the soul is not dependent on brain activity

[Glaurung]

There may be "materialists atheist preachers"
such as you suggest.

The annoying internet atheist is a stereotype for a reason.

Notice btw your cute little tu quoque?

It is so telling that many here can make sweeping claims about religious people (particularly Christians) but if I drop an offhand comment about materialism as a dogma (particularly on the issue of life after death) it's somehow a big fallacy.

And your absurd fallacy of gross overgeneralizing
is only highlighted by your mentioning such.

And that your own thinking is so dogmatic that this
theoretical aberration is all there is.

There is nothing "dogmatic" in having a functioning
woowoo deterctor. The religious tend to have faulty ones.

Though I'd guess that educated Christians who are not
invested in self deception will also be very skeptical
of the outlandish claims of the outta- body claimants.

Your finding "good reason" is exactly wishful thinking.

And of course the woo woo fans accuse those who dont buy into their chosen ( flying saucers, astrology, whatever)
of not being open minded.

What a jumble.

Talk about a jumble. I am honestly struggling to keep track of what your point is even meant to be at this point.

Oh, almost forget. What if your so called research actually
proved there is this soul ?
What does that do to faith?

My post had nothing to do with faith. It had nothing to do with religion. Whether or not consciousness continues after death is not in itself a 'religious' question.

I wrote that my reading on various phenomena: NDEs, terminal lucidity, veridical deathbed visions; leads me to conclusion that there is sufficient reason to believe in the survival of consciousness after death. I never claimed to have proof of anything. I never claimed to have certainty of anything. I explicitly stated otherwise. I'm sorry if my view on this topic offends you. But that's not my problem.

But the last but, the "wait and see Ii was right
all along. " so lame.

That my rather benign post has evidently hit a nerve for you speaks volumes. I don't actually care to convince you of anything. You approached me. We are done, unless you make a clear point and address what I have actually written in my first post here. I'm not interested in trying to make sense of yet half-backed rant accusing me of 'woo woo', 'self-deception' or whatever else because it has nothing to do with what I have said.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not the same as what we are discussing here, unless you are somehow suggesting the plasma's existence depended on the art and could not exist separately from it.

The analogy is that the mechanism of a phenomenon dependent on a physical substrate need not be understood to conclude that there is a causal relationship between that matter and that phenomenon.

Materialist atheism is belief system like any other. Many preach it with the same degree of dogmatism as the 'religious' people they often decry.

"Many"? I see this claim quite a bit. It an effort to denigrate all atheists based in the behavior of alleged zealous atheists, but when asked to produce a specific example, none have been produced. Maybe you can do better. I suspect that one can find a ridiculous opinions from an atheist regarding atheism, but I haven't yet. The extremists and grandiose thinkers tend to flock to theism.

You could open yourself up to the possibility that reality may not be what you think it is.

I did as a Christian, and now I'm a humanist. How about you? Have you considered that you are wrong about reality?

And if what I suspect is the case is indeed the case, you and many others will be shocked the day you learn that those billions were right.

OK, but should that matter now? If what I suspect is the case is indeed the case, you and many others will *NOT* be shocked by its truth, because you won't possess the capacity to be shocked or even conscious. You don't need to concern yourself with that possibility, either.

What if there is an afterlife, but nothing like what you have imagined? What if you are judged for accepting a religion? Are you worried about that?

There are people in this very thread claiming such certainty.

That was a reply to, "Show us someone who " insists" (claims to know) what follows death is ...nothing."

Once again, I see your words but don't recall anybody doing that. Maybe you mean me. Can you point to the words to which you refer?

The annoying internet atheist is a stereotype for a reason.

Insecure theists who bristle at being contradicted? You don't hear the atheists objecting to being disagreed with. I don't consider theists - even zealous ones - annoying, just spinning their wheels.

 

[YmirGF]

I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I believe your soul is the real you. Your body is the vehicle that enables your soul to do its work in this world. Just as a driver controls a car through its control mechanisms while sitting in the driver's seat, the soul uses the brain to control the body.

the soul control the nervous system and, through it, various organs in the body.

Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal. the body is only temporary

Any thoughts?

