The heresy of "Original Sin." (birth control, marriage, sunday)

[PoppySead]

[quote=MysticPhD;32560294]WHAT is doing the observing, mordant? Since it is real, it must be some form of energy. The thoughts are BEING observed so they can't simultaneously BE the observer. It is not an elegant explanation . . . it is an impossibility.

Mundane doodles that we take from our daily lives called dreams, or what I call our minds playing around whilst we are away from the controls are hardly a form of energy, aside from the energy our body produces to do a whole host of things. We remember them on occasion.

Nothing that mystical about it when you study it. It's only mystical in meaning when you don't know what you are talking about. We seek to satisfy our needs in order to survive and enjoy our life, it's instinct, not a serpent. All animals do it.

We don't work out our daily problems deep in the night, our mind plays around. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. Depends on what information you have acquired over your lifetime.

Again, the original sin detracts from our current intelligence. It's a fable, it's dangerous to take it seriously.
We ourselves with spirit, and joy, fear and anxiety, imagining why we do what we do. These just a natural course of life, it allows us to invent, explore and figure it out for real, instead of imagining it forever. This is why we've survived. One day all fables will be disproven, just takes time.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by PoppySead

Mundane doodles that we take from our daily lives called dreams, or what I call our minds playing around whilst we are away from the controls are hardly a form of energy, aside from the energy our body produces to do a whole host of things. We remember them on occasion.
Nothing that mystical about it when you study it. It's only mystical in meaning when you don't know what you are talking about. We seek to satisfy our needs in order to survive and enjoy our life, it's instinct, not a serpent. All animals do it.

The reptilian brain is very real.

We don't work out our daily problems deep in the night, our mind plays around. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. Depends on what information you have acquired over your lifetime.

This is gross misinformation about the brain and what is transpiring in it. Dreams definitely address our frustrations to keep our consciousness functioning properly. During extensive sleep deprivation we eventually become dysfunctional and hallucinatory. It has nothing to do with playing around. It is serious business.

Again, the original sin detracts from our current intelligence. It's a fable, it's dangerous to take it seriously.

Agree. It was merely our species first necessary lesson in discrimination of our behavior . . . learning the difference between Good and Evil.

We ourselves with spirit, and joy, fear and anxiety, imagining why we do what we do. These just a natural course of life, it allows us to invent, explore and figure it out for real, instead of imagining it forever. This is why we've survived. One day all fables will be disproven, just takes time.

Not necessarily disproven . . . simply properly understood as with any parable.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by alexcanter

Man has a yearning to exist forever because

1) thats what survival is, to continue.
2) there is a constant in the human which is recognizable, the individual. It functions alongside and together with the effort.

It's a growing knowing recognizable thing that achieves, identified and not affected by things to do with time, its always the same u (person. Thats what spirituality is about.

Original sin is all about man recognizing there is no such thing as a hopeful civilization without a courthouse, and they exist in every society. (somewhere- re this barbaric world anyway !) common sense.

There is plenty of thought on Identity in philosophy, I haven never garnered it to be a "constant." It's more like a river or flame, a process which is occurring and can end. Good post though.

[alexcanter]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

There is plenty of thought on Identity in philosophy, I haven never garnered it to be a "constant." It's more like a river or flame, a process which is occurring and can end. Good post though.

Thanks, The inner self may be termed a constant for an opinion because it's essence ( you) is not relative to anything else, when a person is born and given a name, it is always the same self or you being addressed. If someone knocks at my front door now, or years from now, it will still be myself that answers the door.

The constant value is most likely out of the stardust in our make-up. Two suns contributing ( light-constant) and all the mud. Photosynthesis as well a big player. Everything is always in motion even when lying down .

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

So it really is out of hand. Try this: Do you accept that everything that exists in our reality is some form of energy?

Sounds reasonable.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Do you accept that illusions cannot independently interact with reality because they are just illusions?

