Question on Intelligent Design

[godnotgod]

I'm glad I don't know as much as my average peer does, actually. Given my background and stuff I've gone through, I put the dot on "ignorance is a bliss."

You and another RFer are the only two here that talk as if you guys have knowledge other people don't have. As if you walked other people's shoes just by one or two conversations on religious forums.

That, in itself, is, well, silly. Maybe it's just me, but get to know me first before making accusations about my intelligence.

You keep telling me to try another approach because you fail to understand what I am saying to you. No! Show me what is wrong with what I am saying, instead of putting labels on it, like 'god-talk' and such. You are reading things into the discussion that are not there.

Why do you attack the pointing finger instead of looking at the moon? And why do you think I and the other RFer have some sort of 'special knowledge'? Did I or he (she) ever make that claim? That we posses this special knowledge is only in your head. I don't know anything more than what you know. Spiritual insight is not about factual knowledge; about how much you know. It is about seeing things as they are. In fact, is not about any knowledge at all. I keep telling you: This is about seeing things as they are, and not how the thinking mind says they are. It's really, really simple.

No! I don't want to 'get to know you'. I don't want to know your identity at all. I want to know who you really are, beyond what you think is you; beyond the trappings of the mind which is a self-created principle; beyond all the clever masks. THAT is who you are, and not this false self that thinks it is born, ages, gets sick, and dies. There is no such person! Remove birth and death, sickness and old age, and there you are, present through it all, Unborn and therefore, Undead.

 

[shawn001]

You won't listen to what I am actually saying, and inserting things that just aren't there. You're incapable in your present state of mind to 'respond in a proper manner'. I keep pointing to an experience outside of the rational mind, but you persist in demanding proof for something that cannot be so proven via Reason, Logic, or Analysis. Once you understand that simple fact, you may get a glimpse beyond the thinking mind. That is all.

All personal experiences come from the brain.

You won't listen to what I am actually saying, and inserting things that just aren't there. You're incapable in your present state of mind to 'respond in a proper manner'. I keep pointing to an experience outside of the rational mind, but you persist in demanding proof for something that cannot be so proven via Reason, Logic, or Analysis. Once you understand that simple fact, you may get a glimpse beyond the thinking mind. That is all.

What is your definition of the thinking mind?


Neuroscience Confirms Your Subconscious Shapes Your Reality

 

[shawn001]

I heard you the first time. There is nothing 'behind' anything. What you see is it. Only the WAY you see it is via conditioned mind, which creates a conditioned view. Unconditioned mind yields unconditioned view, ie; 'the way things actually are', and not as conditioned mind THINKS they are. You don't see the world as intelligent because your conditioned mind, which operates on a subject/object split basis, sees only yourself as conscious, and everything outside of 'self' as dead material objects, for various reasons, one of which is your belief that consciousness only comes from DA BIG BAD BRAINIAC THINGIE. All bow down to LORD BRAIN!

Again you don't answer the answer the question? I am not talking about the brain here I am asking you to describe the evolution of Photosynthesis.

"There is nothing 'behind' anything"

There is NO such thing as "No-thing' or nothing in physics.

Right, so you're saying there is intelligence behind everything and at the same time, no intelligence behind anything and you can't explain the evolution of photosynthesis.

 

[shawn001]

FYI, since this thread is on ID.

Why Humans Prefer to Be the Center of the Universe

Why Humans Prefer to Be the Center of the Universe

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You keep telling me to try another approach because you fail to understand what I am saying to you. No! Show me what is wrong with what I am saying, instead of putting labels on it, like 'god-talk' and such. You are reading things into the discussion that are not there.

Why do you attack the pointing finger instead of looking at the moon? And why do you think I and the other RFer have some sort of 'special knowledge'? Did I or he (she) ever make that claim? That we posses this special knowledge is only in your head. I don't know anything more than what you know. Spiritual insight is not about factual knowledge; about how much you know. It is about seeing things as they are. In fact, is not about any knowledge at all. I keep telling you: This is about seeing things as they are, and not how the thinking mind says they are. It's really, really simple.

