Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Offlinesaintdextro
Entheogen psychonaut
Male


Registered: 01/03/15
Posts: 584
Last seen: 7 months, 28 days
The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager
    #26377606 - 12/12/19 04:07 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)





Both Blaise Pascal and the Buddha present similar arguments, basicly, you're better believing in a faith than not believing in one, the odds, the wager, it's simply a better choice, for those interested in the discussion I suggest you read this Buddhist discourse:

https://suttacentral.net/search?query=mn60
^^^Ajahn Brahms Sutta study on Buddhas Incontrovertible teaching.

https://bswa.org/teaching/mn60-appanaka-sutta-incontravertible-teaching/
^^^Text of the Incontrovertible teaching straight from the Buddhist canon, Majjhima Nikaya (the Middle length Discourses).

Quote:

V. There is no Cessation of Being

“Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is definitely no cessation of being.’

“Now there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine is directly opposed to that of those recluses and brahmins, and they say thus: ‘There definitely is a cessation of being.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these recluses and brahmins hold doctrines directly opposed to each other?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”

“About this a wise man considers thus: ‘These good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there is definitely no cessation of being,” but that has not been seen by me. And these other good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” but that has not been known by me. If, without knowing and seeing, I were to take one side and declare: “Only this is true, anything else is wrong,” that would not be fitting for me. Now as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is certainly still possible that I might reappear after death among the gods of the immaterial realms who consist of perception. But as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is possible that I might here and now attain final Nibbāna. The view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being” is close to lust, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging; but the view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is cessation of being” is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging.’ After reflecting thus, he practises the way to disenchantment with being, to the fading away and cessation of being.




Now, i'm a Christian, I believe the impermanent will turn into the permanent, I don't know how, But Jesus promises an eternal Heaven, and I believe and look forward to it, however, the belief in a an eternal Self is close to bondage, close to lust, close to clinging, for this reason I let go of an Identity-Self, i'm empty, reasonably, I think this is the best choice.


--------------------
"He who finds peace and joy
And radiance within himself
That man becomes one with God
And vanishes into God's bliss."

-Bhagavad Gita, 5.24
One 21 - Building Better Bombs
One 21 - Pacified
One 21 - Two Sides Is Fine
"Respectability is a cloak for the hypocrite" - Jiddu Krishnamurti


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHartford
Lawful Good
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/27/19
Posts: 1,123
Loc: Tennessee
Re: The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager [Re: saintdextro]
    #26377631 - 12/12/19 04:26 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

I value the power of faith in this life as a benefit to believing in the Messiah Yehoshua.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 4 years, 15 days
Re: The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager [Re: saintdextro]
    #26378143 - 12/12/19 09:54 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Jeez ya gotta translate the concepts of salvation between Buddhism and Christianity.

"Cessation of being" is salvation in Buddhism.  Sure it sounds really weird, but it doesn't mean annihilation.  I think they mean something more like being beyond all form.  You still have a consciousness anyway.  Or maybe it's, 'there is consciousness', but no you to identify with.

Christians  believe in everlasting life.  They hear that 'cessation of being' stuff and think it's the devil's lies.  Chistians very much believe in the reality of the individual.

Anyways, I don't have a problem with any of those videos and the points made in them.

Trying to think what an atheist would say...probably that they don't want to bet on something they really don't think is real.  They are being true to themselves.

It's valid.



Edited by JohnRainy (12/12/19 10:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 hours, 18 minutes
Re: The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager [Re: JohnRainy]
    #26381702 - 12/14/19 04:44 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

JohnRainy said:
Trying to think what an atheist would say...probably that they don't want to bet on something they really don't think is real.  They are being true to themselves.

It's valid.






I can answer that!

An atheist would say; do we have any real reason to think life continues after death?

No, we have assertions and wishful thinking.

Therefore it's logical to assume existence ends at death, until we find evidence to the contrary.

