Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: figgs on February 19, 2008, 05:30:59 PM
-
As you know, I share a lot of ideas that may conflict with your belief systems and metaphysical constructs of reality, but let me assure you, most of what I talk about is right and science is proving it.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Welcome to The Great Awakening
-
i agree somewhat.. humans have a conscious for a reason.. ultimately our conscious decides what happens to us when we die. we die with zero guilt then something happens great to us when we pass away.
-
Consciousness can never die. It's the most essential building block of the whole holographic universe. When we die, so goes our biological organisms and egos. And with death you realize that you were the whole thing all along. You are God playing the role of little old you.
-
What kind of scientifc evidence or philosophical arguments are there for a collective conscious? This video seems disjointed and vague, though I'm open to hear the arguments.
-
Consciousness can never die. It's the most essential building block of the whole holographic universe. When we die, so goes our biological organisms and egos. And with death you realize that you were the whole thing all along. You are God playing the role of little old you.
yep we are all god playin a trick on ourselves
if we want to see hell and demons thats what we will experience and see
if we want good , fun, fine assed hoes thats what we will get
if we want to make people mad, scheme our way in life , what do you think will happen in return
its best to be 100 percent nice and perfectly godly like, pimp all the fine assed hoes treat them good give them a nice fvckin, its all in fun, if she dumps you its all good , plenty of other fine assed hoes to keep you smiling
its best to strive to be a world savior, be healthy as possible and get as many fine hoes as you want, learn as much about the history of existances to spark your imagination and creativity and love for life. so many things to be good at and master in this world. WHAT A WONDERFUL CREATION! :)
the whole game of life is not knowing we are god :)
-
yep we are all god playin a trick on ourselves
if we want to see hell and demons thats what we will experience and see
if we want good , fun, fine assed hoes thats what we will get
if we want to make people mad, scheme our way in life , what do you think will happen in return
its best to be 100 percent nice and perfectly godly like, pimp all the fine assed hoes treat them good give them a nice fvckin, its all in fun, if she dumps you its all good , plenty of other fine assed hoes to keep you smiling
its best to strive to be a world savior, be healthy as possible and get as many fine hoes as you want, learn as much about the history of existances to spark your imagination and creativity and love for life. so many things to be good at and master in this world. WHAT A WONDERFUL CREATION! :)
the whole game of life is not knowing we are god :)
Hola! Awakened one, Johnny Falcon!
:bow:
It's the basic law of attraction. Like attracts like! Since when do the miserably live happily ever after?
Respect your body and mind and those around you, even if they are playing the roles of the blind and ignorant, because things are ultimately unfolding as they should. I'm not a christian but Jesus had it right: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Yes, the great thing about life is that you aren't meant to awaken and realize you are God. You have the option to sink back into the role of you anytime you please. The next question would be, what role do you want to play?
-
Hola! Awakened one, Johnny Falcon!
:bow:
It's the basic law of attraction. Like attracts like! Since when do the miserably live happily ever after?
Respect your body and mind and those around you, even if they are playing the roles of the blind and ignorant, because things are ultimately unfolding as they should. I'm not a christian but Jesus had it right: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Yes, the great thing about life is that you aren't meant to awaken and realize you are God. You have the option to sink back into the role of you anytime you please. The next question would be, what role do you want to play?
this is a legendary thread with legendary wisdom with what you just said!
-
All this talk and these pretty quotes sound slightly intersting. But simply throwing out words like "quantum mechanics," "holograms" and "conscious" doesn't justify anything. Where are the arguments? The science behind the ideas? And the holographic principle put forth by Leonard Susskind is extremely speculative!
What makes you think matter or substance doesn't exist? Or rather that all there is consciousness? Or do me a favor and simply define consciousness for me? I'm really curious.
-
All this talk and these pretty quotes sound slightly intersting. But simply throwing out words like "quantum mechanics," "holograms" and "conscious" doesn't justify anything. Where are the arguments? The science behind the ideas? And the holographic principle put forth by Leonard Susskind is extremely speculative!
What makes you think matter or substance doesn't exist? Or rather that all there is consciousness? Or do me a favor and simply define consciousness for me? I'm really curious.
Matter doesn't exist without space. They are opposites of the same poles. All matter, all space, all thoughts, all actions, everything, is part of an expression of the universe as a whole, consciously aware of itself all the time. Where is the scientific backing for such statements? You can't use a material tools to measure God, or consciousness, or altered states of consciousness, or the way in which you managed to grow all of your organs. You have to experience such things. People who come back from altered states of consciousness (lsd, DMT, psylocibin, near-death experiences, etc.) explain the ancient idea that there is an underlying unity of being between all that there is. The ego is just a layered barrier of the mind. The experience of this concept is repeatable and scientifically verifiable.
You don't have to ask me what consciousness means. It can be found in the dictionary.
Consciousness (n): 1. The state or condition of being conscious. 2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group: Love of freedom runs deep in the national consciousness. 3. a. Special awareness or sensitivity: class consciousness; race consciousness. b. Alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation: a movement aimed at raising the general public's consciousness of social injustice. 4. In psychoanalysis, the conscious.
Let's take a look at the third definition: 3. a. Special awareness or sensitivity. Let me begin by asking, Are you certain that you are you? Yes? Who are you? You would probably answer by revealing your identity (the one your parents passed down to you). But that's not you. Who are you really? You'd probably tell of a brief story of your life including how you make your living.
Forget it; that's not you. That is some story that's all past. I want to see the real you, the you you are now. But nobody knows who that is, because we don't know ourselves except through listening to our echoes and consulting our memories, which leads back to the question, who is the real you?
The real you is the you who knows very well how to grow organs, design a complex arabesque of nerves, visualize the world out of the sensitive jewels that are the eyes, and make all 60 trillion cells of the body work together harmoniously to sustain your existence. But your ego can't seem to take credit for that. Why? Because it is only an illusion. It's a hoax.
And just as the real you is able to perform such tasks of a miraculous magnitude, so goes the world.
-
If your so intellectually gifted why are you on a bodybuilding forum???
-
If your so intellectually gifted why are you on a bodybuilding forum???
Just as some birds are doves, some eagles, and some flowers are lilies and some roses, I am who I am, playing the role of Figgs unto the world. And Figgs loves both philosophy and pumping iron. ;)
-
Hola! Awakened one, Johnny Falcon!
:bow:
It's the basic law of attraction. Like attracts like! Since when do the miserably live happily ever after?
Respect your body and mind and those around you, even if they are playing the roles of the blind and ignorant, because things are ultimately unfolding as they should. I'm not a christian but Jesus had it right: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Yes, the great thing about life is that you aren't meant to awaken and realize you are God. You have the option to sink back into the role of you anytime you please. The next question would be, what role do you want to play?
I used to have this co-worker that had a certain type of cancer, well she was miserable before that, but I called her Grumpy Carebear, because even when it was sunny outside she would complain. She made her own life miserable. Me, I was always happy, and those around were happy as well. People who are happy either attract those who are happy or have those who want to be happy, gravitate to them. And I do believe it is one's vibe, or vibration that one sends out. And it helps that one expands their own consciousness, because when one does that, they tend to lack the envy and jealousy of others that usually befalls those who have a "golfball" size conscious of themselves and the world around them.
As was said by Richard Smoley,
"Few are eager to come to grips with their inner tyrants and hypocrites, and there are possibly even fewer who can bear to see their own higher natures."
This statement rings loud and true for most Americans.
-
Matter doesn't exist without space. They are opposites of the same poles. All matter, all space, all thoughts, all actions, everything, is part of an expression of the universe as a whole, consciously aware of itself all the time. Where is the scientific backing for such statements? You can't use a material tools to measure God, or consciousness, or altered states of consciousness, or the way in which you managed to grow all of your organs. You have to experience such things. People who come back from altered states of consciousness (lsd, DMT, psylocibin, near-death experiences, etc.) explain the ancient idea that there is an underlying unity of being between all that there is. The ego is just a layered barrier of the mind. The experience of this concept is repeatable and scientifically verifiable.
You don't have to ask me what consciousness means. It can be found in the dictionary.
Consciousness (n): 1. The state or condition of being conscious. 2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group: Love of freedom runs deep in the national consciousness. 3. a. Special awareness or sensitivity: class consciousness; race consciousness. b. Alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation: a movement aimed at raising the general public's consciousness of social injustice. 4. In psychoanalysis, the conscious.
