Why Scientists need to accept Eastern thought

[SalixIncendium]

I do believe you have a problem comprehending basic English.

Your neglect to be impeccable with your word does not give you licence to be rude and insulting.

Check your demeanor and try again.

 

[ecco]

It is interesting that the skeptic tends to jump to the magical or extraordinary aspects. When you are examining a belief and you start there, of course it is going to be very hard to believe. But if you start where I suggested, which is with first discovering the nature of consciousness, then all or most of what I'm saying would become easier to accept.

Do you really think you're the first person I've encountered who was pushing woo nonsense? You're not.

So far, you seem unwilling to admit that scientists do not understand the nature of consciousness. It also seems that you are closed off to any explanations from the Eastern worldview despite my suggestion for you to experience it for yourself as opposed to taking my word for it.

Please show where I've said that Western scientists understand the nature of consciousness. I haven't.

However, unlike the woosters of the world, I don't find it's necessary to use make-believe to cover up gaps in mankind's current knowledge. We don't know how consciousness works, we don't know how gravity works.

The snake oil you are selling regarding mind and consciousness is no different than the snake oil sold by creationists who must replace I Don't Know with GodDidIt.

 

[ecco]

Your neglect to be impeccable with your word does not give you licence to be rude and insulting.

Check your demeanor and try again.

My demeanor is just fine. If you cannot understand the difference between "current" and "before", that is not my problem.

If English is not your first language, let me know and I'll overlook such mistakes in the future.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My demeanor is just fine. If you cannot understand the difference between "current" and "before", that is not my problem.

If English is not your first language, let me know and I'll overlook such mistakes in the future.

I understand what you meant after you clarified, but your insult was entirely uncalled for.

"So, since I can think, I did come into being" could have been phrased better, such as "I did come into being, therefore I can think."

It's not my understanding of English, but my worldview, that created the double entendre as originally written. In my understanding, "I" am not just this human body and mind. Clearly, we have a different understanding of "I."

 

[night912]

"So, since I can think, I did come into being" could have been phrased better, such as "I did come into being, therefore I can think."

Not all things that "come into being" can think.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not all things that "come into being" can think.

How many thinking beings are you aware of that refer to themselves as a “thing?”

Do you refer to yourself as a “thing?”

 

[paarsurrey]

If I understand you correctly, you are asking how to use consciousness to acquire knowledge? One way is under the yogic practice of 'samadhi. This type of knowing involves becoming one with an object (person or thing). This allows you to have a "direct experience" of the object since you experience just as it experiences.

This discussion might help:
The Mystic way of knowing (for the skeptics)

No, my question is, what is the source that make one certain that what one gets from yoga/meditation is truthful and is not an illusion? Please

Regards

 

[night912]

How many thinking beings are you aware of that refer to themselves as a “thing?”

Do you refer to yourself as a “thing?”

Is a creature a "thing?"

That's why you can't switch the two around. If "I into being" is the first premise, then it must include everything. That's why not everything that come into being, can think.

 

[paarsurrey]

Please read the quote in my signature. It says you are pure awareness. If this is so, then you never "came into being". Only your "body" came into being.

"are pure awareness"

If there is a criminal:

1. How could he be pure awareness, please?
2. What such person perceives in yoga/mediation will likely be criminality unless first one makes one pure of criminality?

Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Not all things that "come into being" can think.

For instance please.

Regards

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is a creature a "thing?"

That's why you can't switch the two around. If "I into being" is the first premise, then it must include everything. That's why not everything that come into being, can think.

Can a creature think? Is anything that can think a thing?

Thinking is not a requisite of being. I can exist without thinking.

 

[night912]

Can a creature think? Is anything that can think a thing?

Thinking is not a requisite of being. I can exist without thinking.

Exactly. That's why it can't be switch and still have the same meaning.

 

[night912]

For instance please.

Regards

Stars

 

[SalixIncendium]

Exactly. That's why it can't be switch and still have the same meaning.

I never suggested it could. I was merely suggesting that one cannot think without a brain.

However pure consciousness (awareness) does not require thinking.

 

[gnostic]

I never suggested it could. I was merely suggesting that one cannot think without a brain.

However pure consciousness (awareness) does not require thinking.

Can thinking happen without the brain?

No.

Can you have consciousness without thinking?

Yes. It is definitely a possibility. But is it possible to have thinking without consciousness, then I will have to say no.

Can you have consciousness without the brain?

No.

Both thinking and consciousness required functioning brain. Consciousness don’t exist outside the brain.