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.
Thank you for your response, NoCapo. You have encapsulated several of the myriad reactions possible.This thread has more than one purpose, NoCapo. There are those who have asked what the inner feeling is for those who believe. This thread will evoke the diversity of internal response even within a single individual . . . and reveal the difficulty in answering the question for someone else Consciousness has been variously defined largely driven by the intent of the researcher. Many scientists seek to encompass as much of the phenomenon of awareness as possible to include as many forms of life as possible. (The not too hidden agenda being to remove the uniqueness of human consciousness.) Since we ARE members of the animal community . . . that we share features of awareness with them is not dispositive. But to ignore the uniqueness of human consciousness because we share similar features at base is just silly. When we have achieved a philosophical discussion with any other animal . . . I will be convinced our consciousness is not unique. The God issue is one of structure regarding the locus of consciousness and cannot be dealt with simplistically or quickly. Suffice to say that as long as we continue to operate on the assumption that our brain produces nothing tangible (as that word is used about our material reality) . . . consciousness and God will continue to be misunderstood. All of our emotions stem from the reptilian brain which we share with most vertebrate life. All animal life responds to pleasure or pain consequences. Human emotion adds a separate component (consciousness) that alters and complicates the responses (as the video in this thread is designed to evoke).No. I assume no such thing . . . especially for those animals that have shared our lives with love . . . like my beloved (and departed) toy poodle, Dinky. Agape love is love for all life. The difference lies in what is produced in consciousness . . . not simply what emotional response is evoked. Agape love is a blend (a merger) of emotion and consciousness. This has been broached before many times and I have explained that I have completed the steps and tested my hypotheses internally. What you seek is second hand validation without having to achieve the discipline to experience it for yourself and perform the same internal tests. I have repeatedly said my certainty applies to me only. I am witnessing to it and explaining it for those who are interested. This thread is designed to get people to pay attention to internal cues and responses in a more disciplined way. Without such discrimination . . . confusion about the source of what we experience will reign.I agree, NoCapo . . . but FOR ME it is more than speculation . . . it IS knowledge. I accept the skepticism of others as unavoidable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
To be honest, I am not really sure what you were trying to illustrate there.
It is a frequent problem with my communications.
Quote:
We all have different reactions to external stimuli based on a myriad of factors including genetics, social environment, education, current emotional state, hormone levels, and what we had for breakfast. I totally agree with that. In my opinion, it actually illustrates my point, that our subjective experience should never be taken at face value, but rather measured against our external reality as best we can. We are subjective beings, and as far as I can tell we have no reason to believe that we can directly perceive any portion of objective reality ( an assumption that it exists but one I am willing to make).
And it is the attempts to discriminate among these internal factors that I am proposing is essential to understanding spirituality and God. We seldom (well alright almost never) introspectively evaluate our experiences . . . we just experience them. As a meditator . . . that is not true. We specifically discipline ourselves to discriminate. It is the only way to reliably discern what is sourced outside and what is inside. Sans that ability . . . spirituality remains a la-la-land phenomenon.
Quote:
I have a problem with this idea. You are certainly not being rigorous here. If a philosophical discussion is the test for being human, then a language barrier would remove what makes one uniquely human? What about children? Are infants not conscious and therefor not "uniquely human"? Do we graduate from an animal to a human once we gain language and reasoning skills?
I used the most extreme version of the abstract reasoning that distinguishes us from the other species because it encompasses the essential feature . . . language and what it is phenomenally. I am reminded of the verse "The Word is God." Think about what a word actually is and what it produces in our consciousness. It is quite profound. Of course, as long as what we produce as consciousness is not recognized as "tangible" . . . the significance may be missed.
And it is the attempts to discriminate among these internal factors that I am proposing is essential to understanding spirituality and God. We seldom (well alright almost never) introspectively evaluate our experiences . . . we just experience them. As a meditator . . . that is not true. We specifically discipline ourselves to discriminate. It is the only way to reliably discern what is sourced outside and what is inside. Sans that ability . . . spirituality remains a la-la-land phenomenon.
