Plans for a religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:42 pm

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:
shadow side.jpg



http://thoughtsofamisfit.weebly.com/our ... hadow.html


Jung ... a life lived extraordinarily well. There is no end to this guys path, and it keeps getting richer. He died like Crowley died, anticipating.
Id say he is the standard for how we should approach the drive to philosophize in ourselves.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:46 pm

I'm going to point out the obvious to people, though they may struggle with the idea...

Churches and marriages are stages of our and others' evolution...

We'll always have what we're true towards, which in a practical sense is mutual experiences of beauty... even those we consider wicked rely on the kindness of others to do these things... once they figure out that this is what's the important part, they begin to nurture it more and more...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6785
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:48 pm

Dan~ wrote:
pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:To enter the night safely one must be tethered to mighty strong spirits

That, and spend a lot of time developing one's self where possible.
The universe is packed full of spirits. But finding a good one is up to the person in question.


Dan ... my experience tells me spirits find us ... we do not find them.

If you check out my writings on the subject "My Spiritual Family" I describe to the best of my limited capabilities how I met the spirits currently in my life. You may also note the list starts with Jesus and Mary ... followed by a community of well known Catholic Saints and ends with two non Catholic historic personages ... Mao Zedong and Lao Tzu. This confirms what I shared with you in a recent PM.

https://pilgrimtom.weebly.com/spiritual-family.html
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby Ierrellus » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:35 pm

A religion with hope would be concerned with the ultimate destiny of Man. It would therefore be this-worldly, here and now perpetuation of ecosystems. In the past Utopias such as Brook Farm failed because nobody wanted to do the down to earth menial tasks necessary for maintenance of a viable community. I think Gaskin's Farm still prospers. The former was an ideal; the latter is a practice. A religion of the future cannot afford to be impractical.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12309
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:28 pm

Ierrellus wrote:A religion with hope would be concerned with the ultimate destiny of Man. It would therefore be this-worldly, here and now perpetuation of ecosystems. In the past Utopias such as Brook Farm failed because nobody wanted to do the down to earth menial tasks necessary for maintenance of a viable community. I think Gaskin's Farm still prospers. The former was an ideal; the latter is a practice. A religion of the future cannot afford to be impractical.

As an issue of being practical, the current Media has control over what people believe to be hopeful and worthy of effort.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25573
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:13 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:A religion with hope would be concerned with the ultimate destiny of Man. It would therefore be this-worldly, here and now perpetuation of ecosystems. In the past Utopias such as Brook Farm failed because nobody wanted to do the down to earth menial tasks necessary for maintenance of a viable community. I think Gaskin's Farm still prospers. The former was an ideal; the latter is a practice. A religion of the future cannot afford to be impractical.

As an issue of being practical, the current Media has control over what people believe to be hopeful and worthy of effort.


And when has it been any different?

What's the difference between the strategy employed by the current media and the ancient priestly class of Judaism ... why do all world religions require heresy, apostasy and so on?
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:21 pm

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:
James S Saint wrote:As an issue of being practical, the current Media has control over what people believe to be hopeful and worthy of effort.


And when has it been any different?

What's the difference between the strategy employed by the current media and the ancient priestly class of Judaism ... why do all world religions require heresy, apostasy and so on?

Such wasn't the point, but there have been times throughout history, far less technological times, when the general populous was far more free of Media mental oppression. Early USA was one of those times when organized propaganda Media was illegal with competition being the primary enforcer. Today, with monopolies reinstated, there is no competition, merely the feigning of it, "Let's all pretend to argue, while never mentioning the actual truth".

The point was that if you are to base your new religion upon popular beliefs, you are merely extending the current religion.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25573
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:30 pm

James S Saint wrote:
pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:
James S Saint wrote:As an issue of being practical, the current Media has control over what people believe to be hopeful and worthy of effort.


And when has it been any different?

What's the difference between the strategy employed by the current media and the ancient priestly class of Judaism ... why do all world religions require heresy, apostasy and so on?

Such wasn't the point, but there have been times throughout history, far less technological times, when the general populous was far more free of Media mental oppression. Early USA was one of those times when organized propaganda Media was illegal with competition being the primary enforcer. Today, with monopolies reinstated, there is no competition, merely the feigning of it, "Let's all pretend to argue, while never mentioning the actual truth".

The point was that if you are to base your new religion upon popular beliefs, you are merely extending the current religion.


oops :)
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:42 pm

gib"



Can you say then in one sentence what to you produced consciousness? I do not mean to simplify things here.

The write-up sounded made it sound really interesting.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14907
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby gib » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:43 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Can you say then in one sentence what to you produced consciousness?


