Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

You seem to believe that there is a progression from believing in a Self to not believing in a Self.  Not so.

I know that our body is composed of billions of cells and billions of bacteria and so on. Its like saying that a car is made of so much metal and plastic and rubber and stuff....so what?  The driver is still the Consciousness behind the car.

The idea of the Self is more to do with the realization of the Self through direct personal experience and introspection rather than through any objective analysis.

You can't sense the Self objectively. Like an electron wanting to sense the String objectively. It itself IS the String!

To run with your car analogy, I would say that the car is the self; think about Google driverless cars, we don't really need a driver, the car drives itself; and so it is with living creatures.

[Gordon]

Alan

What do you thing of this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35159786

Seems that dogs may have stuff going on between their ears that isn't that dissimilar to what goes on between our ears. Not all that surprising of course, since they too have a mammalian brain, so that they too  may experience something akin to empathy, as noted by the researcher. She never mentioned 'souls' though. The article notes

"We demonstrated that rapid mimicry is present in dogs and it is an involuntary, automatic and split-second mirroring of other dogs," lead researcher Dr Elisabetta Palagi told BBC News.

She said it appears that dogs are showing a basic form of empathy where they are able to instantly pick up on the emotions of other dogs through their facial expressions and body movements.

This is regarded as the first step towards more complex forms of empathy.

"A dog while playing with another dog can read their motivation and the emotional state of the other dog by mimicking the same expression and body movement of the other dog," Dr Palagi explained.

"This phenomenon is present also in humans and in other primate species."

[ekim]

To run with your car analogy, I would say that the car is the self; think about Google driverless cars, we don't really need a driver, the car drives itself; and so it is with living creatures.

That's one of the problems with using analogies.  One could say that an external intelligence, its god, the human which created its programme to enable it to manoeuvre amongst obstacles and that the car has not evolved enough to able to perform self repair, access fuel and reproduce etc., for which it needs its creator.  The point that Sriram was making was not so much about what robotic programmes can do as an observable objective but the possibility of the observing consciousness being 'self' aware or realised.

[Alan Burns]

To run with your car analogy, I would say that the car is the self; think about Google driverless cars, we don't really need a driver, the car drives itself; and so it is with living creatures.

I agree to some extent.
The driverless car can be a good analogy to some living creatures.
But there is nothing in the driverless car which constitutes conscious awareness.  To incorporate awareness, you need to sit a human being in it.

You can channel information, you can focus information, you can generate reactions to information, but we have no means of creating a source of awareness of information - because we have no idea how awareness manifests itself.

[Alan Burns]

Alan

What do you thing of this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35159786

Seems that dogs may have stuff going on between their ears that isn't that dissimilar to what goes on between our ears. Not all that surprising of course, since they too have a mammalian brain, so that they too  may experience something akin to empathy, as noted by the researcher. She never mentioned 'souls' though.

When I was young, I had a pet dog whose mother lived in the house next door.  The two dogs did not seem to have any different relationship than to other dogs - they would sniff each other occasionally.  But the mother became ill, and just before she died, my dog was whining to go next door to be with his mum.

So I suppose I can't rule out the possibility of other animals having some form of God given spirituality.  We might even meet up with our pet animals in heaven.  But there is no evidence of animals being able to choose between good and evil, so I believe they just follow their God given instincts.

[ippy]

When I was young, I had a pet dog whose mother lived in the house next door.  The two dogs did not seem to have any different relationship than to other dogs - they would sniff each other occasionally.  But the mother became ill, and just before she died, my dog was whining to go next door to be with his mum.

So I suppose I can't rule out the possibility of other animals having some form of God given spirituality.  We might even meet up with our pet animals in heaven.  But there is no evidence of animals being able to choose between good and evil, so I believe they just follow their God given instincts.

Absolutely nutty, you beat Sparky hands down, come to think of it he must have been quite bright going by your standard.

(Sparky quite bright, unintentional but well, reasonable).

ippy

[Brownie]

Just wanted to say I too think Enki's post, or posts, are very good indeed. I understand what he/she means quite well.  Also agree that we shouldn't judge others on here (I don't like talking about specific people), they don't always mean things the way they come out and many feel so passionately they cannot see anyone else's point of view.  Makes we wonder if I was ever like that;  I don't think so but I know that in the past I have rubbed people up the wrong way on forums.

Searching for God is an individual process.

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes...the Brahman is said to be the ultimate Consciousness that transforms itself into individual consciousness. Something like the String that transforms itself into quarks and electrons.

But, just as electrons and other elementary particles do exist in spite of being transformations of the String.....similarly, individual atmas do exist though they are manifestations of the Brahman.

Seen from the POV of the Brahman however...everything else can be seen as an illusion with  Brahman being the only Reality. That is one view.... but it is not a 'material' view surely.

