Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Sure, but you still need to make the decision in the first place, right?

I'm not disagreeing with you that meditation requires no supernatural explanation and is not a non-phenomenon or uncaused, and the process of it can be accounted for in terms of brain behavior, which is what Eric was objecting to; I was just pointing out that will and choice remain mysteries.

I know what Eric was objecting to.

As to the will, I'm not sure as to what you mean. Do you mean the conscious act of say "I want X, so I'm going to do Y to get X" or do you mean something different?

As to choice that is not much of a mystery. Material reality presents us with a set of parameters, including socially accepted behaviors. Choices are usually and rationally taken on a loop of 1. is this the easiest way to get what I want; 2. Is this the socially accepted way to get what I want; 3. If this is not a socially accepted way to get what I want is what I want worth any penalties should I get caught; 4. Even if I do not get caught and have no penalties will I be able to live with myself if I do it.

I'm sure there are more steps and nuances. But choices can be explained through a materialist outlook and are hardly a mystery.

As to the meditative technique I described the will and the choice dynamic at play begins and ends at deciding to "not think". The closest "mystical" method I can compare it to is Taoist Zuowang. Sometimes called "sitting in oblivion".

Originally Posted by Kinser79

As to the will, I'm not sure as to what you mean. Do you mean the conscious act of say "I want X, so I'm going to do Y to get X" or do you mean something different?

That. Choosing consciously among various options.

As to choice that is not much of a mystery. Material reality presents us with a set of parameters, including socially accepted behaviors. Choices are usually and rationally taken on a loop of 1. is this the easiest way to get what I want; 2. Is this the socially accepted way to get what I want; 3. If this is not a socially accepted way to get what I want is what I want worth any penalties should I get caught; 4. Even if I do not get caught and have no penalties will I be able to live with myself if I do it.

The mystery does not lie in how our brains process information that feeds into making a decision. The mystery lies in 1) the fact that there is any "I" involved in this at all -- any subjective sense of self, or for that matter any subjective sense of anything, which remains completely inexplicable; and 2) the question of whether we are really making a decision with multiple options or if that's an illusion, and the choice is really predetermined exactly by a combination of genetic predisposition and learned behavior.

Particularly the first of those.

I would say the "I" there is human consciousness itself which is a non-phenomena. It is inexplicable because it simply cannot be explained without getting into easily debunked woo-woo.

As to the decision making process I'd say that decisions and the process of making decisions is based primarily on material conditions...learned behavior is a material condition.

As to real decisions or illusory decisions it depends. A choice between Democrat Candidate X and Republican Candidate Y is an illusion of choice. At the end of the day they are bought and paid for by their masters. But the decision between say an egg McMuffin or the egg sandwich at the coffee shop on the corner is a real choice each with ramifications, conditions, and consequences.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would say the "I" there is human consciousness itself which is a non-phenomena. It is inexplicable because it simply cannot be explained without getting into easily debunked woo-woo.

Well, the easily-debunked woo-woo amounts to being unable to accept that consciousness has no discrete cause, and so positing a discrete non-material cause because a discrete material cause can't be identified. The equal and opposite error is to close our minds to the mystery that it represents, though.

But the decision between say an egg McMuffin or the egg sandwich at the coffee shop on the corner is a real choice each with ramifications, conditions, and consequences.

Sure, but what I mean is that some psychologists (or maybe philosophers of psychology) think that which one we will choose is predetermined, that we have no free will but our behavior is robotically dictated by a combination of genetic predisposition and "learning" in the sense of classical and operant conditioning.

I have difficulty accepting that choices are predetermined, whether by genetics or by learned behavior. What I'm pointing out is the range of options in a choice are determined by material conditions which include learned behavior and genetics.

For example, lets say I'm hungry. Now I have several options. I can not eat; usually because the material conditions are that there is no food available, but another reason is that there is food available but I choose not to eat it because of a learned behavior. For example the foods available are not Kosher foods. I can eat; usually because the material conditions are that there is food available. Or finally I can eat, but I must expropriate the food. For example I can't buy food at the grocery store because I have no money so instead I shop lift the food.

My argumentation is not that the choices themselves are determined, but rather that the range of options available in a multiple choice decision is limited by the material conditions. In the case of food I would say genetics only come into play with regard to allergens. For example an allergy to tree nuts is probably genetic, but I've not heard of anyone being allergic to meat. Even so, someone who is allergic to say tree nuts could still eat something containing tree nuts--they will just have an allergic reaction because they did.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I see that as usual you have no idea what you are talking about and must form a means of contradicting me out of a need to defend idealism and woo-woo.

A mental defrag does not require free will, or decision making. In fact the point of mental defraging is to not think at all, to not feel at all. The only messages your brain sending and receiving being totally and wholly related to one's own biological processes.

It literally is "thinking about nothing". Because one's brain does not require rational or emotional thought to maintain homeostasis within the body.

You have quite a bit or nerve to claim you know more than I do about this stuff. You are so quite obviously ignorant that you should just quit.

