Trouble Sleeping Because of Too Much Thinking.. I Need Some Advice (verse, scientific)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not proposing that we stop at "I don't know" or that we don't form and test hypotheses about the unknown. I simply propose that we be willing to sit with uncertainty until there's reason to do otherwise.
Not really. It is mostly a projection of what we don't know onto an imagined father-figure. God of the gaps.
Naturalism provides no ready / easy answers and it's incomplete, but making up the score out of whole cloth isn't the answer either.
I agree up until you said "It is quite possible" ... I would substitute "unlikely" for "possible" and steer accordingly.
Why? All you can do is wonder / imagine. You can't know.
The price is only manifested if and when your luck runs out. If you've had not significant business failures, ungrateful children, unstable / failed marriage(s), have generally experienced good reciprocity when treating others with respect and dignity, feel like you've succeeded at "making a difference" and helping the unfortunate without noticing their instinctual resentment of said help, and have gotten away with moderate alcohol use without discovering the wonders of addiction -- good on ya. I'm truly happy for you. But it would be a mistake to congratulate yourself for your wise choices of belief systems. I can cite too many counterexamples to yours.
It's a strange feeling to try and walk in another's shoes. The picture that is so clear to you is equally as clear to me, but we differ so much on the conclusions that it is most likely irreconcilable.
You say that god is a projection of what we don't know, and assume it is an imagined being. I see how the possible nature of such a being explains what we don't know, and what we do know. It's not a projection onto only what we don't know, but also encompasses what we do. This boils down to a disagreement on the interpretation of the information. The un-gaps, if you will, fit into the scheme just as well as the gaps.
If I am being intellectually honest, I have to say that I do not/can not know for certain that some sort of god exists. But, I do believe that there is warranted rational belief in such a god, and I also believe that I have had personal experience of that god. This is a strange, and uncomfortable thing for me to admit, because I sympathize with the empirical Naturalist's position, and I am really not that long into a concrete, defined theistic belief. But if God is real, who better to know that He/She exists than those who believe and have had experience?
That is why I am at the point of wondering what the score is. I believe in science; I believe in our ability to uncover more about who we are and where we came from; I accept as truth our discoveries, but it looks all the more to me like the footprints of a creator that we are uncovering. To believe that we all just came to be randomly, that we evolved to conciousness unguided, developed a natural morality, live on a planet perfectly situated for our environment with an atmosphere perfectly situated for our comfort, and can even discuss what wild possibilities there are about our own existence is to me wildly indicative of a higher power. I want to know what that higher power expects from me, because the alternative to me is wildly improbable.
As far as the price I pay, if I am ever to suffer such reverses as you may mention to my fortunes, may I draw on a higher power for comfort and strength during those times.
It's a strange feeling to try and walk in another's shoes. The picture that is so clear to you is equally as clear to me, but we differ so much on the conclusions that it is most likely irreconcilable.
We may not reconcile our positions but we can at least understand them. I think that has been achieved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
You say that god is a projection of what we don't know, and assume it is an imagined being. I see how the possible nature of such a being explains what we don't know, and what we do know. It's not a projection onto only what we don't know, but also encompasses what we do. This boils down to a disagreement on the interpretation of the information. The un-gaps, if you will, fit into the scheme just as well as the gaps.
I have not found the Christian god to fit the known very well. The Deist god fits the observable world quite a bit better. But an absent or indifferent god is in practical terms no different than no god at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
If I am being intellectually honest, I have to say that I do not/can not know for certain that some sort of god exists. But, I do believe that there is warranted rational belief in such a god, and I also believe that I have had personal experience of that god. This is a strange, and uncomfortable thing for me to admit, because I sympathize with the empirical Naturalist's position, and I am really not that long into a concrete, defined theistic belief. But if God is real, who better to know that He/She exists than those who believe and have had experience?
Who better indeed. The problem for you is that was me once. And a lot of others like me. The center does not always hold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
That is why I am at the point of wondering what the score is. I believe in science; I believe in our ability to uncover more about who we are and where we came from; I accept as truth our discoveries, but it looks all the more to me like the footprints of a creator that we are uncovering. To believe that we all just came to be randomly, that we evolved to conciousness unguided, developed a natural morality, live on a planet perfectly situated for our environment with an atmosphere perfectly situated for our comfort, and can even discuss what wild possibilities there are about our own existence is to me wildly indicative of a higher power. I want to know what that higher power expects from me, because the alternative to me is wildly improbable.
You just admitted in a moment of honesty that you can't know for sure that "some sort of god" exists. If so then how would you possibly be able to know what a particular higher power expects of you? Like you, I once embraced this phantom for no other reason than that I was conditioned to think that the alternative was unthinkable. Simply because I could not accept that I wasn't immortal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
As far as the price I pay, if I am ever to suffer such reverses as you may mention to my fortunes, may I draw on a higher power for comfort and strength during those times.