Sounds reasonable but it depends on whether we both have the same concept of what an "illusion' is.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Do you accept that our consciousness has a composite character (not individual brain activity) that we experience as our Self?

No, there is no evidence to suggest it's anything other than brain activity (or as Dan Siegal puts it "An emergent, self-organizing process that arises from, and also regulates energy and information flow within the brain and within relationships with others")

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Do you accept that interactions with that composite character (Self) are identifiable and real?

No. I don't accept your view of a "composite character (Self)"

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Do you realize that makes invalid the claims that our conscious Self is an illusion?

I don't know anyone making that claim. Seems to be a straw man. Our conscious self is not an illusion, it's the activity of our brains.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Do you accept that if our conscious Self cannot be an illusion it must be a separate energy form within reality comprised of the resonant neural field energy produced by the brain because everything that is real in our reality IS some form of energy?

LOL! And there is the giant leap. You made it based on the previous false premises. So no. I don't accept that statement at all. I accept that you perceive an illusion that your conscious self is a 'separate energy form' but neuroscience shows that it all happens inside your brain and body. You do realise that there have been a number of brain scan studies with master meditators who describe similar experiences to you? There are 'mundane' explanations for these perceptions and experiences.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Good question. What is it about the nature of our consciousness that enables and even makes possible such a yearning as opposed to mere response to existing stimuli?

Humans evolved to be curious. Being alert to our environment, ourselves and other people and learning more about our environment, ourselves and other people helps us to survive.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I cannot wait to read Mordant's answer to this set of loaded, arguable and equivocating postulates.

It was a rather obvious "down the garden path" expedition.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Sounds reasonable.
Sounds reasonable but it depends on whether we both have the same concept of what an "illusion' is.
No, there is no evidence to suggest it's anything other than brain activity (or as
Dan Siegal puts it "An emergent, self-organizing process that arises from, and also regulates energy and information flow within the brain and within relationships with others")
No. I don't accept your view of a "composite character (Self)"
I don't know anyone making that claim. Seems to be a straw man. Our conscious self is not an illusion, it's the activity of our brains.

You should know by now that the observations and euphemistic non-explanations using "emergent" and "self-organizing" are pointless to me. Also to ward off the typical distraction and dodge . . . please do not make the same tiresome claim that I am resorting to ad hominem when I acknowledge a simple truth about the depth of your philosophical exploration of the explanation offered in neuroscience. It is less than shallow and reveals no attempt at all to actually reconcile the enigma the explanation presents. The individual activity that produces our thoughts is reflected upon by our Self. It is what provides the undeniable experience of "Selfness." The individual activity BEING our thoughts cannot simultaneously BE the observer of those thoughts that we experience as our sense of Self. I hope you can resist the desire to resort to the ad hominem dodge and please philosophically address this issue analytically and intelligently, Jay.

LOL! And there is the giant leap. You made it based on the previous false premises. So no. I don't accept that statement at all. I accept that you perceive an illusion that your conscious self is a 'separate energy form' but neuroscience shows that it all happens inside your brain and body. You do realise that there have been a number of brain scan studies with master meditators who describe similar experiences to you? There are 'mundane' explanations for these perceptions and experiences.

If you actually accomplish the philosophical exercise suggested above you will see that it is not such a giant leap. I am more than familiar with the neuroscience done on meditators and contemplatives, Jay. It does not answer the above and is not convincing. The sensitivity of our brain to EM fields is even confirming . . . not disconfirming.

Humans evolved to be curious. Being alert to our environment, ourselves and other people and learning more about our environment, ourselves and other people helps us to survive.

Why on earth would we be evolved to seek meaning to our existence and some higher state of being? Satisfying our physical survival needs would seem to provide no entre into such desires.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

...
Why on earth would we be evolved to seek meaning to our existence and some higher state of being? Satisfying our physical survival needs would seem to provide no entre into such desires.