Sriram

You are arguing from the point of view of a spiritual monism, torridon from the point of view of a materialist monism (at least I think he is). I think you have the greater problem in explaining individual subjectivity, since you seem to want to wipe most of our everyday consciousness out of the equation and dismiss it as an 'illusion' - if so, it is a very peculiar illusion, since it is this 'illusion' (I think you'd claim) that somehow prompts us to seek for 'God' somehow (does God need to seek for Itself, if everything is a manifestation of him/her/ it?) In fact, you have to admit to some kind of practical dualism to allow any reality to individual human consciousness at all.
I don't think that's a problem for torridon - I think he's happy admitting that ultimately there is an all-embracing monism, and that we're all part of the same 'stuff'. The complicated thing is explaining how individuals developed a sense of separate consciousness in the process of evolution.
I shall continue to read his (and others') contributions with interest.

I think this (and I myself) is in the wrong room and on the wrong thread.

[wigginhall]

Very nice post, Dickie.  I think many traditions have the idea that the 'One becomes Two', in other words, that the spiritual monism can split.   In fact, it seems to automatically split, so that each individual consciousness takes itself to be separate.  Of course, much of Buddhist teaching is about the non-separateness.

None of this makes sense from a third person point of view, of course.  I think that clash between third person and first person is like a huge abyss in these discussions. 

As the old joke says, I wouldn't start from here, if you want to get there.

I also think Christianity has confused the two levels, or two categories, so it constructs arguments for transcendence, as if it was like gravity, that is observed by a third party.  But transcendence obliterates that, in fact, in Buddhism it obliterates everything.   As they say in advaita, nothing has ever happened, which is quite comical really.   

Well, a non-dual Yuletide to you, or Saturnalia, or Christmas, or solstice, etc.

[torridon]

I agree to some extent.
The driverless car can be a good analogy to some living creatures.
But there is nothing in the driverless car which constitutes conscious awareness.  To incorporate awareness, you need to sit a human being in it.

As Floo points out,  it is not just humans that have conscious awareness, all higher animals have some or other flavour of conscious experience.  So to the extent that 'soul' is your solution to the 'hard problem' of consciousness, it fails if you deny souls to other creatures that are conscious.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

I don't see a official seasons greeting thread so why not this one.

To every forum member I wish you a peaceful Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

And the same from me 

[Alan Burns]

I completely disagree, Alan. I can experience fear in a variety of scenarios. It is possible however for me to rationalise those fears, and think and act in a way which may well control those feelings(although extremely hard).

I can experience love and compassion, again in all sorts of scenarios. And, again, it is possible for me to rationalise those feelings of love and compassion and act in a way which may well control those feelings(although extremely hard).

For me all these feelings are part of my nature and ones, in the light of current evidence, which seem to be shared with a range of other animal species, albeit with a greater complexity and subtlety.

Perhaps you are different, Alan, but I doubt it somehow.

I think you are right in this.
We all have some form of natural fear, and other natural feelings.  And what distinguishes humans from animals is that we have willpower to control these natural feelings.  Some feelings are easier to control than others, but humans do have the power to override natural fears and instincts by using the power of conscious free will.

My fear of heights is still there as a feeling when I am walking on a footpath near to a cliff edge, but by sheer willpower I am able to overcome this natural fear and force myself to walk near the edge.

I know that in some cases animals will override a natural fear in order to obtain some reward such as food, but in these cases it is a conflict of instincts with the greater instinct winning.  There is no need for conscious thought to override the natural fear, just a more powerful instinct.  But humans have the power to override fears and instincts by conscious will alone without the need of a more poweful instinct.

[Alan Burns]

And may I wish everyone a happy joyful and blessed Christmas and very best wishes for the New Year.   

[ekim]

Sriram

You are arguing from the point of view of a spiritual monism, torridon from the point of view of a materialist monism (at least I think he is). I think you have the greater problem in explaining individual subjectivity, since you seem to want to wipe most of our everyday consciousness out of the equation and dismiss it as an 'illusion' - if so, it is a very peculiar illusion, since it is this 'illusion' (I think you'd claim) that somehow prompts us to seek for 'God' somehow (does God need to seek for Itself, if everything is a manifestation of him/her/ it?) In fact, you have to admit to some kind of practical dualism to allow any reality to individual human consciousness at all.
I don't think that's a problem for torridon - I think he's happy admitting that ultimately there is an all-embracing monism, and that we're all part of the same 'stuff'. The complicated thing is explaining how individuals developed a sense of separate consciousness in the process of evolution.
I shall continue to read his (and others') contributions with interest.

I think this (and I myself) am in the wrong room and on the wrong thread.

I doubt whether there is a way of resolving the differences and the arguments will just go on and on, mainly because they are pointing in different directions. 

The 'materialist' argument is from directing consciousness outwards at the objective matter energy universe he forms mental concepts/theories/models based upon it and  suggests that consciousness has emerged from it.  The individual develops a sense of separateness from those mental constructions which he gradually becomes attached to and it generally crystallises into an ego/self.  All mental constructions are illusions in the sense that they are only vague imaginary approximations of what is observed.

The 'spiritualist' directs his consciousness inwards and comes across other imagery which may be gathered from a social environment or self created from resolved or unresolved conflicts.  These are also illusions in the sense they do not exist beyond the individual and cannot be demonstrated in a 'materialist' form.