No! I don't want to 'get to know you'. I don't want to know your identity at all. I want to know who you really are, beyond what you think is you; beyond the trappings of the mind which is a self-created principle; beyond all the clever masks. THAT is who you are, and not this false self that thinks it is born, ages, gets sick, and dies. There is no such person! Remove birth and death, sickness and old age, and there you are, present through it all, Unborn and therefore, Undead.

All of this could have been said in short, crisp, and coherent sentences.

1. You are speaking in god-language (Beyond. The Absolute. Etc)

2. Different approach: Stop using metaphysics to talk about simple concepts. Everything a be explained in human language without it needing to confusing any of the people you talk with on this thread not just me.

3. Getting to know me is showing interest in my point of view. Any communication medium mutual interests needs to be present before anyone can learn anything. This goes for any person you talk with: stranger, acquaintance, friend, loved one, whomever. Being online does not exclude conversation generalities but of course this depends on where you are from and your culture.

4. It is OKAY that you do not believe in Buddhist teachings. The Buddha taught suffering is birth/age/sickness/death and understanding it is liberation, and once one is liberated he no longer goes through rebirth in understanding it but actually dies does not suffer any longer. If you disagree, that's your right.

Buddhism is not a religion-of-the-book. You can disagree with the teachings but the practice will remain solid.

5. You cannot see things as they are if you are trying to convince people as if they don't know who they are to themselves.

If anything, the more you talk to me, the more you going into delusions. Many Zen practitioners do not talk for this reason. In the monastery I want to go to way up in the mountains, they have retreats where we cannot speak a word. It's all in service to each other and to the local community.

The more you are trying to defend your point right, the more I'm convinced you only know what your mind is telling you and mistaking what you are thinking (opinions) for facts. Many people do it. Many.

You are not an exclusion.

 

[shawn001]

Likewise, if a person is conditioned from birth to see the world in a subject/object manner, they will see only themselves as conscious and intelligent, and the Sun and the moon only as objects, neither conscious nor intelligent.

The Sun and moon would be outside personal consciousness, but not outside of Universal Consciousness, which is the source of personal consciousness.

But none of this had to do with the question. I am asking:

Are the Sun and moon outside your current consciousness?

When you die, what you call 'my' consciousness does not die, as you may think. The TV signal does not die when the TV set goes ka-putt. What dies is only your identity, as this came into being during this life, but was not in place at the time you arrived in this world. What was in place at that moment was your consciousness, without an identity. That consciousness is not a personal consciousness, but is the consciousness of That which brought you here, That being The Universe. It is Unborn, Uncreated, Uncondtioned, and Uncaused. You only THINK consciousness belongs to you, personally.

We have been over the 'tree in the forest' question extensively on these forums, and the conclusion is that, no, there is no sound, as sound is dependent upon a receptor and a processor to interpret sound pressure waves as auditory sound. Only pressure waves are present. No actual sound. None. Zip. Nada.

"When you die, what you call 'my' consciousness does not die, as you may think. The TV signal does not die when the TV set goes ka-putt. What dies is only your identity, as this came into being during this life, but was not in place at the time you arrived in this world. What was in place at that moment was your consciousness, without an identity. That consciousness is not a personal consciousness, but is the consciousness of That which brought you here, That being The Universe. It is Unborn, Uncreated, Uncondtioned, and Uncaused. You only THINK consciousness belongs to you, personally."

First, why are you stuck on TV sets? These are REALLY bad analogies and show your lack of comprehension on actual real neuroscience.

LOL, you know the definition of gobbledygook?

: wordy and generally unintelligible jargon

Definition of GOBBLEDYGOOK

Ashes to ashes dust to dust, which is exactly where every element in your body came from as star dust and gas from supernovae stars which seed the universe by creating atoms (which you say doesn't exist) like the Carbon Atom which is the building block of life on Earth.

The fact you're also starting with some kind of a tone of authority that you know what happens to anyone before or after death cracks me up.

"You're A Legend In Your Own Mind"

Without all the jargon you're using why don't you just say you're a type of pantheist who is saying there is no God, that the universe is intelligence itself, which in reality is saying its god.

Then there is information and the universe, missed out of this conversation so far. .


Please define how you're using the term "intelligence"?

 

[shawn001]

All of this could have been said in short, crisp, and coherent sentences.