In any case, yes it does require a decision in order to meditate. The brain will not do it on its own. Focusing is a spiritual act, not a physical reaction. It is the opposite of that. Meditation is not "thinking about nothing." It is not thinking. It has nothing to do with homeostasis, and it can take you beyond the body entirely if you are so inclined or practiced in that quest. Or at least it can take you beyond identifying yourself with your body.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

The above is a deflection of the original criticism.

And...

Plonk!

You didn't write a sentence. Calling those words verbs when there is in fact no action in the statement is ridiculous. But, go ahead. Pretend your first grade grammar is somehow proving some sort of point.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, the easily-debunked woo-woo amounts to being unable to accept that consciousness has no discrete cause, and so positing a discrete non-material cause because a discrete material cause can't be identified. The equal and opposite error is to close our minds to the mystery that it represents, though.

I would say that I do disagree that our will and decision or meditation is a "caused phenomena." But I would not accept the idea of a "discreet non-material cause" (although Brian will say I do), because there are no such things as discreet entities, except in some relative sense. A lot of these kinds of disagreements are about preferred language. To me words like soul and spirit are good descriptive terms. But like any term in our language, it is a symbol that stands for the reality, not the reality itself; a map and not a territory.

So while I may speak about a "non-material soul that causes things," in my worldview there are no discreet souls, because there are no discreet anythings, and there is only one cause in the universe. There are no things, whether they are spiritual or physical things. A thing is a think; it's a way of talking, especially that involves our human ability to control and manipulate. There are no souls that are discreet; only (as it were) holograms of the one spirit, which is another way of saying the one being. There are no material things either; just degrees of consciousness. There is only one cause, and that is the universe or divine. Science describes how some events follow upon others, but it can't really affix a "cause" or explanation of anything, because there is only one cause and only one power. So it is with the brain; science can't explain what our brains do; only describe in chemical/physical language how some events follow upon other events. Any event experienced while incarnate in a body can be described in physical terms, but that does not mean you have explained these events, or can call them physical events.

Sure, but what I mean is that some psychologists (or maybe philosophers of psychology) think that which one we will choose is predetermined, that we have no free will but our behavior is robotically dictated by a combination of genetic predisposition and "learning" in the sense of classical and operant conditioning.

Right. Kinser tries to be a materialist, and yet insist on his ability to make choices. In reality you can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't have it both ways. Materialism is determinism; free will and choice cannot be explained in material terms.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You have quite a bit or nerve to claim you know more than I do about this stuff.

Actually it takes very little nerve to make the claim that I, or for that matter anyone else, know more about these matters than you do Eric. I suppose next you'll try to bring an argument against water being wet?

You are so quite obviously ignorant that you should just quit.

I'd rather not. It makes you upset and I can occasionally pick Brian's brain, watch Vandal argue amongst other things. The entertainment value for me is too great to quit.

In any case, yes it does require a decision in order to meditate. The brain will not do it on its own. Focusing is a spiritual act, not a physical reaction.

If you mean mediation in the sense of prayer or other such "spiritual" practices yes it requires a conscious decision. That said it is in fact a physical act, as all things in the human body from digestion to contemplating the meaning of life are physical. Humans cannot separate themselves from their physical selfs. Well they can I suppose if one is practitioner of various forms of woo-woo, but we call such people dead.

It is the opposite of that. Meditation is not "thinking about nothing." It is not thinking.

I take it you have not studied Taoism at all then. So much for Kinser being more ignorant than Eric I guess.

It has nothing to do with homeostasis, and it can take you beyond the body entirely if you are so inclined or practiced in that quest. Or at least it can take you beyond identifying yourself with your body.

As to homeostasis--the bodily processes are not subject to conscious thought. The body will maintain or attempt to maintain homeostasis in a person who is a vegetable. And they clearly display none of the behaviors associated with consciousness.

As to meditation separating one's consciousness from their body--that is impossible. Even if one does believe in woo-woo every system of woo-woo maintains that the body is the seat of consciousness--that is to say the body is a vessel. Without its container consciousness evaporates into the either of non-phenomena from which it arises.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

As to meditation separating one's consciousness from their body--that is impossible.

That depends on what you mean by the phrase. In a sense it's impossible, because the very fact that one remembers an experience requires the involvement of the brain, so at some point in the process consciousness must be bodily. (This by the way is the conclusive argument against the NDE as evidence of post-mortem survival.)

In another sense, though, I would suggest that we can separate consciousness from the body quite easily, and it doesn't require anything particularly woo-woo. All it takes is imagination.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That depends on what you mean by the phrase. In a sense it's impossible, because the very fact that one remembers an experience requires the involvement of the brain, so at some point in the process consciousness must be bodily. (This by the way is the conclusive argument against the NDE as evidence of post-mortem survival.)

In another sense, though, I would suggest that we can separate consciousness from the body quite easily, and it doesn't require anything particularly woo-woo. All it takes is imagination.

I would posit that the conscious act of imagining a separation of one's consciousness from their body is also a function of the body. Humans can create fantasy very easily. It is a matter of firing the right synapses. I believe since you're a fantasy author you know just how easy it can be to imagine things (though writing a novel about them is more difficult).

What I mean by consciousness cannot be separated from one's body is that the subjective experience of being Brian, or Kinser for that matter, is related directly to the physical body.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Actually it takes very little nerve to make the claim that I, or for that matter anyone else, know more about these matters than you do Eric. I suppose next you'll try to bring an argument against water being wet?

