Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

Ippy. Do you think this is some kind of man cave?

Points.

Another post you haven't managed to understand Vlad.

Regards ippy.

[SweetPea]

However, from the mystic's point of view the 'I' is fundamental,  the subject rather than subjectivity, simple rather than complex.  The description of what you term as 'me', they would term as the 'self' and it is the 'self' which they say needs to be transcended by certain 'religious' practices in order to realise 'I'.  It is the self centred mind which thinks of itself in terms of desires, memories, prejudices etc., which are as you say transient.  The mystic would say that the path to such realisation is through inner stillness.  The alternative produces what you see in this topic, years of argument.

This post of ekim's in reply to Torridon's #29196 I'd say is reflecting what Alan is trying to express in way of 'an observer'. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Alan).

Torridon, try a little meditation, you don't have to go too deep to recognise what ekim is saying. You may even experience a sense of 'you' being apart from your body.

Some are struggling with the word 'soul' on this thread which could be replaced by the 'I' ekim refers to. 'Soul' for many will bring on a state of cognitive dissonance which can prevent any further discussion and understanding.

[Maeght]

Torridon, try a little meditation, you don't have to go too deep to recognise what ekim is saying. You may even experience a sense of 'you' being apart from your body.

Yes, the mind can certainly play tricks on you when you do stuff like that.

[Nearly Sane]

This post of ekim's in reply to Torridon's #29196 I'd say is reflecting what Alan is trying to express in way of 'an observer'. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Alan).

Torridon, try a little meditation, you don't have to go too deep to recognise what ekim is saying. You may even experience a sense of 'you' being apart from your body.

Some are struggling with the word 'soul' on this thread which could be replaced by the 'I' ekim refers to. 'Soul' for many will bring on a state of cognitive dissonance which can prevent any further discussion and understanding.

I don't understand your use of the phrase 'cognitive disdonance ' here. Can you expand what you mean by it in this context, and why you think use of the word soul  brings it on?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sweet Pea,

This post of ekim's in reply to Torridon's #29196 I'd say is reflecting what Alan is trying to express in way of 'an observer'. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Alan).

Torridon, try a little meditation, you don't have to go too deep to recognise what ekim is saying. You may even experience a sense of 'you' being apart from your body.

Some are struggling with the word 'soul' on this thread which could be replaced by the 'I' ekim refers to. 'Soul' for many will bring on a state of cognitive dissonance which can prevent any further discussion and understanding.

Not really. You can get all mystical about “the sense of “I”” and the rest as much as you like, and indeed some notable atheists do just that. That’s not to say though that the solipsistic model of the universe is the correct one – indeed some find the deeper and richer understanding of what these things actually consist of to be more emotionally satisfying still.

To put it another way (and paraphrasing something someone else once said): enjoying the flowers in your garden is no less lovely for knowing about photosynthesis.

[SweetPea]

Nearly and Blue, bear with me, I'm on a recently acquired fancy 'phone that I'm trying to get used to!

Nearly - cognitive dissonance here refering to a new idea when you are still not convinced by the original.

Blue - yep, get what you're saying - just on different wavelengths.

[Alan Burns]

The "I" is a pocket of subjectivity; we are all pockets of complexity and subjectivity. 

But subjectivity is not seen to be a natural phenomenon of an entirely material universe.

[Alan Burns]

We don't need god magic to explain these things, they are a consequence of natural law.

The only demonstrable consequence of natural law is chaos.

[Alan Burns]

As torridon argued, why on earth would nervous systems develop if not to integrate complex organisms?

Nature alone has no remit to achieve such goals.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sweet Pa,

Nearly and Blue, bear with me, I'm on a recently acquired fancy 'phone that I'm trying to get used to!

Nearly - cognitive dissonance here refering to a new idea when you are still not convinced by the original.

Blue - yep, get what you're saying - just on different wavelengths.

But on what basis then would you think it appropriate to tell torri to "try a little mediation"? Could he equally say to you, 'try a little thinking", or "try a little research"?

[Nearly Sane]

Nearly and Blue, bear with me, I'm on a recently acquired fancy 'phone that I'm trying to get used to!

Nearly - cognitive dissonance here refering to a new idea when you are still not convinced by the original.

Blue - yep, get what you're saying - just on different wavelengths.

That isn't what cognitive dissonance means

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

And even taking your definition I don't see how that applies hete. Soul isn't a new idea. Alan hasn't been able to define what he means by in a logically coherent fashion. And I don't know what original idea you think people are unconvinced by.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But subjectivity is not seen to be a natural phenomenon of an entirely material universe.

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Nature alone has no remit to achieve such goals.

They're not "goals" at all, and nature (alone or otherwise) has no remit to do anything. It still does it though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The only demonstrable consequence of natural law is chaos.