Let's take a look at the third definition: 3. a. Special awareness or sensitivity. Let me begin by asking, Are you certain that you are you? Yes? Who are you? You would probably answer by revealing your identity (the one your parents passed down to you). But that's not you. Who are you really? You'd probably tell of a brief story of your life including how you make your living.
Forget it; that's not you. That is some story that's all past. I want to see the real you, the you you are now. But nobody knows who that is, because we don't know ourselves except through listening to our echoes and consulting our memories, which leads back to the question, who is the real you?
The real you is the you who knows very well how to grow organs, design a complex arabesque of nerves, visualize the world out of the sensitive jewels that are the eyes, and make all 60 trillion cells of the body work together harmoniously to sustain your existence. But your ego can't seem to take credit for that. Why? Because it is only an illusion. It's a hoax.
And just as the real you is able to perform such tasks of a miraculous magnitude, so goes the world.
Hey man, I appreciate the response. You took a great deal of thought in answering, I appreciate that.
It is really tough to decipher most of the arguments honestly. I'm sorry, but it is very abstract! You seem to like philosophy, so maybe you could give me a philosophical argument. And by philosophical argument I mean one that transcends mere experience. I find it hard to swallow that justifying such a large claim as the universe is just one large projection of human consciousness can be done by simply the experience of psychedelic drugs and near-death experiences? People on psychedelic drugs or are deprived of oxygen and brain function, as is commonly seen with near-death experiences, often report back with very questionable accounts. You nor I would be quick to regard most of these trip-induced claims as fact. So why should we deduce that their (or your) reports on a unified consciousness are correct?
Have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor? Why postulate some ethereal consciousness for our being and understanding, when physics, physiology, phsychology, and basic academic philosophy offer as good of justification (if not better) and explanation for our "awareness or sensitivity?"
Does this make any sense? I hope I'm not understating your opinion. It was just a little tough for me to follow.
-
We must be one fucked up god if this is true. Just look at this world. How about some self critique if I created this. I'd say there are hopefully better gods somewhere else.
Also why hamper your mind in a way so that you don't understand why you are doing all these mistakes that are done here? At least if we would have had this knowledge we could have had an honest chance creating something better.
So if this is truth then we (the god as you put it) basically suck or have pretty limited intelligence / senile or a diseased mind.
You guys just makes it sound way to pretty. :)
-
We must be one fucked up god if this is true. Just look at this world. How about some self critique if I created this. I'd say there are hopefully better gods somewhere else.
Also why hamper your mind in a way so that you don't understand why you are doing all these mistakes that are done here? At least if we would have had this knowledge we could have had an honest chance creating something better.
So if this is truth then we (the god as you put it) basically suck or have pretty limited intelligence / senile or a diseased mind.
You guys just makes it sound way to pretty. :)
all people have to do is change there attitude and life can be as great as they want it to be
the people causeing wars and battles dont see it that way
do happy , self god realized people fight battles start wars? hell naw we just wanna play and have everyone join in on the big party, no frowns allowed
these 'religions' feel the need to put others down so they feel above and special but still that hate lurks upon people who are not like them
people who know that we are all one would like to spread the message but we know many are stuck in disbelief and want to live in seperation and hate and fighting
all the bad stuff in the world is caused by the people who want it to be that way
the happy folk stay away
if the happy folk get caught up in it and die , its still all good, simply get a fresh start in some other galaxy
too many folk feel the need to control, i dont know why
, i think people are catching on though but of course there will always be degenerates
-
"What's this got to do with Phil Heath?" is what I'm here to say.
-
"A man of knowledge is one who has followed truthfully the hardships of learning, a man who has, without rushing or without faltering, gone as far as he can in unraveling the secrets of power and knowledge. To become a man of knowledge one must challenge and defeat his four natural enemies."
From the Teachings of Don Juan A Yaqui way of life
-
Hey man, I appreciate the response. You took a great deal of thought in answering, I appreciate that.
It is really tough to decipher most of the arguments honestly. I'm sorry, but it is very abstract! You seem to like philosophy, so maybe you could give me a philosophical argument. And by philosophical argument I mean one that transcends mere experience. I find it hard to swallow that justifying such a large claim as the universe is just one large projection of human consciousness can be done by simply the experience of psychedelic drugs and near-death experiences? People on psychedelic drugs or are deprived of oxygen and brain function, as is commonly seen with near-death experiences, often report back with very questionable accounts. You nor I would be quick to regard most of these trip-induced claims as fact. So why should we deduce that their (or your) reports on a unified consciousness are correct?
Have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor? Why postulate some ethereal consciousness for our being and understanding, when physics, physiology, phsychology, and basic academic philosophy offer as good of justification (if not better) and explanation for our "awareness or sensitivity?"
Does this make any sense? I hope I'm not understating your opinion. It was just a little tough for me to follow.
THE EGO.......SELF IMPOSED LIMIT....THE DISEASE THAT LIVES IN THE MIND...THE MORE YOU BUILD IT, THE HARDER IT IS TO BREAK...MOST LIVE LIVES BUILDING UPON THEIR EGO LIKE A BANK ACCOUNT, AND LATER WONDER WHY THEY HAVE SO MANY SHORT COMINGS?....
-
This belief that human consciousness is somehow intimately involved in the processes of the universe seem to me to be a very egocentric way of thinking.
Human consciousness is just a manifestation of complex brain function.
When you sleep you become 'unconscious' due to reduced brain activity. When you dream certain parts of your brain become active.
When you die your brain dies and consciousness ceases.
Beats me why some people 'living' on a small planet in an inconceivably massive universe 'thinks' that their consciousness is somehow responsible for that universe.
-
Whew, awesome leg workout. I passed out when I got home and just woke up. 15-17 rep leg press for 3 straight sets. :o
I used to have this co-worker that had a certain type of cancer, well she was miserable before that, but I called her Grumpy Carebear, because even when it was sunny outside she would complain. She made her own life miserable. Me, I was always happy, and those around were happy as well. People who are happy either attract those who are happy or have those who want to be happy, gravitate to them. And I do believe it is one's vibe, or vibration that one sends out. And it helps that one expands their own consciousness, because when one does that, they tend to lack the envy and jealousy of others that usually befalls those who have a "golfball" size conscious of themselves and the world around them.
As was said by Richard Smoley,
"Few are eager to come to grips with their inner tyrants and hypocrites, and there are possibly even fewer who can bear to see their own higher natures."
This statement rings loud and true for most Americans.
Witnessing these forces at work is pretty easy when you look but it always amazes me how everything is connected in a web of cause and effect.
Thanks for the awesome quote! I'm a quote fiend and that's new to me. :) Keep your mind open and your good frequencies buzzing.
Hey man, I appreciate the response. You took a great deal of thought in answering, I appreciate that.
It is really tough to decipher most of the arguments honestly. I'm sorry, but it is very abstract! You seem to like philosophy, so maybe you could give me a philosophical argument. And by philosophical argument I mean one that transcends mere experience. I find it hard to swallow that justifying such a large claim as the universe is just one large projection of human consciousness can be done by simply the experience of psychedelic drugs and near-death experiences? People on psychedelic drugs or are deprived of oxygen and brain function, as is commonly seen with near-death experiences, often report back with very questionable accounts. You nor I would be quick to regard most of these trip-induced claims as fact. So why should we deduce that their (or your) reports on a unified consciousness are correct?
Have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor? Why postulate some ethereal consciousness for our being and understanding, when physics, physiology, phsychology, and basic academic philosophy offer as good of justification (if not better) and explanation for our "awareness or sensitivity?"
Does this make any sense? I hope I'm not understating your opinion. It was just a little tough for me to follow.
And I appreciate your criticism. :) Without a well thought out question I couldn't write a well thought out response!
Regarding the drug/NDE experiences, they are indeed proven to be remarkably similar and repeatable experiences. Since ancient times to modern times. From hippies in the 60s to my tripping on shrooms at the local farm. We all experience the dissolving of the ego and become less of a separate being and more part of the pattern of it all.
Check this out, dude. Joe Rogan talks about DMT in this 7 minute video and how you trip in other dimensions. Talk about experiences that redefine reality!! Learning about DMT is actually what sparked my interest in philosophy. I never took it though. I see it as a sort of 'right of passage' and I'm only 19 so I'm going to hold that plan for later.