The argument continues between two strongly held types of illusion.

The 'wise' take a different path.

[Nearly Sane]

And the same from me 

And indeed from me, whatever your beliefs, have a day and season of hope, and here's something to enjoy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wdxZhmylG-I

[Dicky Underpants]

Well, a non-dual Yuletide to you, or Saturnalia, or Christmas, or solstice, etc.

Thanks wiggi - and very much the same to you. And to my friends here whether non-dual, binary, tri-partite or multiple-personality.

[Enki]

Dear Forum,

I don't see a official seasons greeting thread so why not this one.

To every forum member I wish you a peaceful Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year

Gonnagle.

And the same from me, however you and your loved ones wish to interpret this festive season.

[torridon]

All

May all your constituent matter particles and hormonally charged neural circuits contribute to create a compelling illusion of good cheer for the centre of gravity of your emergent sense of personhood over the festive period.

And your families too

 

[Sriram]

To run with your car analogy, I would say that the car is the self; think about Google driverless cars, we don't really need a driver, the car drives itself; and so it is with living creatures.

In fact it happens in reverse fashion in life. Life begins in simple form which is driven almost through natural forces.....like a driverless car. Later the spark of Consciousness comes in and a little later Intelligence also comes in.

In humans also in the beginning, we are driven by instincts that are almost programmed responses. But as we grow we learn to gain control over our bodies and our lives.  But even then we are largely driven by natural needs, motivations and desires. 

Spirituality frees us even from these natural forces.....and sets us free.  Religions help in this process by regulating these needs and desires. What we call civilized behaviour is precisely what spirituality aims for.

In other words, consciousness starts from a tiny spark and evolves to a full fledged universal consciousness. What we Hindus call Poorna pragyna (complete consciousness).  Self development and Spiritual evolution....one and the same!

 

[Rhiannon]

Seasonal whatsits to everyone. 

[ippy]

In fact it happens in reverse fashion in life. Life begins in simple form which is driven almost through natural forces.....like a driverless car. Later the spark of Consciousness comes in and a little later Intelligence also comes in.

In humans also in the beginning, we are driven by instincts that are almost programmed responses. But as we grow we learn to gain control over our bodies and our lives.  But even then we are largely driven by natural needs, motivations and desires. 

Spirituality frees us even from these natural forces.....and sets us free.  Religions help in this process by regulating these needs and desires. What we call civilized behaviour is precisely what spirituality aims for.

In other words, consciousness starts from a tiny spark and evolves to a full fledged universal consciousness. What we Hindus call Poorna pragyna (complete consciousness).  Self development and Spiritual evolution....one and the same!

Always good to hear the supernatural myths of other cultures, good job there's enough of us that know what they are and don't take them seriously.

ippy

[SweetPea]

In fact it happens in reverse fashion in life. Life begins in simple form which is driven almost through natural forces.....like a driverless car. Later the spark of Consciousness comes in and a little later Intelligence also comes in.

In humans also in the beginning, we are driven by instincts that are almost programmed responses. But as we grow we learn to gain control over our bodies and our lives.  But even then we are largely driven by natural needs, motivations and desires. 

Spirituality frees us even from these natural forces.....and sets us free.  Religions help in this process by regulating these needs and desires. What we call civilized behaviour is precisely what spirituality aims for.

In other words, consciousness starts from a tiny spark and evolves to a full fledged universal consciousness. What we Hindus call Poorna pragyna (complete consciousness).  Self development and Spiritual evolution....one and the same!

Sriram.... it's about moving upwards spiritually and making the spiritual connection, consciousness to Most high, Ahayah (God):

 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, ..... Romans 12:2

[Sriram]

I doubt whether there is a way of resolving the differences and the arguments will just go on and on, mainly because they are pointing in different directions. 

The 'materialist' argument is from directing consciousness outwards at the objective matter energy universe he forms mental concepts/theories/models based upon it and  suggests that consciousness has emerged from it.  The individual develops a sense of separateness from those mental constructions which he gradually becomes attached to and it generally crystallises into an ego/self.  All mental constructions are illusions in the sense that they are only vague imaginary approximations of what is observed.

The 'spiritualist' directs his consciousness inwards and comes across other imagery which may be gathered from a social environment or self created from resolved or unresolved conflicts.  These are also illusions in the sense they do not exist beyond the individual and cannot be demonstrated in a 'materialist' form.

The argument continues between two strongly held types of illusion.

The 'wise' take a different path.

Actually there are no different ideas of reality. There are only different views of reality....or views of different aspects of reality.  Like Relativity and QM that can't yet be reconciled.

How to put them all together to form one complete picture of reality is the challenge. Dismissing one another is very easy.

 

[Leonard James]

Always good to hear the supernatural myths of other cultures, good job there's enough of us that know what they are and don't take them seriously.

ippy

Honesty is the best policy! The simple, honest truth is that we don't know or understand yet how the human mind works or what caused the universe.

Filling children's minds with guesswork (spiritual beliefs) is lumbering them with a serious obstacle to ever finding the truth.