of emotional reciprocity, and inflexible adherence to non-functional routines. So am I smarter, I have no idea. But, I certainly am smarter than some, and not as smart as others.

Now you change your position from:

"in some respects I AM SMARTER [than Carl Jung], since I try to avoid my own confirmation bias...."

to:

"So am I smarter [than Carl Jung], I have no idea."

I asked you what your IQ was. Are you going to provide an answer so we can settle the question, or not?

Also, unless you are "Vaas" in "Far Cry 3", that is NOT the definition of insanity. Even if Einstein also said it, it doesn't mean that it is the true definition. Try the dictionary. You seem to base most of your evidence, on the opinions and ideas of dead people. Don't you have any evidence, that is supported by your own research? Just MOTSS.

What do you call the condition where someone knowingly repeats the same error over and over again, expecting different results? hmmmm?

My statement was, " If the brain is dead, missing, or sedated, does conscious awareness still exist?". The answer is obviously NO! So why are you talking about people missing portions of the brain, or asking how much of the brain does one need to continue functioning? More misrepresentation and equivocation errors. So the only prove you can offer is, "it's obvious", "it is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis; that it is beyond proof.", " ..you need to go see for yourself.", and that I'm, "Not too smart".

No, not too, alas.

If you return to the post providing the links, you will see that there are references to a couple of cases where the brain is missing, and there are bound to be more people walking around in exactly that situation, and who are unaware of it.

Once again, I am not providing 'proof' in the form of factual evidence; I am simply pointing to the moon, but instead of taking an honest look, you attack the pointing finger in knee-jerk fashion, every single time. That is the conceptual mind working, as it won't accept any other kind of approach to knowledge other than it's own construct, that being the fabricated subject/object split it has convinced itself to be the Gold Standard of knowledge. It's not. It's just the rational mind's way of navigating the phenomenal world in a very limited manner, but it knows zilch of anything outside of it's conceptual frameworks.

In other words, NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!

How can the other prisoners in Plato's Cave confirm what the escaped prisoner is telling them about a world outside their cave that they know nothing about, and that does not conform to the shadows dancing on the cave walls they believe to represent reality? Or should they just hang him as a heretic?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Now you change your position from:

"in some respects I AM SMARTER [than Carl Jung], since I try to avoid my own confirmation bias...."

to:

"So am I smarter [than Carl Jung], I have no idea."

I asked you what your IQ was. Are you going to provide an answer so we can settle the question, or not?



What do you call the condition where someone knowingly repeats the same error over and over again, expecting different results? hmmmm?



No, not too, alas.

If you return to the post providing the links, you will see that there are references to a couple of cases where the brain is missing, and there are bound to be more people walking around in exactly that situation, and who are unaware of it.

Once again, I am not providing 'proof' in the form of factual evidence; I am simply pointing to the moon, but instead of taking an honest look, you attack the pointing finger in knee-jerk fashion, every single time. That is the conceptual mind working, as it won't accept any other kind of approach to knowledge other than it's own construct, that being the fabricated subject/object split it has convinced itself to be the Gold Standard of knowledge. It's not. It's just the rational mind's way of navigating the phenomenal world in a very limited manner, but it knows zilch of anything outside of it's conceptual frameworks.



How can the other prisoners in Plato's Cave confirm what the escaped prisoner is telling them about a world outside their cave that they know nothing about, and that does not conform to the shadows dancing on the cave walls they believe to represent reality? Or should they just hang him as a heretic?

What do you call the condition where someone knowingly repeats the same error over and over again, expecting different results? hmmmm?

I call it stubborn, obstinate, or just having "blind faith". Slightly different than referring to a defective functioning of a mental process such as reasoning, cognition, and self-perception.

If you return to the post providing the links, you will see that there are references to a couple of cases where the brain is missing, and there are bound to be more people walking around in exactly that situation, and who are unaware of it.

There is NO CASE ever where someone is walking around without a brain. Unless this is only a figure of speech. If this condition were even possible, let alone documented, it would truly be proof of the miracle I asked for. But alas, just another desperate fantasy you try to masquerade as evidence. Or did you really mean existing with only a functioning portion of the brain. The physical brain is composed of 3 basic parts, the cerebrum, the cerebellum, and the brain stem. So missing a brain mean that all three parts are missing. So would you like to rephrase your truth claim, or just give the brain a new meaning? Please review basic anatomy and physiology.