Well, that's just the rub. I don't think consciousness is "produced" at all. I think it is the foundation of being. To experience conscious is simply what it is to be. It is the experience of "here I am" or just "I am". Everything that exists, exists in virtue of experiencing its existence in some form.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:16 pm

gib wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Can you say then in one sentence what to you produced consciousness?


Well, that's just the rub. I don't think consciousness is "produced" at all. I think it is the foundation of being. To experience conscious is simply what it is to be. It is the experience of "here I am" or just "I am". Everything that exists, exists in virtue of experiencing its existence in some form.


=D> =D>

The reluctant saint is waking up. :-)
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby gib » Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:41 am

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote: =D> =D>

The reluctant saint is waking up. :-)


The reluctant saint wants to hit snooze a few more times. ;)
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:33 am

gib wrote:
pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote: =D> =D>

The reluctant saint is waking up. :-)


The reluctant saint wants to hit snooze a few more times. ;)


Gib ... have you ever taken an overnight train? ... I have many times. It's impossible to sleep ... the train consistently though in an irregular pattern jerks and lurches throughout the night.

So it is on our life's journey ... some of us though we are desperate to sleep feel the jerking and lurching of the pulse of the universe. At the appointed time we wake up ... there are many ways to wake up ... though the process is fraught with peril.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:02 pm

gib wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Can you say then in one sentence what to you produced consciousness?


Well, that's just the rub. I don't think consciousness is "produced" at all. I think it is the foundation of being. To experience conscious is simply what it is to be. It is the experience of "here I am" or just "I am". Everything that exists, exists in virtue of experiencing its existence in some form.


Hmmm, I do not know, gib.

Here is the definition of *produced*.

pro·duce
verb
past tense: produced; past participle: produced
prəˈd(y)o͞os/Submit

1.
make or manufacture from components or raw materials.
"the company has just produced a luxury version of the aircraft"
synonyms: manufacture, make, construct, build, fabricate, put together, assemble, turn out, create; More
2.
cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.
"no conventional drugs had produced any significant change"
synonyms: give rise to, bring about, cause, occasion, generate, engender, lead to, result in, effect, induce, set off;



I would have, from the above definition, no problem with thinking that consciousness can, in a large sense, be produced - especially the first one...from components and raw materials..if we stretch our imaginations insofar as what those components and raw materials would include. I do not think that consciousness came from absolutely nothing.

I don't think consciousness is "produced" at all. I think it is the foundation of being.


Is consciousness as being *produced* and as being the *foundation of being* necessarily exclusive? I may be wrong but I am not so sure that they are.
I think that in a way consciousness/conscious as being produced means the same as human evolution.
Did life on Earth begin with consciousness or is it something which eventually at some point came into existence and has been evolving since then.


To experience conscious is simply what it is to be. It is the experience of "here I am" or just "I am"


As self-awareness or did you mean something different?


Wouldn't you say that it goes more than a step further than that? Part of that means to be able to know who the *I* is and to be able to express that - not simply that I exist. Am I wrong there? I am really asking.

The other day you casually implied *consciousness* with reference to something that was mentioned. So what are you saying here - that your form of consciousness which you implied was simply about *here I am* or just *I am*. If that was the case, then in my book, you were making much to do about almost nothing. :evilfun:
Is that the equivalent of consciousness to you or a conscious being?

Okay - so then, what is it in your estimation that is the cause of consciousness? You said that it was different than that which was previously thought of (paraphrasing).

If it just suddenly appeared on the horizon, that could also be seen as human evolution, yes?
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14907
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby gib » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:46 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:Hmmm, I do not know, gib.


No... no you do not.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Here is the definition of *produced*.

pro·duce
verb
past tense: produced; past participle: produced
prəˈd(y)o͞os/Submit

1.
make or manufacture from components or raw materials.
"the company has just produced a luxury version of the aircraft"
synonyms: manufacture, make, construct, build, fabricate, put together, assemble, turn out, create; More
2.
cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.
"no conventional drugs had produced any significant change"
synonyms: give rise to, bring about, cause, occasion, generate, engender, lead to, result in, effect, induce, set off;


Ffffascinating!

Arcturus Descending wrote:I would have, from the above definition, no problem with thinking that consciousness can, in a large sense, be produced - especially the first one...from components and raw materials..if we stretch our imaginations insofar as what those components and raw materials would include. Like brains? I do not think that consciousness came from absolutely nothing.


Neither do I. I don't think there ever was nothing.