An interesting, if mildly naive take on this topic. I cannot say if this soul is dependent on brain activity or not. I don't know. Speaking as an energy personality essence, currently focused in physical reality, I can tell you that it is an utterly remarkable sensation to be hovering outside your physical body, looking back and seeing yourself calmly sitting there. It's even more dazzling when you realize you are aware of being in the two spaces, simultaneously. It's a bit of a show-stopper and certainly gets your attention.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The analogy is that the mechanism of a phenomenon dependent on a physical substrate need not be understood to conclude that there is a causal relationship between that matter and that phenomenon.

A causal relationship doesn't imply dependence for the phenomenon's existence. It only implies that the observation of that phenomenon is dependent upon a substrate.

 

[Glaurung]

I did as a Christian, and now I'm a humanist. How about you? Have you considered that you are wrong about reality?

Yes. Growing up I had a fairly religious Catholic upbringing. During my mid-teens to early twenties, I went through an atheist phase. But then I realized atheism was dumb and wrong so after a very short-lived flirtation with Vaishnavism I got into traditionalist Catholicism.

My confidence in Catholicism (as the ultimate truth) has somewhat crumbled. Though I am still 'officially' Catholic I am better described as something of an open-minded truth seeker exploring certain questions. I have always been open to changing my mind and I have already done so.

What if there is an afterlife, but nothing like what you have imagined? What if you are judged for accepting a religion? Are you worried about that?

I have explored traditional religion and its claims about what awaits us. I have explored the NDE phenomenon and what many experiencers say they experienced on the other side. I have entertained the notion of reincarnation and the supposed phenomenon of past life recollections among young children. While I do lean towards the afterlife being more likely real than not, I am not at all committed to any one vision of what that afterlife will actually be like. Admittedly, I will be pretty shocked if Islam or Mormonism turn out to be true.

That was a reply to, "Show us someone who " insists" (claims to know) what follows death is ...nothing."

Once again, I see your words but don't recall anybody doing that. Maybe you mean me. Can you point to the words to which you refer?

There is no soul. It's a farce in light that each and every organism is just a composition of atoms. I'd say it's more a collective of living matter with an amazing ability of communicating to create the illusion of just a single mind controlling the body.

Insecure theists who bristle at being contradicted? You don't hear the atheists objecting to being disagreed with. I don't consider theists - even zealous ones - annoying, just spinning their wheels.

As an experiment, go to Reddit (r/atheism or something) and say something positive about religion or even theism in general.

 

[Audie]

The annoying internet atheist is a stereotype for a reason.


It is so telling that many here can make sweeping claims about religious people (particularly Christians) but if I drop an offhand comment about materialism as a dogma (particularly on the issue of life after death) it's somehow a big fallacy.


Talk about a jumble. I am honestly struggling to keep track of what your point is even meant to be at this point.


My post had nothing to do with faith. It had nothing to do with religion. Whether or not consciousness continues after death is not in itself a 'religious' question.

I wrote that my reading on various phenomena: NDEs, terminal lucidity, veridical deathbed visions; leads me to conclusion that there is sufficient reason to believe in the survival of consciousness after death. I never claimed to have proof of anything. I never claimed to have certainty of anything. I explicitly stated otherwise. I'm sorry if my view on this topic offends you. But that's not my problem.


That my rather benign post has evidently hit a nerve for you speaks volumes. I don't actually care to convince you of anything. You approached me. We are done, unless you make a clear point and address what I have actually written in my first post here. I'm not interested in trying to make sense of yet half-backed rant accusing me of 'woo woo', 'self-deception' or whatever else because it has nothing to do with what I have said.

Hit a nerve.

As if you had the capacity to do
that.
But you've devolved to making
things up so I just skimmed the post.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As an experiment, go to Reddit (r/atheism or something) and say something positive about religion or even theism in general.

Whats positive is waking up from delusion and not relying on one's imagination as if it's a real actual thing outside the fantasy itself.

 

[Trailblazer]

I also believe consciousness survies death. My reading into various deathbed phenomena has given me sufficient grounds to maintain hope that consciousness continues after the demise of the physical body. Everyone knows about NDEs, but there are also many reports of terminal lucidity and veridical deathbed visions. Not to mention phenomena such as OBEs, apparitions, past life memories and so on.

I don't only have hope. I definitely believe that consciousness survives death, since I believe that the soul is responsible for consciousness, and the soul survives death. All those things you noted are evidence, but psychic mediums who have communicated with spirits on the other side is also evidence. I believe what my religion teaches about the soul is also evidence that the soul exists and continues to exist after the death of the physical body.