Once again, I am not providing 'proof' in the form of factual evidence; I am simply pointing to the moon, but instead of taking an honest look, you attack the pointing finger in knee-jerk fashion, every single time

Finally an honest statement. Not only are you not providing proof in any factual form, but you not providing proof in any form at all(factual, logical, or physical). And, despite your cryptic analogous add-on, there is no difference between your made-up assertions, and your simple opinion. You are certainly entitled to your own personal beliefs and opinions, just don't peddle these inferences as facts or truths.

My IQ is certainly above average, and totally irrelevant. But even if it were below average, it would still be enough to see through the folly of this line of reasoning. Why do you keep avoiding my questions, and repeating the same faulty logic. Maybe you are expecting a different result? Oops, how did you define that type of behavior again??? Don

 

[godnotgod]

My IQ is certainly above average, and totally irrelevant. But even if it were below average, it would still be enough to see through the folly of this line of reasoning. Why do you keep avoiding my questions, and repeating the same faulty logic. Maybe you are expecting a different result? Oops, how did you define that type of behavior again??? Don

The issue is whether you are smarter than Carl Jung, which you claim to be.

3rd request: what is your IQ?

 

[godnotgod]

There is NO CASE ever where someone is walking around without a brain. Unless this is only a figure of speech. If this condition were even possible, let alone documented, it would truly be proof of the miracle I asked for. But alas, just another desperate fantasy you try to masquerade as evidence. Or did you really mean existing with only a functioning portion of the brain. The physical brain is composed of 3 basic parts, the cerebrum, the cerebellum, and the brain stem. So missing a brain mean that all three parts are missing. So would you like to rephrase your truth claim, or just give the brain a new meaning? Please review basic anatomy and physiology.

A brain stem is not a brain.

Baby born without a brain celebrates his 2nd birthday and says 'Mummy' for first time | Daily Mail Online

This X-ray, which was taken when Aaron was born, shows that his brain stopped growing when it reached the circled point. Above it is where the brain would normally fill the skull cavity, but is instead filled with fluid

Read more: Baby born without a brain celebrates his 2nd birthday and says 'Mummy' for first time | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[godnotgod]

Finally an honest statement.

I have repeatedly stated that access to universal consciousness is beyond the tools of Logic, Reason, and Analysis. But you continue to ask for proof via such methods.

How can the other prisoners in Plato's Cave confirm what the escaped prisoner is telling them about a world outside their cave that they know nothing about, and that does not conform to the shadows dancing on the cave walls they believe to represent reality?

 

[atanu]

No. Not controlled. Only knowable through it.
The system is integrated only as far as decoherence does not occur. As soon as it occurs, we have the end of the system as an integrated whole.

I do not follow it. Is the experiment not designed by someone?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I have repeatedly stated that access to universal consciousness is beyond the tools of Logic, Reason, and Analysis. But you continue to ask for proof via such methods.

How can the other prisoners in Plato's Cave confirm what the escaped prisoner is telling them about a world outside their cave that they know nothing about, and that does not conform to the shadows dancing on the cave walls they believe to represent reality?

If you misrepresent my statements one more time, we are done. I can deal with ignorance, but not willful ignorance. I can understand a misunderstanding, but not willful deception. Where do I say the brainstem is the brain? Nowhere! You just created a straw man and responded as if I said the brainstem IS the brain. Totally dishonest. I said the brainstem is one of 3 parts to the brain. So, is the brainstem NOT a part of the brain? So when you stated that there are people that exist that are missing a brain, you were only telling a half-truth. What you meant to say is that these exceptions were functioning with only part of their brain This was deceptive and intellectually dishonest.

Which is it, do you want to know my IQ, or do you want to know if I'm smarter than Carl Jung. Both requests are ludicrous and irrelevant. To the first request, it's none of your business. Who do you think you are, to ask for such private information? Pure arrogance. Your level of intelligence is clearly demonstrated, so there is no need for me to be so presumptuous. "Smarter" is a term used only by the immature, and the intellectually insecure. To your second request, Where do I claim that I am smarter than Carl Jung? My statement was simply, "in some respects, I am smarter". In some respects, you are smarter than me. That is, you may possess knowledge that I don't. Unless Carl knows everything that I know, then my statement is true. Of course, this is another silly distraction to avoid the burden of proof, and deflect all my questions.

Let me keep this simple, to avoid more distortions and misrepresentations. I don't think that I am smarter or less smarter than anyone else. I have more knowledge about some things than most people, and less knowledge about other things than other people. Since you have indirectly said that you have no evidence to support your claims or beliefs, we have nothing further to say. You are no different than any other cultists, that wallow in their own sense of self-enlightenment. Since the framework for your belief is dependent on its unfalsifiability, obscurity, and the perception of credibility, it will always be self-sustaining.for the ignorant. Don

 

[sayak83]

I do not follow it. Is the experiment not designed by someone?

