Originally Posted by Taramarie

Reading all of this.......who needs alcohol! All brain scrambling gibberish to me! Must be a boomer thing. Sometimes I think my parents generation are like a different species!

Is it more gibberish than what comes out of the mouth of some of our boomer American politicians?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Is it more gibberish than what comes out of the mouth of some of our boomer American politicians?

both make no sense to me and both sound insane

Originally Posted by Taramarie

both make no sense to me and both sound insane

You can't understand mysticism through words alone. You have to experience it.

There's a common core, but some different interpretations. Brian and I are certainly different, though. His interpretation is unique.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Reading all of this.......who needs alcohol! All brain scrambling gibberish to me! Must be a boomer thing. Sometimes I think my parents generation are like a different species!

We didn't flock to the original Star Wars movies for nothing. We had to find our kin somehow.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are no things. There is no matter.

You don't behave as if you believe that. Therefore, you do not.

I'm not interested in convincing you of my point of view, Eric. I'm interested in having you become better aware of why you believe yours.

Brian and I are certainly different, though. His interpretation is unique.

I'd like to think so, but in reality the Buddha said the same things a long time ago, although he used different language to do it.

I took a brief look at the debate video Eric linked earlier, although I didn't watch much of it. My initial thought was that the whole thing was framed in such a way as to give Hitchens an easy victory. The specific Christian conception of God is very hard to maintain in terms of reason, evidence, or even conformity with spiritual experience. If Hitchens was tasked merely with knocking that specific concept out of the sky, I doubt he had to work up much of a sweat.

If you really want to show where traditional anti-theism of his sort falls into difficulty, you need to go beyond not only the Christian God, but any sort of pre-defined personalized deity, and pose questions such as these:

In what senses can the universe be said to exhibit intelligence? Is the operation of natural law itself a type of intelligence? Given that human intelligence comes down ultimately to embellishments on a process of trial and error (incorporating such things as virtual or imaginary trials replacing real ones, and remembered results of prior trials informing current ones), and that trial and error is universal, could we not say that intelligence is a universal?

Why does conscious, subjective experience happen? If we cannot answer that question, can we say with any certainty that anything in nature is not conscious in this sense of subjective experience?

What is the significance of an experience in which one seems to commune with, or achieve identity with, something much larger than oneself -- in some conceptions, with the universe?

Granted that the idea of a separate God who created and thinks for the universe is crude, simplistic, and as a literal statement most likely false, would not an intelligent and conscious universe amount to the same thing from a human point of view? Could we not regard most ideas of God as a rough, inelegant way of modeling that perception of universal intelligence and consciousness, so that the underlying perception is not dependent on the theological model?

And finally, given all of the above, how justified can one be in dismissing all spiritual and religious endeavors, even if one is fully justified in pointing out errors that are commonly made?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

... Why does conscious, subjective experience happen? If we cannot answer that question, can we say with any certainty that anything in nature is not conscious in this sense of subjective experience?

Why must we conclude anything at all, just because we can't answer such a question about consciousness? What if consciousness simply happens. Heck, what if there are many, if not an infinite number, of universes, which in the aggregate have always existed. What if it all just is, no "creation," no "end?" Just because there is plenty of mystery, why must there be any answer to any esoteric philosophical cosmic question?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

... And finally, given all of the above, how justified can one be in dismissing all spiritual and religious endeavors, even if one is fully justified in pointing out errors that are commonly made?

Given the likelihood that "spiritual experiences," sometimes termed "burning bush" experiences, are mostly an emotional phenomenon arising in our minds, I'm fond of William James' book Varieties of Religious Experiences in which he catalogs these phenomena and discusses them at length. Despite the fact that he wrote this book in the early part of the Twentieth Century, I find that it holds up very well even today. I just finished "listening" to it. I read a paper copy some years ago. Good stuff.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We didn't flock to the original Star Wars movies for nothing. We had to find our kin somehow.

what has star wars got to do with the gobbledigook i am reading?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You can't understand mysticism through words alone. You have to experience it.

There's a common core, but some different interpretations. Brian and I are certainly different, though. His interpretation is unique.

Yeah obviously as it still flies right over my head. While reading the comments, it may as well have been written in chinese, yet boomers seem to be able to talk about these things as if they speak that language. I think I would need a manual on it just to understand what is being said here. Lol the closest i come to spiritualism or mysticism whatever the difference is is at the bottom of a bottle.