No, I'd be all wet if I did that. But maybe you might.

If you mean mediation in the sense of prayer or other such "spiritual" practices yes it requires a conscious decision. That said it is in fact a physical act, as all things in the human body from digestion to contemplating the meaning of life are physical. Humans cannot separate themselves from their physical selfs. Well they can I suppose if one is practitioner of various forms of woo-woo, but we call such people dead.

I dunno about mediation; I suppose we could use some. But it would take a willing partner, which you are not.

But meditation is a spiritual practice, yes. As I said, anything you do in the body can be measured and described to that extent. But we go beyond our bodies (even our bodies go beyond our bodies; we don't exist in isolation even for a second or a millisecond), and people who practice woo-ooo are not necessarily dead. But I suppose you'll be dead before you discover that Eric was right about this stuff after all.

I take it you have not studied Taoism at all then. So much for Kinser being more ignorant than Eric I guess.

Nope, you're still ignorant. You showed that by claiming that meditation is a form of thinking. Heck, you can't even spell the word right.

As to homeostasis--the bodily processes are not subject to conscious thought. The body will maintain or attempt to maintain homeostasis in a person who is a vegetable. And they clearly display none of the behaviors associated with consciousness.

Vegetables are conscious too. Why do you put down veggies?

Homeostatis happens whether you meditate or not; it has no relevance to the subject.

As to meditation separating one's consciousness from their body--that is impossible. Even if one does believe in woo-woo every system of woo-woo maintains that the body is the seat of consciousness--that is to say the body is a vessel. Without its container consciousness evaporates into the either of non-phenomena from which it arises.

No it doesn't; and there's plenty of evidence otherwise. I'll leave that for you to find out for yourself someday. I wish that you find out before death. But you won't believe me so it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That depends on what you mean by the phrase. In a sense it's impossible, because the very fact that one remembers an experience requires the involvement of the brain, so at some point in the process consciousness must be bodily. (This by the way is the conclusive argument against the NDE as evidence of post-mortem survival.)

That's kind of a neat trick logically. From where we sit, the only reports we have of NDEs are people who have come back into their bodies, and at that point, their brains are working, so the memory is now in their brain.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But meditation is a spiritual practice, yes.

Hardly. It does not require a spiritual person to meditate. Are spiritual people more likely to meditate? Maybe. But spirituality or religion are not requirements to perform the act of meditating which is a physical act. Your brain physically meditates whether there is or is not a spiritual component involved.

As I said, anything you do in the body can be measured and described to that extent. But we go beyond our bodies (even our bodies go beyond our bodies; we don't exist in isolation even for a second or a millisecond), and people who practice woo-ooo are not necessarily dead. But I suppose you'll be dead before you discover that Eric was right about this stuff after all.

No Eric, I won't discover that you "are right about this stuff after all" after I expire. You know why? BECAUSE I'LL BE DEAD. I will have gone from existing to not existing. There is no after life. And in fact given what many people have said about such things--I'm glad there isn't.

Also the state of people's brains while meditating can be measured. Brain activity does not cease during meditation. Though it is possible to cease conscious thought and feelings while meditating.

Nope, you're still ignorant. You showed that by claiming that meditation is a form of thinking. Heck, you can't even spell the word right.

Oh noes!!! Kinser's spell checker did not pick up on the fact that he was using a word of similar spelling with a different meaning! Seriously is that the best you got? Can't argue my points so you must argue the fact that I used a different word which is in fact spelled correctly?

Vegetables are conscious too. Why do you put down veggies?

Vegetables to my knowledge are not conscious. Vandal has already made his case against this stupid idea of yours. I do not feel the need to restate the same position though perhaps less articulately.

Homeostatis happens whether you meditate or not; it has no relevance to the subject.

It is also not a conscious thought. If the goal of one's practice of meditation is to "sit in oblivion" to be conscious of nothing the fact that heart beat, breathing, and other functions continue is irrelevant.

Also it is spelled homeostasis. Its called a spell checker, use it. I personally recommend Firefox's American English dictionary.

No it doesn't; and there's plenty of evidence otherwise.

I'd be interested in reading those scientific abstracts which support whatever woo-woo nonsense you've cooked up this time. I won't hold my breath though.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Hardly. It does not require a spiritual person to meditate. Are spiritual people more likely to meditate? Maybe. But spirituality or religion are not requirements to perform the act of meditating which is a physical act. Your brain physically meditates whether there is or is not a spiritual component involved.

If you think you can meditate without practicing, have at it and see how far you get.

Your brain cannot meditate; you have to meditate. It's true though it doesn't matter what you think or believe about it; you just do it. But most people who do it change their view of the world away from your philosophy. That is simply because it enables people to see reality more clearly beyond all the chatter and restlessness.

No Eric, I won't discover that you "are right about this stuff after all" after I expire. You know why? BECAUSE I'LL BE DEAD. I will have gone from existing to not existing. There is no after life. And in fact given what many people have said about such things--I'm glad there isn't.

You won't know what you discover when you're dead until you're dead, so pretending that you know is just stupid. But then, it's you I'm talking to....