I heard of Okham's razor but I had to wiki it to make sure. Simplest solution being the best, the idea that God underlies everything in existence seems to be simpler than God, the Monarch of the cosmos that consciously controls all aspects of his universal kingdom and tirelessly judges all souls to pass through pergatory. It's a creative story and great for manipulating superstitious minds, but definitely not very simple.
People will say they "found God" or they "need God" or they're "searching for God", but what if God is everything they've already ever known. God is you, God is me, God is the magician that makes the grass green.
Also, the weird colorful fractal geometry you see in that video is based on an incredibly simple mathematical equation, yet it's capable of producing geometrical patterns that can literally be zoomed into an infinite number of times, always emerging with new and unique images. If you're interested in learning about the Mandlebrot set and the "thumb print of God", good vid search The Colours of Infinity.
We must be one fucked up god if this is true. Just look at this world. How about some self critique if I created this. I'd say there are hopefully better gods somewhere else.
Also why hamper your mind in a way so that you don't understand why you are doing all these mistakes that are done here? At least if we would have had this knowledge we could have had an honest chance creating something better.
So if this is truth then we (the god as you put it) basically suck or have pretty limited intelligence / senile or a diseased mind.
You guys just makes it sound way to pretty. :)
Don't forget, it's God doing it to himself. heheh What fun would the world be if there was no evil for the good guys to stand triumphant over in the end? I think the fact that we're here discussing this proves that mankind is headed in the right direction. Evil will prevail for some time to come, but in our lifetimes perhaps we shall truly experience The Great Awakening.
"A man of knowledge is one who has followed truthfully the hardships of learning, a man who has, without rushing or without faltering, gone as far as he can in unraveling the secrets of power and knowledge. To become a man of knowledge one must challenge and defeat his four natural enemies."
From the Teachings of Don Juan A Yaqui way of life
Coincidence? Don Miguel Ángel Ruiz (born 1952) is a Mexican author, shaman, and teacher.
He was a surgeon until a near-death experience impelled him to seek answers in ancestral traditions of the Toltec in which his mother was a curandera (healer), and his grandfather a nagual (shaman) who, after death, continued to teach Ruiz in his dreams.
and instead of four natural enemies, 4 natural Agreements:
# Be Impeccable With Your Word. Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.
# Don’t Take Anything Personally. Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.
# Don’t Make Assumptions. Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.
# Always Do Your Best. Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse and regret.
THE EGO.......SELF IMPOSED LIMIT....THE DISEASE THAT LIVES IN THE MIND...THE MORE YOU BUILD IT, THE HARDER IT IS TO BREAK...MOST LIVE LIVES BUILDING UPON THEIR EGO LIKE A BANK ACCOUNT, AND LATER WONDER WHY THEY HAVE SO MANY SHORT COMINGS?....
This is the fate of those who train to attain the result. The training is no longer a passion, but a job, a chore, a nuisance. That sucks. We all know what that's like on the days when we drag ourselves to the gym. It's torturous.
This belief that human consciousness is somehow intimately involved in the processes of the universe seem to me to be a very egocentric way of thinking.
Human consciousness is just a manifestation of complex brain function.
When you sleep you become 'unconscious' due to reduced brain activity. When you dream certain parts of your brain become active.
When you die your brain dies and consciousness ceases.
Beats me why some people 'living' on a small planet in an inconceivably massive universe 'thinks' that their consciousness is somehow responsible for that universe.
You might have heard to question "if a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"
The fact of the matter is that the crash of the tree alters the vibrations in the air, but doesn't become a sound unless it vibrates against an eardrum. Black isn't black unless consciously differentiated from white. Light isn't light at all unless it lifts the veil of darkness for one to see. And a rock isn't hard unless felt against the touch of soft skin.
-
It's again humans thinking far to highly of themself ::)
-
Check this out, dude. Joe Rogan talks about DMT in this 7 minute video and how you trip in other dimensions. Talk about experiences that redefine reality!! Learning about DMT is actually what sparked my interest in philosophy. I never took it though. I see it as a sort of 'right of passage' and I'm only 19 so I'm going to hold that plan for later.
I'm a philosophy student right now. I'm looking to continue in grad school next May. I think you would really like philosophy. And probably would be very good at it. You already have that questioning mind. Though, I'm not so sure you will find much of this stuff in any western philosophy classroom. Though philosophy of the mind is a highly studied area of philosophy, it remains very academic. Jr's post sums up much of my general beliefs on the subject, but yours is still mad interesting.
P.S. For 19 you got a great physique.
-
You might have heard to question "if a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"
The fact of the matter is that the crash of the tree alters the vibrations in the air, but doesn't become a sound unless it vibrates against an eardrum. Black isn't black unless consciously differentiated from white. Light isn't light at all unless it lifts the veil of darkness for one to see. And a rock isn't hard unless felt against the touch of soft skin.
Sound, black, white, light, hardness are all human words to label phenomena that occur in this universe. These phenomena will occur whether we are there to perceive them or not. The universe had been evolving for over 14 billion years before the presence of human beings or human consciousness. It will continue to evolve after the inevitable extinction of the human race.
You also must remember that your perception of reality is flawed due to imperfect senses feeding information back to an imperfect brain. What you perceive is only a distorted fraction of what's really there. Humans create instruments such as microscopes, telescopes, radar, cameras, x-ray machines, computers etc to enhance our senses and brains ability to understand and perceive phenomena in the universe.
-
"A man of knowledge is one who has followed truthfully the hardships of learning, a man who has, without rushing or without faltering, gone as far as he can in unraveling the secrets of power and knowledge. To become a man of knowledge one must challenge and defeat his four natural enemies."
From the Teachings of Don Juan A Yaqui way of life
Hehe. Castaneda has long been exposed as a fraud. C'mon guys, searching around for 'higher consciousness' is just another excuse not examine your own life. ::)
-
Sound, black, white, light, hardness are all human words to label phenomena that occur in this universe. These phenomena will occur whether we are there to perceive them or not. The universe had been evolving for over 14 billion years before the presence of human beings or human consciousness. It will continue to evolve after the inevitable extinction of the human race.
You also must remember that your perception of reality is flawed due to imperfect senses feeding information back to an imperfect brain. What you perceive is only a distorted fraction of what's really there. Humans create instruments such as microscopes, telescopes, radar, cameras, x-ray machines, computers etc to enhance our senses and brains ability to understand and perceive phenomena in the universe.
his perception of reality , is called his conscious awarness
there isnt a flaw
it is simply conscious awarness
every thing is conscious and aware
from the smallest atom and electron bonding
or speck of bark on a tree aware of oxygen and a million other particles it makes contact with
-
Figgs is 19, had sex for the first time last year. He probably hasn't had a great piece of ass yet.
and now he is the enlightened one ::)
probably just started taking philosophy in college, he probably just read chapter 2 of a philosophy book
hehe..wait until he gets to the chapter on Anselm and Gaunilo..that should be good for a couple of threads by him
-
his perception of reality , is called his conscious awarness
there isnt a flaw
it is simply conscious awarness
every thing is conscious and aware
from the smallest atom and electron bonding
or speck of bark on a tree aware of oxygen and a million other particles it makes contact with
Conscious awareness is what you would strive for during meditation, and ultimately everyday life. Not having thoughts of the past or the future influencing your mind, experience and emotions. Being aware of only the present moment is a very difficult state of mind to achieve and needs a lot of practice through meditation. It is probably the best state of mind to have for the most part if you can master it.
-
Conscious awareness is what you would strive for during meditation, and ultimately everyday life. Not having thoughts of the past or the future influencing your mind, experience and emotions. Being aware of only the present moment is a very difficult state of mind to achieve and needs a lot of practice through meditation. It is probably the best state of mind to have for the most part if you can master it.
dont make it sound harder to achieve than it really is
just look at the word 'conscious awareness'
means being alert/awake/aware and knowing whats around you
the science is in the DEGREES of conscious awarness
some are naturally better than others without much practice, because they are not influenced by the hateful world, and are more intune and more aware
-
guys, i don't want to be a jerk here, but this is garbage. it's just flat-out garbage. at 10 i'll be teaching a class on philosophy of mind at a major university, and i can assure you nothing like this will ever be touched. moreover, no one in the field touches this nonsense. the idea that the "substance" of the universe is consciousness has no grounding whatsoever. it doesn't even make sense. it's a meaningless statement. it lines up in no way with any elements of consciousness, whether that be propositional attitudes, intentional states, or "what it is like to be something." these guys don't even know what consciousness is! and the fact that our concept of matter has altered dramatically in the wake of quantum mechanics in no way suggests that "the world is consciousness." not only is that a false dichotomy, as if there are only two possible options and we have shown one must be discarded leaving only the other, but it is just flat out absurd.
look, go grab any peer-reviewed journal on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, philosophy of neuroscience, or philosophy of physics, and i promise you will find NO ONE talking about any of this nonsense. the only people churning out this crap are generally second-rate scientists with no background in philosophy who have radically misunderstood what the implications and consequences of their physics are.