I completely get where you're coming from. I remember being of the same mindset myself when I was younger, so I understand that what you're saying makes sense, has a certain logic to it. We're all taught, in this scientific/materialistic age--we in the West--that the brain is what produces consciousness and all our subjective experiences. I was a victim of this too once. Oh, the scares that it has left me. :lol:

So it isn't a question of having a problem with understanding this perspective. But even within this perspective, the question of how consciousness is produced by the brain is still unanswered (isn't it?). It can even lead to paradoxes within philosophy, or at least absurdities.

Anyway, that's not the point. I simply have an understanding that consciousness just is being. If I were to translate this into philosophical terms, it might be: the philosophical branch of ontology and the philosophical branch of consciousness are one and the same. <-- That's my one contribution to philosophy! No more! No less! Finito! I can die! :lol:

If I were to translate this into metaphorical terms, I'd say this: if existence were a cloth, consciousness would also be this cloth. You, Arc, are an individuated being, a garment cut out of this cloth--or at least you are the region marked out by a pen on this cloth, a design for a garment, that someone thinks (probably you) they can cut out and separate from the rest.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Is consciousness as being *produced* and as being the *foundation of being* necessarily exclusive? I may be wrong but I am not so sure that they are. This is one of the rare occassions where you're not wrong. I think that in a way consciousness/conscious as being produced means the same as human evolution.
Did life on Earth begin with consciousness or is it something which eventually at some point came into existence and has been evolving since then.


Evolution has its place in existence (obviously), and the role it plays in forming human consciousness is to give us the particular kinds of experience we have. For example, color perception. Other animals do not have this. Other animals aren't even "animals"--some are plants--certainly with no color vision (not that I'm aware of anyway). But consciousness--Consciousness writ large, that is, with the capital 'C'--can be played out this way. It can be played out like a rubix cube or a game of shuffle--various combinations and permutations, and many, many qualities. <-- That's what evolution produces! The next, most 'fit', combination. The next, most 'fit', permutation of qualia that are required for the organism's survival in its current environment.

IOW, consciousness is never "produced" per se, but just needs to be constantly reconfigured and recombined such that the organism is only ever aware of what it needs to be aware of in order to survive. <-- William James wrote a lot about this.

I also get a sense from what you said that you're putting the horse before the carte. You seem to think that even if consciousness wasn't ever produced, there would still be a time 'before' consciousness. And then you ask, what happened at the moment when, all of a sudden *POP!!!*, consciousness magically appeared? But have you considered that, as the foundation of being, time resides within consciousness, not the other way around?

Arcturus Descending wrote:
gib wrote:To experience conscious is simply what it is to be. It is the experience of "here I am" or just "I am"


As self-awareness or did you mean something different?

Wouldn't you say that it goes more than a step further than that? Part of that means to be able to know who the *I* is and to be able to express that - not simply that I exist. Am I wrong there? I am really asking.


Right you are! At this point, it's difficult to say. At this point, we really have to distinguish in the phrase "I am" what's of greater import? 'I' or 'am'. It might not surprise you, knowing that I'm partial to Eastern philosophy, that the 'I' is particular to human consciousness, so if we are to transcend human consciousness to universal consciousness, then the 'I' (at least at this point in the conversation) must go--that leaves us with 'am'. <-- Or essentially: "there is existence".

^ This single awareness is existence. It is, in the utmost sense, self-awareness--self-awareness as existence.

Arcturus Descending wrote:The other day you casually implied *consciousness* with reference to something that was mentioned. Oh, I *implied* it, did I? And you're not even going to provide a link? ;) So what are you saying here - that your form of consciousness which you implied was simply about *here I am* or just *I am*. If that was the case, then in my book, you were making much to do about almost nothing. :evilfun:
Is that the equivalent of consciousness to you or a conscious being?


It's hard to say without the link, Arc. ;)

But yeah, in general, consciousness is always about "there is" (the 'I' sometimes pays us the occasional visit). If we're talking about the consciousness of a particular being (not the universe), then we have to add a variable which can differ from particular being to particular being, so we'd say "there is X". Sometimes, X = I.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Okay - so then, what is it in your estimation that is the cause of consciousness? You said that it was different than that which was previously thought of (paraphrasing).


Huh? I did?

There is no cause of consciousness. It is the "first principle"--so to speak. Although, there is a cause of human consciousness, but we discussed that already in our talk about evolution.

Arcturus Descending wrote:If it just suddenly appeared on the horizon, that could also be seen as human evolution, yes?