Also the state of people's brains while meditating can be measured. Brain activity does not cease during meditation. Though it is possible to cease conscious thought and feelings while meditating.

Again, you prove you can't read. I never said anything different.

Oh noes!!! Kinser's spell checker did not pick up on the fact that he was using a word of similar spelling with a different meaning! Seriously is that the best you got? Can't argue my points so you must argue the fact that I used a different word which is in fact spelled correctly?

If you knew anything about meditation, you would not confuse it with conflict resolution. You evidently do, since you are now defending your use of the wrong word.

Vegetables to my knowledge are not conscious. Vandal has already made his case against this stupid idea of yours. I do not feel the need to restate the same position though perhaps less articulately.

Precisely, to your knowledge. You simply don't know. I won't respond to the vandal-troll's rantings, and you are extremely fortunate that I have nothing better to do than to respond to yours.

It is also not a conscious thought. If the goal of one's practice of meditation is to "sit in oblivion" to be conscious of nothing the fact that heart beat, breathing, and other functions continue is irrelevant.

Meditation is the opposite of what you say. It is more conscious than normal. And it doesn't matter if I mispelled homeostasis since it is not relevant to our discussion anyway.

I'd be interested in reading those scientific abstracts which support whatever woo-woo nonsense you've cooked up this time. I won't hold my breath though.

I already posted some in this very thread not long ago, and in earlier parts of it. But you never know when I might post more. Not tonight I'm too busy.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you think you can meditate without practicing, have at it and see how far you get.

Strangely I can meditate in the manner in which I have described without practicing in, nor believing in, anything remotely spiritual. I find "thinking about nothing" great stress relief.

Your brain cannot meditate; you have to meditate. It's true though it doesn't matter what you think or believe about it; you just do it. But most people who do it change their view of the world away from your philosophy. That is simply because it enables people to see reality more clearly beyond all the chatter and restlessness.

Not true. No person who does not have a brain has ever meditated. So it would be logical therefore that a brain is necessary for human meditation.

You won't know what you discover when you're dead until you're dead, so pretending that you know is just stupid. But then, it's you I'm talking to....

Right back at you. Unfortunately I do know what will happen to my body after I die. The non-phenomena, well if my meditations on the subject are correct my consciousness will return to the either of the uncaused from which it originated.

I strongly recommend listening to "Zero" by the Smashing Pumpkins. Good song. Meditate on it.

Again, you prove you can't read. I never said anything different.

Actually no you didn't. I've argued with you enough to know that you view consciousness as a phenomenon. As such consciousness leaving one's body should be measurable. What tools one would use I have no idea.

I on the other hand view consciousness as a non-phenomenon. It cannot be measured, it is beyond the purview of science.

If you knew anything about meditation, you would not confuse it with conflict resolution. You evidently do, since you are now defending your use of the wrong word.

If you knew anything about spell checkers you would know that they do not indicate correctly spelled words. Did I use the wrong word? Yes. Would I have detected it on the basis of not spelling it correctly? No.

As for defending using that word...well it is rather an explanation of an oversight than not understanding a concept. I've probably done that several times and everyone seemed to understand I meant MEDITATION.

Precisely, to your knowledge. You simply don't know.

And neither do you. When you have the subjective experience of being a vegetable...be sure to write a long paper about it. I would be interested in a cabbage's world view.

I won't respond to the vandal-troll's rantings, and you are extremely fortunate that I have nothing better to do than to respond to yours.

Why not Eric? Is Vandal too mean to you? Or is it perhaps because he is even better than myself at separating bullshit from everything else? Though that has more to do with greater experience than me. I usually don't involve myself in philosophical debates with non-materialists.

Meditation is the opposite of what you say. It is more conscious than normal.

In your mental practices perhaps. In mine, I described it as accurately as the English language allows.

And it doesn't matter if I mispelled homeostasis since it is not relevant to our discussion anyway.

It only matters when you make spelling an issue Eric, which you did.

I already posted some in this very thread not long ago, and in earlier parts of it. But you never know when I might post more. Not tonight I'm too busy.

Yeah I saw that. Not-Science. Next.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

No person who does not have a brain has ever meditated. So it would be logical therefore that a brain is necessary for human meditation.

What I said is that the brain does not meditate, not that people without brains meditate. But then, perhaps people on the other side do meditate. They have less thoughts to deal with though, not dealing with our brains.

Right back at you. Unfortunately I do know what will happen to my body after I die. The non-phenomena, well if my meditations on the subject are correct my consciousness will return to the either of the uncaused from which it originated.

Your meditations are not correct, because most people who meditate come to different conclusions. You do not know, but at least I am willing to look at the evidence about what happens after death with an open mind. Materialists are not; they just dismiss it because it conflicts with their cherished and stubbornly-held beliefs.

I strongly recommend listening to "Zero" by the Smashing Pumpkins. Good song. Meditate on it.

I doubt I would relate to that music. Most people here don't listen to the music I recommend. I will listen to what others recommend sometimes, but I feel no obligation, given the track record of folks here.

Actually no you didn't. I've argued with you enough to know that you view consciousness as a phenomenon. As such consciousness leaving one's body should be measurable. What tools one would use I have no idea.