-
guys, i don't want to be a jerk here, but this is garbage. it's just flat-out garbage. at 10 i'll be teaching a class on philosophy of mind at a major university, and i can assure you nothing like this will ever be touched. moreover, no one in the field touches this nonsense. the idea that the "substance" of the universe is consciousness has no grounding whatsoever. it doesn't even make sense. it's a meaningless statement. it lines up in no way with any elements of consciousness, whether that be propositional attitudes, intentional states, or "what it is like to be something." these guys don't even know what consciousness is! and the fact that our concept of matter has altered dramatically in the wake of quantum mechanics in no way suggests that "the world is consciousness." not only is that a false dichotomy, as if there are only two possible options and we have shown one must be discarded leaving only the other, but it is just flat out absurd.
look, go grab any peer-reviewed journal on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, philosophy of neuroscience, or philosophy of physics, and i promise you will find NO ONE talking about any of this nonsense. the only people churning out this crap are generally second-rate scientists with no background in philosophy who have radically misunderstood what the implications and consequences of their physics are.
you wont recover
-
guys, i don't want to be a jerk here, but this is garbage. it's just flat-out garbage. at 10 i'll be teaching a class on philosophy of mind at a major university, and i can assure you nothing like this will ever be touched. moreover, no one in the field touches this nonsense. the idea that the "substance" of the universe is consciousness has no grounding whatsoever. it doesn't even make sense. it's a meaningless statement. it lines up in no way with any elements of consciousness, whether that be propositional attitudes, intentional states, or "what it is like to be something." these guys don't even know what consciousness is! and the fact that our concept of matter has altered dramatically in the wake of quantum mechanics in no way suggests that "the world is consciousness." not only is that a false dichotomy, as if there are only two possible options and we have shown one must be discarded leaving only the other, but it is just flat out absurd.
look, go grab any peer-reviewed journal on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, philosophy of neuroscience, or philosophy of physics, and i promise you will find NO ONE talking about any of this nonsense. the only people churning out this crap are generally second-rate scientists with no background in philosophy who have radically misunderstood what the implications and consequences of their physics are.
Ayn Rand, where are you when we need you?
-
you wont recover
from what won't i recover? i'm certainly not angry at anyone for getting this stuff so wrong. but it does turn out that the way this stuff is being discussed is complete nonsense. again, this isn't just some opinion i'm giving you that no one else shares. go look for yourself. there are lots of peer-reviewed journal that, if this stuff was legitimate, would be discussing it in great detail. but the articles just aren't there.
go look.
-
guys, i don't want to be a jerk here, but this is garbage. it's just flat-out garbage. at 10 i'll be teaching a class on philosophy of mind at a major university, and i can assure you nothing like this will ever be touched. moreover, no one in the field touches this nonsense. the idea that the "substance" of the universe is consciousness has no grounding whatsoever. it doesn't even make sense. it's a meaningless statement. it lines up in no way with any elements of consciousness, whether that be propositional attitudes, intentional states, or "what it is like to be something." these guys don't even know what consciousness is! and the fact that our concept of matter has altered dramatically in the wake of quantum mechanics in no way suggests that "the world is consciousness." not only is that a false dichotomy, as if there are only two possible options and we have shown one must be discarded leaving only the other, but it is just flat out absurd.
look, go grab any peer-reviewed journal on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, philosophy of neuroscience, or philosophy of physics, and i promise you will find NO ONE talking about any of this nonsense. the only people churning out this crap are generally second-rate scientists with no background in philosophy who have radically misunderstood what the implications and consequences of their physics are.
Jesus, Buddha, Deepak Chopra, Robert Anton Wilson, Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, Terrence Mckenna, David Icke, Davild Wilcock, Albert Einstein, Edgar Casey, Grant Morrison, Bill Hicks, Fred Alan Wolf, John Hagelin, Carl Jung, Alex Grey, all agree with this idea to some extent. They are all second rate ???
Quantum mechanics,consciousness, and the atom (atom= 3:)
Sound creates structure of matter
Order in Chaos (science studies order, leaving the mysterious chaos of the universe "unfounded")
-
I'm a philosophy student right now. I'm looking to continue in grad school next May. I think you would really like philosophy. And probably would be very good at it. You already have that questioning mind. Though, I'm not so sure you will find much of this stuff in any western philosophy classroom. Though philosophy of the mind is a highly studied area of philosophy, it remains very academic. Jr's post sums up much of my general beliefs on the subject, but yours is still mad interesting.
P.S. For 19 you got a great physique.
Thanks! I'm in philosophy too. heheh We're not learning about this stuff, nor do I even discuss it. We're learning about Socrates. I think a good philosophy class should stimulate some real existential wonders, but Socrates doesn't really do that for us...
-
Jesus, Buddha, Deepak Chopra, Robert Anton Wilson, Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, Terrence Mckenna, David Icke, Davild Wilcock, Albert Einstein, Edgar Casey, Grant Morrison, Bill Hicks, Fred Alan Wolf, John Hagelin, Carl Jung, Alex Grey, all agree with this idea to some extent. They are all second rate
you forgot Max Planck ;D
Also Dean Radin published some interesting experimental findings that could support the idea of a "conscious universe".
And as a bodybuilding authority Tom Platz certainly approves it!
Great post, Figgs.
-
I gotta say, I've never heard of those folks. I'll pull up a search though! Thanks!
Isn't Tom Platz a buddhist??
-
I don't know for sure, if Tom is a buddhist. I had the impression he was much more of a patchwork guy just like us. He is much into mantras, new thought movement etc.
Just curious: Do you juice? If so, have you ever done DMT during a cycle?
I have some experience with psychedelics, but that excludes test. And the combination of both makes me wonder ;D
-
In that Joe Rogan video he said that people that have bad trips are bad people...Ive had a few bad trips and on my last bad trip i essentially never came back....I personally think that during a bad trip i was exposed to too much stimuli all at once and i could not process it....One thing i did experience that the video made a point of is my patheticness exposed...I cannot remember specific examples but i saw my reflection in the trip and it was utterly pathetic....I do not know why i saw myself that way....
I no longer need lsd to feel this way since i have a powerful mental illness called schizoaffective disorder that causes delusions and paranoia....I still have not answered the reasons for my own patheticness but i dont think im a bad person, and i wish good things for people....I do thiink i have huge bouts of guilt that alters my perception of myself....The guilt may be so powerful that it affects my trips....Why do i have this guilt? good question, i do not know....
-
Jesus, Buddha, Deepak Chopra, Robert Anton Wilson, Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, Terrence Mckenna, David Icke, Davild Wilcock, Albert Einstein, Edgar Casey, Grant Morrison, Bill Hicks, Fred Alan Wolf, John Hagelin, Carl Jung, Alex Grey, all agree with this idea to some extent. They are all second rate ???
i don't see the need to go through each individual here, but not one of them would be considered any sort of authority in contemporary philosophy of mind. i doubt many of them would agree to a common definition of "consciousness," and, moreover, none of those definitions would be of much relevance in current theories of consciousness.
seriously, looking at your posts, i don't even know what you consider the ontological status of the mind to be. are you some sort of dualist? if so, is it substance, property, or predicate? are you a monist? if so, are you an idealist or materialist? are you a reductive materialist, a functionalist, an autonomous monist, a biological naturalist, an eliminative materialist? do you take neurophysiology into account? if so, do you think there are neurocorrelates of consciousness? if not, what is the relationship between the mind and the brain? what aspects of consciousness affect the world in the way you suggest? the intentionality? certainly not the propositional attitudes nor the various qualia are widely considered to, in fact, be the hallmark of consciousness.
how does this stuff work? from whence this consciousness? how does it organize the stuff that is the universe into some sort of complexity? why is such a thing necessary for complexity? if it is because complexity needs such a thing, if it takes a really smart thing to create a dumb thing, what is responsible for the original really smart thing? how did something as complex as consciousness come into being to organize everything else without something else to organize it? and what was responsible for that if you always need something more complex for organization? if you don't need anything more complex, why would we think there is something like whatever kind of consciousness you're supposing is there for the complexity we see?
you can't just spout off gibberish and think you've actually said anything. i can come back and just say "nuh-uh!" you need to have some grounding, so larger argument for you position. what is that?