Absolutely!!! But that's a big IF--I don't think consciousness did suddenly appear on the horizon. I think the horizon suddenly appeared in consciousness.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:24 pm

gib wrote:


-we in the West--that the brain is what produces consciousness and all our subjective experiences. I was a victim of this too once. Oh, the scares that it has left me. :lol:


So what are you saying here, gib? That the brain has no part in producing consciousness?
Ask yourself this question?
Who and what would you be without a brain?


So it isn't a question of having a problem with understanding this perspective. But even within this perspective, the question of how consciousness is produced by the brain is still unanswered (isn't it?). It can even lead to paradoxes within philosophy, or at least absurdities.


Yes, it is still unanswered. But humans keep trying.

Anyway, that's not the point. I simply have an understanding that consciousness just is being.


Your statement still seems too simplistic to me.
Are rocks included in this *being* of yours?

If I were to translate this into philosophical terms, it might be: the philosophical branch of ontology and the philosophical branch of consciousness are one and the same. <-- That's my one contribution to philosophy! No more! No less! Finito! I can die! :lol:


Very large strokes taken there.
Have a good rest.


If I were to translate this into metaphorical terms, I'd say this: if existence were a cloth, consciousness would also be this cloth.


I will have to think about that one. Something doesn't seem to jive there for me.
You do not seem to be making a distinction between them.

You, Arc, are an individuated being, a garment cut out of this cloth--or at least you are the region marked out by a pen on this cloth, a design for a garment, that someone thinks (probably you) they can cut out and separate from the rest.


Normally there is a set pattern and design. Eventually, I then become a replication which then sets out on its own and separates from the rest. Call it consciousness, the Self, the I.

Arcturus Descending

Is consciousness as being *produced* and as being the *foundation of being* necessarily exclusive? I may be wrong but I am not so sure that they are.

This is one of the rare occassions where you're not wrong.


That is just your own subjective thinking, gib. I am very often right about a great deal of things and very often wrong about a great deal of things. I am human, after all.
Do you speak to or about your children in the same way you casually spoke of me while I was in the room. I certainly hope not. It would not be conducive to building self-esteem in their impressionable minds.


I think that in a way consciousness/conscious as being produced means the same as human evolution.
Did life on Earth begin with consciousness or is it something which eventually at some point came into existence and has been evolving since then.

Evolution has its place in existence (obviously), and the role it plays in forming human consciousness is to give us the particular kinds of experience we have.


True ~~ separating from the rest.

For example, color perception. Other animals do not have this. Other animals aren't even "animals"--some are plants--certainly with no color vision (not that I'm aware of anyway).


Is color perception the same as color vision to you? It is and there are some animals who do have it though not as good as we do.


But consciousness--Consciousness writ large, that is, with the capital 'C'--can be played out this way. It can be played out like a rubix cube or a game of shuffle--various combinations and permutations, and many, many qualities. <-- That's what evolution produces! The next, most 'fit', combination. The next, most 'fit', permutation of qualia that are required for the organism's survival in its current environment.


Yes, isn't it amazing!

IOW, consciousness is never "produced" per se, but just needs to be constantly reconfigured and recombined such that the organism is only ever aware of what it needs to be aware of in order to survive. <-- William James wrote a lot about this.


I do not see this as being true but perhaps I am a bit biased. This quote seems to say that consciousness cannot actually evolve or become better than it was. Perhaps I am misunderstanding James' quote but if I am, I will leave it to you to explain it to me.


I also get a sense from what you said that you're putting the horse before the carte. You seem to think that even if consciousness wasn't ever produced, there would still be a time 'before' consciousness.


I suppose that this depends on how someone looks at something. I might say that consciousness at some point came into *production* as I said existence and evolved.
I do not see your last line as being such an easy thing to explain.
That reminds me of the question: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise? At least to me it reminds me of that.

I would intuitively say that there was a *time* before consciousness. Long before that time, there was the existence of other things. It might be arrogant to say that time did not exist before humans evolved consciousness and ego just as it is arrogant of some to assume that animals have no emotions.

Time is a fascinating subject when one thinks of it. There is a book which I came across while in Barnes & Noble. It is called Of Time and Lamentation by Raymond Tallis. I plan to buy it at some point and read it. I scanned it while I was there and it whet my appetite for more.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... ime-future

And then you ask, what happened at the moment when, all of a sudden *POP!!!*, consciousness magically appeared?


I was waxing poetic then. I do not think in terms of consciousness magically appearing on the horizon all of a sudden just as many things which seem to have simply appeared did not just appear. Evolution doesn't work that way.

But have you considered that, as the foundation of being, time resides within consciousness, not the other way around?


Good question. Time as we know it is a human construct so yes, in a sense, I can see how time would be a part of our consciousness, our awareness. Aside from that, honestly, I am not sure how to answer that question.
But perhaps I can just as easily say that consciousness resides within time.
Which came first? Which came first - the chicken or the egg?