I on the other hand view consciousness as a non-phenomenon. It cannot be measured, it is beyond the purview of science.

I have said what my views are on this. Consciousness is not limited to the physical body, as the senses and empirical science view it. But anything that happens in a physical body, as known to empirical science, can be described and measured. Beyond that, it is probably not measurable, but that does not mean there is no evidence. Testimony is one kind of evidence, and its effects are often testable too. Measurement itself, however, is inaccurate no matter what is measured. By its very nature it is limited and uncertain, however useful it may be to us. It's useful, but not an absolute truth.

Consciousness can never be put into a box and labelled as this or that, located anywhere, or numbered. It is not a number, it is freedom. But actually, in lesser degrees, that applies to anything, because everything is consciousness and there is nothing else. There are not two realms, phenomena or matter on the one hand and consciousness on the other. I disagree with Brian on that, and with you as well.

As for defending using that word...well it is rather an explanation of an oversight than not understanding a concept. I've probably done that several times and everyone seemed to understand I meant MEDITATION.

OK, I'm really just teasing you. Given your admitted low level of caring for your conversation with me, that is allowed in my book.

And neither do you. When you have the subjective experience of being a vegetable...be sure to write a long paper about it. I would be interested in a cabbage's world view.

Sure, I know, by several means. I know it on principle. I know it because I can observe consciousness without actually fully being the other being. I know because of the evidence of the life in plants that you dismiss. That's for a start.

Why not Eric? Is Vandal too mean to you? Or is it perhaps because he is even better than myself at separating bullshit from everything else? Though that has more to do with greater experience than me. I usually don't involve myself in philosophical debates with non-materialists.

He is a troll, yes he is mean, and normally I don't discuss other people's behavior on this forum in my posts. I gave up on him, and that's that. I don't do that very often, but there are a few others.

Philosophy gives you the understanding of all ideas used by science and by all kinds of knowledge. It trumps science.

In your mental practices perhaps. In mine, I described it as accurately as the English language allows.

Anyone who meditates correctly will increase consciousness, not decrease it. Meditation is concentrating on or being more aware of your being here, and your being here by definition = consciousness and vice-versa.

Yeah I saw that. Not-Science. Next.

You just dismiss the evidence, and that makes it simpler for you. Scientists were the ones referenced, and they did science.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What I said is that the brain does not meditate, not that people without brains meditate.

And yet every time a scientific study of people meditating is conducted, regardless the method they are using, brain activity is registered on the equipment used. There is a very strong indication that meditation is a brain activity.

But then, perhaps people on the other side do meditate.

Actually there is no other side.

They have less thoughts to deal with though, not dealing with our brains.

The dead have no thoughts to deal with because they are well dead.

Your meditations are not correct, because most people who meditate come to different conclusions.

Why? Because other people use different methods and come to different conclusions? Or because you don't agree with my conclusions so I therefore must be doing it wrong.

The funny thing is that I didn't start meditating for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment, rather the enlightenment that there is no spirit simply came to me while sitting in oblivion. Unfortunately the thought itself destroyed my state of oblivion.

You do not know, but at least I am willing to look at the evidence about what happens after death with an open mind. Materialists are not; they just dismiss it because it conflicts with their cherished and stubbornly-held beliefs.

I've looked at all the evidence that I needed to by observing my grandfather and grandmother after they expired. They went from being conscious to not being conscious. Death is the termination of consciousness. That is the evidence Eric, you don't want to believe it because that conflicts with your cherished and stubbornly-held woo-woo.

I doubt I would relate to that music. Most people here don't listen to the music I recommend. I will listen to what others recommend sometimes, but I feel no obligation, given the track record of folks here.

Well its definitely 3T music so you may not like it. And you do like Bieber so your tastes are suspect.

I merely recommended it because it is something to meditate on. I've discussed the song with other Xers and heard about as many different meanings for the song from "its a love song" to "its about depression" to "its about cocaine". I have my own views about the song which are deeper than that though. It is a song about the emptiness of religion (and spirituality for that matter).

I have said what my views are on this. Consciousness is not limited to the physical body, as the senses and empirical science view it. But anything that happens in a physical body, as known to empirical science, can be described and measured. Beyond that, it is probably not measurable, but that does not mean there is no evidence. Testimony is one kind of evidence, and its effects are often testable too. Measurement itself, however, is inaccurate no matter what is measured. By its very nature it is limited and uncertain, however useful it may be to us. It's useful, but not an absolute truth.

The problem with your view is you still view consciousness as a phenomena instead of a non-phenomena.

Consciousness can never be put into a box and labelled as this or that, located anywhere, or numbered. It is not a number, it is freedom. But actually, in lesser degrees, that applies to anything, because everything is consciousness and there is nothing else. There are not two realms, phenomena or matter on the one hand and consciousness on the other. I disagree with Brian on that, and with you as well.

I would counter that consciousness cannot be put into a box, labeled as this or that, located or numbered because it is a non-phenomena. It is beyond the purview of science to explain the subjective experience of consciousness.

Science, however, can explain how the brain works and consciousness seems to originate in the brain. The how can probably be answered by science--the why not so much. Then again science deals in hows and not whys.