Besides, Pascal's wager falls apart pretty fast if you think about it. Basically every religion says "if your not part of THIS SECT then you go to hell". Considering there are over 4,000 sects and that most people stick with the religion they were brought up with, at best you have a 1/4,000 chance with Pascal's wager.


--------------------
LAGM2020
LAGM2021


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 4 years, 15 days
Re: The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager [Re: Svetaketu] * 1
    #26381830 - 12/14/19 06:03 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Have you considered the ramifications of the fact that you and I rationally know nothing about how what is happening right now is possible?

This universe, this life, this seemingly dead and devoid-of-consciousness matter, when it's arranged a certain way, with the  chemical reactions and the electricity it seems to produce consciousness.  At least that's the materialistic view.

But there is no scientific understanding of how that could be.  None.  The best we can do is associate certain states of consciousness with certain areas of the brain.

The origin of the universe itself is also senseless.  It appears to have come out of nothing!  That don't make no scientific sense.  And we are at the point now where the most profound materialist view is that in totality it could be an infinite multiverse, with each member realizing it's own set of internal physical laws which govern it.

How is that any more plausible than a belief in God/Buddhic nature?  There is no evidence for other universes.  There is no evidence for God.  What are you going to believe?  It's up to you.

If somehow we could contemplate this universe and life without being a part of it, it would be just as easy to dismiss as a fantasy as all this religious talk is. 

So, since science has nothing to say about the nature of consciousness, why does it make pronouncements about what happens to it once the body has broken down and died?  How could it possibly know?  It doesn't even know how it works when the body is alive.

Consciousness is not physical.  It has no mass, no detectable field that can be measured by an instrument of any kind.  But sure as sure can be you believe in it.

Science considers it an epiphenomenon and ultimately illusory.  All that is real in science is matter and energy governed by forces in a matrix of space-time. 

The other view is that consciousness is central to this whole thing we are experiencing.  If you look at the story of Earth as we've been able to piece it together, life arose almost as soon as conditions allowed for it to, and after destructive extinction events, it somehow would evolve to higher and higher forms, contrary to (I think) every other natural system we can observe in which entropy increases as time moves forwards.  But a 'knowing' consciousness being responsible for it is scoffed at.


It's just explained with 'it's a multiverse and somewhere out there, every possibility that there can be is being realized.  This is just a rare one.'

You can put your faith in that if it seems likely to you that consciousness is not behind this whole thing.

Im sure it'll be OK.  We'll come around to the truth eventually, if all this religion stuff is right.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 hours, 18 minutes
Re: The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager [Re: JohnRainy]
    #26382515 - 12/15/19 01:31 AM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

JohnRainy said:
Have you considered the ramifications of the fact that you and I rationally know nothing about how what is happening right now is possible?




Yep.

Quote:


This universe, this life, this seemingly dead and devoid-of-consciousness matter, when it's arranged a certain way, with the  chemical reactions and the electricity it seems to produce consciousness.  At least that's the materialistic view.

But there is no scientific understanding of how that could be.  None.  The best we can do is associate certain states of consciousness with certain areas of the brain.




Sure, but that doesn't mean we should make baseless assertions about the nature of consciousness. The best we can say is we don't know how it works.

What we do know is that when you damage the brain you can directly affect personality, functionality, and memory. Doesn't prove brain = consciousness but it's a start.

Quote:


The origin of the universe itself is also senseless.  It appears to have come out of nothing!  That don't make no scientific sense.  And we are at the point now where the most profound materialist view is that in totality it could be an infinite multiverse, with each member realizing it's own set of internal physical laws which govern it.




The universe is under no obligation to be sensible. We've been doing science for barely any time at all really, did you expect us to have it all figured out? We have more theories than we care to explore at the moment. Progress takes time and effort.

Quote:


How is that any more plausible than a belief in God/Buddhic nature?  There is no evidence for other universes.  There is no evidence for God.  What are you going to believe?  It's up to you.




You're creating a false dichotomy, as if I have to choose whether I believe in God or a multiverse.