People who insist that physical death extinguishes consciousness are pushing a dogma. I do not claim to know with certainty that an afterlife definitely exists, but I think looking into these phenomena gives us real hope that there may indeed be something there.

I agree that people who insist that physical death extinguishes consciousness are pushing a dogma. The dogma that they are pushing is that the soul dies when the body dies, because the Bible says the soul that sins will die, and we all sin so all our souls will die. I guess these Christians forgot the part of the Bible where Jesus died for our sins so that we could have eternal life.

Wherever the Bible says that the soul that sins will die, that doesn't mean that soul will cease to exist. It means that soul will not gain eternal life, which is nearness to God. All souls are immortal, so they will continue to exist in the spiritual world after the physical body dies, but not all souls will have eternal life.

They also push the dogma that the dead know nothing so that means that the dead are not conscious, since it says that the dead know nothing in the Bible (Ecc 9:5). That verse means that the 'dead body' knows nothing, obviously, since the body and brain are dead.

Now on to the dogma these Christians are pushing and how it furthers their agenda. They have an agenda, and that agenda includes believing that after they die their bodies will be raised from the grave and God will put them all back together again, and they will have the same physical body they had before they died. Some Christians such as the JWs, believe they will live on earth forever in that restored physical body. Of course this goes against what the Bible says (1 Cor. 15:40, 44, 50, 51), that we will be raised as spiritual bodies so we will be suited to go to heaven, which is a spiritual world.

So no, these Christians 'cannot believe' that the soul is eternal since it spoils their hopes and dreams of living on earth forever in a physical body.
They 'have to believe' that the physical body is all there is to being human, even though that goes completely against what Jesus taught ((John 3:6, John 6:63, 1 John 2:16)

Most Christians believe that will go to heaven after they die but JWs love their life in this world so much that they want to keep it forever, which goes completely against what Jesus taught.

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

 

[Trailblazer]

What if there is an afterlife, but nothing like what you have imagined? What if you are judged for accepting a religion? Are you worried about that?

What if there is an afterlife? What if you are judged for 'not' believing in God or accepting a religion? Are you worried about that?
I don't believe that is what will happen, but nobody really knows, do they, since God has kept the nature of the afterlife under His hat. Nice guy.

 

[Secret Chief]

I take that the foundational doctrine of anatta (non-self) means that the metaphysical entity of a soul does not exist. The belief in one is created by our ego and contributes to dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) generation.

 

[Trailblazer]

We know that consciousness is dependent on brain activity in the same way that we know that the coldness in a refrigerator is dependent on its material source.

That's true, as long as we are alive and have brain activity.

The concept of the soul is the result of subtraction - a living body minus a dead body equals one soul.

When we see a candle burn then extinguish, we don't imagine that a flame entered it and then departed it. But when somebody dies, some imagine that an animating spirit has departed rather than being a product generated by a candle while it burns.

I don't see it that way. I believe that the living body has a soul, and the soul animates the body while we are alive in a body.
I believe that after the body dies the soul (spirit) departs the body and crosses over to the spiritual world, where it continues to exist in another form.
In the Bible that form is a spiritual body. In the Baha'i Writings, it is a heavenly form, which is the same as a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15 New Living Translation
44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.
51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194

People like to think that might be the case with the flame of life if not a candle flame, because it offers hope of immortality for consciousness. A problem with that idea is that it has been coopted by the Abrahamic religions. In the hands of a priesthood, this immortal soul has become the hostage of a god that will decide its fate according to rules you have been "commanded" to follow.

Funny thing though. Most Christians don't believe that there is an immortal soul that continues to exist after the body dies.
Rather, they believe that their body will be raised from the grave and be put back together, kind of like Humpy-Dumpty who fell off the wall.

The soul is a fiction. The word refers to the cumulative manifestations and mannerisms of an individual during life generated by the body and brain as the laws of physics orchestrate the dance of particles acceding to the pushes and pulls the four forces generate that we call life, mind, and soul/spirit.

According to Baha'i beliefs, the soul is a sign of God, and the nature of the soul is a mystery no man has ever been able to unravel.
The soul can be seen in the cumulative manifestations and mannerisms of an individual during life generated by the body and brain while we are living in the body, which are commonly referred to as the personality, and I believe that personality is what we take with us after we die and cross over to the spiritual world.

