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 think what MPhD is clearly saying is that we obviously can distinguish Jesus from God. In the context of what he has been saying, this is so blatantly obvious that your accusations here seem disingenuous. Comments need to be understood in context - otherwise, everyone's time is simply being wasted. I can't blame you being confused about MPhD's theory, but it seems to me that you take even the parts that are clear and then you muddy them up for no useful purpose. A better approach is to apply the Principle of Charity: Figure out the strongest interpretation you can see - e.g., an interpretation that does not contain a bunch of inherent logical contradictions, then offer this interpretation to see his reaction.
For example, I might try this: Jesus is a human and God is the Universal Consciousness Field. As humans, we are all part of the Consciousness Field, perhaps roughly the way in which all colors are parts of the Electromagnetic spectrum. This is a bad analogy for various reasons (in other words, don't use the analogy to attack the argument, just use it as a tool to try to understand the underlying point being made). So, each human's conscious "vibration" is a color tint and let's say that God's conscious vibration is pure white. The lighter the tint, the "closer" (or "more similar" in certain respects) to God's pure consciousness. Jesus supposedly was born with (or achieved?) a consciousness that is "pure whiteness" - just like God's consciousness. This doesn't mean that Jesus-as-human was literally "God" or that he is (even now) completely indistinguishable from God - it just means that in terms of moral "purity", etc., Jesus's consciousness is indistinguishable from God. And, once he left his human body behind, the spirit of Jesus - being a "pure white" form of consciousness in certain critical ways - is FAPP indistinguishable from God. I don't know to what extent, if any, MPhD would say that Jesus-as-spirit retains some sort of individuality left over as a result of his time spent in human form (since individuality implies boundaries and boundaries imply limitations and I don't know exactly if or how limitations apply to spirit), but the key point would be that the "purity" of Jesus-as-human serves as a bridge to God's purity, and thus in some sense, or to some extent, God's consciousness.
Personally, I don't believe any of that stuff, but what I'm trying to do is demonstrate at least the spirit of the Principle of Charity. I'm trying to capture key features of MPhD's theory in my own words, but I'm doing this with the assumption that MPhD is not a complete idiot, so I'm doing my best to resolves things that may, at first glance, seem like contradictions. (And, to help with this, I'm trying to interpret his sentences in context so that sentences that, taken individually out of context, might seem contradictory turn out be non-contradictory when understood in context). It could still turn out that he is contradicting himself, or that I am missing some key elements and thus I'm creating contradictions that are not actually part of his own theory, but I am at least making a sincere effort to give the best interpretation that I can give.
BTW: It is fine to point out weaknesses in metaphors, but it wastes everybody's time if you take the metaphor as literal and then act as if you are attacking the theory itself when all you are really doing is pointing out a flaw in a metaphor.
Finally: There is a difference between constructive criticism and mere "trivial nit-picky cherry-picking resentment-driven shotgun attack mode" argumentation. Constructive criticism requires that you put some effort into applying the Principle of Charity so that you are engaging a reasonably strong interpretation of a theory, not just one of 10 billion strawmen that can be derived from the limitations that come from trying to explain a theory using natural human language.
Thank you, Gaylen. That is an extraordinary explanation that is as "on target" as possible with human language. You are truly gifted. The EM spectrum analogy is particularly apt since we are essentially beings who exist within an analog to that spectrum and only briefly occupy these physical bodies in the physical world as we are being born.
What I meant to say is that I am not conditioned to think of myself as a physical being due to the necessities of living in a physical world. I don't need to be conditioned to understand that I am a physical being living in a physical world. Even if I were born in a vegetative state of mind and could not understand anything...it would not change the fact that I am a physical being existing in a physical world.
I was just pointing out that conditioning, both classical and operant, is operating all the time and is the reason we consider ourselves to be physical beings in a physical world. Ask yourself this, Mat, if what you create in your consciousness can violate ALL the laws that govern this physical world how could our consciousness be a part of the physical world. From an outside perspective looking in, everything produced or manifesting in our reality is some form of energy/mass/momentum manifestation of the unified field subject to its laws. That would include what we create in our consciousness, so why should our consciousness be capable of producing manifestations that can violate the laws that govern our reality?
if somebody is worried about wasting time, they wouldn't be on CD in the first place
If someone was a decent, caring and loving human being they wouldn't nitpick using comments extracted completely out of context to try to justify their harassment of those whose views they disagree with.
Ask yourself this, Mat, if what you create in your consciousness can violate ALL the laws that govern this physical world how could our consciousness be a part of the physical world. From an outside perspective looking in, everything produced or manifesting in our reality is some form of energy/mass/momentum manifestation of the unified field subject to its laws.