I don't believe in either, because neither have evidence. I'm advocating that we only believe things that DO have good evidence and that we keep speculations in the "I'm really just guessing here" category.

Quote:


If somehow we could contemplate this universe and life without being a part of it, it would be just as easy to dismiss as a fantasy as all this religious talk is.




Sure. If somehow.

Quote:


So, since science has nothing to say about the nature of consciousness, why does it make pronouncements about what happens to it once the body has broken down and died?  How could it possibly know?  It doesn't even know how it works when the body is alive.




The exact mechanism of consciousness is a mystery, but it's hard to deny that consciousness is connected to the brain. It also seems clear that damaging the brain can damage aspects of consciousness, such as personality (for example Phineas Gage).

This does not confirm the idea that consciousness requires a brain, but it certainly points in that direction. Assuming it's separate and survives past death requires a whole laundry list of extra baseless assertions.

Quote:


Consciousness is not physical.  It has no mass, no detectable field that can be measured by an instrument of any kind.  But sure as sure can be you believe in it.




How do you know it's not physical? Seems like a bald assertion. Maybe there are energy fields we can't detect yet?

I believe consciousness is an experienced reality, but that doesn't necessarily mean it "exists" in the way an atom does. It could, but the honest answer is we don't know.

Quote:


Science considers it an epiphenomenon and ultimately illusory.  All that is real in science is matter and energy governed by forces in a matrix of space-time. 





Well that's what some scientists think, but you're throwing a pretty big blanket here. Its not like all the scientists got together and all agreed on a multiverse, that's just one hypothesis. Science isn't dogmatic; the point is to find a better answer. Have a different hypothesis? Great! Does it have any evidence?

Quote:


The other view is that consciousness is central to this whole thing we are experiencing.  If you look at the story of Earth as we've been able to piece it together, life arose almost as soon as conditions allowed for it to, and after destructive extinction events, it somehow would evolve to higher and higher forms, contrary to (I think) every other natural system we can observe in which entropy increases as time moves forwards.  But a 'knowing' consciousness being responsible for it is scoffed at.





This is a textbook argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know why or how something works the way it does, doesn't mean you can say "it must have been influenced by a consciousness", it's a baseless assertion with 0 evidence.

Quote:


It's just explained with 'it's a multiverse and somewhere out there, every possibility that there can be is being realized.  This is just a rare one.'

You can put your faith in that if it seems likely to you that consciousness is not behind this whole thing.

Im sure it'll be OK.  We'll come around to the truth eventually, if all this religion stuff is right.




I'm not convinced by the multiverse hypothesis either; I don't know enough about the math behind it to be certain its false, but it seems the only evidence is that mathematically it "works out" which is certainly not proof.

The fact is science is young, and we've made amazing discoveries. Obviously we are barely touching the fringe of how our cosmos really works. But humans have a habit of just making up assertions and then just going with whatever feels best in your tummy at that moment. Works great for surviving, not so much for sussing out reality.


Edited by Svetaketu (12/15/19 01:33 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 1 month, 15 days
Re: The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager [Re: Svetaketu]
    #26382540 - 12/15/19 02:06 AM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Svetaketu said:
Quote:

JohnRainy said:
Trying to think what an atheist would say...probably that they don't want to bet on something they really don't think is real.  They are being true to themselves.

It's valid.






I can answer that!

An atheist would say; do we have any real reason to think life continues after death?

No, we have assertions and wishful thinking.

Therefore it's logical to assume existence ends at death, until we find evidence to the contrary.

Besides, Pascal's wager falls apart pretty fast if you think about it. Basically every religion says "if your not part of THIS SECT then you go to hell". Considering there are over 4,000 sects and that most people stick with the religion they were brought up with, at best you have a 1/4,000 chance with Pascal's wager.