I don't wish any of those things on you and I would not wish the failure of your higher power. May you be fortunate. I have nothing nowhere near as sexy on offer as an alternative ... just unadorned reality, warts and all.
We may not reconcile our positions but we can at least understand them. I think that has been achieved.
I have not found the Christian god to fit the known very well. The Deist god fits the observable world quite a bit better. But an absent or indifferent god is in practical terms no different than no god at all.
What about the panentheist God, mordant? Everything that exists and everything that happens is the result of the existence of God . . . NOT God's Will. Relate the mandates that our continued existence and maintenance place upon the individual cells and many biotic lives that comprise our mini-universe of a body and brain. How much do we actively control . . . and how often and how effectively can we intervene when things go wrong? Understand that I had to abandon ALL the so-called attributes assigned to God by humans.
When I began my objective search to understand what I knew to be reality . . . that God exists . . . I threw out everything that absolutely did not need to be true and accepted only what could be shown to be true. No Omni's . . . no anger, no vengeance, no jealousy, no benevolence, etc. But I found it vindicating that I eventually was actually led to back love and benevolence . . . in spite of the "red in tooth and claw" aspect of life and the tragedies and disasters that plague life in what seems like an extraordinarily hostile environment to life.
From the perspective of the individual lives of our cells and the other biotics that comprise us . . . there are tragedies, disasters, "red in tooth and claw" aspects to the requirement to maintain our existence. I am particularly troubled by my non-Vegan diet. But they all go to produce our consciousness . . . and it turns out that is the whole reason for our existence. Everything else is secondary. Most important is the character of our consciousness. It must harmonize (be resonant) with agape love. That is extremely difficult given the carnal demands of survival our very existence demands. Once I accepted the mandates that our very existence places on us . . . it was easy to accept that God's very existence places demands on the inexplicable functioning of our reality too.
It seems to me that you have deconstructed God to the point where the concept isn't terribly meaningful. Which begs the question, why keep him at all.
I have always liked Spinoza's thinking and I have some respect for the central tenets of Buddhist thought as well but I do not see god as a necessity for the cultivation of virtue or ethics. Ultimately I'm probably more of a Schopenhauer man myself.
The "panentheist God" is just one of thousands, to me it is just more churn out there. I prefer to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low in my philosophical investigations. God-talk is all heat and no light to me. It violates Occam's Razor by multiplying entities needlessly.
It seems to me that you have deconstructed God to the point where the concept isn't terribly meaningful. Which begs the question, why keep him at all.
It is a closed loop of life. Our God is a living God . . . not static. God's consciousness is the source of the universal field that establishes what we experience as our reality. But as a living entity . . . God's consciousness must always be produced. We are the cellular instruments of that production (at least on this planet). I suspect there are innumerable such planets and consciousness producing lifeforms throughout our reality. Since our reality is comprised of 95+% dark energy and dark matter . . . it would seem that consciousness is far more ubiquitous than what we consider normal matter. I find relying on what we know about the less than 5% of reality less reassuring than relying on the 95+%.
Quote:
I have always liked Spinoza's thinking and I have some respect for the central tenets of Buddhist thought as well but I do not see god as a necessity for the cultivation of virtue or ethics. Ultimately I'm probably more of a Schopenhauer man myself.
I made a similar transit through Spinoza to Schopenhauer. In fact I reference Schopenhauer's insights into the nature of our reality (without the benefit of knowledge of quantum dynamics) in my Synthesis. His analogy to music is very powerful. It is not so much that God is necessary for the cultivation of virtue and ethics . . . as God is the reason we need to do so.
Since our reality is comprised of 95+% dark energy and dark matter . . . it would seem that consciousness is far more ubiquitous than what we consider normal matter. I find relying on what we know about the less than 5% of reality less reassuring than relying on the 95+%.
Who has shown that dark matter and/or dark energy = consciousness?
Who has shown that dark matter and/or dark energy = consciousness?
Well . . . to some degree, I have through my Synthesis . . . but it is still in the hypothesis stage . . . until we develop the ability to directly measure consciousness, dark energy and dark matter.
From HWP Moments with Friends... Is it possible to put a thought out of the mind? If so, how is this done; how can one prevent its recurrence and keep it out of the mind?