1. You are speaking in god-language (Beyond. The Absolute. Etc)

2. Different approach: Stop using metaphysics to talk about simple concepts. Everything a be explained in human language without it needing to confusing any of the people you talk with on this thread not just me.

3. Getting to know me is showing interest in my point of view. Any communication medium mutual interests needs to be present before anyone can learn anything. This goes for any person you talk with: stranger, acquaintance, friend, loved one, whomever. Being online does not exclude conversation generalities but of course this depends on where you are from and your culture.

4. It is OKAY that you do not believe in Buddhist teachings. The Buddha taught suffering is birth/age/sickness/death and understanding it is liberation, and once one is liberated he no longer goes through rebirth in understanding it but actually dies does not suffer any longer. If you disagree, that's your right.

Buddhism is not a religion-of-the-book. You can disagree with the teachings but the practice will remain solid.

5. You cannot see things as they are if you are trying to convince people as if they don't know who they are to themselves.

If anything, the more you talk to me, the more you going into delusions. Many Zen practitioners do not talk for this reason. In the monastery I want to go to way up in the mountains, they have retreats where we cannot speak a word. It's all in service to each other and to the local community.

The more you are trying to defend your point right, the more I'm convinced you only know what your mind is telling you and mistaking what you are thinking (opinions) for facts. Many people do it. Many.

You are not an exclusion.

While I don't personally subscribe to any organized religion, if I did it would probably be Buddism.

"As a result of combining warm-heartedness with intelligence, I hope we'll be better equipped to contribute to humanity's well-being." Dalai Lama


Dalai Lama: Religion Without Quantum Physics Is an Incomplete Picture of Reality

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...m-physics-is-an-incomplete-picture-of-reality

Which I hope you find interesting.

 

[shawn001]

GodnotGod

Okay, my mistake now I see you're talking about Panpsychism, not pantheism.

 

[shawn001]

Likewise, if a person is conditioned from birth to see the world in a subject/object manner, they will see only themselves as conscious and intelligent, and the Sun and the moon only as objects, neither conscious nor intelligent.

The Sun and moon would be outside personal consciousness, but not outside of Universal Consciousness, which is the source of personal consciousness.

But none of this had to do with the question. I am asking:

Are the Sun and moon outside your current consciousness?

When you die, what you call 'my' consciousness does not die, as you may think. The TV signal does not die when the TV set goes ka-putt. What dies is only your identity, as this came into being during this life, but was not in place at the time you arrived in this world. What was in place at that moment was your consciousness, without an identity. That consciousness is not a personal consciousness, but is the consciousness of That which brought you here, That being The Universe. It is Unborn, Uncreated, Uncondtioned, and Uncaused. You only THINK consciousness belongs to you, personally.

We have been over the 'tree in the forest' question extensively on these forums, and the conclusion is that, no, there is no sound, as sound is dependent upon a receptor and a processor to interpret sound pressure waves as auditory sound. Only pressure waves are present. No actual sound. None. Zip. Nada. [/QUOTE}

You contradict yourself here as well. You would not know anything about the hypothesis of "Universal Consciousness" without "personal consciousness." Just like the tree would make no sound, unless you have an ear as a "receptor" and brain as a "processor to interpret sound pressure waves as auditory sound"

Your brain as the "source of personal consciousness" is the only way you can hypothesis "Universal Consciousness." to begin with in the first place.

That is putting the cart in front of the horse!

 

[godnotgod]

"What you see occurring as evolution is intelligence itself"

That is not at all the question I asked? I asked you to explain how the planet went from a place where no life could exist at all to photosynthesis and then a blade of grass?

No, that is NOT the question you asked. You asked what was behind physical evolution. I replied that nothing was behind it, that evolution and intelligence are one and the same reality.

Last I looked, science hypothesizes that life may have began in a pool of water where basic amino acids were formed, having been zapped with ultraviolet rays.

It doesn't matter in the slightest if you subscribe personally to any of the sciences or cherry pick the ones you personally like yourself. Your analogy of a TV as compared to the human brain, one of if not the most complex structure we know of in the universe is laughable at most.