My epistemological argument is even more whacked; I truly feel death is an illusion, based on what I've been shown with moderate level psychs (we'll see how my first DMT trip goes one week from today). This life is a low-level "reverse" trip, relatively speaking. Physical "birth" and "death" are illusory entry and exist points from the trip. You don't remember being born and you're not going to "remember" dying. There is no need for afterlife as life is a concept you integrated via linguistic and conceptual conditioning FROM this level.

Is is all there is.

I always laugh that many traditionalists will openly accept the concept of an infinite, omnipotent force that's always existed without begin or end, but will readily punch you in the face if you suggest that nature, as we observe it, has just always existed with no start or end - and thus doesn't require a creator lol.

Quote:

JohnRainy said:
Have you considered the ramifications of the fact that you and I rationally know nothing about how what is happening right now is possible?

This universe, this life, this seemingly dead and devoid-of-consciousness matter, when it's arranged a certain way, with the  chemical reactions and the electricity it seems to produce consciousness.  At least that's the materialistic view.

But there is no scientific understanding of how that could be.  None.  The best we can do is associate certain states of consciousness with certain areas of the brain.

The origin of the universe itself is also senseless.  It appears to have come out of nothing!  That don't make no scientific sense.  And we are at the point now where the most profound materialist view is that in totality it could be an infinite multiverse, with each member realizing it's own set of internal physical laws which govern it.

How is that any more plausible than a belief in God/Buddhic nature?  There is no evidence for other universes.  There is no evidence for God.  What are you going to believe?  It's up to you.

If somehow we could contemplate this universe and life without being a part of it, it would be just as easy to dismiss as a fantasy as all this religious talk is. 

So, since science has nothing to say about the nature of consciousness, why does it make pronouncements about what happens to it once the body has broken down and died?  How could it possibly know?  It doesn't even know how it works when the body is alive.

Consciousness is not physical.  It has no mass, no detectable field that can be measured by an instrument of any kind.  But sure as sure can be you believe in it.

Science considers it an epiphenomenon and ultimately illusory.  All that is real in science is matter and energy governed by forces in a matrix of space-time. 

The other view is that consciousness is central to this whole thing we are experiencing.  If you look at the story of Earth as we've been able to piece it together, life arose almost as soon as conditions allowed for it to, and after destructive extinction events, it somehow would evolve to higher and higher forms, contrary to (I think) every other natural system we can observe in which entropy increases as time moves forwards.  But a 'knowing' consciousness being responsible for it is scoffed at.


It's just explained with 'it's a multiverse and somewhere out there, every possibility that there can be is being realized.  This is just a rare one.'

You can put your faith in that if it seems likely to you that consciousness is not behind this whole thing.

Im sure it'll be OK.  We'll come around to the truth eventually, if all this religion stuff is right.




EXCELLENT post right here, dude! :thumbup:!


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 hours, 18 minutes
Re: The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #26383117 - 12/15/19 10:57 AM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Loaded Shaman said:

My epistemological argument is even more whacked; I truly feel death is an illusion, based on what I've been shown with moderate level psychs (we'll see how my first DMT trip goes one week from today). This life is a low-level "reverse" trip, relatively speaking. Physical "birth" and "death" are illusory entry and exist points from the trip. You don't remember being born and you're not going to "remember" dying. There is no need for afterlife as life is a concept you integrated via linguistic and conceptual conditioning FROM this level.

Is is all there is.






Could be :shrug:

Although from my perspective, your evidence is pretty shaky; the fact that you "truly feel" death is an illusion based on the psychedelic experience, doesn't really hold any weight to whether or not that's actually the way things are.

Some people take psychedelics and truly feel that they've experienced the God of the Bible, or that they experienced "real" demons or angels (coincidentally, its usually whatever brand of religion the person already believed in that seems to be "proven" through the experience).

Anyway, it's not surprising to me that you can expereince an illusory death through psyches, it actually makes a lot of sense. After all, our experience is a guided hallucination created by our brains interpretation of signals being input through our bodies. As far as the brain is concerned, death IS an illusion, because the actual "experience" of death is 100% hallucinated along with the rest of our perceived reality.