In a way this makes sense, but my question is how an we ever distinguish between the internal and the external, as you call them, if we are on the inside? How do we show that meditation or any other personal discipline reliably enables this distinction? If this internal discipline reveals a universal objective truth, shouldn't all meditation practitioners come to the same conclusion? Right now it appears that you have it defined backwards, that only those who arrive at the right conclusions have done it correctly. Honestly this is reminiscent of one othe aspects of Pentecostal Christianity I found so abusive. God want to give you the baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, and the only way to know that you have prayed, submitted and humbled yourself appropriately is to have the experience. After much prayer and soulsearching, sefl doubt and pleading with God, I did speak in tongues. Looking back at the experience from a distance, I now believe the experience was manufactured by my subconscious to give me that relief, that sense of love and acceptance that I so desperately wanted. How can you be sure that your meditative experience is not a similar phenomenon?
I can see that we can examine our responses, but even then I am not so sure we can entirely escape the influence of our "system 1", to borrow a term from Daniel Kahneman. Our unconscious reactions to external stimuli can color our conscious reaction so much, that I am not sure internal examination of our conscious process will ever root out these biases. In fact, many of the examples of his research were so outlandish they are almost unbelievable, but there they are in repeatable black and white glory. Seeing pictures of money can make us less altruistic. Words used in a totally unrelated conversation can color our perceptions of new information. It is astounding, and a little disheartening to the idea that we can ever achieve an objective view of anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I used the most extreme version of the abstract reasoning that distinguishes us from the other species because it encompasses the essential feature . . . language and what it is phenomenally. I am reminded of the verse "The Word is God." Think about what a word actually is and what it produces in our consciousness. It is quite profound. Of course, as long as what we produce as consciousness is not recognized as "tangible" . . . the significance may be missed.
My point is that as we learn more, the gaps between us and the "lesser" animals keeps shrinking. Take for example a recent study on prairie dogs. Now it appears that not only can the communicate using a language, they can communicate some fairly abstract concepts including temporal concepts (someone at one point, but not now, had a gun). My point is that the evidence is not certain that the cognitive gap between "animals" and humans is one of type or essence as opposed to one of degree. I certainly don't think this distinction of consciousness is well enough understood to make a leap to the existence of Gods on that basis.
I do understand that you are not making that leap based on this evidence. Rather you have made the leap based on your experience, and are using it to buttress your already assumed position. Even if you found out prairie dogs had there own variation of "I think therefore I am", it wouldn't change your underlying belief, just the window dressings. That is part of why I get a little confused sometime that you try so hard to engage about these pieces of your beliefs that are ultimately non-essential. Your experience is at the core, and even you yourself would not be convinced of your position without it.
-NoCapo
Last edited by NoCapo; 07-03-2013 at 03:08 PM..
Reason: added a link to prarie dog research...
In a way this makes sense, but my question is how an we ever distinguish between the internal and the external, as you call them, if we are on the inside? How do we show that meditation or any other personal discipline reliably enables this distinction? If this internal discipline reveals a universal objective truth, shouldn't all meditation practitioners come to the same conclusion?
This is an interesting question and relates to the purpose of seeking the myriad responses to the video. Why should we expect uniformity of experience even if there is uniformity of the stimuli? This is also why the inner experience of God is so difficult to describe or explain to others. It is a very personal experience . . . but it tends to be unambiguous to the experiencer.
Quote:
Right now it appears that you have it defined backwards, that only those who arrive at the right conclusions have done it correctly. Honestly this is reminiscent of one othe aspects of Pentecostal Christianity I found so abusive. God want to give you the baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, and the only way to know that you have prayed, submitted and humbled yourself appropriately is to have the experience. After much prayer and soul-searching, self doubt and pleading with God, I did speak in tongues. Looking back at the experience from a distance, I now believe the experience was manufactured by my subconscious to give me that relief, that sense of love and acceptance that I so desperately wanted. How can you be sure that your meditative experience is not a similar phenomenon?
I can see that we can examine our responses, but even then I am not so sure we can entirely escape the influence of our "system 1", to borrow a term from Daniel Kahneman. Our unconscious reactions to external stimuli can color our conscious reaction so much, that I am not sure internal examination of our conscious process will ever root out these biases. In fact, many of the examples of his research were so outlandish they are almost unbelievable, but there they are in repeatable black and white glory. Seeing pictures of money can make us less altruistic. Words used in a totally unrelated conversation can color our perceptions of new information. It is astounding, and a little disheartening to the idea that we can ever achieve an objective view of anything.