Wouldn't you say that it goes more than a step further than that? Part of that means to be able to know who the *I* is and to be able to express that - not simply that I exist. Am I wrong there? I am really asking.

Right you are! At this point, it's difficult to say. At this point, we really have to distinguish in the phrase "I am" what's of greater import? 'I' or 'am'. It might not surprise you, knowing that I'm partial to Eastern philosophy, that the 'I' is particular to human consciousness, so if we are to transcend human consciousness to universal consciousness, then the 'I' (at least at this point in the conversation) must go--that leaves us with 'am'. <-- Or essentially: "there is existence"


The *I Am* is also part of human consciousness, gib. Without the ability to affirm that, where does individual existence go?
Does *universal consciousness* necessarily leave us without our selves?
Who would want to be part of the Borg or part of the herd?
Why do people think that there is such a negative to the *I*?

For what particular reason would we want to transcend human consciousness? I really would like to know?

Arcturus Descending"]The other day you casually implied *consciousness* with reference to something that was mentioned. Oh, I *implied* it, did I? And you're not even going to provide a link? ;)


No, you actually did not imply it. I do not have to provide a link since you know what I am talking about. I prefer not to shine such a light on it - as you did. As far as I am concerned, it wasn't one of your better moments - at least not to my way of thinking but of course I am being subjective here.


So what are you saying here - that your form of consciousness which you implied was simply about *here I am* or just *I am*. If that was the case, then in my book, you were making much to do about almost nothing. :evilfun:
Is that the equivalent of consciousness to you or a conscious being?

It's hard to say without the link, Arc. ;)


Memory already failing you gib?


Arcturus Descending"]Okay - so then, what is it in your estimation that is the cause of consciousness? You said that it was different than that which was previously thought of (paraphrasing).

Huh? I did?


Why write a book, gib, if what you write is no different then any other of the million (hyperbole) theories or hypotheses that are roaming the world?

There is no cause of consciousness. It is the "first principle"--so to speak. Although, there is a cause of human consciousness, but we discussed that already in our talk about evolution.


You might want to define what you mean by *cause* here, gib.
Did you mean to say that scientists have not yet determined or come to something concrete about the cause of consciousness?


Arcturus Descending"]If it just suddenly appeared on the horizon, that could also be seen as human evolution, yes?

Absolutely!!! But that's a big IF--I don't think consciousness did suddenly appear on the horizon. quote]

As I mentioned somewhere above, for me, it didn't just appear though there would be I suppose or possibly be some signs and sense of it in beings.

I think the horizon suddenly appeared in consciousness.

I cannot imagine what that first conscious moment would have felt like to a being.
I will leave it at that.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14907
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Plans for a religion

Postby gib » Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:32 am

Arc, I realize in our last exchange that I'm leaving out a vital part of my views: By "universal consciousness," I mean that everything in the universe is conscious--and by that, I mean that everything experiences. So when I talk about "human consciounsess," I'm talking about the experience that are specifically associated with the human brain. But I don't think that experience stops at the boundaries of the brain. I thinks rocks experience. I think tree and rivers experience. I think galaxies experience. I think atoms experience. Universal consciousness is the sum total of all experiences going on in the universe, which include human consciousness, but so much more. <-- That I hope adds some perspective that might help you understand where I'm coming from.

Arcturus Descending wrote:gib wrote:


-we in the West--that the brain is what produces consciousness and all our subjective experiences. I was a victim of this too once. Oh, the scares that it has left me. :lol:


So what are you saying here, gib? That the brain has no part in producing consciousness?
Ask yourself this question?
Who and what would you be without a brain?


An incorporeal spirit halucinating brains?

But seriously, I didn't say the brain plays no part in consciousness, just that it's job isn't to produce consciousness. The brain is a representation of our consciousness. Think of it this way: we only know the brain from our sensory experiences of it--we see this grey, mushy, foldy, slimy block of matter--but this means that we only know the brain from the qualities given to us through sensory experience. A different animal, who evolved to have totally different kinds of sensory experiences, might experience the brain to be an entirely different kind of entity. What is the brain really? What is it apart from how we sense it? My answer is: it is just the subjective experience we have from a first person point of view. It is our thoughts, our emotions, our sensory experiences, and everything else we experience from our own minds. These experience get translated from one mind to another (via the universe) in the form of sensory information. So when I look at another person's brain, I'm really seeing their mind except that it has been translated into the form of a sensory experience, which happens to take the form of a grey, mushy, foldy, slimy block of matter. In other words, the brain isn't really there as such, but the mind is there and it spawns a physical representation of itself that takes the form of a brain in someone else's sensory experience. The brain is produced by the mind, not the other way around.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
So it isn't a question of having a problem with understanding this perspective. But even within this perspective, the question of how consciousness is produced by the brain is still unanswered (isn't it?). It can even lead to paradoxes within philosophy, or at least absurdities.