Well I can create in my consciousness a time warp motorcycle that can blast off from this planet full of lowly evolved human species and soar off into the Universe and land on Andromeda and indeed it violates ALL the laws that govern this physical world. My conscious thoughts are created in my physical body (thank's to the Arc gene) and there is no woo associated with it at all. Did I misunderstand you? If so please help me to understand what you mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
so why should our consciousness be capable of producing manifestations that can violate the laws that govern our reality?
I was just pointing out that conditioning, both classical and operant, is operating all the time and is the reason we consider ourselves to be physical beings in a physical world.
I would not say it is "the" reason to consider ourselves to be physical, although it does play a role in the overall web of interlinking, mutually-supporting evidence for our behavior being generated by physical processes (as opposed to our behavior being generated by non-physical souls/minds). I think the primary evidence is simply the incredibly complex nature of our brains and the tons of evidence linking behavior and subjective feelings to brain processes. A neurosurgeon can apply a small voltage to a few neurons in your brain and you can feel the presence of your dead grandmother standing beside you. Tza might say that this action draws the actual soul of your grandmother to your beside and, frankly, I'm not going to argue with that. For all I know, that is what is happening. But do I believe that is what is happening? No. To me it makes more sense to simply admit that our subjective feelings are essentially physical processes that can be triggered by physical means. Even if I believed that grandma's non-physical soul is in fact floating around in some ethereal realm, I would probably still believe that an illusion of her presence by my side can be triggered by neuro-stimulation. It is simply the most Occam-friendly explanation for my experience under those circumstances. (Of course none of this ultimately solves the "hard problem" of why physical processes "experience" anything at all, which is why I accept a dual-aspect view.)
Quote:
Ask yourself this, Mat, if what you create in your consciousness can violate ALL the laws that govern this physical world how could our consciousness be a part of the physical world.
Here we have centuries of great philosophy providing fairly excellent insights. The Empiricists (Hume, Locke, etc.) get the ball rolling. Which leads to Kant, and then to Husserl, which bring us to the grand tradition of phenomenology. I'm not going to recreate the history of Western philosophy in this post, but I think it is fair to say that our ability to imagine a bunch of naturally impossible things is not all that much of a mystery. (Of course logically impossible things are a different story.) Although I suppose I might be missing the point of what you are getting at here?
Well I can create in my consciousness a time warp motorcycle that can blast off from this planet full of lowly evolved human species and soar off into the Universe and land on Andromeda and indeed it violates ALL the laws that govern this physical world. My conscious thoughts are created in my physical body (thank's to the Arc gene) and there is no woo associated with it at all. Did I misunderstand you? If so please help me to understand what you mean.
IDK...Why should it not?
I will try. There is no dispute that our thoughts and feelings are created by our physical body and brain. We take our thoughts for granted and do not consider them as actual energy forms within our reality. That is why we tend to use euphemistic terms like illusory to describe our "fleeting thoughts and feelings." They are neither illusory nor fleeting. They are growing our composite Self which exists within the unified field. Our brain "records" every moment of this "growing" and is the repository of our memory of Self within this physical level of existence but it is NOT the locus of our Self. The locus is in the unified field at the level of EM-like phenomenon.
As long as our body and brain are functional and undisrupted, we continue to "grow" our Self and have contact with it. Any dysfunction or trauma in the brain only disrupts or distorts the memorialized manifestation and access of our Self to this physical level of existence. The changing nature of the growth of our Self from no awareness or control over its "character" and responses to the physical world to more and more cognitive control over it causes enormous confusion. That is just the nature of phenomena that are subject to growth.
...That is why we tend to use euphemistic terms like illusory to describe our "fleeting thoughts and feelings." They are neither illusory nor fleeting. They are growing our composite Self which exists within the unified field. Our brain "records" every moment of this "growing" and is the repository of our memory of Self within this physical level of existence but it is NOT the locus of our Self. The locus is in the unified field at the level of EM-like phenomenon.
Some of what you say reminds me of the notion of Akashic Records. Have you read this book?
If not, you might find it interesting. If you have read the book (or something similar) then it might help me if you can compare/contrast your theory to Laszlo's.
In general, I find it hard to really assess your efforts to ground your theory on science because, although you use scientific terms and although you seem to have a basic understanding of these terms, you tend not to reference any actual scientists (or philosophers) or established theories in a way that I can compare to your theories.