Although I think it's a little bit of a jump to assume a psychedelic induced death/rebirth experience is the same as actual death, but similar? No doubt.

Quote:


I always laugh that many traditionalists will openly accept the concept of an infinite, omnipotent force that's always existed without begin or end, but will readily punch you in the face if you suggest that nature, as we observe it, has just always existed with no start or end - and thus doesn't require a creator lol.




True, it could be infinite. Although I'm of the belief that it could be finite, and we still don't need an infinite creator to explain it, that's just lazy.


--------------------
LAGM2020
LAGM2021


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 4 years, 15 days
Re: The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager [Re: Svetaketu]
    #26383577 - 12/15/19 03:43 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Sure, but that doesn't mean we should make baseless assertions about the nature of consciousness. The best we can say is we don't know how it works.




Tell that to Richard Dawkins.  He's confusing people by saying it is produced by matter. 

I remember a Carl Sagan video where he said the same thing too. 


Quote:

What we do know is that when you damage the brain you can directly affect personality, functionality, and memory. Doesn't prove brain = consciousness but it's a start.




Areas of the the brain associated with certain states of consciousness, or in this case, the inverse.

That's consistent with what I said. 



Quote:

The universe is under no obligation to be sensible. We've been doing science for barely any time at all really, did you expect us to have it all figured out?




A causeless Big Bang that all of time and space itself came out of, that could have had no history or preceding events because there was no time until it actually happened and I can't even describe this properly because I just used the word 'until', which doesn't apply in a system with no time.  The conditions of the very first moment are such that all scientific theories break down entirely.

You've got some serious figurin' to do. 

And I would argue it has a complete obligation to be sensible.  It's got to make sense,
unless you can explain how something that is not sensible can be real and persist for billions of years. 

I don't expect us to have it all figured out.  But if you want to think about these things, you've got to work with what you have.





Quote:

You're creating a false dichotomy, as if I have to choose whether I believe in God or a multiverse.

I don't believe in either, because neither have evidence. I'm advocating that we only believe things that DO have good evidence and that we keep speculations in the "I'm really just guessing here" category.




The dichotomy is between mind being responsible for this design of things, or not.  I do not know of any other options.  The particular form these options take are secondary to this.



Quote:

Sure. If somehow.




That's what I said. 



Quote:

The exact mechanism of consciousness is a mystery, but it's hard to deny that consciousness is connected to the brain.




That's what I said.  Certain states of consciousness are associated with certain areas of the brain, and that's the best we can do.

It could be that the structures of the brain resonate a particular conditioned conscious experience when immersed in a divine pool of formless consciousness that could be called God.  Like you can get different wind chimes.  Difference being you have some choice over the structure of your chimes and therefore the spiritual makeup of your experience.

People who have come back from near death experiences have said to have gained some perspective on this and see the brain as a 'reducing valve'.



Quote:

How do you know it's not physical? Seems like a bald assertion. Maybe there are energy fields we can't detect yet?

I believe consciousness is an experienced reality, but that doesn't necessarily mean it "exists" in the way an atom does. It could, but the honest answer is we don't know.




There is nothing to indicate that it has any physical properties.  You can dream about the future of scientific detection equipment, but that is not real. 

A theist could just as easily dream of the day when God reveals himself clearly to us all too.  It's just as much of a dream as hopeful speculations about the future of science.

We are stuck in the now, and can only work with what we actually have.  It's a matter of faith, on both sides of the question.  Or you can choose not to decide.

Yes I agree, consciousness doesn't exist in the way an atom does.  It has no detectable physical properties.  Atoms do.  Despite this apparent disconnect, you can lift your arm using nothing more than the power of your own mind.  Where's the connection?  I don't know.  It's pure magic at this point.

Quote:

This is a textbook argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know why or how something works the way it does, doesn't mean you can say "it must have been influenced by a consciousness", it's a baseless assertion with 0 evidence.