 

[We Never Know]

We know that consciousness is dependent on brain activity in the same way that we know that the coldness in a refrigerator is dependent on its material source.

The concept of the soul is the result of subtraction - a living body minus a dead body equals one soul.

When we see a candle burn then extinguish, we don't imagine that a flame entered it and then departed it. But when somebody dies, some imagine that an animating spirit has departed rather than being a product generated by a candle while it burns.

People like to think that might be the case with the flame of life if not a candle flame, because it offers hope of immortality for consciousness. A problem with that idea is that it has been coopted by the Abrahamic religions. In the hands of a priesthood, this immortal soul has become the hostage of a god that will decide its fate according to rules you have been "commanded" to follow.

The soul is a fiction. The word refers to the cumulative manifestations and mannerisms of an individual during life generated by the body and brain as the laws of physics orchestrate the dance of particles acceding to the pushes and pulls the four forces generate that we call life, mind, and soul/spirit.

"When we see a candle burn then extinguish, we don't imagine that a flame entered it and then departed it. But when somebody dies, some imagine that an animating spirit has departed rather than being a product generated by a candle while it burns."

Well I haven't seen a candle or flame that is alive or conscious so there's that little problem.

 

[1213]

I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I agree with you, because, how could I say Nickolas Coke didn't have a soul, even though he didn't have brains?

Nickolas Coke, boy born without brain, dies at 3

Anencephaly, a neural tube birth defect, occurs in about 1 in 10,000 births

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I'd say consciousness is dependent on brain activity in general, and certain outside factors can affect it (illnesses, brain damage, etc).

Consciousness as we know it, for sure. But perhaps the sort of “consciousness” that @Starlight speaks of is a “divine, universal” sort; one that we have no separate, proper term for because it is not exactly like the neurological one we usually refer to by our term of consciousness?

As to whether there's a soul, I feel it's a question that for myself, I can only speculate on through philosophy.

That makes sense. The term “soul” is very complex and means many different things to different people.

In general, I’d say that reflection about such concepts as soul, consciousness, etc. need not so much be about getting down to “truths”, as about acquiring a personal understanding about/perspective on one’s relation to “otherness” (to some @Starlight, “otherness” may come to seem an illusion), thereby, providing grounds for one’s form of participation/ interaction in life.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[viole]

I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I know several people who look conscious, yet seem to have no brain.

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I haven't seen a candle or flame that is alive or conscious so there's that little problem.

Not a problem. The analogy still applies. My claim is that the concept of a soul as being something separate from the emanations of the brain into mind probably derives from the illusion that when a body dies, an animating spirit has departed it that was once infused into it as suggested by scripture's reference to life beginning when breathing begins. The word inspire literally embodies this concept, where "spirare" (breathe) is also the root for spirit.

Does this actually happen - souls entering and leaving bodies between the first breath and the last? I have no reason to believe it does, but cannot demonstrate that it doesn't.

The flame is a good analogy. It flickers and thusly imitates life and mind. By the same reasoning, one could choose to view a flame as being the spirit of a burning candle which entered and then left it rather than being an epiphenomenon of combustion (oxidation) just like all living processes (metabolism is also "combustion," which is why it generates calories of heat and warms a body). The flame need not be conscious for the analogy to be apt, and its absence in a flame isn't relevant to the idea that .

perhaps the sort of “consciousness” that @Starlight speaks of is a “divine, universal” sort; one that we have no separate, proper term for because it is not exactly like the neurological one we usually refer to by our term of consciousness?

Why refer to such a thing? What does that refer to that is relevant to human experience?

In general, I’d say that reflection about such concepts as soul, consciousness, etc. need not so much be about getting down to “truths”, as about acquiring a personal understanding about/perspective on one’s relation to “otherness” (to some @Starlight, “otherness” may come to seem an illusion), thereby, providing grounds for one’s form of participation/ interaction in life.

With all due respect, I see comments like these and wonder what it is others are referring to. How do ideas like that benefit you? Your words resemble the Dharmics and maybe others who talk about overcoming dualism, and I don't know what motivates them, either. I keep asking, but still have no answer. Why should I or anybody else care to pursue this line of thinking? What's the benefit? Can you help?