Yes, it is still unanswered. But humans keep trying.

Anyway, that's not the point. I simply have an understanding that consciousness just is being.


Your statement still seems too simplistic to me.
Are rocks included in this *being* of yours?


Well, given what I said above--that all things experience--what do you think? Yes, I think rocks experience, though I don't think there's much to their experience--a steady buzz, I predict.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
If I were to translate this into philosophical terms, it might be: the philosophical branch of ontology and the philosophical branch of consciousness are one and the same. <-- That's my one contribution to philosophy! No more! No less! Finito! I can die! :lol:


Very large strokes taken there.
Have a good rest.


;)

Arcturus Descending wrote:
If I were to translate this into metaphorical terms, I'd say this: if existence were a cloth, consciousness would also be this cloth.


I will have to think about that one. Something doesn't seem to jive there for me.
You do not seem to be making a distinction between them.


No I'm not. Material reality is an instance of consciousness, not a separate category.

gib wrote:
You, Arc, are an individuated being, a garment cut out of this cloth--or at least you are the region marked out by a pen on this cloth, a design for a garment, that someone thinks (probably you) they can cut out and separate from the rest.


Normally there is a set pattern and design. Eventually, I then become a replication which then sets out on its own and separates from the rest. Call it consciousness, the Self, the I.

Arcturus Descending


You are a tree that has sprouted out from the ground, but you are still rooted in the Earth.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Is consciousness as being *produced* and as being the *foundation of being* necessarily exclusive? I may be wrong but I am not so sure that they are.

This is one of the rare occassions where you're not wrong.


That is just your own subjective thinking, gib. I am very often right about a great deal of things and very often wrong about a great deal of things. I am human, after all.
Do you speak to or about your children in the same way you casually spoke of me while I was in the room. I certainly hope not. It would not be conducive to building self-esteem in their impressionable minds.


Do you need me to help you with your self-esteem? You know I'm teasing, right Arc? No, I would never talk to my children like this (don't know why you made that association).

Arcturus Descending wrote:I think that in a way consciousness/conscious as being produced means the same as human evolution.
Did life on Earth begin with consciousness or is it something which eventually at some point came into existence and has been evolving since then.


The forms of consciousness we know of came into existence from evolution, but given what I said above about universal consciousness, you should be able to surmise my answer to this question.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Is color perception the same as color vision to you? Yes. It is and there are some animals who do have it though not as good as we do.


And some animals which don't have it at all.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
But consciousness--Consciousness writ large, that is, with the capital 'C'--can be played out this way. It can be played out like a rubix cube or a game of shuffle--various combinations and permutations, and many, many qualities. <-- That's what evolution produces! The next, most 'fit', combination. The next, most 'fit', permutation of qualia that are required for the organism's survival in its current environment.


Yes, isn't it amazing!


Yes, and very economical.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
IOW, consciousness is never "produced" per se, but just needs to be constantly reconfigured and recombined such that the organism is only ever aware of what it needs to be aware of in order to survive. <-- William James wrote a lot about this.


I do not see this as being true but perhaps I am a bit biased. This quote seems to say that consciousness cannot actually evolve or become better than it was. Perhaps I am misunderstanding James' quote but if I am, I will leave it to you to explain it to me.


It's not a direct quote. James is just a good source to learn more about this perspective. It doesn't mean that consciousness cannot grow or evolve, just that our genes place limits on what consciousness can experience. We are genetically predisposed to experience color vision, for example, but we will never learn to perceive colors beyond the roygbiv spectrum. But evolution continues to occur even within a certain "fixed" genetic configuration. We evolve as indivuals, even as societies, and certainly we can expand our consciousness to become more aware of the details of our reality and many of the things in our reality far off in the distance.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
I also get a sense from what you said that you're putting the horse before the carte. You seem to think that even if consciousness wasn't ever produced, there would still be a time 'before' consciousness.


I suppose that this depends on how someone looks at something. I might say that consciousness at some point came into *production* as I said existence and evolved.
I do not see your last line as being such an easy thing to explain.
That reminds me of the question: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise? At least to me it reminds me of that.

I would intuitively say that there was a *time* before consciousness. Long before that time, there was the existence of other things. It might be arrogant to say that time did not exist before humans evolved consciousness and ego just as it is arrogant of some to assume that animals have no emotions.