Thank you for the personal witness, NoCapo. There is nothing to prevent someone from revisiting their inner experiences with a skeptical and critical eye. It seems to have happened to many here, like Mordant and some ex-LDS, SeekerSA, etc. etc. The vulnerability to the unconscious (which is just our actual Self) is what made my early experiences so problematic. Altered states are particularly vulnerable to unconscious sourcing. We have many unresolved issues within our unconscious that seem to take priority in affecting our altered states. It was their susceptibility to conscious control that eventually provided the distinguishing feature I needed to cement my own certainty. In my experience . . . the experiences in altered states that are alterable by conscious control are clearly from our unconscious. Those that are not . . . I attribute to the external reality. It works for me.
Some of the uncontrollable experiences are what I call "transients" that seem to randomly invade my altered states. I attribute them to strong emotion-laden thoughts directed at me . . . because I can usually identify the source as someone currently interacting with me on some level . . . even though the "transients" present as of a more primitive character . . . perhaps ancestral. What I encounter in deep meditation cannot be altered by my conscious control and is always of the same character and essence . . . unconditional love and acceptance in a multitude of individual consciousnesses in oneness.This was the most unexpected result . . . retaining my individuality while being one with the rest. I have failed miserably trying to explain or describe it . . . it is a matter of just "knowing."
Quote:
My point is that as we learn more, the gaps between us and the "lesser" animals keeps shrinking. Take for example a recent study on prairie dogs. Now it appears that not only can the communicate using a language, they can communicate some fairly abstract concepts including temporal concepts (someone at one point, but not now, had a gun). My point is that the evidence is not certain that the cognitive gap between "animals" and humans is one of type or essence as opposed to one of degree.
I am open to the possibility that the differences are of degree and not substance. My love for my intelligent and dearly departed toy poodle, Dinky drives my willingness to believe that.
Quote:
I certainly don't think this distinction of consciousness is well enough understood to make a leap to the existence of Gods on that basis.I do understand that you are not making that leap based on this evidence. Rather you have made the leap based on your experience, and are using it to buttress your already assumed position. Even if you found out prairie dogs had there own variation of "I think therefore I am", it wouldn't change your underlying belief, just the window dressings. That is part of why I get a little confused sometime that you try so hard to engage about these pieces of your beliefs that are ultimately non-essential. Your experience is at the core, and even you yourself would not be convinced of your position without it.
-NoCapo
Since I was a confirmed atheist before the experience . . . I cannot disagree. Sans my experiences . . . I would lack the certainty I possess now. But my extensive Synthesis provides significant plausibility to my views that would exist even without the certainty of experiences, IMO.
I would lack the certainty I possess now. But my extensive Synthesis provides significant plausibility to my views that would exist even without the certainty of experiences, IMO.
Personal anecdote is being used as evidence then. One simple personal experience does not mean anything except that you have failed to evaluate it - and instead decided what it means based on nothing and then ran with that decision.
Your "synthesis" contains nothing that supports your conclusion. Rather it is a long winded example of what happens when you arbitrarily assume a baseless conclusion and then engage in decades of "confirmation bias" where you assume the conclusion true and cherry pick the evidence that does not support it - but is consistent with it.
And that text - posted over many posts - was all wrapped up in language designed to laud praise on anyone who agrees with it - while painting anyone who does not as being unintelligent - ignorant - or undereducated. The very first opening paragraphs of it attempt this and it is continued throughout the walls of text it contains.
My reaction: I felt sorry for the child who had to unexpectedly witness Snuffy becoming lunch.
Well given it is clearly faked - there is no reason to hold any concern for the child. It is comedy - not reality.
Having said that there is a show in the UK every year called "Spring Watch" where they go to a corner of Wales and install cameras everywhere. The observe the explosion of life that comes with the advent of spring and it is a wonderful show. Mostly centred around birds nesting - brooding - and fledging - but also incorporating just about every animal type available to the region.
The whole point of the show is to show nature as naturally as possible and in one episode a pair of adult birds went off caterpillar hunting and in their abscene a weasel came and - in the space of 2 minutes - one bird at a time - quickly grabbed - killed - and ran off with every single baby in the best.
Of course complaints piled in from the public. "Why did you not save them?" "Why did you air this?" "Won't someone please think of the children".
But the whole point of the show was to show what really happens in nature and that scene is being replayed in nest after nest all over the world. One of the shows presenters went into a long and very intelligent discussion on how we need to be pragmatic about such things.
The best response that came in was from a viewer who - missing the point completely and trying to employ an "argument from emotion" - wrote in asking "Would you remain pragmatic if a shark bit off your leg?".