I'm looking at what to me appears to be fluff, but don't dismiss the possibility that there is something I'm overlooking, and asking others what they know that they find valuable and how it profits them. If I never get a meaningful answer, that is, one that isn't more fluff - words lacking any specific meaning - what shall I conclude?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

With all due respect, I see comments like these and wonder what it is others are referring to. How do ideas like that benefit you? Your words resemble the Dharmics and maybe others who talk about overcoming dualism, and I don't know what motivates them, either. I keep asking, but still have no answer. Why should I or anybody else care to pursue this line of thinking? What's the benefit? Can you help?

I'm looking at what to me appears to be fluff, but don't dismiss the possibility that there is something I'm overlooking, and asking others what they know that they find valuable and how it profits them. If I never get a meaningful answer, that is, one that isn't more fluff - words lacking any specific meaning - what shall I conclude?

Hello @It Aint Necessarily So!

I’ll likely fail to refrain from speaking of what you see as “more fluff”, as what’s “fluff” to one person is instead “obvious” to another and vice versa - none of them particularly “right/wrong”, in my own view.

But as I read it, you ask for:

a) benefits/profits/value [in holding X beliefs] and

b) motives [for sharing one’s (X) beliefs aloud with others]

In regards to (a):

Is your life’s motto that it be of “benefit” to you? No judgement, but of course, that is not everyone’s life’s motto. I personally don’t wonder much about how X belief “benefits” me. And as to how my beliefs benefit you; that is a question only you could find an answer to. What I would say that I do consider and care about is whether my own beliefs were to cause you [others] harm - that is not something that would sit comfortably with me.

Also, a question that your question (a) arose in me is whether you’d say that there are “benefits” to all your beliefs and if so, whether that is the reason for you holding them? Or, whether you hold certain beliefs and then [try to] find “benefits” to doing so?

In regards to (b):
I share certain thoughts “aloud” with others because in doing so, I too contribute to the very many different possible ways of looking at things and it is my belief that there can never be too many available different perspectives on anything.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[John D. Brey]

Well, have you ever met a soul without a physical body? And if you have, could you describe the meeting?

As a Chomskyesque retort, I could ask, have you ever met a sentence that came to be, apart from an invisible soul?




John

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

as I read it, you ask for:

a) benefits/profits/value [in holding X beliefs] and

b) motives [for sharing one’s (X) beliefs aloud with others]

Just (a).

In regards to (a):

Is your life’s motto that it be of “benefit” to you? No judgement, but of course, that is not everyone’s life’s motto. I personally don’t wonder much about how X belief “benefits” me. And as to how my beliefs benefit you; that is a question only you could find an answer to.

I don't have a motto, but I do need a reason to pursue any recommended ism. There are so many competing "truths" out there, and I'd need to see a concrete benefit in those who have done the work already before I would invest the time and effort to follow them.

I've asked dozens of RF posters who claim to have some arcane knowledge acquired through a special way of knowing what they've learned and how it benefitted them, and their answers were all like yours - nothing concrete or specific. That's what I meant by fluff - words that don't actually say anything useful. Here are two recent examples:

He: "You are unaware of the spiritual realms that exist, that influence man for better or for worse?"
Me: "No spiritual realms or spirits have been identified empirically. All we have there are the fanciful claims of dreamers claiming to have spiritual discernment and spiritual truth, but ask them to share a few nuggets of what they see as they look further using their special way of knowing, and we see the reality of the claim.

He failed to rebut that. Here's the other:

He: "I can certainly empathize with atheists and the ignorant. Many will never know of the riches that come with perceiving the secrets of the universe using logic and reason."
Me: "And yet another expression of "I see further than you" with nothing to back it up. The ignorant atheist has much to learn from a spiritual genius like you, right? Tell me some of your discovered spiritual truths using your special ways of knowing, truths that elude the ignorant atheist. What have you seen, and how has that information made your life better than my benighted existence?"

Guess how that turned out. About the same as when I asked you a similar question. Do you disagree?

Also, a question that your question (a) arose in me is whether you’d say that there are “benefits” to all your beliefs and if so, whether that is the reason for you holding them? Or, whether you hold certain beliefs and then [try to] find “benefits” to doing so?