What does it look like is happening was the point. 

If you came home from work and there was a cake on the table, would you think someone made a cake and put it on the table, or would you think, maybe quantum particles tunnelled here from distant regions of the universe and came together as a cake on the table.

You wouldn't know, but you would have unshakeable faith a conscious agent was responsible.



I get the sense you are agnostic.  I believe that is the rational position to take.  That's what the rational, thinking, conceptual mind ultimately does. 

Ultimately, it doesn't know anything for certain.  It has a quality of ignorance that cannot be removed.  There is room for doubt in all that it holds to be true, except, according to Descartes, the fact that you exist.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaved7
follower
Registered: 06/10/19
Posts: 203
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager [Re: Svetaketu]
    #26384546 - 12/16/19 06:05 AM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Svetaketu said:
I can answer that!

An atheist would say; do we have any real reason to think life continues after death?

No, we have assertions and wishful thinking.

Therefore it's logical to assume existence ends at death, until we find evidence to the contrary.





Man's awareness and interaction with the immaterial, non-physical, is itself evidence against this atheistic outlook on reality.

Love and beauty, for example, are nowhere to be found in the atoms of the universe, yet these intangible truths are constantly staring us in the face.  They are constant reminders that reality is much more than the physical.  And we all know it, and live by it... yet we also like to pretend it's all an illusion.  This is truly a dark age we live in, when we ignore so much of reality because it falls out of bounds of a contrived philosophical commitment to materialism.

Human consciousness itself is a testament to physically-transcendant reality, but we don't want to hear the truth written in our own hearts.  We'd rather build up our own earthly kingdoms to lord over as masters of our own reality.  We like to hide in the darkness because then we can do whatever we please and not worry about what God thinks.


--------------------
"Who do you say that I am?"
- Jesus quoted in the Gospel of Matthew


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 hours, 18 minutes
Re: The buddha's "incontrovertible teaching" and Pascal's wager [Re: JohnRainy]
    #26385256 - 12/16/19 02:23 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

JohnRainy said:

Tell that to Richard Dawkins.  He's confusing people by saying it is produced by matter. 

I remember a Carl Sagan video where he said the same thing too. 





I don't speak for Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins, they are allowed to spout their own opinions just like you are. More to the point that assertion is not baseless, it has just not yet been proven; the current evidence does point towards consciousness being dependent on matter.

Quote:


A causeless Big Bang that all of time and space itself came out of, that could have had no history or preceding events because there was no time until it actually happened and I can't even describe this properly because I just used the word 'until', which doesn't apply in a system with no time.  The conditions of the very first moment are such that all scientific theories break down entirely.

You've got some serious figurin' to do. 

And I would argue it has a complete obligation to be sensible.  It's got to make sense,
unless you can explain how something that is not sensible can be real and persist for billions of years. 

I don't expect us to have it all figured out.  But if you want to think about these things, you've got to work with what you have.





The big bang is just a working model, a scientist would have to be damn arrogant to assume everything in there is 100% correct. however, there seems to be quite a lot of evidence that the early universe looked similar to what they are hypothesizing. The point is that they are following the evidence.

What actual evidence is there for a universal consciousness? So far I've heard "it feels right".

Sounds like a hallucination inspired best guess vs an actual working hypothesis with evidence.

Quote:



The dichotomy is between mind being responsible for this design of things, or not.  I do not know of any other options.  The particular form these options take are secondary to this.





Okay sure, do you have any evidence that a mind is responsible for the design of things? or does it just "feel right"?

so far, every time someone said "God did it", with a little more investigation, its turned out to be natural phenomenon caused by natural processes. a couple hundred years ago you'd be arguing "how can you possibly explain lightning? God is the only way I can understand it!" :shrug:

Quote:


Quote:

Sure. If somehow.




That's what I said. 





Yeah, I was agreeing with you. Just seems like kind of a pointless point... "if we had no point of reference or evidence for existence, this would seem pretty unbelievable!" .... Yep. because evidence is how we discern reality from imagination.