Keep laughing, but fact is that both brain and TV set require data input for them to make any sense at all as brain and TV set. We know a TV set gets its data from the airwaves. I want to know, in terms of your idea, how non-material consciousness emerges from a material brain. Where does the transition take place, and how?

FYI 2016
Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed The Physical Source of Consciousness
Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed The Physical Source of Consciousness

Consciousness on-off switch discovered deep in brain
Consciousness on-off switch discovered deep in brain

Although the last study was only one person it's still interesting and there are other ways to either change consciousness (which is even something you're doing when you meditate although that is a certain state your putting your brain into) or even make someone unconscious.

It is also known, via scientific study, that consciousness grows the brain, and not the other way around. Long term meditators have been shown to grow thicker cortexes. It is also a known fact that meditation produces large outputs of Alpha waves, associated with higher thought.

 

[godnotgod]

You contradict yourself here as well. You would not know anything about the hypothesis of "Universal Consciousness" without "personal consciousness." Just like the tree would make no sound, unless you have an ear as a "receptor" and brain as a "processor to interpret sound pressure waves as auditory sound"

Your brain as the "source of personal consciousness" is the only way you can hypothesis "Universal Consciousness." to begin with in the first place.

That is putting the cart in front of the horse!

Ha ha ha....nice try, but riddled with erroneous logic and assumptions, outside, looking in, with your face pressed against the glass. Totally laughable logic.

Think:

Before personal consciousness is formed, that is to say, before ones' Identity is formed, there is consciousness present. That consciousness cannot be personal consciousness, so the only choice is universal consciousness, which is quickly stifled and suppressed by society, parents, government and other 'authority' figures in order to 'socialize' and 'mold' you into a nice, 'moral' *cough* human being that behaves properly, and believes in all the 'right 'things. But throughout the ordeal of life, that consciousness is always present, though the socialized but fictional self is not aware of it, because it thinks IT is the real McCoy, when, in fact, it is nothing other than fiction, a character playing out a drama in a script written by others. It thinks it is born, lives a life as John Doe, and dies. But because it is not real, it cannot do any of this. In fact, it does not live life; life is living IT! But because it thinks itself the doer; the mover and shaker, it thinks itself real, when the totality of its existence is nothing more than an accumulation of impressions of experiences it puts together and calls 'I', 'me', and 'mine' , a total fantasy. Once this fictional character is stripped away, we return to what was always present at all times: universal consciousness, the authentic Self. That is the day one really begins to live, compared to what was previously only a mere imitation of life, in which one chose 'this' over 'that'; atheism over theism; good over evil; mine over yours; heaven over hell, choosing sides against one's enemies, killing them in the name of whatever, and taking pride in doing so for love of country, and all the rest of the crap he was indoctrinated with from the get go, never catching a glimpse of his true nature which only sat and watched the drama unfold, unable to intervene because the character, the puppet, was so headstrong and was so cocksure about pushing the world around, until one day he saw the error of his ways and the damage inflicted upon others. Only then did the course of his artificial life begin to change, subtly and quietly prompted from within to see a different reality. That something is the real person, that was present before the character was formed, and will be there after the character is no more.

Nay, it is Universal Consciousness that knows what the personal self is all about, and not the other way around. You cannot contain the Infinite within the finite.

Universal Consciousness is not a hypothesis, but a reality one sees and experiences directly. When one awakens to it, one then sees clearly the machinations of the self acting out its drama on the lower level of conscious awareness, in the state of Identification.

 

[shawn001]

No, that is NOT the question you asked. You asked what was behind physical evolution. I replied that nothing was behind it, that evolution and intelligence are one and the same reality.

Last I looked, science hypothesizes that life may have began in a pool of water where basic amino acids were formed, having been zapped with ultraviolet rays.

There have been many advances.


Keep laughing, but fact is that both brain and TV set require data input for them to make any sense at all as brain and TV set. We know a TV set gets its data from the airwaves. I want to know, in terms of your idea, how non-material consciousness emerges from a material brain. Where does the transition take place, and how?

TV sets get their data from people's brains who have figured it out how to send signals, now digital signals using the electromagnetic spectrum.

TV sets don't eat food to convert to energy. Quite eating for a couple months and you'll see why the TV set analogy is so wrong among many other reasons.