BTW: There is a controversy over whether or not information is ever destroyed (e.g., when falling into a black hole, etc.). Your theory (as well as the general notion of Akashic Records) seems to weigh-in on that controversy in favor of those who argue that "information is never lost" (unless you allow the UCF to get a bit senile over time ;-) Of course the mere fact (if it is a fact) that info is never lost still leaves us a long ways from explaining how any physical system can access, let's say, the specific thoughts and feelings of Julius Caesar just before lunch on February 15, 86 BC. (On my own theory, there is some universe within the multiverse wherein Julius Caesar is thinking those thoughts "right now," so this leaves us with the relatively "simple" task of figuring out how info from one universe can be accessed from another universe - oh, and the related problem of how one subject can access info from the mind of another subject (a task that is not quite so hard these days, given that we have some amazing brain-scanning tech...although getting Julius Caesar to wear the appropriate brain-scanning headgear might take some ingenuity...))
I will try. There is no dispute that our thoughts and feelings are created by our physical body and brain. We take our thoughts for granted and do not consider them as actual energy forms within our reality. That is why we tend to use euphemistic terms like illusory to describe our "fleeting thoughts and feelings." They are neither illusory nor fleeting. They are growing our composite Self which exists within the unified field. Our brain "records" every moment of this "growing" and is the repository of our memory of Self within this physical level of existence but it is NOT the locus of our Self. The locus is in the unified field at the level of EM-like phenomenon.
As long as our body and brain are functional and undisrupted, we continue to "grow" our Self and have contact with it. Any dysfunction or trauma in the brain only disrupts or distorts the memorialized manifestation and access of our Self to this physical level of existence. The changing nature of the growth of our Self from no awareness or control over its "character" and responses to the physical world to more and more cognitive control over it causes enormous confusion. That is just the nature of phenomena that are subject to growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Some of what you say reminds me of the notion of Akashic Records. Have you read this book? Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything by Ervin Laszlo. https://www.amazon.com/Science-Akash.../dp/1594771812
If not, you might find it interesting. If you have read the book (or something similar) then it might help me if you can compare/contrast your theory to Laszlo's.
In general, I find it hard to really assess your efforts to ground your theory on science because, although you use scientific terms and although you seem to have a basic understanding of these terms, you tend not to reference any actual scientists (or philosophers) or established theories in a way that I can compare to your theories.
I am familiar with the Akashic records but since they do not proceed from a perspective of a living reality they do not resonate with me. Your assumption seems to be that my views on the science are somehow different from any other scientist. They are not. The difference comes from my perspective that our reality is a living entity, not a static or dead materiality. Einstein and Minkowski are the preeminent sources of my views on the unified field as manifest in the energy/mass/momentum equivalence. Minkowski's topology in his four-dimensional world was most influential. Bohr, Heisenberg, and Bohm are my sources on quantum issues. The philosophical views of Milic Capek, Henri Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead were most influential in promulgating my philosophical views. But I have issues with most prevailing theories, have read widely, and have tweaked my views accordingly. I primarily see the mathematical equations as artificial INDICATORS of the nature of the underlying reality. This is different from the typical goals of mathematician's in general. For example, I see the two equations E=mc^2 an E=hf as revelatory of the actual vibratory nature of our reality as equivalent manifestations of the unified field, not as different measures of energy. I infer from them the immateriality of mass or particles as vibratory "events" in the unified field.
Quote:
BTW: There is a controversy over whether or not information is ever destroyed (e.g., when falling into a black hole, etc.). Your theory (as well as the general notion of Akashic Records) seems to weigh-in on that controversy in favor of those who argue that "information is never lost" (unless you allow the UCF to get a bit senile over time ;-) Of course the mere fact (if it is a fact) that info is never lost still leaves us a long ways from explaining how any physical system can access, let's say, the specific thoughts and feelings of Julius Caesar just before lunch on February 15, 86 BC. (On my own theory, there is some universe within the multiverse wherein Julius Caesar is thinking those thoughts "right now," so this leaves us with the relatively "simple" task of figuring out how info from one universe can be accessed from another universe - oh, and the related problem of how one subject can access info from the mind of another subject (a task that is not quite so hard these days, given that we have some amazing brain-scanning tech...although getting Julius Caesar to wear the appropriate brain-scanning headgear might take some ingenuity...))
I think the confusion over information seems to ignore the role of consciousness itself in establishing information from mere data. This is endemic to the perspective of a dead reality. Information does not reside in data it is extracted from it by consciousness. Absent consciousness there is no information just data. I have alot more to say on these issues but I have pressing personal issues to attend to.
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.
Did I misunderstand you? If so please help me to understand what you mean.