Quote:


Quote:

The exact mechanism of consciousness is a mystery, but it's hard to deny that consciousness is connected to the brain.




That's what I said.  Certain states of consciousness are associated with certain areas of the brain, and that's the best we can do.

It could be that the structures of the brain resonate a particular conditioned conscious experience when immersed in a divine pool of formless consciousness that could be called God.  Like you can get different wind chimes.  Difference being you have some choice over the structure of your chimes and therefore the spiritual makeup of your experience.

People who have come back from near death experiences have said to have gained some perspective on this and see the brain as a 'reducing valve'.





Could be, but see how you had to add a bunch of needless assertions? like brain structures  "resonate" with an immaterial God-consciousness soup. Now you need to explain how an immaterial soup could "resonate" with a material brain, and where the God-consciousness came from in the first place. Is it eternal? why not just pretend the universe is eternal and be done with it?

I don't find near death experiences compelling. Besides the fact that most people hallucinate things they already believed in, a hallucinatory experience =/= reality.


Quote:


There is nothing to indicate that it has any physical properties.  You can dream about the future of scientific detection equipment, but that is not real. 




I mean, the fact that areas of the brain translate to conscious states does indicate that it has a base in physical reality. Still not sure how our material brains are suppose to interact with the immaterial God-consciousness-soup but somehow, all scientific inquiry has no chance of detecting it? The extra assertions keep piling up.

Quote:


A theist could just as easily dream of the day when God reveals himself clearly to us all too.  It's just as much of a dream as hopeful speculations about the future of science.





Your comparison fails here. Scientist are actually working towards finding and explaining the evidence, progress is inevitable.

A theist has accepted a claim he/she has no evidence for, and dreaming that evidence will pop out of the sky is a rather foolish hope.

Quote:


We are stuck in the now, and can only work with what we actually have.  It's a matter of faith, on both sides of the question.  Or you can choose not to decide.




Science has no dependence on faith. This quote sums it up rather nicely; "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."

I suppose I should ask your definition of faith (since it jumps around depending who you ask), but in my mind faith is the excuse people give when they don't have any evidence.

I'm guessing your going to say "But you have faith in your foundations of reality!?" but this is incorrect.


faith
/fāTH/

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I do not have complete confidence in anything (e.g. solipsism), I have different levels of confidence, based on the available evidence. When I say I "know" something, I'm really just saying that I am so confident that it is correct, that it would be wold-view altering for me to find out I was wrong. Point being, I have reasons for everything I believe, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

faith
/fāTH/

2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I think we can agree I don't have any of that :wink:

Quote:


Yes I agree, consciousness doesn't exist in the way an atom does.  It has no detectable physical properties.  Atoms do.  Despite this apparent disconnect, you can lift your arm using nothing more than the power of your own mind.  Where's the connection?  I don't know.  It's pure magic at this point.




sure minds are fascinating, but I think you're sort of losing the point here.
When you lift your arm, there is a detectable signal sent from your brain to your arm. If i prodded your brain with an electric pulse in the correct spot, I could in fact move your arm without your approval; consciousness is not necessary to explain muscle movements.

My point is we cannot trust our own perceptions and feelings, it is self evident that they are often illusory; the brain is easily fooled. It's entirely possible that consciousness is a charade.

Quote:


What does it look like is happening was the point. 





It looks like natural processes in a mathematically predictable universe. Where do you see evidence for a god-consciousness-soup? so far its just an excuse from people who are uncomfortable with saying " I don't know!"

Quote:


If you came home from work and there was a cake on the table, would you think someone made a cake and put it on the table, or would you think, maybe quantum particles tunnelled here from distant regions of the universe and came together as a cake on the table.

You wouldn't know, but you would have unshakeable faith a conscious agent was responsible.