It is also known, via scientific study, that consciousness grows the brain, and not the other way around. Long term meditators have been shown to grow thicker cortexes. It is also a known fact that meditation produces large outputs of Alpha waves, associated with higher thought.

What your talking about is Neuroplasticity. There have been many advances in the science since this was written even.

The Brain: How The Brain Rewires Itself
Not only can the brain learn new tricks, but it can also change its structure and function--even in old age

The Brain: How The Brain Rewires Itself


"It is also a known fact that meditation produces large outputs of Alpha waves, associated with higher thought."

Have no idea what you're talking about here in "higher thought." I think this may be your own perception of what it is actually.

This is even an old article on something they understand a lot better now 17 years later.

The science behind meditation, and why it makes you feel better

http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-meditation-changes-your-brain-and-makes-you-feel-b-470030863

Neuroplasticity also plays a role in meditation being beneficial, but it's not just meditation either, clinical hypnotherapy is an even deeper state of focus. Both can change the brain due to Neuroplasticity, in fact, there is some science you can make molecular changes to the body.

Your in Theta with Hypnotherapy and Alpha when meditating, listening to music and there you go watching TV. I can go way further into all this because I have been studying it for years for health reasons and my own interest in Neuroscience.

"I want to know, in terms of your idea, how non-material consciousness emerges from a material brain. Where does the transition take place, and how?

Nobody yet knows how abiogenesis took place exactly.

However, and this goes back to me asking you how photosynthesis took place, as important as our evolution of consciousness, since we would not have oxygen for life.

"
The Electric Brain

• How does a three-pound mass of wet gray tissue (the brain) succeed in representing the external world so beautifully? In this interview with noted neuroscientist Rodolfo Lliní¡s of the New York University School of Medicine, find out how the rhythm of electrical oscillations in the brain gives rise to consciousness, and how failures in this rhythm can lead to a variety of brain disorders.
  
  "
  WHY BRAINS ARE IMPORTANT
  NOVA: Let's start by talking about why one needs a nervous system—or a brain—in the first place.
  Rodolfo Lliní¡s: That's a very intriguing issue. The nervous system is about 550 million years old, and it first came about when cells decided to make animals. Basically there are two types of animals: animals, and animals that have no brains; they are called plants. They don't need a nervous system because they don't move actively, they don't pull up their roots and run in a forest fire! Anything that moves actively requires a nervous system; otherwise it would come to a quick death.
  
  Why would it die if it didn't have a nervous system?
  Because if you move, the variety of environments that you find is very large. So if you happen to be a plant you have to worry only about the very small space you grow into. You don't have to do anything other than maybe move up and down. And you're following the sun anyhow, so there is no planned movement, and therefore there is no necessity to predict what is going to happen if, which is what the nervous system seems to be about. It seems to be about moving in a more or less intelligent way. The more elaborate the system, the more intelligent the movement.
  
  So you need a nervous system in order to be able to predict the future?
  Yes, and in order to predict you have to have, at the very least, a simple image inside that tells you something about the purpose of the outside world. That is common to all nervous systems of all forms that we know of. Each animal has a different universe—the universe it sees, the universe it feels, the universe it tastes. Earth probably looks very different not only for all of us as individual humans, but also for different animals.
  
  "We assume we have free will, but we don't"
  How does consciousness come into this view of the brain? Is consciousness a mysterious phenomenon, in your opinion?
  I don't think so. I think consciousness is the sum of perceptions, which you must put together as a single event. I seriously believe that consciousness does not belong only to humans; it belongs to probably all forms of life that have a nervous system. The issue is the level of consciousness. Maybe in the very primitive animals, in which cells did not have a single systemic property—in which each cell was a little island, if you wish—there may not have been consciousness, just primitive sensation, or irritability, and primitive movement. But as soon as cells talked to one another there would be a consensus. This is basically what consciousness is about—putting all this relevant stuff there is outside one's head inside, making an image with it, and deciding what to do. In order to make a decision you have to have a consensus.
  
  But it all just boils down to cells talking to one another?
  Some people believe we are something beyond neurons, but of course we are not. We are just the sum total of the activity of neurons. We assume that we have free will and that we make decisions, but we don't. Neurons do. We decide that this sum total driving us is a decision we have made for ourselves. But it is not.
  