-
Jesus, Buddha, Deepak Chopra, Robert Anton Wilson, Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, Terrence Mckenna, David Icke, Davild Wilcock, Albert Einstein, Edgar Casey, Grant Morrison, Bill Hicks, Fred Alan Wolf, John Hagelin, Carl Jung, Alex Grey, all agree with this idea to some extent. They are all second rate ???
Uh, no they don't. Half those people are dead. How can they agree? And I'll bet, they never even met. Be very careful with your words, Figgs. You're trying to make connections where there aren't any. You can suggest that some of the ideas that they came up with/used contain similarities, but don't you dare speak for someone else. In the real world you'll get thumped for it, and if you ever write a term paper noting such a thing, you'll get docked you for it. :)
-
THANKS FIGGS!!
I watched this video and it blew me away....i have been trying to change my mindset lately believing that my
energy can change every outcome in my life.....i have been through extreme stress lately and i have let it drag
me down but one day i woke up thinking that i have total control of what happens to me and i need to visualize
and believe in what i want to happen instead of imagining things getting worse
this vid came at a perfect time....i will save this and watch many times to come
-
scientist draw conclusions of reality through observations...Who is to say they are able to observe everything there is to come to a logical conclusion? To make a logical conclusive answer you need all the information...Do the greatest scientists in the world posess such information from the observations they make?
An educated man with a title behind his name is programmed to percieve information in a certain light...He is a professional observer in the respect that he was trained to observe by others with titles behind their name...
It would be a mistake to only respect and accept only opinions of academics of only certain disciplines...
Example is philosophy, some here say these theories are not taught in academic field....So since it is not regarded as an official study in your major then you discount it? Are you an original thinker? the philosphers you study were original thinkers were they not? If it were not for new ideas put forward there would be nothing to learn...
What i do respect about many academics, like those in that video is they use their education as a tool to open their eyes to new things and possibilities...They do not use their education as a crutch but as a starting point....For a formal education is a starting point that gets you started on the path of original ideas and thought....We stand on the shoulders of those before us, and that is how evolution works....We evolve....
-
Uh, no they don't. Half those people are dead. How can they agree? And I'll bet, they never even met. Be very careful with your words, Figgs. You're trying to make connections where there aren't any. You can suggest that some of the ideas that they came up with/used contain similarities, but don't you dare speak for someone else. In the real world you'll get thumped for it, and if you ever write a term paper noting such a thing, you'll get docked you for it. :)
of course you're right. that's what i meant when i said they wouldn't even agree on a common definition of what consciousness is. jesus christ didn't talk about consciousness, the buddha's notion of "consciousness" would never agree with whatever we might try to establish in terms of what christ thought, and that has nothing to do with leary's concept which has nothing to do with einstein's concept which has nothing to do with jung's concept. moreover, of the one who could be said to do philosophy of mind, it would bear little relation to what is being done now in light of what has happened since behaviorism in the early 20th century.
more than that, none of of those guys are in the videos presented. those are views of second-rate physicists with little to no background in philosophy, and that is to whom i was referring.
-
scientist draw conclusions of reality through observations...Who is to say they are able to observe everything there is to come to a logical conclusion? To make a logical conclusive answer you need all the information...Do the greatest scientists in the world posess such information from the observations they make?
An educated man with a title behind his name is programmed to percieve information in a certain light...He is a professional observer in the respect that he was trained to observe by others with titles behind their name...
It would be a mistake to only respect and accept only opinions of academics of only certain disciplines...
Example is philosophy, some here say these theories are not taught in academic field....So since it is not regarded as an official study in your major then you discount it? Are you an original thinker? the philosphers you study were original thinkers were they not? If it were not for new ideas put forward there would be nothing to learn...
What i do respect about many academics, like those in that video is they use their education as a tool to open their eyes to new things and possibilities...They do not use their education as a crutch but as a starting point....For a formal education is a starting point that gets you started on the path of original ideas and thought....We stand on the shoulders of those before us, and that is how evolution works....We evolve....
first, we certainly don't need all information to come to a "logical" answer (i use the quotes since i doubt you actually mean logical in any technical sense). we can never have all information, but that does not mean that all ideas are equal. some arguments are better than others and some have more evidence than others. simply because there is some lack of evidence does not mean all possibilities have equal weight. for example, we don't have full information about the origins of the universe, but that doesn't mean that it is as reasonable to believe that a turtle vomited it out as it is to believe that it started with a big bang. of course, it is possible that there was no big bang, but that doesn't legitimize the argument for the turtle vomit.
second, the point about the ideas about consciousness presented in this thread was not to say that professionals studying mind now have it all figured out. far from it. the point was that this stuff was being presented as if it was accepted by the scientific community, as if it was authoritative. it's not. not only is it the case that most physicists don't buy that stuff, but even if they did, they would not be the authority any more than plumbers would be the authority on physiology. just because you are knowledgeable in one field does not mean that you are an authority in another. the point here is that these videos and name-dropping are done to give the ideas presented credibility, and the fact that they are the opinions of those untrained in the field draws that credibility into question.
last, of course, we're trying to move past our current understanding of things into a deeper and more sophisticated understanding. the point here is that these guys don't even have the tools to get started. they don't even use the terminology in any established manner. the trouble there is that it sounds like they're saying something deep when they're not. it's like me saying "energy creates matter, and my mind is energy, so my mind creates matter." i've equivocated on 'energy' there; i used the term in two radically different ways. because these guys are untrained in the area they don't engage in any deep conceptual analysis of the concepts in question and, hence, don't even recognize when such equivocations occur. and they are prone to tons of similar errors.
they never even get off the ground.
-
Uh, no they don't. Half those people are dead. How can they agree? And I'll bet, they never even met. Be very careful with your words, Figgs. You're trying to make connections where there aren't any. You can suggest that some of the ideas that they came up with/used contain similarities, but don't you dare speak for someone else. In the real world you'll get thumped for it, and if you ever write a term paper noting such a thing, you'll get docked you for it. :)
Please forgive me for being so blunt. It seems as if all their ideas can be used to build up on the whole idea. I can collect a bunch of quotes for you to prove that they're in synch, but I already have all these damn posts to respond to. hahah
i don't see the need to go through each individual here, but not one of them would be considered any sort of authority in contemporary philosophy of mind. i doubt many of them would agree to a common definition of "consciousness," and, moreover, none of those definitions would be of much relevance in current theories of consciousness.
seriously, looking at your posts, i don't even know what you consider the ontological status of the mind to be. are you some sort of dualist? if so, is it substance, property, or predicate? are you a monist? if so, are you an idealist or materialist? are you a reductive materialist, a functionalist, an autonomous monist, a biological naturalist, an eliminative materialist? do you take neurophysiology into account? if so, do you think there are neurocorrelates of consciousness? if not, what is the relationship between the mind and the brain? what aspects of consciousness affect the world in the way you suggest? the intentionality? certainly not the propositional attitudes nor the various qualia are widely considered to, in fact, be the hallmark of consciousness.
how does this stuff work? from whence this consciousness? how does it organize the stuff that is the universe into some sort of complexity? why is such a thing necessary for complexity? if it is because complexity needs such a thing, if it takes a really smart thing to create a dumb thing, what is responsible for the original really smart thing? how did something as complex as consciousness come into being to organize everything else without something else to organize it? and what was responsible for that if you always need something more complex for organization? if you don't need anything more complex, why would we think there is something like whatever kind of consciousness you're supposing is there for the complexity we see?
you can't just spout off gibberish and think you've actually said anything. i can come back and just say "nuh-uh!" you need to have some grounding, so larger argument for you position. what is that?
You seem to be comfortable with separating and categorizing and defining things down to cold hard facts before you accept things as they are.
This video brilliantly and briefly explains our opposing personality types.