I think you're thinking of entropy here, and ultimately there will be the heat death of the universe. That doesn't preclude though the astonishing and entirely natural levels of complexity we see from emerging in the meantime. 

I thought you told me that you think about things more than I realise. What happened?

[ippy]

I don't understand your use of the phrase 'cognitive disdonance ' here. Can you expand what you mean by it in this context, and why you think use of the word soul  brings it on?

Perhaps it'd be good if Sweet Pea were to look up the actual meaning of cognitive dissonance and then adjust that post accordingly.

Regards ippy.

[Alan Burns]

.... Alan hasn't been able to define what he means by in a logically coherent fashion.

I fail to see what is logically incoherent about the capacity of the human soul to give us the freedom which a deterministic material universe could never give.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, the mind can certainly play tricks on you when you do stuff like that.

I get light shows when I go deep into meditation, like being inside a lava lamp. It's very nice.

[torridon]

The only demonstrable consequence of natural law is chaos.

It's only a month or two since this was covered; you continue to give the impression of never reading posts.  The second law of thermodynamics is not the only natural law; there is abundant evidence of tendencies that oppose the entropy gradient.  If 2LT were the only game in town atomic matter would not form, and yet you take in 100 million atoms of oxygen with every breath you take. If 2LT were the only game in town beautiful snowflakes would not form during winter, nor would we see spiral arm galaxies with the Hubble.  Evidence of naturally forming complexity is all around us, we just need to open our eyes and look.

[torridon]

But subjectivity is not seen to be a natural phenomenon of an entirely material universe.

No evidence for that peculiar assertion.  Everything that can see (for example) sees the world from its own (subjective) standpoint.  How is that not subjective ?

[torridon]

This post of ekim's in reply to Torridon's #29196 I'd say is reflecting what Alan is trying to express in way of 'an observer'. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Alan).

Torridon, try a little meditation, you don't have to go too deep to recognise what ekim is saying. You may even experience a sense of 'you' being apart from your body.

Some are struggling with the word 'soul' on this thread which could be replaced by the 'I' ekim refers to. 'Soul' for many will bring on a state of cognitive dissonance which can prevent any further discussion and understanding.

I've always been useless at meditation; at least in any formal methodical way, like mindfulness or self-hypnosis.  My mind is a busy place, there are always thoughts coming and going and I cannot stop them.  I did once have a mild out of body experience, not that I induced it intentionally, and it was rather peculiar, but I'm happy to rationalise it as a momentary abberation of proprioception rather than some profound mystical insight into a deeper reality.

[Rhiannon]

I've always been useless at meditation; at least in any formal methodical way, like mindfulness or self-hypnosis.  My mind is a busy place, there are always thoughts coming and going and I cannot stop them.  I did once have a mild out of body experience, not that I induced it intentionally, and it was rather peculiar, but I'm happy to rationalise it as a momentary abberation of proprioception rather than some profound mystical insight into a deeper reality.

Mindfulness is really just doing things mindfully. Paying attention. Mindfulness meditation is the practice of meditating mindfully.

[ekim]

I've always been useless at meditation; at least in any formal methodical way, like mindfulness or self-hypnosis.  My mind is a busy place, there are always thoughts coming and going and I cannot stop them.  I did once have a mild out of body experience, not that I induced it intentionally, and it was rather peculiar, but I'm happy to rationalise it as a momentary abberation of proprioception rather than some profound mystical insight into a deeper reality.

I should say for most people it's not easy, especially for those with a highly active mind with which they identify.  It will not give up its central position easily especially if it sees the method as one of suppression or a quest for mystical insights.  Rationalisation is one of its tools.  Proprioception sounds more like an in body experience but an out of mind experience??

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

You do know that you’re getting even more wrong then ever these days don’t you?

Ha Ha Ha This is you doing the Hokey cokey with different lyrics. Look up the meaning of conflation.

Conflate: merge, bring together, combine, treat as one – which is exactly the sense I meant, and exactly what you did with your “the same goes for religion, philosophy etc”, that “the same” and the "etc" telling us that they should be part of the same epistemic set. Why are you even trying to wriggle out of the plain words you used?

Vladdo: Black is white.

Me: Er, no – it’s not right to say that black is white, and here’s why…

Vladdo: But I never said black is white.

Me: Yes you did. Here’s the quote where you said it.

Vladdo: Ha Ha Ha This is doing the hokey-cokey….

Weird stuff Vladdo, weird stuff.

[Alan Burns]

No evidence for that peculiar assertion.  Everything that can see (for example) sees the world from its own (subjective) standpoint.  How is that not subjective ?

But these examples came into existence through the subjective will of God.  Subjectivity is God's creation, not nature's.

[torridon]

But these examples came into existence through the subjective will of God.  Subjectivity is God's creation, not nature's.

That's just assertion without evidence.

You'll have to do better than that I'm afraid.