OK, I'm really just teasing you. Given your admitted low level of caring for your conversation with me, that is allowed in my book.

Whatever.

Sure, I know, by several means. I know it on principle. I know it because I can observe consciousness without actually fully being the other being. I know because of the evidence of the life in plants that you dismiss. That's for a start.

Bullshit. Consciousness is the subjective experience of living. You can observe that I am living, you can observe behavior associated with consciousness but you cannot observe consciousness itself. Much like observing the whole universe is impossible. The only entity that can possibly do either is usually called god and there is no evidence for the existence for such a creature.

He is a troll, yes he is mean, and normally I don't discuss other people's behavior on this forum in my posts. I gave up on him, and that's that. I don't do that very often, but there are a few others.

Strange he's not trolled me, nor for that matter been mean to me. I rather like reading his posts actually. I think you don't like him calling you on your bullshit. Which I admit he is very good at.

Philosophy gives you the understanding of all ideas used by science and by all kinds of knowledge. It trumps science.

Philosophy is meaningless. Science gives you the understanding of how the universe (so far as we can ever understand it) works. That said philosophy predates science and science is based upon the world view that reality is material and humans can understand reality. Philosophy on its own educates no body, produces nothing, and well is only useful if you're in an ivory tower.

Anyone who meditates correctly will increase consciousness, not decrease it. Meditation is concentrating on or being more aware of your being here, and your being here by definition = consciousness and vice-versa.

No if anyone meditates correctly they will come to understand that so far as they can ever understand consciousness it is limited to their personal experience--and even then it is of short duration. Consciousness so far as humans can possibly understand it is uncaused and limited in scope. From oblivion we arise to oblivion we return.

You just dismiss the evidence, and that makes it simpler for you. Scientists were the ones referenced, and they did science.

No I read the papers. They really didn't prove anything. Any mental activity (including prayer) will change brain activity. To activate the centers of the brain associated with spirituality one need not necessarily pray. They could take a drug or give themselves a localized electric shock. In fact drugs are used in many religions to get closer to the gods for precisely that reason.

As to healing with prayer lets see a double blind study. We'll use terminally ill cancer patients or something like that because they literally have nothing to lose either way. For the control group we'll use traditional science based medicine, the experimental group will be given placebos and be prayed for. We'll see who lives longer.

Also the abstracts have yet to be peer reviewed. I imagine that these hypotheses won't survive the peer review process.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

And yet every time a scientific study of people meditating is conducted, regardless the method they are using, brain activity is registered on the equipment used. There is a very strong indication that meditation is a brain activity.

No, it just shows activity in the brain. That is not to say that the brain is meditating. That is adding your own language based on your worldview. Like I said, I don't disagree that its activity can be tested and detected by scientific instruments. It just means something is happening there.

Why? Because other people use different methods and come to different conclusions? Or because you don't agree with my conclusions so I therefore must be doing it wrong.

The funny thing is that I didn't start meditating for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment, rather the enlightenment that there is no spirit simply came to me while sitting in oblivion. Unfortunately the thought itself destroyed my state of oblivion.

There is as much consensus in the mystic community about what reality is revealed by meditation, as there is in the scientific community about various physics theories. You have preconceived ideas that block you, that's all.

"Spirit" is just a term. You think it's meaningless and I don't, but in any case the reality is not the word. The reality can't be touched by any word.

I've looked at all the evidence that I needed to by observing my grandfather and grandmother after they expired. They went from being conscious to not being conscious. Death is the termination of consciousness. That is the evidence Eric, you don't want to believe it because that conflicts with your cherished and stubbornly-held woo-woo.

You just assumed that you learned something from that. Others experience contact from beyond the grave. It's more common than you think and not limited to religious folk.

Well its definitely 3T music so you may not like it. And you do like Bieber so your tastes are suspect.

You never fail to meet my expectations that you are dogmatic and narrow. Anyone who likes 3T heavy metal stuff, has tastes that are as suspicious to me, as anyone's tastes who likes 4T music by teenagers is to you.

The problem with your view is you still view consciousness as a phenomena instead of a non-phenomena.

You can't label it as either one.

I would counter that consciousness cannot be put into a box, labeled as this or that, located or numbered because it is a non-phenomena. It is beyond the purview of science to explain the subjective experience of consciousness.

Science, however, can explain how the brain works and consciousness seems to originate in the brain. The how can probably be answered by science--the why not so much. Then again science deals in hows and not whys.

"Seems to" is not a very scientific statement.

I don't entirely disagree with you there, much as I would like to, being the dogmatic Bieber hater that you are

Actually I said something similar to what you said, when I said science can describe what is happening, but not explain it. "Describe" to me would include describing, as science does, how some events follow from others. That is the science mindset, and I consider it part of human knowledge, just not all of it.

Bullshit. Consciousness is the subjective experience of living. You can observe that I am living, you can observe behavior associated with consciousness but you cannot observe consciousness itself. Much like observing the whole universe is impossible. The only entity that can possibly do either is usually called god and there is no evidence for the existence for such a creature.

I observe consciousness in every person and every creature I meet, and you can't say that I don't. I can observe living and dead things, and the difference between them, and I don't need a scientist to define life for me.