  This colored scanning electron micrograph shows the synapses, or connections, between two nerve fibers (in purple) and a nerve cell (yellow). The picture is magnified 10,000 times.EnlargePhoto credit: Photo Researchers
  
  
  So this mass of wet gray tissue that is our brain is made up of neurons?
  The brain is made out of cells. It is a long and very distinguished group of cells—about 550 million years or so old. These cells have a small mass. Our brain is about one-and-a-half liters, or three pounds, but it has 1010 cells, which is a huge number of cells. Ten billion cells. And each cell has 1,000 to 10,000 or so synapses—the connections between the cells. So the brain has trillions of synapses.
  
  How does the brain keep all these different neurons communicating in synch?
  Neurons like one another very much. They respond to one another's messages, so they basically chat all day, like people do in society. "Where can I park?" "How much is it going to cost?" "Am I going to get a ticket?" One set of neurons talks to another set of neurons, and they talk back, so we have a dialogue between different components in the brain. And the dialogue is not between one cell and another cell, but rather between many cells and many other cells. It's like having a huge number of people holding hands, dancing together, making ever-changing circles and organized together in such a way that every cell belongs, at some time, to some circle. It's like a huge square dance. Each dancer belongs to a particular movement at a particular time.
  
  And there's music that keeps them all dancing together?
  Right. It's generated by the neurons themselves. Neurons have an intrinsic rhythm, a bit like a hum. They generate this electrical dance at a given frequency because they have similar rhythms—they hum in unison. But as in the case of choirs and dancing, you can have two groups doing different things at the same time. Now imagine that each group doing something represents an aspect of an external event, like a color.
  
  That's the brain's job—to represent an external event?
  Right. Imagine many cells making an activity circle, with electrical activity going around and around like a windmill. Imagine that out of this circle come a few cells into the center and perform a particular dance that the other cells see but are not necessarily part of. Now these cells that do this particular dance may be cells that have learned something from the outside that they want to put in the context of whatever else is happening in the nervous system. The brain, when awake, is continually generating a picture of the outside world. When new information from the outside comes in it has to be put into context with whatever else was happening just before.
  
  "The brain is the ultimate organ. It can make a reality. It can dream it."
  Is there ever nothing going on—no dance—inside the brain?
  Sometimes there is nothing as far as consciousness going on, like when you fall asleep. At that time you are not generated. That particular dance, that is you, is not being created by the brain at the moment. If you are asleep but dreaming then the brain makes another dance during which you exist but you don't care about the external world. You can exist on your own with dreams, hallucinations, or deep thoughts, or you can relate to the outside world. Normal people want to relate to the outside world. If you happen to be a schizophrenic you may not. You may want to hallucinate somewhere in a corner. You are consumed by your thoughts. You are fascinated by whatever is inside your head.
  
  
  The Electric Brain — NOVA | PBS
  
  They have also come way further then this article since it was written.
  

 

[shawn001]

Ha ha ha....nice try, but riddled with erroneous logic and assumptions, outside, looking in, with your face pressed against the glass. Totally laughable logic.

Think:

Before personal consciousness is formed, that is to say, before ones' Identity is formed, there is consciousness present. That consciousness cannot be personal consciousness, so the only choice is universal consciousness, which is quickly stifled and suppressed by society, parents, government and other 'authority' figures in order to 'socialize' and 'mold' you into a nice, 'moral' *cough* human being that behaves properly, and believes in all the 'right 'things. But throughout the ordeal of life, that consciousness is always present, though the socialized but fictional self is not aware of it, because it thinks IT is the real McCoy, when, in fact, it is nothing other than fiction, a character playing out a drama in a script written by others. It thinks it is born, lives a life as John Doe, and dies. But because it is not real, it cannot do any of this. In fact, it does not live life; life is living IT! But because it thinks itself the doer; the mover and shaker, it thinks itself real, when the totality of its existence is nothing more than an accumulation of impressions of experiences it puts together and calls 'I', 'me', and 'mine' , a total fantasy. Once this fictional character is stripped away, we return to what was always present at all times: universal consciousness, the authentic Self. That is the day one really begins to live, compared to what was previously only a mere imitation of life, in which one chose 'this' over 'that'; atheism over theism; good over evil; mine over yours; heaven over hell, choosing sides against one's enemies, killing them in the name of whatever, and taking pride in doing so for love of country, and all the rest of the crap he was indoctrinated with from the get go, never catching a glimpse of his true nature which only sat and watched the drama unfold, unable to intervene because the character, the puppet, was so headstrong and was so cocksure about pushing the world around, until one day he saw the error of his ways and the damage inflicted upon others. Only then did the course of his artificial life begin to change, subtly and quietly prompted from within to see a different reality. That something is the real person, that was present before the character was formed, and will be there after the character is no more.