Some of the uncontrollable experiences are what I call "transients" that seem to randomly invade my altered states. I attribute them to strong emotion-laden thoughts directed at me . . . because I can usually identify the source as someone currently interacting with me on some level . . . even though the "transients" present as of a more primitive character . . . perhaps ancestral.
What I encounter in deep meditation cannot be altered by my conscious control and is always of the same character and essence . . . unconditional love and acceptance in a multitude of individual consciousnesses in oneness.This was the most unexpected result . . . retaining my individuality while being one with the rest. I have failed miserably trying to explain or describe it . . . it is a matter of just "knowing."
Since I was a confirmed atheist before the experience . . . I cannot disagree. Sans my experiences . . . I would lack the certainty I possess now. But my extensive Synthesis provides significant plausibility to my views that would exist even without the certainty of experiences, IMO.
What exactly does the PhD represent ?
Above is descibed very well. You hear messages or voice's in your head while in deep meditation.
Extensive training in research techniques to conduct studies and advance the knowledge in my chosen fields of interest . . . ex. Social psychology and the quantitative research methodology itself. Sorry . . . I know this is not what you really wanted to ask . . . but after 17,000+ post in which I have addressed this question . . . I tire of it. A true PhD (and I know there are some schools and even colleges that disregard this requirement) SHOULD represent the scientific skills to conduct study and original research . . . irrespective of the content matter to which it may have been originally applied.
Quote:
Above is descibed very well. You hear messages or voice's in your head while in deep meditation.
Thank you . . . and no . . . there is only visual content and an inexplicable "knowing" divorced from any obvious content or context.
Well given it is clearly faked - there is no reason to hold any concern for the child. It is comedy - not reality.
Lol. I'm well aware of that. The OP asked for our reactions. I gave mine.
Lest you worry about my not being able to discern from fantasy and reality my first instinct was to give my opinions on the production values, casting, and camera work. Something, trust me on this, I am well qualified to give.
It's interesting you are calling it a comedy when it is an obvious cinematic exploration of the psyche and religious values of the American public when faced with the reality of nature as explored by Annie Dillard, Stephen Spielberg and Winslow Homer. Annie (a Christian) would be fascinated. You'll notice no one in the commercial dropped to their knees in prayer after Snuffy met his fate.
BTW: Were this commercial mine and I had 30 more seconds to explore the mind of the religious among us when faced with sudden death, (and seafood) I'd have hired Mystic (our OP) as a consultant. In a nanosecond.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 07-05-2013 at 02:50 PM..
If God is in man, then God has no choice but to be man & man has no choice but to be God. In which case man is not man and is without the freedom to be anything but God.
Or God is not God and cannot be anything but man and there is no God at all. All the OP seems suggest is man thinks he's either incarcerated God, is God , or there is no God.
its widely believed that meditation engage's healing process's. What qualifies an idea that comfort dressed-up in emotional pleasure has to do with demonstrating any God, wheres the link ?
( Without prejudice and something I always pay attention to, There is an abundance of individuals saying they have PhD's in today's world. Some reading was done in the forum to get acquainted. A career with bombardier was mentioned . Another post states professor. Today social psychology is mentioned.
From what i understand a true PhD is a doctorate and the highest degree awarded graduate study and not something that is self rewarded in a project of interest.
A professor is a college or university teacher who ranks above an associate professor, although the employment was said to be Bombardier).
Our physical bodies are production factories (spiritual wombs) for our "embryo Spirits" (consciousness) which eventually will be reborn as Spirit upon our death. It is Christ's achievement of a human consciousness that has perfect resonance (Identity) with God's consciousness (Holy Spirit) that defines what the churches call the Trinity.
::Sigh:: During the Vietnam War I was a navigator/bombardier in B-52's with the Strategic Air Command. I left after the war to pursue my doctorate. I received the doctorate and taught in a university for 30 years and am now a Professor Emeritus (retired). What possible difference does any of this make to you? You can read my posts and determine for yourself the level of education and intelligence behind them . . . or can't you? I enjoy the anonymity of the forum and have no wish to reveal my actual identity to anyone. There are too many crazies out there . . . as seen right here in this very forum.
You don't often see the word Bombardier.
On my mother's side their are a lot of Bombardier's they spoke French when
we kids were around.I think they are all passed now...
Carry on...
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.
