U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-08-2009, 03:38 PM
 
Location: Nashville, Tn
7,916 posts, read 16,450,051 times
Reputation: 5442

Advertisements

MysticPhD wrote:
Quote:
There are other things about our reality it is essential to learn the right brain disciplines of meditation and conscious control of altered brain states to discern and understand. The fact that the discipline of neither of these skill sets comes naturally makes it impossible for everyone to just KNOW it.
When I hear an explanation like that it makes me wonder if someone who practices meditation or engages in some activity of this nature has a predetermined purpose in doing so and if that purpose is actually to find this universal consciousness. If that were the situation it could very well be a case of self deception that is very similar to a scientist who has also predetermined what he or she is looking for and for that reason alone they tend to find what they consider to be solid evidence to support their position. The basic problem I have with the concept of a God or a universe that is conscious of itself is that there is nothing resembling a brain that houses it. I mentioned earlier that our brains are where are consciousness resides and I'm wondering how this universal consciousness would be able to function without some mechanism that performs a similar task to the human brain. I haven't heard a viable explanation of the very nature of this universal consciousness. What persuades you to believe that it exists?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2009, 08:37 PM
 
37,667 posts, read 25,387,320 times
Reputation: 5865
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy View Post
MysticPhD wrote:

When I hear an explanation like that it makes me wonder if someone who practices meditation or engages in some activity of this nature has a predetermined purpose in doing so and if that purpose is actually to find this universal consciousness. If that were the situation it could very well be a case of self deception that is very similar to a scientist who has also predetermined what he or she is looking for and for that reason alone they tend to find what they consider to be solid evidence to support their position.
Well in my case . . . I was a practicing meditator as an atheist under Buddhism for 18 years before my breakthrough meditation that produced the unmistakable experience that turned my life around.
Quote:
The basic problem I have with the concept of a God or a universe that is conscious of itself is that there is nothing resembling a brain that houses it. I mentioned earlier that our brains are where are consciousness resides and I'm wondering how this universal consciousness would be able to function without some mechanism that performs a similar task to the human brain.
You must have missed my posts where I refute that notion of consciousness residing within the brain. It exists as an abstract at a level beyond the physical inputs that produce it . . . abstract like a melody that exists at a level higher than the individual notes that comprise it. Search out my other posts for more clarification.
Quote:
I haven't heard a viable explanation of the very nature of this universal consciousness. What persuades you to believe that it exists?
It would be the same explanation that exists for our own consciousnesses. Besides . . . I encounter the reality of it every time I go into deep meditation . . . it is unmistakably consciousness and NOT impersonal. It is loving and accepting in a way unlike anything I have ever experienced out of the meditative state. It is directly sensed and "known" . . . no translation necessary.

Last edited by MysticPhD; 02-08-2009 at 09:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2009, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Nashville, Tn
7,916 posts, read 16,450,051 times
Reputation: 5442
MysticPhD wrote:
Quote:
You must have missed my posts where I refute that notion of consciousness residing within the brain. It exists as an abstract at a level beyond the physical inputs that produce it . . . abstract like a melody that exists at a level higher than the individual notes that comprise it. Search out my other posts for more clarification.
We can measure brain waves and even detect which portion of the brain is active during various mental activities. If you don't have a brain you can't be conscious and I doubt that you would dispute that. Our consciousness is an incredible phenomenon, I'll grant you that, and we certainly don't fully understand it but it clearly is the result of biological functions and if someone suffers brain damage and those functions are impaired their consciousness will be impacted in some manner if not completely destroyed. If a God or universal consciousness really existed then what would be the nature of it's existence and how did it come into existence in the first place?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2009, 10:16 AM
 
4,512 posts, read 6,596,973 times
Reputation: 811
i am not much into meditation, nor do i recite any known prayers.

once, while belonging to a meditation circle after being "instructed", i had to struggle with a statement like this:

a house is only there because you see it there. if you don't see it, it is not there.