This makes sense for human consciousness, the specific configuration of experience that we have. But if you buy my theory that everything experiences, then consciousness must have been there since the beginning. Before human consciousness, it simply took a different form. In general, material existence itself is based on this ubiquitous eternal consciousness, even the so-called 'beginning' of time.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Time is a fascinating subject when one thinks of it. There is a book which I came across while in Barnes & Noble. It is called Of Time and Lamentation by Raymond Tallis. I plan to buy it at some point and read it. I scanned it while I was there and it whet my appetite for more.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... ime-future

gib wrote:And then you ask, what happened at the moment when, all of a sudden *POP!!!*, consciousness magically appeared?


I was waxing poetic then. I do not think in terms of consciousness magically appearing on the horizon all of a sudden just as many things which seem to have simply appeared did not just appear. Evolution doesn't work that way.


Understood, but that doesn't really make a difference--whether consciousness "POPPED!!!" into existence or slowly evolved, there was a point when consciousness didn't exist, and the question remains: how did it come to be? For me, who thinks consciousness is the foundation of existence, this question doesn't really have a place.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
But have you considered that, as the foundation of being, time resides within consciousness, not the other way around?


Good question. Time as we know it is a human construct so yes, in a sense, I can see how time would be a part of our consciousness, our awareness. Aside from that, honestly, I am not sure how to answer that question.
But perhaps I can just as easily say that consciousness resides within time.
Which came first? Which came first - the chicken or the egg?


You're on the right track in recognizing time as a human construct. That doesn't mean, however, that it's as simple as saying: time doesn't really exist. Just as matter and physics is a sensory representation of other minds outside our own (not always those of other human beings), time as we experience it is also a representation of something outside our minds. What time as we experience it represents is the order of experience that the universe is having, an order that is necessary for one experience to lead to the next. Take logical thinking for example. When I say: there are two chickens in this coup, and there are three chickens in that coup, then there are five chickens all together, you see that there is an order to these thoughts (thoughts are a brand of experience). I must first recognize that there are two chickens in one coup and that there are three chickens in the other coup before I can conclude that there are five chickens all together. But also, you'll notice that this order is a temporal one. The reocgnize that there are two chickens and three chickens must come first in time before the conclusion, which came after in time, can be reached. Time, as we experience it, is a representation of this order--the order, that is, of which experiences (in this case, thoughts) must come first before other experience can be had. But as you see, these experience are just facts--it happens to be a fact that there are two chickens in one coup and three chickens in another coup, and that there are five chickens all together. These are facts all at the same time--it's not like one becomes fact first, and only afterwards in time the other becomes a fact--facts are facts in a timeless sense. Just the same, there is a certain order to the experiences the universe is having which is not temporal--they do not depend on the passage of time in order to be had--but this order can be represented as a temporal sequence, and is represented as such to human consciousness.

In short, universal consciousness is full to the brim with a diversity of qualitative experiences, most of which are atemporal--it's all being experienced at once--but among these experience is that of time, in within that experience, other experiences can fit in and be separated out.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
gib wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Wouldn't you say that it goes more than a step further than that? Part of that means to be able to know who the *I* is and to be able to express that - not simply that I exist. Am I wrong there? I am really asking.


Right you are! At this point, it's difficult to say. At this point, we really have to distinguish in the phrase "I am" what's of greater import? 'I' or 'am'. It might not surprise you, knowing that I'm partial to Eastern philosophy, that the 'I' is particular to human consciousness, so if we are to transcend human consciousness to universal consciousness, then the 'I' (at least at this point in the conversation) must go--that leaves us with 'am'. <-- Or essentially: "there is existence"


The *I Am* is also part of human consciousness, gib. Without the ability to affirm that, where does individual existence go?
Does *universal consciousness* necessarily leave us without our selves?
Who would want to be part of the Borg or part of the herd?
Why do people think that there is such a negative to the *I*?


The 'I' doesn't cease to exist with universal consciousness--it's still there among the fray--but I'm saying that in order to understand how consciousness relates to existence--that is, Existence--we really have to talk about universe consciousness (which, as you now know based on my theory, means the sum of all experience being had by the universe, which includes the 'I' of human consciousness but also trascends it). At the level of universal consciousness--i.e. what the universe is experience--there isn't necessarily an 'I' (but what do I know about what the universe experiences) but there is certainly (at least according to my theory) the experience of "there is existence". If you break down this experience into its variegated parts, you will find many, many 'I's--you and me and everyone else--but there are so many other instances of consciousness that don't feature an 'I'--and I'm not sure the universe itself experiences itself as an 'I' per se.