That is not important. A natural system also exhbits the same properties. Further the natural tendency of a quantum system is to lose it's coherent and integrated nature, and decohere into multiple independent systems. The quantum system falls apart and give us non-superposition results much much earlier than it ever reaches human consciousness. Thus a true quantum system with holistic integration is never seen, what is observed are the "fossil" traces of the deceased and decohered quantum system after it has interacted with the environment and becomes a classical observation, much before consciousness enters the picture.

 

[godnotgod]

"Traditionally, scientists have tried to define the mind as the product of brain activity: The brain is the physical substance, and the mind is the conscious product of those firing neurons, according to the classic argument. But growing evidence shows that the mind goes far beyond the physical workings of your brain."

Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body

If you misrepresent my statements one more time, we are done. I can deal with ignorance, but not willful ignorance. I can understand a misunderstanding, but not willful deception. Where do I say the brainstem is the brain? Nowhere! You just created a straw man and responded as if I said the brainstem IS the brain. Totally dishonest. I said the brainstem is one of 3 parts to the brain. So, is the brainstem NOT a part of the brain? So when you stated that there are people that exist that are missing a brain, you were only telling a half-truth. What you meant to say is that these exceptions were functioning with only part of their brain This was deceptive and intellectually dishonest.

Which is it, do you want to know my IQ, or do you want to know if I'm smarter than Carl Jung. Both requests are ludicrous and irrelevant. To the first request, it's none of your business. Who do you think you are, to ask for such private information? Pure arrogance. Your level of intelligence is clearly demonstrated, so there is no need for me to be so presumptuous. "Smarter" is a term used only by the immature, and the intellectually insecure. To your second request, Where do I claim that I am smarter than Carl Jung? My statement was simply, "in some respects, I am smarter". In some respects, you are smarter than me. That is, you may possess knowledge that I don't. Unless Carl knows everything that I know, then my statement is true. Of course, this is another silly distraction to avoid the burden of proof, and deflect all my questions.

Let me keep this simple, to avoid more distortions and misrepresentations. I don't think that I am smarter or less smarter than anyone else. I have more knowledge about some things than most people, and less knowledge about other things than other people. Since you have indirectly said that you have no evidence to support your claims or beliefs, we have nothing further to say. You are no different than any other cultists, that wallow in their own sense of self-enlightenment. Since the framework for your belief is dependent on its unfalsifiability, obscurity, and the perception of credibility, it will always be self-sustaining.for the ignorant. Don

I noted that the brain stem is not a brain, therefore, the brain is essentially missing in the case studies I cited. The reason the medical establishment is stunned at these cases, is because they would not expect that anyone could survive with only a brain stem; they assumed that the other 2 parts were necessary for survival, so for all practical purposes, these individuals were missing their brains. Get it?

My statement that the brain stem is not a brain was not directed at you personally.

That Jung 'may have had' Asberger's disease has nothing to do with the content of his theory of the collective unconscious. While you did provide a cursory and superficially slanted opinion about the collective unconscious, you failed to understand its import. Jung is recognized all around the world as a pioneer and genius in the field of psychiatry. We were talking about the collective unconscious; at least I was.

Maybe you best keep your IQ to yourself. Someone who advertises himself as 'Truly Enlightened' isn't very smart anyway. In fact, it is a sign of a sub-standard intellect. But you wouldn't know why that is the case, would you?

Judging by your comments, you don't know the first thing about Enlightenment. If you even had a glimpse, you wouldn't be so cocksure about things you say. For you, it's an intellectual concept, your nose pressed to the windowpane, on the outside looking in. So cut the crap already. I have never once alluded to myself as being 'enlightened'; but YOU make a cheap and garish advertisement of it, even though you aren't even close to being so. I get your intention, but for those of us who have caught even a glimpse, your position doesn't come off as you think it does. It just amounts to a loud display of ignorance.

BTW, did you know it takes 7 full years to get over the stink of Enlightenment?

All I am really trying to do in addressing you is to point out to you that, from your POV, there may be a field of knowledge far greater than that of the intellect. But to even arrive at that point, one has to put one's intellectual baggage aside and adopt a 'don't know' mind. Only then can you begin. Sorry, Just the way it is.

 

[sayak83]

A brain stem is not a brain.