No, I would "know" by my definition; meaning I have a high level of confidence that a conscious agent was responsible. I'm willing to be convinced that it was quantum tunneling, but it would require some substantial evidence, and that would be a rather world-view altering discovery.

This is not based on faith, because I know cakes are a thing that exist, and that they are commonly made by Humans. I also know that Humans exist and that they commonly make cakes and leave them on tables. I also, have never seen a cake that wasn't created by a human, and I know of no natural processes that produce cakes; so assuming anything other than a human baked the cake would be rather foolish.

Perfect example of Occam's razor.

I like this example you brought up, because it illustrates the problem you are having. Belief in a universal consciousness violates Occam's Razor; "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity." There is no necessity, just a fear of the unknown and a desire to avoid death.

Quote:


I get the sense you are agnostic.  I believe that is the rational position to take.  That's what the rational, thinking, conceptual mind ultimately does. 

Ultimately, it doesn't know anything for certain.  It has a quality of ignorance that cannot be removed.  There is room for doubt in all that it holds to be true, except, according to Descartes, the fact that you exist.




Correct! You may be confused, let me explain.

It's a common mistake to assume Atheism and Agnosticism are incompatible, most people have the warped idea that its some kind of belief scale, with the extremes (Atheism and Theism) and Agnosticism being somewhere in the middle.

This is incorrect by definition; Atheism and Theism are proclamations of belief. Theism is the claim; "I believe there is a god! (and we know which one)" and Atheism is the response; "I am unconvinced that there is a god." i.e I don't believe your claim that there is a god (or that you picked the right one).

Agnosticism is not a question of belief, but a question of knowledge. You are either Agnostic (you do not claim to have absolute knowledge) or you are Gnostic (you DO claim to have absolute knowledge).

Therefore there are really 4 possible positions one could be in;

An Agnostic Theist (Believes in a God, but accepts that they don't really have any proof that he does in fact exist).

A Gnostic Theist (Believes in God, and claims to have absolute proof of his existence).

An Agnostic Atheist (Doesn't believe in a God, but makes no assertion that there is in fact no God; the simplest explanation is that we find the current evidence unconvincing (i.e If reliable evidence was revealed, agnostic atheists would become theists).

A Gnostic Atheist (Doesn't believe in a God, and claims to know that there isn't one with absolute knowledge).

Gnostic Atheists are nearly non-existent, since anyone with a rudimentary understanding in philosophy understands that God is an unfalsifiable claim. Despite this fact, most people (who have never had an actual conversation with an Atheist) seem to think atheism is the claim that "We have proof that there is no God!"

Pay attention to the specific language of the definition;

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.


I've been an atheist for years, you can't imagine how many people think they understand atheism better than atheists do.
its pretty comical honestly, the rough equivalent would be me going up to a Theist and saying "you don't really believe in God! I would know, I'm an Atheist." :lol:


--------------------
LAGM2020
LAGM2021


Edited by Svetaketu (12/16/19 03:49 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist
( 1 2 all )
c0sm0nautt 2,617 33 05/10/10 03:00 PM
by Kickle
* the Buddha - Quotes from the Pali Canon
( 1 2 all )
Chronic7 6,246 25 02/07/10 10:58 AM
by Chronic7
* The Buddha's message in ONE story lasttime 829 6 08/04/10 12:47 PM
by TeamAmerica
* Buddha 101
( 1 2 all )
Icelander 1,487 24 08/22/10 12:31 PM
by Icelander
* Buddha Wears Girly Panties Arden 1,028 19 09/26/16 09:38 AM
by graceful dragon
* On Buddha Law sterbeklang 681 5 08/16/09 09:11 AM
by sterbeklang
* So what are the main differences between a Buddha and an ordinary man/woman?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Poid 4,293 71 10/28/10 04:28 PM
by deff
* 15-year-old new Buddha continues fasting
( 1 2 3 all )
Catalysis 8,030 54 11/25/10 07:26 PM
by lasttime

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, yogabunny, DividedQuantum
433 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 12 queries.