Nay, it is Universal Consciousness that knows what the personal self is all about, and not the other way around. You cannot contain the Infinite within the finite.

Universal Consciousness is not a hypothesis, but a reality one sees and experiences directly. When one awakens to it, one then sees clearly the machinations of the self acting out its drama on the lower level of conscious awareness, in the state of Identification.

Wow!

I certainly don't need to think too hard on the above. But you should be thinking more on coherent thought and prose. If you have "Higher thought" try following it with coherent communication.

"Before personal consciousness is formed, that is to say, before ones' Identity is formed, there is consciousness present"

There is no proof of that what so ever. As I posted in a later thread you developed consciousness because you needed a nervous system. This is where you fail a lot because you don't know the actual science of the evolution of life and nervous system and brains.

I have already stated you can't know Universal consciousness without personal consciousness the brain being the receptor and you are putting the cart in front of the horse and didn't like my response which was solid. Everything you wrote above was your personal consciousness at work, a Universal consciousness did not, come up with it or write it. For one, a universal consciousness doesn't use bad TV set analogies for the way the brain works.

I am done with this as its going nowhere and my universal consciousness is telling me to stop debating when the other doesn't know enough about the actual science to debate them.

"Universal Consciousness is not a hypothesis,"

Show me a peer review scientific paper this is not a hypothesis. I study the earth sciences astronomy, cosmology, and neuroscience in depth and would like to see any proof from the scientific community and not just you this has been proven. It's your belief that the hypothesis is true. Just like it was your beliefs you know what happens to people before they are born and die.

 

[godnotgod]

Again you don't answer the answer the question? I am not talking about the brain here I am asking you to describe the evolution of Photosynthesis.

"There is nothing 'behind' anything"

There is NO such thing as "No-thing' or nothing in physics.

Right, so you're saying there is intelligence behind everything and at the same time, no intelligence behind anything and you can't explain the evolution of photosynthesis.

I already explained that, when I said there is nothing behind evolution, 'behind' being YOUR description, I meant that there is no agent of evolution over here, and the process of evolution over there in the sense of a creator-god and his creation. To be clear, what you see as evolution is none other than intelligence itself, just as a gold chain is none other than pure gold. IOW, the world as it is being manifested via evolution, is intelligence playing itself as such. However, it is not the same type of conditioned intelligence the ordinary man exhibits, highly controlled and structured in a subject/object split. The intelligence of the Universe and of evolution is unconditioned, which is the reason for both the infinite variety it manifests itself as, and for the seemingly limitless profusion issuing forth. While there is great variety as shown through evolution, there is also great profusion. In the cosmos, there is seemingly an endless number of stars, all existing for no apparent reason. This fact points to why The Universe behaves in this manner, a subject for another time.

Were it not for the background of Nothing, there would not only be no physics as we know it, there would be no visible Universe. Nothing is as essential to Everything as Space is essential to Solid.

Answer my question: Are the Sun and moon within or outside of your consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

I have to leave out. But, if you read my posts in context, god-language or god-concepts means you are talking in mysticism or "beyond" "the absolute", "true reality", and all that type of talk

that I am not familiar with.

Call me the odd one out, but I am a hardcore atheist. I do not understand anything that is supposed to be higher or lower than me on any spiritual realm at all.

It has nothing to do with the word god. God is an object or person of worship. It's something or someone you put at a high standard than yourself.

Whether you call it "beyond human knowlege"

or belittle a person's intelligence by saying "They don't know the truth of reality"

however you put it, it is god-language.

To be continued...

I am going to take your advice and attempt another approach in our discussion.