Baby born without a brain celebrates his 2nd birthday and says 'Mummy' for first time | Daily Mail Online

This X-ray, which was taken when Aaron was born, shows that his brain stopped growing when it reached the circled point. Above it is where the brain would normally fill the skull cavity, but is instead filled with fluid

Read more: Baby born without a brain celebrates his 2nd birthday and says 'Mummy' for first time | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Actually Brain stem is definitely an integral part of brain. What would be required here is the doctors report and X Ray at two years showing if further brain development has occurred within the skull. Holoprosencephaly is of several types and certainly not all are life threatening or even cause severe mental retardation. So the diagnosis as reported is not informative. What is seen in the X Ray is a large fluid build up above the brain, and certainly large parts of the forebrain has not expanded.That does not mean that several parts are not present and is still functioning within the brain that is there. Only later medical and neurological reports can point to that.
Holoprosencephaly - Wikipedia

 

[Truly Enlightened]

"Traditionally, scientists have tried to define the mind as the product of brain activity: The brain is the physical substance, and the mind is the conscious product of those firing neurons, according to the classic argument. But growing evidence shows that the mind goes far beyond the physical workings of your brain."

Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body


I noted that the brain stem is not a brain, therefore, the brain is essentially missing in the case studies I cited. The reason the medical establishment is stunned at these cases, is because they would not expect that anyone could survive with only a brain stem; they assumed that the other 2 parts were necessary for survival, so for all practical purposes, these individuals were missing their brains. Get it?

My statement that the brain stem is not a brain was not directed at you personally.

That Jung 'may have had' Asberger's disease has nothing to do with the content of his theory of the collective unconscious. While you did provide a cursory and superficially slanted opinion about the collective unconscious, you failed to understand its import. Jung is recognized all around the world as a pioneer and genius in the field of psychiatry. We were talking about the collective unconscious; at least I was.

Maybe you best keep your IQ to yourself. Someone who advertises himself as 'Truly Enlightened' isn't very smart anyway. In fact, it is a sign of a sub-standard intellect. But you wouldn't know why that is the case, would you?

Judging by your comments, you don't know the first thing about Enlightenment. If you even had a glimpse, you wouldn't be so cocksure about things you say. For you, it's an intellectual concept, your nose pressed to the windowpane, on the outside looking in. So cut the crap already. I have never once alluded to myself as being 'enlightened'; but YOU make a cheap and garish advertisement of it, even though you aren't even close to being so. I get your intention, but for those of us who have caught even a glimpse, your position doesn't come off as you think it does. It just amounts to a loud display of ignorance.

BTW, did you know it takes 7 full years to get over the stink of Enlightenment?

All I am really trying to do in addressing you is to point out to you that, from your POV, there may be a field of knowledge far greater than that of the intellect. But to even arrive at that point, one has to put one's intellectual baggage aside and adopt a 'don't know' mind. Only then can you begin. Sorry, Just the way it is.

So when you say the brainstem is not THE brain, then the Cerebellum, the Cerebrum, and the Medulla, are also not THE Brain. Right? Since all these parts, individually are not the brain, then what is the brain? But you will agree that they all make up THE PHYSICAL BRAIN. Right? Therefore, when you said that there are examples of people walking around without a brain(or missing a brain), either this was a figure of speech, or an insult, or you only meant that only a portion of the brain is missing. Right? I was only looking for clarification. Otherwise, others might think that people CAN exist without a brain(which includes all of its parts). This half-truth might even add credibility to your claim that a Universal Consciousness, Unconsciousness, Collective Consciousness, or a Collective Unconsciousness, exists(sorry lost track of your interchangeable terms).

Casting aspersions on my intelligence is judgemental, insensitive, and arrogant. My tag is just a tag. I'm glad I didn't use Mickey Mouse. My wife agrees with you and that I should change it. I told her, who would be so insecure, and intellectually threatened by a silly tag? Obviously, there is at least ONE person. Let's see if I understand. Carl Jung had a high IQ, and was a well-recognized genius in the field of Psychiatry. Therefore, what he says must be true. Got it! Since you seem to be the emissary of half-truths and distortions, did you mention the concerns that other imminent psychiatrist, and mental research professionals have with Jung's theory? Since you mentioned his use of the term "shadow"(borrowed from Nietzsche) to refer to the dark side of our unconsciousness, what is his specific explanation of evil? Why does he rarely(if ever) make predictions that could clearly prove his claims are true? Why does his research lack any demonstrable or measurable scientific parameters, or specific data? Why is his theories shaped by his own dreams, thoughts and introspection, in addition to that of his patients? I'm afraid the social sciences are NOT exact sciences. Quality control was not that high a priority. Especially, when you base your theory of a collective unconsciousness, entirely on the similarities you find in the dreams of people in Asia and Africa. I know this is an oversimplification, but basically correct.

