Searching for GOD...

[ekim]

There have been times in my early life when I thought I was following the 'method', and indeed received some confirmation in experience that I was doing the right thing. Then I realised that there are innumerable 'methods', and no one can have any certainty what Jesus' method was, since there appear to be a number of Jesuses depicted in the NT, each offering a different message. There are a few common factors that can be perceived though - altruism, non-violence and forgiveness. Maybe these constitute a 'method' - you tell me. I suspect, though, that you are trying to fit Jesus into 'truth through meditation' mould.

You still seem to be implying that the Jesus recorded in the gospels had a uniform message. John's gospel has him saying "My kingdom is not of this world". Luke has the equivocal verse you referred to earlier "The Kingdom of heaven is within you" -( or "among you"). Other parts of the synoptics seem to indicate that the Kingdom will arrive in a few decades on earth when god finally winds up history, another text suggests that the Kingdom has arrived in his own person, and a few parables imply that the Kingdom will grow as a gradual process.
The overall tone is certainly grander than the gospel of Colin the leprechaun (the latter makes a great read all the same), but the scriptures don't appear to be a very reliable guide.

Yes, generally I agree with you.  Separating out the wheat from the chaff from the Gospels is not an easy task and yes, because I believe that the gist of the so called spiritual way is inward, I would look for whatever might indicate that.  Apart from the 'Kingdom of Heaven within' or 'within and without' from the Gospel of Thomas, I would pick 'metanoia' as a key word (meta - beyond and inwardly, noia - the mind) and relate the practice to meditation.  I would suggest that the Heaven mentioned is always present and not past or future related.  There are other saying which seem to support the inward direction as well as modifying outward behaviour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

1. That's a good example of what the mind does.  It creates a problem and then spends its time raising reasons why it shouldn't follow the method.  Jesus referred to it like this:…

Before we get to what JC may or may not have said, that’s not the issue at all. It’s not that the “mind” creates a problem, but rather that the minds of some of us at least are concerned with finding a process to help sift the probably more true from the probably less true. Anyways…

'Just as when seeds are sown, some are eaten by birds, some fall on infertile soil and fail to germinate, some fall among weeds and are choked and some fall on fertile soil and bear fruit.  Similarly, when the Truth is heard, there are those who do not understand and it is easily displaced in them by anyone malevolent; and there are those who immediately receive it with joy and it lasts for a while, but as soon as it creates problems for them they abandon it and it does not take root; also there are those who receive it, but because they are more concerned with the ways of the world and possessions it becomes choked and does not bear results; but for those who receive it and take it deeply into the good ground of their Being and are converted and healed and realise the Truth, it will multiply many times.'

Which is all very jolly, but he’s putting the cart before the horse. The issue rather is how to establish that there are any "seeds", that a truth is the truth etc. The same could have been said by any other itinerant mystic with different truth claims entirely – that’s the problem.

The major difficulty, though, is that the conclusion or destination e.g. Heaven, paradise, nirvana etc cannot be adequately described and you cannot be absolutely sure that the Heaven which Jesus refers to is the same as your own experience.

Or that it exists at all…

All you have are analogies to go by.  Also there may be many ways or methods to reach the same 'destination', so if Colin the Leprechaun's seems easier, follow it and see what happens.

What would (or at least may) happen is that the adherent would believe just as sincerely and profoundly in Colin’s truth claims as others do in JC’s truth claims, provided that is that each has a method of equal persuasiveness.
 

2.  I'm not sure what you mean by 'content'.  If you mean the conclusion to following the method, no it doesn't,  it is left for you discover it.  It might be a pack of lies of course.

Yes it might be, and that’s the point. History is littered with brilliantly persuasive evangelisers of many stripes but that says nothing to the veracity or otherwise of the claims they ask you to believe – ie, the content rather than the method.

[Alan Burns]

Awareness is a phenomenological construct of brain function.  It is the integration and synchronisation and interpretation of information flows within the unique context that is our own private personal brain.  The feeling that there is a person inside us in receipt of all that experience, is just that, it is a feeling, and like all feelings, it is a phenomenological product of normal brain functioning.

But none of this technical jargon explains how awareness can be produced from what amounts to the activity of electrons in our brain.  There is no definition for what actually perceives and translates this chemical activity into a conscious state, or what this conscious state is comprised of in material terms.

If conscious awareness was definable, then it could theoretically be produced artificially, but scientists still have no clue how this can be done because there is no definition.

[Stranger]

But none of this technical jargon explains how awareness can be produced from what amounts to the activity of electrons in our brain.  There is no definition for what actually perceives and translates this chemical activity into a conscious state, or what this conscious state is comprised of in material terms.

If conscious awareness was definable, then it could theoretically be produced artificially, but scientists still have no clue how this can be done because there is no definition.

You keep criticising science for not understanding consciousness as if you have an alternative. You've already admitted that you don't:-

I admit that I do not know how conscious awareness and free will can work in the spiritual sense...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

But none of this technical jargon explains how awareness can be produced from what amounts to the activity of electrons in our brain.  There is no definition for what actually perceives and translates this chemical activity into a conscious state, or what this conscious state is comprised of in material terms.