I'll try to level with you anyhow. I might be wrong for all I know. You ask some good questions.
from whence this consciousness? how does it organize the stuff that is the universe into some sort of complexity? why is such a thing necessary for complexity?
---
I say there is no beginning nor will there be an end to the universe. Time is an illusion. It's something people use to measure and time stuff. Infinity in the course of eternal now seems to be the simplest and most plausible concept of any sort of 'time'. Worlds and suns come and go just like the seasons. There is no precise beginning to them just as there's no precise starting point on a circle. Sometimes the world is there and sometimes it isn't, just as sometimes you are inhaling and exhaling, waking and dreaming, living and dying. You can't hold your breath forever, you will suffocate. And the world can't live forever it gets awfully tired of itself, self-immolates and starts anew. The law of conservation: energy can never be created or destroyed, but manifests in infinite forms and possibilities.
Why? How? Well now we're diving right into the rabbit hole. Just like there's no precise purpose for life in general, there seems to be no precise purpose for there being an infinite pool of swirling galaxies. Some things are better left to the mysterious.
I can't present to you solid proof for such ideas, just in the same way I can't prove to you exactly what images I project in my mind at any given moment. These aren't my ideas nor are they the ideas of those I mentioned before. These are perhaps the most ancient philosophical ideas we have.
THANKS FIGGS!!
I watched this video and it blew me away....i have been trying to change my mindset lately believing that my
energy can change every outcome in my life.....i have been through extreme stress lately and i have let it drag
me down but one day i woke up thinking that i have total control of what happens to me and i need to visualize
and believe in what i want to happen instead of imagining things getting worse
this vid came at a perfect time....i will save this and watch many times to come
And you will benefit greatly because of your new change in attitude! I'm glad to I could help you help yourself. :)
In that Joe Rogan video he said that people that have bad trips are bad people...Ive had a few bad trips and on my last bad trip i essentially never came back....I personally think that during a bad trip i was exposed to too much stimuli all at once and i could not process it....One thing i did experience that the video made a point of is my patheticness exposed...I cannot remember specific examples but i saw my reflection in the trip and it was utterly pathetic....I do not know why i saw myself that way....
I no longer need lsd to feel this way since i have a powerful mental illness called schizoaffective disorder that causes delusions and paranoia....I still have not answered the reasons for my own patheticness but i dont think im a bad person, and i wish good things for people....I do thiink i have huge bouts of guilt that alters my perception of myself....The guilt may be so powerful that it affects my trips....Why do i have this guilt? good question, i do not know....
Things like guilt is what smacks you in the face when you're trippin. It's not that you have to be a criminal or anything.
Hey, in indigenous civilizations, schizophrenics are highly respected and revered members of society. They typically take on the role of the tribal Shaman.
Here Terrence Mckenna talking about the topic.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474883893985109987&q=shaman+mckenna&total=112&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
-
first, we certainly don't need all information to come to a "logical" answer (i use the quotes since i doubt you actually mean logical in any technical sense). we can never have all information, but that does not mean that all ideas are equal. some arguments are better than others and some have more evidence than others. simply because there is some lack of evidence does not mean all possibilities have equal weight. for example, we don't have full information about the origins of the universe, but that doesn't mean that it is as reasonable to believe that a turtle vomited it out as it is to believe that it started with a big bang. of course, it is possible that there was no big bang, but that doesn't legitimize the argument for the turtle vomit.
second, the point about the ideas about consciousness presented in this thread was not to say that professionals studying mind now have it all figured out. far from it. the point was that this stuff was being presented as if it was accepted by the scientific community, as if it was authoritative. it's not. not only is it the case that most physicists don't buy that stuff, but even if they did, they would not be the authority any more than plumbers would be the authority on physiology. just because you are knowledgeable in one field does not mean that you are an authority in another. the point here is that these videos and name-dropping are done to give the ideas presented credibility, and the fact that they are the opinions of those untrained in the field draws that credibility into question.
last, of course, we're trying to move past our current understanding of things into a deeper and more sophisticated understanding. the point here is that these guys don't even have the tools to get started. they don't even use the terminology in any established manner. the trouble there is that it sounds like they're saying something deep when they're not. it's like me saying "energy creates matter, and my mind is energy, so my mind creates matter." i've equivocated on 'energy' there; i used the term in two radically different ways. because these guys are untrained in the area they don't engage in any deep conceptual analysis of the concepts in question and, hence, don't even recognize when such equivocations occur. and they are prone to tons of similar errors.
they never even get off the ground.
I am in agreement with your points....By the way, what are the qualifications of the ones in that video? FIGGS? Do you know?
Another question, how do different facets of science make it into being accepted material for universities? Is it at the leisure of the professor to a certain extent? What qualifications does a fact of science have to pass in order to be suitable for a classroom?
M theory is one of the newest discussed ideas in science...Is it even studied in universities at the student level? If what is studied as to be completely accepted by mainstream academics, does it limit students?
-
I am in agreement with your points....By the way, what are the qualifications of the ones in that video? FIGGS? Do you know?
Another question, how do different facets of science make it into being accepted material for universities? Is it at the leisure of the professor to a certain extent? What qualifications does a fact of science have to pass in order to be suitable for a classroom?
M theory is one of the newest discussed ideas in science...Is it even studied in universities at the student level? If what is studied as to be completely accepted by mainstream academics, does it limit students?
I believe that we're all sort of conduits to infinite consciousness with infinite creative capabilities. Such a thing, just as consciousness itself, can not be measured in a laboratory and defined to the satisfaction of scientists. With that said, I think anyone should be able to have a good idea to contribute to the improvement of society and nature. However, scientists won't allow such an idea to trample all over their precious, prize-awarded, degree-decorated egos. What nonsense to claim that someone might have a genuinely good idea, perhaps even better than one who dedicated his entire life to proving that he's the best in what he does!
I think the system sucks. I detest the idea of needing a philosophy degree to be able to share ideas and discuss philosophy. I get a damn good education in the library and on the internet. But, like I said, I do happen to be taking philosophy right now. I would also add that I learn more at home in one day than I do in an entire month of philosophy class. Maybe my college just sucks...
I don't know the education or credentials of those I mentioned earlier but I don't doubt they'd be impressive. That's something a wiki search could answer better than I.
-
I believe that we're all sort of conduits to infinite consciousness with infinite creative capabilities. Such a thing, just as consciousness itself, can not be measured in a laboratory and defined to the satisfaction of scientists. With that said, I think anyone should be able to have a good idea to contribute to the improvement of society and nature. However, scientists won't allow such an idea to trample all over their precious, prize-awarded, degree-decorated egos. What nonsense to claim that someone might have a genuinely good idea, perhaps even better than one who dedicated his entire life to proving that he's the best in what he does!
I think the system sucks. I detest the idea of needing a philosophy degree to be able to share ideas and discuss philosophy. I get a damn good education in the library and on the internet. But, like I said, I do happen to be taking philosophy right now. I would also add that I learn more at home in one day than I do in an entire month of philosophy class. Maybe my college just sucks...
I don't know the education or credentials of those I mentioned earlier but I don't doubt they'd be impressive. That's something a wiki search could answer better than I.
scientists are ego driven poor souls they are
-
figgs and bebop:
both you guys are hung up on this idea that the authority of those who put the time in studying this stuff is illegitimate, and anyone should be able to contribute whatever they want with equal authority. but that's just asinine. if some kid in his trig class in high school decided to tell a real mathematician "move over and let ME show you how to really solve this differential equation!" i'm hoping you would agree that's absurd. it's the same as if some 150 pound guy bouncing the bar off his chest on bench and keeping his arms bent and using his back to curl came up to a 250 pound bodybuilder and said "i'll show you how this shit is done!" or if a guy with a textbook on human physiology decided that his opinion was better than an m.d.'s. i'm assuming you guys are with me in thinking that those people simply would not be qualified to address the issues no matter what they thought of themselves. moreover, it's no surprise that they might think such things considering they don't even know enough to understand what they don't understand! it simply takes a certain amount of study to even get the concepts being discussed.
well, why would anyone think that the most difficult questions of all time, namely "what is the nature of the world," would be any different? why would that kind of question, seemingly much more difficult, be thought to be the kind of thing that anyone could answer? it isn't. in the same way that you have to study any subject to some degree just to get to the point where you understand just how much you don't understand you have to study a lot of philosophy to understand the ideas being discussed in philosophy. you can't just walk in off the street and start throwing around terms because you won't even know what those terms mean. you simply haven't put in the time to get what the questions even are.