You pretty much stated that you believe in the Buddha's teachings. For starters, I need to know if you give credence to the message of the Heart Sutra, particularly that of Sunyata, which says that all phenomena, including man, has no inherent self-nature. Do you understand the message and agree with that?

 

[godnotgod]

godnotnod said: "Before personal consciousness is formed, that is to say, before ones' Identity is formed, there is consciousness present"

There is no proof of that what so ever. As I posted in a later thread you developed consciousness because you needed a nervous system.

Heh...heh...well now, if there was a point in your existence when 'you' developed consciousness, then 'you' (whatever and whoever that might be) must already have been present even before consciousness developed in order to get a nervous system, a totally ridiculous scenario, clumsy and the epitome of stupidity. No. First there is Pure Consciousness, out of which The Universe emerged, which includes you and I and all other sentient beings with nervous systems. You and I are a total action of The Universe. Why is the question.

Does a newborn have a sense of 'I', of identity, or is it just a bundle of consciousness that instantly responds to various stimuli?

And by the way, can you tell me how it is that a baby knows the game of Peek-A-Boo without ever having been taught the game?

 

[godnotgod]

"When you die, what you call 'my' consciousness does not die, as you may think. The TV signal does not die when the TV set goes ka-putt. What dies is only your identity, as this came into being during this life, but was not in place at the time you arrived in this world. What was in place at that moment was your consciousness, without an identity. That consciousness is not a personal consciousness, but is the consciousness of That which brought you here, That being The Universe. It is Unborn, Uncreated, Uncondtioned, and Uncaused. You only THINK consciousness belongs to you, personally."

First, why are you stuck on TV sets? These are REALLY bad analogies and show your lack of comprehension on actual real neuroscience.

What I am suggesting to you is that, like the TV set, which receives its signals non-locally, so too, the brain receives its consciousness non-locally, even though holy science with its microscopes and clinical analysis says otherwise. Having said that, want scientific proof that consciousness is non-local? Here 'ya go:

Here is a link to the original paper in .pdf format published in Physics Essays in 1994, since replicated in other experiments.:

http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

LOL, you know the definition of gobbledygook

Yup! "Thienthe", LOL

 

[godnotgod]

The Heart Sutra is Mahayana teachings. It's one of the most popular of Buddhist teachings. Theravada is quite different on their approach to what Self is. They just say we are in illusions so there is no definition of who we are. We give ourselves definitions and that brings suffering. So, some people practice Zen to get rid of that. .

Bull! If that is what they do, they are wasting their time on their zafus. You cannot get rid of the self, because the self is an illusion that does not exist in the first place. Besides that, a good Zen question is: "Who is trying to get rid of the self, if not the self itself?" Hmmmm?

 

[godnotgod]

I have already stated you can't know Universal consciousness without personal consciousness the brain being the receptor and you are putting the cart in front of the horse and didn't like my response which was solid. Everything you wrote above was your personal consciousness at work, a Universal consciousness did not, come up with it or write it. For one, a universal consciousness doesn't use bad TV set analogies for the way the brain works.

Now who is playing the part of Absolute Authority?

What you fail to realize is that Universal Consciousness is playing itself as personal consciousness, which thinks it is the true reality, as you do. So contrary to your mistaken assessment due to the fact that you think your personal consciousness to be real, it is actually Universal Consciousness doing the heavy lifting, unbeknownst to the personal self. IOW, you're clueless! Best get thee to the nunnery, and posthaste!

"Universal Consciousness is not a hypothesis,"

Show me a peer review scientific paper this is not a hypothesis. I study the earth sciences astronomy, cosmology, and neuroscience in depth and would like to see any proof from the scientific community and not just you this has been proven. It's your belief that the hypothesis is true. Just like it was your beliefs you know what happens to people before they are born and die.

What a ridiculous request! What the escaped prisoner saw with his own eyes when leaving Plato's Cave is not a hypothesis, nor can it be proven to be fact to the other prisoners unless they go see for themselves. UC is an experience, not an idea called 'hypothesis'.

 

[godnotgod]

All personal experiences come from the brain.

No, all TV images come from the TV set.

What is your definition of the thinking mind?

A self-created principle that is an illusion.