The former. My beliefs about how reality works are all evaluated critically and found to be sound before being accepted. And yes, I have found great benefit in critical thought, skepticism, and empiricism. I can easily provide examples if anyone were to ask me what I asked them.

For example, because of that ability to evaluate data and derive sound conclusions from it, I got the Covid vaccine. There are lot of dead people who died because they couldn't do that, had to trust the opinions of others, and not recognizing that there are experts and that not all opinions are equal, guessed who to trust and guessed wrong.

How's that for a benefit? To anybody who has never learned critical thinking as a way of knowing, I can assure you that time devoted in that pursuit will be well rewarded.

That's what I ask of others. If your insights don't translate into benefit for you at some level, why should I be interested in investigating them further, like this universal consciousness idea. That's all. It's not a condemnation of the claimant for holding such beliefs. I don't mind that others hold them or dedicate untold hours in pursuit of this "knowledge." I just challenge their implication that it's something worthwhile for me to do if they can't describe something they found worth pursuing.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Just (a).

I don't have a motto, but I do need a reason to pursue any recommended ism. There are so many competing "truths" out there, and I'd need to see a concrete benefit in those who have done the work already before I would invest the time and effort to follow them.

I've asked dozens of RF posters who claim to have some arcane knowledge acquired through a special way of knowing what they've learned and how it benefitted them, and their answers were all like yours - nothing concrete or specific. That's what I meant by fluff - words that don't actually say anything useful. Here are two recent examples:

He: "You are unaware of the spiritual realms that exist, that influence man for better or for worse?"
Me: "No spiritual realms or spirits have been identified empirically. All we have there are the fanciful claims of dreamers claiming to have spiritual discernment and spiritual truth, but ask them to share a few nuggets of what they see as they look further using their special way of knowing, and we see the reality of the claim.

He failed to rebut that. Here's the other:

He: "I can certainly empathize with atheists and the ignorant. Many will never know of the riches that come with perceiving the secrets of the universe using logic and reason."
Me: "And yet another expression of "I see further than you" with nothing to back it up. The ignorant atheist has much to learn from a spiritual genius like you, right? Tell me some of your discovered spiritual truths using your special ways of knowing, truths that elude the ignorant atheist. What have you seen, and how has that information made your life better than my benighted existence?"

Guess how that turned out. About the same as when I asked you a similar question. Do you disagree?

The former. My beliefs about how reality works are all evaluated critically and found to be sound before being accepted. And yes, I have found great benefit in critical thought, skepticism, and empiricism. I can easily provide examples if anyone were to ask me what I asked them.

For example, because of that ability to evaluate data and derive sound conclusions from it, I got the Covid vaccine. There are lot of dead people who died because they couldn't do that, had to trust the opinions of others, and not recognizing that there are experts and that not all opinions are equal, guessed who to trust and guessed wrong.

How's that for a benefit? To anybody who has never learned critical thinking as a way of knowing, I can assure you that time devoted in that pursuit will be well rewarded.

That's what I ask of others. If your insights don't translate into benefit for you at some level, why should I be interested in investigating them further, like this universal consciousness idea. That's all. It's not a condemnation of the claimant for holding such beliefs. I don't mind that others hold them or dedicate untold hours in pursuit of this "knowledge." I just challenge their implication that it's something worthwhile for me to do if they can't describe something they found worth pursuing.

What stands out to me in the interactions that you chose as examples, is that the participants appear to be competing with each other about …“something”. The more we think of things as being matters of “truth” (esp. in singular), the more often interactions become competitions as oppose to exchanges of thought. The result of that is that we shut ourselves off from anything we think goes beyond our current ideas about what is vs. what is not.

I think that if you feel that you are at peace with yourself and are happy with the perspectives that you hold on things; that is very good! At the same time, I do think (and trust) that you -like anyone who embraces the experience of living and attentively partakes in it- will yet come across many, many more ways of looking at things over time and the perspectives that you hold today, will not remain unchanged. And that too is a wonderful thing - not because of anything about your current ways of seeing things, but because new perspectives are the course of partaking in life and living in general.

And, as we go through life and through perspectives, we will unlikely always feel as at peace with ourselves nor always happy with where our views come to take us. In such times, we may want to remind ourselves that also this is a sign of not having remained stagnant to what life has to give …which in the end, may be nothing but perspective alone.

Humbly,
Hermit