let me ground this for you guys in some real examples. in figgs' post where he listed a bunch of people whose ideas he said dovetailed with his, he named some guys who thought that psychedelics would "open up your mind" or "expand your consciousness." well, what does that even mean, and why would anyone think such a thing? how would it work? if your mind is just your brain, then it's no surprise that changing the chemical makeup of your brain would change your perception of things. but then there is no reason to think that you're getting to anything good or "expanding" anything. that's because, if we're just talking about your brain and nothing beyond it, it looks like your brain is the kind of thing that evolved for a specific purpose, that likely being cashed out as something like allowing us to navigate the world successfully. but then we wouldn't think we were getting something better when we radically changed the makeup of our brain. we would be much more likely to think we were screwing it up. it's just like you can make a car work differently by dumping metal shards in the oil. certainly the behavior of the car would change, but we have no reason to think that's "better" or "expanded." in the same way, if our mind is just our brain, and our brain is the result of evolutionary pressures whereby those individuals who navigated the world more successfully were the ones who stuck around to produce fertile offspring, then we probably don't want to screw that up by altering it dramatically as it seems very fine-tuned to its job, and we are clearly making it work differently by taking psychedelic drugs.
however, you might think that your mind is more than just the crap in your head, that it's more than your mere brain. but then you have to ask yourself how it is that altering your brain alters your mind. what is it that is being changed if not your brain? and if the non-physical part of the mind is affected by the psychedelic drugs, how is that working? do the drugs have magical powers? what is the causal relationship between the magic powers of the chemical substance and the effects they produce? more, why would we think that the "trip" one takes is any better, is "expanded" in some positive sense?
it doesn't look like the guys talking about psychedelics really address those kinds of issues, and those are the most basic in terms of studying mind. i mean, that's the absolute bottom level. you can't go anywhere before you get a handle on those kinds of issues, and they don't even address them. they just say a bunch of words that make up sentences that, while syntactically correct, are meaningless. what the hell is the energy of your mind or consciousness? i mean, i know what energy is in physics, but that's not what is being discussed, because energy doesn't have will, direction, or purpose. energy is just a scalar physical quantity. but that's not the kind of thing people mean when they talk about the mind's "energy." there it takes on some spooky properties. but then there's this constant equivocation in the meanings where people attempt to take "energy" in the spooky sense and use the theoretical language of physics to get out stuff that is empty of any genuine content. you can't use the law of conservation of energy to talk about spooky stuff. you're equivocating on the meaning of "energy," and when you do that you aren't say anything at all.
-
scientists are ego driven poor souls they are
why would you think that? a lot of scientists really like being wrong (being wrong lets you know one more way things aren't, and that's a big step in getting how things are) and have no desire for fame. seriously, how many famous scientists are there? if they were really so hung up on ego wouldn't they choose a profession that would garner them more notice?
what would make you even think such a thing? what evidence is there for your position?
-
the people that put out these videos are not sending out a hateful all knowing message
but a message that you can understand and make sense of take it or leave it or be an asshole and not even listen to a single true word said.
scientists havent done shit in years
except come up with new drugs to get people hooked on
-
scientists havent done shit in years
except come up with new drugs to get people hooked on
ok. my bad. i didn't get the joke.
-
Hey zarathustra! Where do you teach philosophy at? Where did you go to grad school?
I'm asumming you have a little continenetal philosophy knowledge judging by your name. Or at least some Neitzsche appreciation?
I'm looking at applying to grad school soon. Any recommendations for philosophy of mathematics? Or logic?
-
figgs and bebop:
both you guys are hung up on this idea that the authority of those who put the time in studying this stuff is illegitimate, and anyone should be able to contribute whatever they want with equal authority. but that's just asinine. if some kid in his trig class in high school decided to tell a real mathematician "move over and let ME show you how to really solve this differential equation!" i'm hoping you would agree that's absurd. it's the same as if some 150 pound guy bouncing the bar off his chest on bench and keeping his arms bent and using his back to curl came up to a 250 pound bodybuilder and said "i'll show you how this shit is done!" or if a guy with a textbook on human physiology decided that his opinion was better than an m.d.'s. i'm assuming you guys are with me in thinking that those people simply would not be qualified to address the issues no matter what they thought of themselves. moreover, it's no surprise that they might think such things considering they don't even know enough to understand what they don't understand! it simply takes a certain amount of study to even get the concepts being discussed.
well, why would anyone think that the most difficult questions of all time, namely "what is the nature of the world," would be any different? why would that kind of question, seemingly much more difficult, be thought to be the kind of thing that anyone could answer? it isn't. in the same way that you have to study any subject to some degree just to get to the point where you understand just how much you don't understand you have to study a lot of philosophy to understand the ideas being discussed in philosophy. you can't just walk in off the street and start throwing around terms because you won't even know what those terms mean. you simply haven't put in the time to get what the questions even are.
let me ground this for you guys in some real examples. in figgs' post where he listed a bunch of people whose ideas he said dovetailed with his, he named some guys who thought that psychedelics would "open up your mind" or "expand your consciousness." well, what does that even mean, and why would anyone think such a thing? how would it work? if your mind is just your brain, then it's no surprise that changing the chemical makeup of your brain would change your perception of things. but then there is no reason to think that you're getting to anything good or "expanding" anything. that's because, if we're just talking about your brain and nothing beyond it, it looks like your brain is the kind of thing that evolved for a specific purpose, that likely being cashed out as something like allowing us to navigate the world successfully. but then we wouldn't think we were getting something better when we radically changed the makeup of our brain. we would be much more likely to think we were screwing it up. it's just like you can make a car work differently by dumping metal shards in the oil. certainly the behavior of the car would change, but we have no reason to think that's "better" or "expanded." in the same way, if our mind is just our brain, and our brain is the result of evolutionary pressures whereby those individuals who navigated the world more successfully were the ones who stuck around to produce fertile offspring, then we probably don't want to screw that up by altering it dramatically as it seems very fine-tuned to its job, and we are clearly making it work differently by taking psychedelic drugs.
however, you might think that your mind is more than just the crap in your head, that it's more than your mere brain. but then you have to ask yourself how it is that altering your brain alters your mind. what is it that is being changed if not your brain? and if the non-physical part of the mind is affected by the psychedelic drugs, how is that working? do the drugs have magical powers? what is the causal relationship between the magic powers of the chemical substance and the effects they produce? more, why would we think that the "trip" one takes is any better, is "expanded" in some positive sense?
it doesn't look like the guys talking about psychedelics really address those kinds of issues, and those are the most basic in terms of studying mind. i mean, that's the absolute bottom level. you can't go anywhere before you get a handle on those kinds of issues, and they don't even address them. they just say a bunch of words that make up sentences that, while syntactically correct, are meaningless. what the hell is the energy of your mind or consciousness? i mean, i know what energy is in physics, but that's not what is being discussed, because energy doesn't have will, direction, or purpose. energy is just a scalar physical quantity. but that's not the kind of thing people mean when they talk about the mind's "energy." there it takes on some spooky properties. but then there's this constant equivocation in the meanings where people attempt to take "energy" in the spooky sense and use the theoretical language of physics to get out stuff that is empty of any genuine content. you can't use the law of conservation of energy to talk about spooky stuff. you're equivocating on the meaning of "energy," and when you do that you aren't say anything at all.
Psychedelics are scientific tools, if you like, just as the microscope alters your vision of material reality, psychedelics open your mind to experiencing the world in new ways.
It's clear that you never took any kind of psychedelic drugs because if you have you wouldn't be so skeptical about whether or not they are just perterbing brain chemistry and nothing else. There's a difference in measuring things based on observation and actual experience itself. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that if you smoked a heap of DMT and experienced extra-dimensional realities and came in contact with extra-dimensional beings, you would come back and say "My God! That was more real than what I've always thought was real! Shit! Now I gotta rethink everything I thought I knew was real!"
-
but then you have to ask yourself how it is that altering your brain alters your mind. what is it that is being changed if not your brain? and if the non-physical part of the mind is affected by the psychedelic drugs, how is that working? do the drugs have magical powers? what is the causal relationship between the magic powers of the chemical substance and the effects they produce?