If conscious awareness was definable, then it could theoretically be produced artificially, but scientists still have no clue how this can be done because there is no definition.

To a significant extent that's mostly untrue - we already know a great deal more about consciousness than you allow. Let's pretend otherwise though - that we're as in the dark ages on this issue as you wrongly think we are. What then?

What then is that we'd have a "don't know" and lots of opportunities to do exciting work that has a method that's repeatable and testable to help us decide whether and when we have the answers. What it wouldn't however provide is an argument that makes the god of the gaps you're attempting a logically sound proposition. "Don't know" does not provide and argument for anything - you'd have all your work ahead of you in that respect.   

Sorry, but there it is.

[Gordon]

But none of this technical jargon explains how awareness can be produced from what amounts to the activity of electrons in our brain.  There is no definition for what actually perceives and translates this chemical activity into a conscious state, or what this conscious state is comprised of in material terms.

If conscious awareness was definable, then it could theoretically be produced artificially, but scientists still have no clue how this can be done because there is no definition.

Even if science has a way to go on this 'don't know' doesn't mean 'therefore god'.

You really are incredibly naive in this respect, which leaves you susceptible to fallacious thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if science has a way to go on this 'don't know' doesn't mean 'therefore god'.

You really are incredibly naive in this respect, which leaves you susceptible to fallacious thinking.

But hold on don't know doesn't necessarily mean 'therefore not God' although you are kind of implying that by suggesting that the question of God will be answered by science if it goes the 'way to go' you mention.

That is sleight of hand i'm afraid Gordon...with a bit of prophesy chucked in.

[Shaker]

But hold on don't know doesn't necessarily mean 'therefore not God'

Don't know means "Don't know - how do we go about finding out?"

That last bit is the stage where you lot start coughing, looking at the carpet and doing a soft shoe shuffle.

[Gordon]

But hold on don't know doesn't necessarily mean 'therefore not God' although you are kind of implying that by suggesting that the question of God will be answered by science if it goes the 'way to go' you mention.

That is sleight of hand i'm afraid Gordon...with a bit of prophesy chucked in.

Don't be silly, Vlad - it means 'don't know': nothing more and nothing less, but you know that anyway!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't know means "Don't know - how do we go about finding out?"

That last bit is the stage where you lot start coughing, looking at the carpet and doing a soft shoe shuffle.

Where as you guys just say one day science will disprove God.
You know Gordon performed a fine display of  scientism and you're just covering for him........Shakey Mc Argument Ha Ha Ha

[Shaker]

Where as you guys just say one day science will disprove God.

Who has said that, then?

You know Gordon performed a fine display of  scientism and you're just covering for him........Shakey Mc Argument Ha Ha Ha

Oh, I don't trouble myself about your vast array of daft isms-instead-of-rational-argument, Vlad.

Gordon explained precisely and exactly what he meant in #13010 and #13013. Instead of chucking straw all over the place I suggest you deal with that explanation head-on - if you're able.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What would (or at least may) happen is that the adherent would believe just as sincerely and profoundly in Colin’s truth claims as others do in JC’s truth claims, provided that is that each has a method of equal persuasiveness.

Unfortunately with Leprechauns there is ''the small green clad irish fellow-ness'' problem not to mention argumentum ad ridiculum.....Still it's the sort of thing that makes you guys 'moist'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't know means "Don't know - how do we go about finding out?"

The existential way might be a good start.

[Alan Burns]

Alan,

To a significant extent that's mostly untrue - we already know a great deal more about consciousness than you allow. Let's pretend otherwise though - that we're as in the dark ages on this issue as you wrongly think we are. What then?

What then is that we'd have a "don't know" and lots of opportunities to do exciting work that has a method that's repeatable and testable to help us decide whether and when we have the answers. What it wouldn't however provide is an argument that makes the god of the gaps you're attempting a logically sound proposition. "Don't know" does not provide and argument for anything - you'd have all your work ahead of you in that respect.   

Sorry, but there it is.

But can you not see how impossible it is to explain perception in material terms?  Science can only define reactions, and reactions are not perception.  Perception requires a definition of the perceiver, and this is where it becomes impossible.

[Shaker]

Alan, I suggest you read #13010 again - the first paragraph especially - and repeat as often as needed.

[Gordon]

But can you not see how impossible it is to explain perception in material terms?  Science can only define reactions, and reactions are not perception.  Perception requires a definition of the perceiver, and this is where it becomes impossible.

Which is a common or garden argument from personal incredulity. You seem incapable of saying anything that isn't inherently fallacious.

[torridon]

Awareness is a phenomenological construct of brain function.  It is the integration and synchronisation and interpretation of information flows within the unique context that is our own private personal brain.  The feeling that there is a person inside us in receipt of all that experience, is just that, it is a feeling, and like all feelings, it is a phenomenological product of normal brain functioning.