a while later, i met a blind musician and physical therapist who let me know in no uncertain terms that blind people do in fact see..
(Jesus did mention this..)

consciousness - does there have to be a scientifically approved, generally dictated application of perceptive possibilities?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2009, 09:42 PM
 
37,667 posts, read 25,387,320 times
Reputation: 5865
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy View Post
We can measure brain waves and even detect which portion of the brain is active during various mental activities. If you don't have a brain you can't be conscious and I doubt that you would dispute that. Our consciousness is an incredible phenomenon, I'll grant you that, and we certainly don't fully understand it but it clearly is the result of biological functions and if someone suffers brain damage and those functions are impaired their consciousness will be impacted in some manner if not completely destroyed.
Nothing you have said counters my assertion (and undeniable fact) that our consciousness exists at a level beyond the individual brain activity that PRODUCES it. You don't consider the music in a stereo system to be the stereo components that produce it, do you. As music . . . rhythm and melody . . . exist at a level above the inputs and activity that produce it . . . and coincidentally enough can only be appreciated as rhythm and melody by a consciousness that exists at the same level above the brain activity that produces it.Think about that for a while and look for my other posts.
Quote:
If a God or universal consciousness really existed then what would be the nature of it's existence and how did it come into existence in the first place?
Well let's not go there and chase those "turtles all the way down," ok. For now, the way MORE of it comes into existence is through beings like us who produce it . . . wherever in the universe they may be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 01:14 AM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,389,537 times
Reputation: 1321
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Nothing you have said counters my assertion (and undeniable fact) that our consciousness exists at a level beyond the individual brain activity that PRODUCES it. You don't consider the music in a stereo system to be the stereo components that produce it, do you. As music . . . rhythm and melody . . . exist at a level above the inputs and activity that produce it . . . and coincidentally enough can only be appreciated as rhythm and melody by a consciousness that exists at the same level above the brain activity that produces it.Think about that for a while and look for my other posts. Well let's not go there and chase those "turtles all the way down," ok. For now, the way MORE of it comes into existence is through beings like us who produce it . . . wherever in the universe they may be.
I do consider music to be nothing more than a product of the stereo components that produce it. The rhythm and melody we perceive is done so by taking the physical sound waves and processing them with our brains. As we are "pattern seekers," this is a very natural process for our brains. Being able to "chunk" stimuli into larger pieces is not something that "can only be" done beyond the brain. In fact all evidence points to it being impossible without a functioning brain.

You keep saying things like "undeniable" and "can only be". But you provide no scientific evidence to back up your claim. Why shouldn't we limit the "turtles" to what we can back up with empirical evidence, instead of continuing just a bit further to the point you specify?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 02:23 AM
 
37,667 posts, read 25,387,320 times
Reputation: 5865
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
I do consider music to be nothing more than a product of the stereo components that produce it. The rhythm and melody we perceive is done so by taking the physical sound waves and processing them with our brains. As we are "pattern seekers," this is a very natural process for our brains. Being able to "chunk" stimuli into larger pieces is not something that "can only be" done beyond the brain. In fact all evidence points to it being impossible without a functioning brain.
You aren't thinking abstractly enough . . . a common failing of materialists. The phenomenon we call melody exists as a composite of individual notes . . . not the individual notes themselves. We know it is only an abstraction because the composite does not independently interact with the universe as a composite . . . just as individual notes that we pattern recognizers appreciate. However . . . our consciousness exists at the same level of abstraction as melody . . . our "self" is a composite of the individual brain activity that comprises US. The significant difference that removes the "self" from the realm of abstraction or illusion is that, unlike melody, it does interact independently with the universe AS A COMPOSITE . . . not as the individual brain activity that comprises it.