Well, how can the "mind" alter the brain chemistry and structure for instance by behavioral cognitive psychotherapy respectively long term depression? Does the mind have magical powers? How does this exactly work? And as John C. Eccles liked to point out: How can people with most severe brain injuries still show full cognitive functioning?
I agree with the need of the most basic philosophical questions you are asking. And yes, the term "consciousness" is still a huge problem. But given the current status of affairs you need to dismiss all positions as metaphysically biased. And where do you go from there on your own search for answers? The philosophia perennis, which most of those "second rate scientists" refer to, seems to be a good start.
BTW: Bob Chick, what is the IFBB position on this? I am also wondering, if that is covered in the rule book or in the conduct code..
-
Im not in politics or head of a christian broadcasting network but being that i am a prick, ive decided on telling Pat Robertson that there is no God....
-
Well, how can the "mind" alter the brain chemistry and structure for instance by behavioral cognitive psychotherapy respectively long term depression?
good question if the mind is more than the brain. that's definitely a challenge for any dualist out there. if it is just the brain then there's nothing strange at all as it isn't some spooky mental state that merely correlates to a change in a brain state. rather, the change in brain state just is the change in the brain state. the fact that both change at the same time isn't mysterious at all as they are the same thing, they are numerically identical.
And as John C. Eccles liked to point out: How can people with most severe brain injuries still show full cognitive functioning?
that is simply untrue.
-
Johhny, Can you blame them for getting hooked onto drugs that will save their lives?
-
Psychedelics are scientific tools, if you like, just as the microscope alters your vision of material reality, psychedelics open your mind to experiencing the world in new ways.
It's clear that you never took any kind of psychedelic drugs because if you have you wouldn't be so skeptical about whether or not they are just perterbing brain chemistry and nothing else. There's a difference in measuring things based on observation and actual experience itself. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that if you smoked a heap of DMT and experienced extra-dimensional realities and came in contact with extra-dimensional beings, you would come back and say "My God! That was more real than what I've always thought was real! Shit! Now I gotta rethink everything I thought I knew!"
you're quite right that i've never done any psychedelic drug, but that is irrelevant to the point. why would i think that causing my brain to misfire would open myself up to anything of any value? again, i can change all sorts of things without that being characterized as anything positive. i can screw up my tv by putting a magnet next to, changing all the colors, but that doesn't mean that i've done anything positive or gotten anything relevant out of the change. even if i think the colors are really pretty, what i've done is screw up the device, not make it show me anything better or expand its capability. i fucked it up.
more than that, why would the misfires of my brain make me think that those misfires are something more than a change in brain chemistry, especially since i know i am changing the brain chemistry? why would any skepticism i have about such merely being the case be altered simply because i screwed with my brain and experienced something really weird? i would have to have some prior commitment to my mind being something other than my brain to buy that, and that would necessitate some explanation as to how it is that my non-physical mind is altered by a change in physical properties. that's exactly what those guys didn't even think about because they didn't know anything about the subject, and it's something you haven't addressed. get it?
-
Hey zarathustra! Where do you teach philosophy at? Where did you go to grad school?
I'm asumming you have a little continenetal philosophy knowledge judging by your name. Or at least some Neitzsche appreciation?
I'm looking at applying to grad school soon. Any recommendations for philosophy of mathematics? Or logic?
i'm at tulane. i'm abd here.
sure, i've done some continental philosophy, and there's quite a bit i like about nietzsche.
i have no idea what a good place for phil of math or logic would be. good luck, though.
-
i'm at tulane. i'm abd here.
sure, i've done some continental philosophy, and there's quite a bit i like about nietzsche.
i have no idea what a good place for phil of math or logic would be. good luck, though.
Thanks, man. What are you doing your dissertation on?
-
Thanks, man. What are you doing your dissertation on?
an analysis of the distinction between perception and sensation in a dretskean fashion, an explanation of the content of sensation in terms of its non-conceptual nature, and what the distinction means for any hope for hard-core realism. in a nutshell.
-
Sounds pretty cool. Good luck! I don't know CRAP about about phil of mind, though. I've read a little of Daniel Dinnett's book "Consciousness Explained." That's about it. My school has really weak options in phil of mind.
though it's cool to have you on the boards, man. As you can see, there is a lacking of philosophical arguments.
-
Quote
And as John C. Eccles liked to point out: How can people with most severe brain injuries still show full cognitive functioning?
that is simply untrue.
::) I did not say that every person with severe brain injury shows full cognitive functioning, but there are cases. You can get started with reading Pribram or Eccles, for instance:
http://www.amazon.com/Facing-reality-philosophical-adventures-Heidelberg/dp/0582445175/ref=sr_1_29?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203583518&sr=8-29 (http://www.amazon.com/Facing-reality-philosophical-adventures-Heidelberg/dp/0582445175/ref=sr_1_29?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203583518&sr=8-29)
i would have to have some prior commitment to my mind being something other than my brain to buy that, and that would necessitate some explanation as to how it is that my non-physical mind is altered by a change in physical properties.
And you still didn't get my point. You keep saying brain = mind, which is a metaphysical bias.
I could argue the same way by saying I don't accept the reality of my ordinary state of consciousness, as it also just a case of neurons misfiring, which I was culturally conditioned to. Your point of view would necessitate some explanation as to how my non-physical mind can significantly alter my physical brain and moreover random generators as in the experiments of Dean Radin.
In other words you are requiring a commitment - which I completely support - that neither modern neuroscience nor philosophy satisfactorilly fulfilled.
-
He's talking to a audience of golf balls, so what's the point?
-
::) I did not say that every person with severe brain injury shows full cognitive functioning, but there are cases. You can get started with reading Pribram or Eccles, for instance:
http://www.amazon.com/Facing-reality-philosophical-adventures-Heidelberg/dp/0582445175/ref=sr_1_29?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203583518&sr=8-29 (http://www.amazon.com/Facing-reality-philosophical-adventures-Heidelberg/dp/0582445175/ref=sr_1_29?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203583518&sr=8-29)
i'm quite aware of who eccles is. that does not change that we have no reason to think that full cognitive functioning is preserved in the face of dramatic alteration to the brain. sure, there's some degree of neural plasticity, and such decreases rapidly as one matures, but none of that suggests that the mind is anything other than the brain.
eccles data has been combed over by tons of people, and yet virtually no one comes up with the conclusion that eccles did, that the mind has some dualistic aspect in terms of substance. moreover, it is clear to anyone who has read his work on the mind-body issue that his views are the result of his religious beliefs. he already thought he knew the "answer" before he ever looked at what was going on, and that's a terrible way of getting things right. that's bias. of course, none of that changes his incredible work in neurophysiology.
And you still didn't get my point. You keep saying brain = mind, which is a metaphysical bias.
I could argue the same way by saying I don't accept the reality of my ordinary state of consciousness, as it also just a case of neurons ,misfiring, which I was culturally conditioned to. Your point of view would necessitate some explanation as to how my non-physical mind can significantly alter my physical brain and moreover random generators as in the experiments of Dean Radin.
In other words you are requiring a commitment - which I completely support - that neither modern neuroscience nor philosophy satisfactorilly fulfilled.
i wasn't endorsing any particular view. i was saying that the stuff in the beginning of this thread was silliness, and the people putting it out there weren't even trained enough in the study of mind to recognize the kinds of issues that need to be addressed. in the same way that you don't even know what to look for when someone turns up ill if you have no medical training, you just don't even know what issues are pertinent, what must be addressed in order to get the rest of your argument off the ground, if you don't know jack about the subject.
that said, we have good reason to think that the mind is just the brain. such a theory has deep explanatory power and amazing predictive force. could that be wrong? sure. but we have no reason to think so at all. the fact that some experiments give strange results doesn't change that. in fact, you would have to have some very, very strong bias that the mind is something other than the brain in order to get that out of the experiments you're addressing. the fact is that we don't understand all the workings of the brain. that's why there is so much work being done on it right now, and the field is early in its infancy. but history has taught us that constantly looking for gaps in which to find Mystery (the capitalization is purposeful) fails us over and over. what we repeatedly find is that the Mysteries were, in fact, mere mysteries, and the explanation turns out to be physical in nature and not something spooky. since this has always been the case in the past it would seem sensible that, at some point, that would just become the default position. and yet...
we are so desperate to be special.