Good question Mystic,

I think evolution is all about the "why would we not?"

those who survive to replicate pass on their genes. However seeking meaning deals a lot with motivation, which thanks to our ability to easily map our existence (unlike other animals), we need a lot more of to get things done, rather than relying on instincts that could cause stressful (and replication reducing) cognitive dissonance when paired with our vast conscious ability. Our triumph over the other animals shows that our qualities are more competitive and faction-cooperative (communities, farming, etc). Being able to map our existence meant we needed meaning but it also meant we were smarter and more capable to survive than many other animal populations.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You should know by now that the observations and euphemistic non-explanations using "emergent" and "self-organizing" are pointless to me.

Almost missed this post.
Coming from a master of "euphemistic non-explanations", that's funny Mystic. The terms “emergent and “self-organizing” are words used in science. I know you prefer to use words like inscrutable, ineffable, ubiquitous, undeniable, inescapable, scope, power, control, enigma etc.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Also to ward off the typical distraction and dodge . . . please do not make the same tiresome claim that I am resorting to ad hominem when I acknowledge a simple truth about the depth of your philosophical exploration of the explanation offered in neuroscience. It is less than shallow and reveals no attempt at all to actually reconcile the enigma the explanation presents.

All I see you saying is if I don't agree with your mystical non-evidence-based euphemistic non-explanations for something you find an 'enigma', I 'lack depth' and am 'less than shallow"

I don't find human consciousness a mystical 'inscrutable' 'enigma' like you seem to. There are rational explanations based in evidence from fields like cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary neurobiology, developmental psychology etc. Fascinating and complex, yes. An inscrutable enigma? No, not really. It's quite 'scrutable'. No mystical explanations required.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The individual activity that produces our thoughts is reflected upon by our Self.
It is what provides the undeniable experience of "Selfness." The individual activity BEING our thoughts cannot simultaneously BE the observer of those thoughts that we experience as our sense of Self.

To me, this is just "euphemistic non-explanations" and shows that your understanding of human consciousness comes more from philosophy than science. Which is fine - until you try to claim your views are based on 'known science'. They aren't.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I hope you can resist the desire to resort to the ad hominem dodge and please philosophically address this issue analytically and intelligently, Jay.

It seems to me that you react very emotionally and go down the ad hominem route if anyone tries to remove the mystical magical "god" from your erupting volcano.

Do you want to address this philosophically? Or analytically? My issue is that you seem to confuse science with philosophy and wishful thinking. There is a wealth of literature on ‘consciousness’ in peer-reviewed science Journals. Do a literature search, pick some papers with an evidence based approach that you think support your views and I’d be happy to discuss them with you. You keep claiming your views are base on 'known science'. Name some papers.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

If you actually accomplish the philosophical exercise suggested above you will see that it is not such a giant leap.

You mean if I follow you down the garden path and just pretend that human consciousness is what you want to believe it is, I’ll see things your way?

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I am more than familiar with the neuroscience done on meditators and contemplatives, Jay. It does not answer the above and is not convincing.

Which studies have you read? The ones I’ve read using brain scans more than adequately explain what the meditators experienced – without all the hand waving and euphemistic non-explanations of a “universal consciousness field”.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The sensitivity of our brain to EM fields is even confirming . . . not disconfirming.

Confirming of what? That given a strong enough electromagnetic field our neurons would be fried? That an EM field can impair the production of melatonin? That people can experience weird smells or sensations when areas of their brain are exposed to an electromagnetic field?

Have you found any evidence that confirms or even strongly suggests that human consciousness IS an electromagnetic field? Or that there is a Universal Consciousness Field? Or that there is an intelligent self-aware Universal Consciousness Field that controls the universe that you want to call “god”?

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The reptilian brain is very real.

The brain stem is a Serpent and the cerebellum is the "Tree of Life"- how metaphorically quaint.

I'm trying to figure out if the pituitary gland is the Serpent's tongue? Bit hard to make out. Your "Serpent" red part includes more than the reptilian brain though.


Nice painting Mystic.