EVERYTHING that exists as an independent interacting phenomenon in this universe is comprised of some form of energy. The COMPOSITE (the "self") therefore (unlike melody) actually EXISTS AS A COMPOSITE of some form of energy (consciousness) separate from the the individual brain activity (separate energies) that produces it . . . just as the melody was an abstract form of energy (composite of sound waves). It is the independent interactivity AS A COMPOSITE that differentiates the "self" from a melody or any other non-interactive abstract composite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 05:22 AM
 
4,512 posts, read 6,596,973 times
Reputation: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You aren't thinking abstractly enough . . . a common failing of materialists. The phenomenon we call melody exists as a composite of individual notes . . . not the individual notes themselves. We know it is only an abstraction because the composite does not independently interact with the universe as a composite . . . just as individual notes that we pattern recognizers appreciate. However . . . our consciousness exists at the same level of abstraction as melody . . . our "self" is a composite of the individual brain activity that comprises US. The significant difference that removes the "self" from the realm of abstraction or illusion is that, unlike melody, it does interact independently with the universe AS A COMPOSITE . . . not as the individual brain activity that comprises it.

EVERYTHING that exists as an independent interacting phenomenon in this universe is comprised of some form of energy. The COMPOSITE (the "self") therefore (unlike melody) actually EXISTS AS A COMPOSITE of some form of energy (consciousness) separate from the the individual brain activity (separate energies) that produces it . . . just as the melody was an abstract form of energy (composite of sound waves). It is the independent interactivity AS A COMPOSITE that differentiates the "self" from a melody or any other non-interactive abstract composite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody

? or ? in resonance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 06:09 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,931,512 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
A. An Intelligent Creator designed and made us, because thereís "irreducible complexity", and besides, just look at the human eye! "Itís too amazing to have happened by chance". Itís perfection is obviously the result of the mind of a vastly superior mind (which would, BTW, be our particular God but thatís another story. First weíll get them to think this is science, and then weíll drop the other foot!)

The mind of a vastly superior intellect designed and made man in his own perfect image, right?

Q: Did he ever design anything that wasnít perfect? A sort of trial balloon design that later screwed up when it was outside the Grand Warranty Period?

As in: Some rodent that went extinct because it couldnít deal with its environmental challenges? Ditto for some mega-lizards? And why didnít he design into our heads some altruism or respect for his other beloved designs, the birds, mountain gorillas, honey bees, salmon, etc. (I thought he loved all his otherwise defenseless critters?)

And why didnít he specify that we should balk at the idea of persistently damaging his Earth's magnificent design? Surely you don't think he would design us imperfectly just so we could and would fail, so that he could then show up and selectively sort through us, just keeping the ones who tithed both physchologically and fiscally?? But also knowing that we'd succeed in taking down so many of his beloved other creations. Was it just to teach us something about greed and sin? Nooooo! For that He let The Exxon Valdez run aground and kill tens of millions of sea organisms, birds, seals, fish, etc.? Not to mention the livelihood of thousands of good Christian fisherpeople? NOOooooooo...oooo!!!

And if this is so, then why did he do such a good job otherwise, on the physical side of things rather than on the behavioral and ethical side, in designing us?

I mean, perfection in design should also be obvious throughout the organism, right?
So, you have a problem with the human design because it is too autonomous. Because God has given us the ability to choose what we want to do? Whether good or bad.

There are millions of righteous people. There are thousands of people who are working to care for animals, hundreds who are activists for the environment. Yet you disregard their work and their efforts, because a sea captain chose to get drunk on duty and run an oil tank aground. Do you not remember the hundreds of people who did the clean-up? Don't you remember the news clips of people carefully washing down shore birds with dove and small brushes.

Yes there are evil people out there, but don't forget all the good people, the righteous people. The people who get up each morning and attempt to make the world a better place. I think you need to take a look around there is a world of people out there and many of them are good.

Don't blame God for a poor designed human, when in fact it is too well designed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 07:12 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 6,169,024 times
Reputation: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW123 View Post
Do you know?

The universe was created in what year (one year is the time it takes for earth to circle around the sun)? In how many days (one day is the time it takes for the moon to circle around the earth)?
Are you sure about the bolded bit? Last time I looked is was Ī28 days aka one lunar month
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top