But none of this technical jargon explains how awareness can be produced from what amounts to the activity of electrons in our brain.  There is no definition for what actually perceives and translates this chemical activity into a conscious state, or what this conscious state is comprised of in material terms.

If conscious awareness was definable, then it could theoretically be produced artificially, but scientists still have no clue how this can be done because there is no definition.

That's not technical jargon, it is more a way to understand the nature of self, the feeling of agency.  I know this isn't easy, but there again it wasn't easy when Einstein gave us time dilation warping in spacetime; this now is one of the challenges of our age - to understand consciousness requires us to drop our intuitions and develop theoretical frameworks that makes sense of the evidence.

It is not correct to say we have no idea, no clue, no definition.  You have been pulled up on this before.  It is work in progress, there are various groups working in this field, building mathematical models of information flow that will define the quality and substance of consciousness and we will use these models in the future to detect consciousness in vegetative patients initially and later on in AI to verify consciousness in neural architecture machines.

[torridon]

But can you not see how impossible it is to explain perception in material terms?  Science can only define reactions, and reactions are not perception.  Perception requires a definition of the perceiver, and this is where it becomes impossible.

Just wrong.  Perceptions are aggregated up reactions. Just as if you deconstruct a human body you will find it is made of a billion billion atoms of carbon arranged in a particular complex way, if you likewise deconstruct perception, you will find it is made of a similarly mind boggling number of elemental reactions at the level of fundamental matter. The 'perceiver' itself is a phenomenological product, or artefact  of the subliminal processes that create consciousness.

[Stranger]

But can you not see how impossible it is to explain perception in material terms?

No. Difficult, yes, but difficult doesn't mean "it must be magic".

Science can only define reactions, and reactions are not perception.  Perception requires a definition of the perceiver, and this is where it becomes impossible.

You keep on repeating this daft mantra as if you have an answer; as if your favourite myth has "defined" a perceiver. I will keep on reminding you and everybody reading that you haven't: this is what you said, when pushed:

I admit that I do not know how conscious awareness and free will can work in the spiritual sense, but it does fit well with the religious concept of human beings having a spiritual soul, which is what I base my beliefs on.

Not an argument; not an answer - just blind, religious faith.

[Leonard James]

Not an argument; not an answer - just blind, religious faith.

Sadly, a delusion which is difficult to cure.

[Alan Burns]

It is not correct to say we have no idea, no clue, no definition.  You have been pulled up on this before.  It is work in progress, there are various groups working in this field, building mathematical models of information flow that will define the quality and substance of consciousness and we will use these models in the future to detect consciousness in vegetative patients initially and later on in AI to verify consciousness in neural architecture machines.

Conscious awareness must surely be in an internal perception which can't be detected from outside.  Just imagine if, you can, that there is a spiritual "you" which constitutes conscious awareness.  Could this "you" be detected by analysing material properties?  By restricting investigations to only what can be detected within material properties, you could never discover any form of spiritual reality.

[Alan Burns]

... if you likewise deconstruct perception,

You would have to find it first.   

[Gordon]

Conscious awareness must surely be in an internal perception which can't be detected from outside.

It happens in your brain: just biology, and since there are no alternatives then it is indeed internalised within our skulls. That doesn't mean that neurology won't, as the science progresses, detect brain activity that is linked to consciousness: 'don't know' doesn't necessarily mean 'isn't knowable'. 
 

Just imagine if, you can, that there is a spiritual "you" which constitutes conscious awareness.

You can imagine whatever you like: imagination is like that, but the move from imagination to reality is a different matter.

Could this "you" be detected by analysing material properties?

Possibly, provided that the 'you' is adequately defined and that the method of detection being used is appropriate and robust. 

By restricting investigations to only what can be detected within material properties, you could never discover any form of spiritual reality.

Aside from this being an example of begging the question, you imply that 'spiritual reality' (which sounds like an oxymoron) is immaterial, so what method would you recommend if we are to discover an immaterial anything? 

[torridon]

Conscious awareness must surely be in an internal perception which can't be detected from outside.  Just imagine if, you can, that there is a spiritual "you" which constitutes conscious awareness.  Could this "you" be detected by analysing material properties?  By restricting investigations to only what can be detected within material properties, you could never discover any form of spiritual reality.

Consciousness can be detected from outside. If you engage in conversation with someone that alone implies you have detected that they are conscious; people give off external behavioural signs of inner consciousness.  Research efforts are working towards more refined tests of consciousness through brain scanning and machine learning approaches. What this won't give us is the experience of being that other consciousness; this being the problem of solipsism, we cannot bridge the subjective/objective gap.  We cannot experience what being another mind is like without actually being that other mind.  Mind/experience/consciousness is all about the being of something.

[wigginhall]

It's incredible really, that AB puts forward 'spiritual reality' as something not detected by science, but of course, he can't help us to find it either.   

Is this what Christianity has descended to, a kind of intellectual suicide?