I am not adverse to the possibility that there are things that I don't understand, or may exist from my perspective as magic. All I do know is that there is no practical application for anything(so far), that does not have its basis in the natural physical laws. You can't simply use circular reasoning to describe them(it is beyond our understanding, so we can't understand it.). So, no practical application, no method to determine its nature or properties, no predictive capabilities, and nothing intuitive or fallacy-free. This can only be described as a figment of your imagination, no matter WHAT authority you hide behind.

 

[ajay0]

I have repeatedly stated that access to universal consciousness is beyond the tools of Logic, Reason, and Analysis.

I read some insightful sayings of the saint-doctor Sivananda today that corroborates this...


The mind and senses require time and space to function, but the Reality which is beyond this temporal, spacial and causal order of things can only be grasped and apprehended by intuition.

Reason can give you only conceptual knowledge and conceptual knowledge does not give you knowledge of the Reality in its whole, in its totality, but it divides, fragmentises and breaks things to pieces.

~ Sivananda

An issue with modern scientific civilization is that it goes alongside with cold logic and negates anything to do with intuition, which other philosophies gives a lot of importance to.

This also reflects in the present imbalanced state of things we find in the world with its pollution, global warming, aberrant weather patterns, accelerating destruction of nature and extinction of species, destructive nuclear weapons and increasing strife amongst human beings in the name of nationalism, ideology, economic greed and so on.

Logic sees the detail, while intuition can grasp the whole or have holistic vision and can make wiser decisions, which may seem illogical to the logician who has a unidimensional viewpoint of things or reality as it is.

 

[godnotgod]

I read some insightful sayings of the saint-doctor Sivananda today that corroborates this...


The mind and senses require time and space to function, but the Reality which is beyond this temporal, spacial and causal order of things can only be grasped and apprehended by intuition.

Reason can give you only conceptual knowledge and conceptual knowledge does not give you knowledge of the Reality in its whole, in its totality, but it divides, fragmentises and breaks things to pieces.

~ Sivananda

An issue with modern scientific civilization is that it goes alongside with cold logic and negates anything to do with intuition, which other philosophies gives a lot of importance to.

This also reflects in the present imbalanced state of things we find in the world with its pollution, global warming, aberrant weather patterns, accelerating destruction of nature and extinction of species, destructive nuclear weapons and increasing strife amongst human beings in the name of nationalism, ideology, economic greed and so on.

Logic sees the detail, while intuition can grasp the whole or have holistic vision and can make wiser decisions, which may seem illogical to the logician who has a unidimensional viewpoint of things or reality as it is.

Yes, indeed, and in apprehending the whole of Reality just as it is, factual knowledge is included, whereas the mind of Logic, Reason, and Analysis regards the intuitive mind suspect, and sees only the characteristics and behavior of reality which can be used for predictive purposes. So the mystic values the findings of science as well as his own intuitive insight into the nature of things. This insight sheds the necessary light on factual knowledge, so that it can then be understood within the context of reality, and not in reverse.

The imbalanced emphasis on cold logic via science and technology, along with fear and ignorance of nature, has directly created serious imbalances on the planet, as you have noted.

As I understand it, Einstein employed the use of the intuitive mind to arrive at some of his theories. Answers to scientific questions must sometimes be seen along with the calculations and experiments. The chemist who discovered that carbon was a ring dreamt of a snake biting it's own tail the night before.

 

[godnotgod]

Actually Brain stem is definitely an integral part of brain. What would be required here is the doctors report and X Ray at two years showing if further brain development has occurred within the skull. Holoprosencephaly is of several types and certainly not all are life threatening or even cause severe mental retardation. So the diagnosis as reported is not informative. What is seen in the X Ray is a large fluid build up above the brain, and certainly large parts of the forebrain has not expanded.That does not mean that several parts are not present and is still functioning within the brain that is there. Only later medical and neurological reports can point to that.
Holoprosencephaly - Wikipedia

In a normal human brain, how much cognitive ability is the stem responsible for, if any? How much does it contribute to the overall functionality of the rest of the brain and/or bodily functions, if any?

 

[sayak83]

In a normal human brain, how much cognitive ability is the stem responsible for, if any? How much does it contribute to the overall functionality of the rest of the brain and/or bodily functions, if any?

Brain stem is responsible for controlling almost all involuntary bodily and brain functions and reflexes (including smiling reflex, crying reflex, hunger etc etc). In normal circumstances, it does not take part in voluntary or intentional functions, but if much of the brain is damaged in an infant, the neurons will be flexible enough at this age to take over some of these functions. Which is why an MRI is necessary to see if Aarons brain is processing other types of information as well.

Do not be fooled by it's small size. It an extremely functionally dense and compact region of the brain.
Brain Stem