I would agree with Brian though, when he said consciousness is the universe. That would be equivalent to God too. There is such a creature, in the mystical view, because you are that. I know you don't agree, but it is a different definition of God that is not a supernatural being, but just a different way of looking at things.

Philosophy is meaningless. Science gives you the understanding of how the universe (so far as we can ever understand it) works. That said philosophy predates science and science is based upon the world view that reality is material and humans can understand reality. Philosophy on its own educates no body, produces nothing, and well is only useful if you're in an ivory tower.

You contradicted yourself; you said science is based on a philosophy. I can only restate my view that philosophy supplies or evaluates/analyzes all the ideas and concepts that science deals with, so it trumps science. It deals with realities that are obvious to anyone who observes and looks, and no science is needed to measure or test. It is a priori knowledge upon which all other knowledge is based. Philosophy IS education; that's why people earn PhDs. It may not "produce" the things that you so venerate and claim prove that materialism is true, but I don't buy that claim.

No if anyone meditates correctly they will come to understand that so far as they can ever understand consciousness it is limited to their personal experience--and even then it is of short duration. Consciousness so far as humans can possibly understand it is uncaused and limited in scope. From oblivion we arise to oblivion we return.

That is your conclusion, but all I said is that meditation increases consciousness. If it doesn't do that for you, you aren't meditating at all.

No I read the papers. They really didn't prove anything. Any mental activity (including prayer) will change brain activity. To activate the centers of the brain associated with spirituality one need not necessarily pray. They could take a drug or give themselves a localized electric shock. In fact drugs are used in many religions to get closer to the gods for precisely that reason.

It proved that you can change your brain by your own activity. That means you change your brain; your brain does not change you. So therefore you are more than your brain. The mind must be "activated" by the free will decision of the whole person aka the soul.

As to healing with prayer lets see a double blind study. We'll use terminally ill cancer patients or something like that because they literally have nothing to lose either way. For the control group we'll use traditional science based medicine, the experimental group will be given placebos and be prayed for. We'll see who lives longer.

Also the abstracts have yet to be peer reviewed. I imagine that these hypotheses won't survive the peer review process.

You don't know if they have or haven't. Of course, a peer group of materialists would be blind to the evidence. You can wait for that study. I am not so dogmatic, so evidence that prayer works to help people is good enough for me to at least consider. It doesn't matter who lives longer. The article was not recommending that prayer be substituted for medicine. It said that it helps healing. What puts you off track is your desire to see everything in extremes.

So... Helping healing won't yeild to a longer average lifespan? I'm not understanding that one.

Originally Posted by Kepi

So... Helping healing won't yeild to a longer average lifespan? I'm not understanding that one.

Kepi my point is that prayer doesn't do anything, much less help healing. It is meaningless from a medical perspective.

I thought you were going to be busy tonight Eric. Somehow you always seem to make time to argue with me though.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, it just shows activity in the brain. That is not to say that the brain is meditating. That is adding your own language based on your worldview. Like I said, I don't disagree that its activity can be tested and detected by scientific instruments. It just means something is happening there.

Oh my god. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement is? If someone is meditating, and they are doing so while their brain activity is being measured by some sort of contraption, then the brain is doing something. In this case it is meditating, because that is what the person meditating is using their brain for.

There is as much consensus in the mystic community about what reality is revealed by meditation, as there is in the scientific community about various physics theories. You have preconceived ideas that block you, that's all.

Bullshit. Physics is under the purview of science. It is subject to science and science's processes. Mysticism is not subject to anything. There is no consensus amongst mystics what consciousness even is let alone the reality of it. At most you can get a collection of new agers to all agree "we are all one" or some other vague platitude. Thats hardly the same as the theory of gravity.

"Spirit" is just a term. You think it's meaningless and I don't, but in any case the reality is not the word. The reality can't be touched by any word.

Spirit is a meaningless term. Spirits do not exist.

You just assumed that you learned something from that. Others experience contact from beyond the grave. It's more common than you think and not limited to religious folk.

First I don't care about whatever hallucinations other people have--and yes thats what those are. Hallucinations. Second you are assuming that I assumed anything. I didn't assume and don't assume to have learned anything other than I can reach a state without conscious rational or emotional thought through meditative practices. The expression that there is no spiritual aspect to be enlightened about is an extrapolation from the absence of a spirit.

You never fail to meet my expectations that you are dogmatic and narrow. Anyone who likes 3T heavy metal stuff, has tastes that are as suspicious to me, as anyone's tastes who likes 4T music by teenagers is to you.

Well any person in their 60s who likes Justin Bieber is instantaneously creepy Eric. His crappy bubble gum pop is packaged for teenage girls. So an older man who likes that stuff either likes it because he has a boy crush on Bieber himself, is mentally unbalanced, or deaf.

Also Smashing Pumpkins is grunge not metal. The musical structure is not even close to metal.

You can't label it as either one.

Either something exists and is a phenomena or it exists but is a non-phenomena or it doesn't exist. If it exists and is a phenomenon it is subject to science. Science does not concern itself with non-phenomena or the non-existing.

"Seems to" is not a very scientific statement.

Of course it doesn't. Nor was my statment meant to be taken scientifically. Consciousness is a non-phenomenon therefore not subject to science. It is really a simple concept.