Arcturus Descending wrote:For what particular reason would we want to transcend human consciousness? I really would like to know?


This isn't some kind of imperative. There's no reason we need to or should want to. I just bring the topic onto universal consciousness because it's easier from that vantage point to understanding the link between consciousness and existence.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:The other day you casually implied *consciousness* with reference to something that was mentioned. Oh, I *implied* it, did I? And you're not even going to provide a link? ;)


No, you actually did not imply it. I do not have to provide a link since you know what I am talking about. <-- No, I actually don't. I prefer not to shine such a light on it - as you did. As far as I am concerned, it wasn't one of your better moments - at least not to my way of thinking but of course I am being subjective here.


I have many, many moments like that. It's very rare that I have a "better" ones. :lol: But seriously, you told me that "the other day I casually implied *consciousness* with reference to something that was mentioned." <-- Gee, that really narrows it down. That describes half the post I make here at ILP.

But no bother. It doesn't surprise me that I might have talked about consciousness in a way that's inconsistent with other things I've said about consciousness. Guilty as charge (even though I'm sure what I'm being charged with). If you can find the quote, you can bask in the satisfaction that you will have truly embarassed me. <-- Is that motivation enough? :D

Arcturus Descending wrote:
So what are you saying here - that your form of consciousness which you implied was simply about *here I am* or just *I am*. If that was the case, then in my book, you were making much to do about almost nothing. :evilfun:
Is that the equivalent of consciousness to you or a conscious being?

It's hard to say without the link, Arc. ;)


Memory already failing you gib?


Yes Arc, I need your help. Seems my memory isn't that of an elephant after all. *pffft!*

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Arcturus Descending"]Okay - so then, what is it in your estimation that is the cause of consciousness? You said that it was different than that which was previously thought of (paraphrasing).

Huh? I did?


Why write a book, gib, if what you write is no different then any other of the million (hyperbole) theories or hypotheses that are roaming the world?


Oh, my book! Well, that adds context! <-- Thanks Arc! In this thread, I am speaking in the context of my book. Maybe elsewhere I spoke of consciousness in some other context (I will do that). In my book, I clearly lay out the nature of consciousness in such a way that it is not "caused" per se, though the specific forms of consciousness found in this or that being are caused by the forms of consciousness that come prior to it. This has to do with the order of experiences I describe above (the chicken coup example). Some form of consciousness prior to human consciousness gives way to the experiences we have in human consciousness.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
There is no cause of consciousness. It is the "first principle"--so to speak. Although, there is a cause of human consciousness, but we discussed that already in our talk about evolution.


You might want to define what you mean by *cause* here, gib. Entailment.
Did you mean to say that scientists have not yet determined or come to something concrete about the cause of consciousness?


Not exactly. Scientists have have come to the conclusion that the brain causes consciousness. They're wrong. At least according to my oh-so-humble opinion.

Keep in mind, however, that when scientists say that the brain causes consciousness, they're speaking as philosophers, not scientists. There are no scientific experiments on record which conclusively determine that the brain causes consciousness. It's just that we take it for granted that: 1) consciousness is a phenomenon that exists in reality, and that 2) its existence is limited to human beings and other animals. It makes sense, based on this, that something within human beings and other animals is responsible for producing consciousness. <-- This is the assumption that scientists run with, and when they go about trying to identify the source of consciousness, they naturally focus on the brain. But that the brain is in fact producing consciousness is not one of the discoveries of science, but merely how this preconceived assumption gets narrowed down in light of the discoveries scientists have made about the workings of the brain. But strictly speaking, we can only ever know that subjective experience is correlated with brain activity, but we don't know in which direction, if any, the correlation works in a causal sense. If scientists want to say that causally, the correlation works from the brain to consciousness, that's a philosophical leap (and we'd call these scientists "materialists"), but when you step beyond science into philosophy, all bets are off as far as scientific proof goes. It's fair game for other philosophers with different persuasions (like myself) to suggest competing theories.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
gib wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:If it just suddenly appeared on the horizon, that could also be seen as human evolution, yes?

Absolutely!!! But that's a big IF--I don't think consciousness did suddenly appear on the horizon.


As I mentioned somewhere above, for me, it didn't just appear though there would be I suppose or possibly be some signs and sense of it in beings.


Of course!

Arcturus Descending wrote:
gib wrote:I think the horizon suddenly appeared in consciousness.

I cannot imagine what that first conscious moment would have felt like to a being.
I will leave it at that.


Neither can I, but I surmise it would have had a sense of timelessness.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]