It is possible to keep a thought out of the mind, but it is not possible to put a thought out of the mind as we would put a tramp out of the house. The reason why so many are not able to keep away undesirable thoughts, and are not able to think on definite lines, is because they believe in the prevalent notion that they must put thoughts out of their minds. It is impossible to put a thought out of one's mind because in putting it out attention must be given the thought, and while the mind gives the thought attention it is impossible to get rid of that thought. The one who says: Go away you bad thought, or, I will not think of this or that, keeps that thing in his mind as securely as though it were riveted there. If one says to himself that he must not think of this or that thing, he will be like the ascetics and hermits and fanatics who make a list of things they are not to think about and then proceed to go over this list mentally and to put those thoughts out of their mind and fail. The old story of "The Great Green Bear" illustrates this very well. A mediaeval alchemist was pestered by one of his pupils who wanted to be told how to transmute lead into gold. His master told the pupil that he could not do it, even though he were told, because he was not qualified. On the continued pleading of the pupil, the alchemist decided to teach the pupil a lesson and told him that as he was going on a journey the following day he would leave him the formula by which he might succeed if he were able to follow all instructions, but that it would be necessary to pay the closest attention to the formula and to be accurate in every detail. The pupil was delighted and eagerly began the work at the time appointed. He followed the instructions carefully and was accurate in the preparation of his materials and instruments. He saw that metals of the right quality and quantity were in their proper crucibles, and the temperature required was produced. He was careful that the vapors were all conserved and passed through the alembics and retorts, and found that the deposits from these were exactly as stated in the formula. All this caused him much satisfaction and as he went on with the experiment he gained confidence in its ultimate success. One of the rules was that he should not read through the formula but should follow it only as he proceeded with his work. As he proceeded, he came to the statement: Now that the experiment has proceeded thus far and that the metal is at white heat, take a little of the red powder between the forefinger and thumb of the right hand, a little of the white powder between the forefinger and thumb of the left hand, stand over the glowing mass which you now have before you and be ready to drop these powders after you have obeyed the next order. The young man did as ordered and read on: You have now reached the crucial test, and success will follow only if you are able to obey the following: Do not think of the great green bear and be sure that you do not think of the great green bear. The young man paused breathless. "The great green bear. I am not to think of the great green bear," said he. "The great green bear! What is the great green bear? No, I will not think about the great green bear, but, confound it, I am, thinking about the great green bear." As he continued to think that he should not think about the great green bear he could think about nothing else, until finally it occurred to him that he should go on with his experiment and although the thought of a great green bear was still in his mind he turned to the formula to see what the next order was and he read: You have failed in the trial. You have failed at the crucial moment because you have allowed your attention to be taken from the work to think about a great green bear. The heat in the furnace has not been kept up, the proper amount of vapor has failed to pass through this and that retort, and it is useless now to drop the red and white powders.
A thought remains in the mind as long as attention is given to it. When the mind ceases to give attention to one thought and places it on another thought, the thought which has attention remains in the mind, and that which has no attention gets out. The way to get rid of a thought is to hold the mind definitely and persistently on one definite and particular subject or thought. It will be found that if this is done, no thoughts which do not relate to the subject can intrude themselves upon the mind. While the mind desires a thing its thought will revolve around that thing of desire because the desire is like a center of gravity and attracts the mind. The mind can free itself from that desire, if it wills.
The process by which it is freed is that it sees and understands that the desire is not the best for it and then decides on something that is better. After the mind decides on the best subject, it should direct its thought to that subject and attention should be given to that subject only. By this process, the center of gravity is changed from the old desire to the new subject of thought. Mind decides where its center of gravity will be. To whatever subject or object the mind goes there will its thought be. So the mind continues to change its subject of thought, its center of gravity, until it learns to place the center of gravity in itself. When this is done, the mind withdraws into itself its ramifications and functions through the avenues of sense and the sense organs. The mind, not functioning through its senses into the physical world, and learning to turn its energies into itself, finally awakens to its own reality as distinct from its fleshly and other bodies. By so doing, the mind not only discovers its real self but it may discover the real self of all others and the real world which penetrates and upholds all others.
Such realization may not be attained at once, but it will be realized as the final result of the keeping undesirable thoughts out of the mind by attending to and thinking of others which are desirable. No one is at once able to think only of the thought which he wishes to think of and thus to exclude or prevent other thoughts from entering the mind; but he will be able to do so if he tries and keeps on trying.
Well . . . to some degree, I have through my Synthesis . . . but it is still in the hypothesis stage . . . until we develop the ability to directly measure consciousness, dark energy and dark matter.
How about just start enjoying your life and stop thinking about death! If a star is shining bright it isn't preoccupied with the end state - it is preoccupied with the here and now and burns brightly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by raindrops59
Hey everyone,
The past few nights I have had trouble sleeping and have even cried a few times because of too much thinking. What is bothering me is basically the thought that we are the universe experiencing itself.. that's all. Once we are dead the energy that is us is just transferred to something else. This is by no means a new concept to me but I guess I have just been thinking about it too much recently. That once I am gone, I will really be gone forever. My thoughts and everything that I consist of is just star dust arranged in a weird pattern. I can barely fathom the thought of myself not existing in any form, but I believe that is what will happen. Nothing else really makes sense. I don't want to say my life means nothing, but I hope you guys can see what I'm getting at. I'm not really sure where else to go with this problem. If anyone has any advice, I would find it very helpful. I'm just having trouble accepting the fact that once I'm gone, that's it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