I don't entirely disagree with you there, much as I would like to, being the dogmatic Bieber hater that you are

I don't particularly hate Justin Bieber, I am indifferent to him. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. The strongest feelings I have about him or his "music" is that he's a no talent hack who is grossly over rated. But I can say that about a lot of 4T music. Seriously music has sucked since 1999 with perhaps the exception of Lady Gaga--but she's a rerun of Madonna.

Actually I said something similar to what you said, when I said science can describe what is happening, but not explain it. "Describe" to me would include describing, as science does, how some events follow from others. That is the science mindset, and I consider it part of human knowledge, just not all of it.

Nor did I say science was ALL of human knowledge. The presence of consciousness itself is subjective. But that knowledge is limited to me subjectively knowing I'm conscious. I can't subjectively know you are conscious, I assume that you are because for all your flaws (and there are many) you do exhibit most of the behaviors I associate with consciousness in humans.

I think our disagreement is not over that science is not all of human knowledge, rather it is over the amounts of other things which are human knowledge. Science as a process accounts for about 70% of human knowledge the rest is logic, reason/mathematics, and subjective experience.

I observe consciousness in every person and every creature I meet, and you can't say that I don't.

Yes I can actually. Can you experience the subjective reality of being a dog? No. Can you experience the subjective reality of being Kinser? No. Your subjective experience is limited to your subjective experience. You cannot observe consciousness because it cannot be observed. What you are doing is confusing consciousness itself with behaviors you associate with consciousness.

I can observe living and dead things, and the difference between them, and I don't need a scientist to define life for me.

If you say so. I personally think you're talking out of your ass most of the time but thats just me.

I would agree with Brian though, when he said consciousness is the universe. That would be equivalent to God too. There is such a creature, in the mystical view, because you are that. I know you don't agree, but it is a different definition of God that is not a supernatural being, but just a different way of looking at things.

Of course I disagree. There is no evidence for any creature called god by any religion postulated by man can. If such a creature exists he/she/it is outside of the universe and outside of our understanding. That said, consciousness is not the universe. Consciousness is a small aspect of the universe. It is a part of the universe just like Jupiter is part of the universe.

And its not a very significant part of the universe at that. My subjective experience is meaningless to anyone or anything outside of myself.

You contradicted yourself; you said science is based on a philosophy.

No I didn't. I said science arose from a philosophical world view.

I can only restate my view

That doesn't make it any more true or less stupid.

Philosophy IS education; that's why people earn PhDs.

The doctorate of philosophy is the continuation on the basis of tradition of a title from the middle ages. Philosophy is not education. Philosophy is what rich people major in to waste daddy's money because they don't want to do something useful with their brain.

It may not "produce" the things that you so venerate and claim prove that materialism is true, but I don't buy that claim.

I didn't expect you to buy my claim. You have already found your truth and dogmatically defend it without regard to whether it is really true or not.

That is your conclusion, but all I said is that meditation increases consciousness. If it doesn't do that for you, you aren't meditating at all.

Why? Because you say so? Sorry Eric thats not good enough for me. Notice the words I have used for my practice. "Sitting in oblivion". In short being absent of ego, being absent of rationality. Being completely and totally empty. Seems to me you need to study some Taoism. Though I find the Taoist explanations to be superstitious and hokey.

It proved that you can change your brain by your own activity.

There are easier ways of doing it than prayer and meditation. I could smoke a joint for example.

That means you change your brain; your brain does not change you. So therefore you are more than your brain. The mind must be "activated" by the free will decision of the whole person aka the soul.

One changes their brain every time they learn something, ingest a chemical or begin to think about a problem. The person changes their brain and their brain changes them as a reaction. No soul necessary. And any scientist that proposed a soul would be laughed out of the university they work for faster than Sherman went through Georgia.

You don't know if they have or haven't. Of course, a peer group of materialists would be blind to the evidence. You can wait for that study. I am not so dogmatic, so evidence that prayer works to help people is good enough for me to at least consider. It doesn't matter who lives longer. The article was not recommending that prayer be substituted for medicine. It said that it helps healing. What puts you off track is your desire to see everything in extremes.

I know they haven't been peer reviewed. Otherwise you'd linked to actual scientific journals. I think that the presence of the soul being detected by science would be some pretty big news myself. But nope no big news, not even a mention of X professor being laughed at by a review board. So no these are not peer reviewed.

They are also not science either.

I'm still waiting on that prayer double blind study.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You didn't write a sentence. Calling those words verbs when there is in fact no action in the statement is ridiculous. But, go ahead. Pretend your first grade grammar is somehow proving some sort of point.

Somer verbs do not imply action. Here's a retro public service announcement just for you. Watch and become enlightened.



This PSA is brought to you be the verb, "to be".

Originally Posted by Odin

That's funny, because my brain meditates for 30 minutes every morning.

My brain deletes temporary files and defrags every 8 hours/day. It's called "sleep".

"There is as much consensus in the mystic community about what reality is revealed by meditation, as there is in the scientific community about various physics theories."

Actually, if Eric is a part of the "mystic community," there isn't. Eric's ideas about what reality is revealed by meditation are far from universal.