Originally Posted by TnT

Why must we conclude anything at all, just because we can't answer such a question about consciousness?
What if consciousness simply happens.

Actually, that's the most likely conclusion. But it means some things that you may not have considered. It means that consciousness, which "simply happens," therefore is not a function of the brain. It means that consciousness, which "simply happens," does not have a cause. It means that consciousness is on the same ontological plane as fundamental properties of reality such as mass, energy, and space-time, which also "simply happen," or even as the universe itself, which also "simply happens."

Given the likelihood that "spiritual experiences," sometimes termed "burning bush" experiences, are mostly an emotional phenomenon arising in our minds

As opposed to what? All experiences arise in the mind; many, perhaps most, have no simplistic and discrete material-object focus. These experiences nonetheless have meaning and significance. For example, the enterprise of pure mathematics does not refer to any discrete object, yet contributes much to our understanding of how the world works.

Spiritual experience most likely does not refer to any discrete object, either, yet it is profound, and as much cognitive and intuitive as emotional. Any explanation for it that amounts to a nothing-but is unsatisfactory and does not explain.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

what has star wars got to do with the gobbledigook i am reading?

Ahem.

What does Obi-Wan tell Luke to use, as he's making his run to blow up the Death Star?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Ahem.

What does Obi-Wan tell Luke to use, as he's making his run to blow up the Death Star?

Use the force. But that is like some sort of physical psychic ability they have. That is different I believe.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You don't behave as if you believe that. Therefore, you do not.

But it's what I think and know. Granted if I had higher consciousness than I do, I would improve as a person. But that's a given for anybody, including you. Spirit is an unfolding reality; through evolution collectively and individually. That doesn't mean much for you, since you think the individual is an illusion. I think separateness is an illusion, but not individuality.

I'm not interested in convincing you of my point of view, Eric. I'm interested in having you become better aware of why you believe yours.

According to your point of view

I don't share that view. But I share some of your views.

I am already aware of my "beliefs" and why I hold them. In a sense, as I said, I have no beliefs, although I have opinions and things to learn. But a belief in the sense of something I am taught on authority to believe, or as something I hold true although I don't know it; that's not for me.

I'd like to think so, but in reality the Buddha said the same things a long time ago, although he used different language to do it.[/FONT]

I relate a lot to Buddha. But Buddhism's different schools interpret him differently. He did not lay out a dogma, according to people such as Alan Watts. He began a dialogue. "The soul is an illusion" is a misinterpretation of Buddha. He suggested we entertain possibilities on that subject; he made no definite statement on it himself. But you go far beyond Buddhism in your views on the objectivity of thoughts and emotions, because of your confidence in modern science that Buddha did not know.

Originally Posted by TnT

Why must we conclude anything at all, just because we can't answer such a question about consciousness? What if consciousness simply happens. Heck, what if there are many, if not an infinite number, of universes, which in the aggregate have always existed. What if it all just is, no "creation," no "end?" Just because there is plenty of mystery, why must there be any answer to any esoteric philosophical cosmic question?

There may not be. But there is also no definite answer that it's all woo-woo nonsense.

Given the likelihood that "spiritual experiences," sometimes termed "burning bush" experiences, are mostly an emotional phenomenon arising in our minds, I'm fond of William James' book Varieties of Religious Experiences in which he catalogs these phenomena and discusses them at length. Despite the fact that he wrote this book in the early part of the Twentieth Century, I find that it holds up very well even today. I just finished "listening" to it. I read a paper copy some years ago. Good stuff.

Did James say that spiritual experiences are "mostly an emotional phenomenon arising in our minds?" I don't think so; from my reading of him he sincerely was interested in that subject, and would not reduce it to the non-spiritual, as your statement suggests to me.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Use the force. But that is like some sort of physical psychic ability they have. That is different I believe.

Now it's you that is talking strange. What in the world would be the difference?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Now it's you that is talking strange. What in the world would be the difference?

The force is where he picks up things and makes them move. So far the only other one that is shown is being able to control minds. It is useful. To me, spiritual makes no sense and is not useful.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Yeah obviously as it still flies right over my head. While reading the comments, it may as well have been written in chinese, yet boomers seem to be able to talk about these things as if they speak that language. I think I would need a manual on it just to understand what is being said here. Lol the closest i come to spiritualism or mysticism whatever the difference is is at the bottom of a bottle.

This is probably more of a personality thing then a generation thing, your signature says that you are an ISFJ, a sensation-dominant type. Sensation-dominant types don't like theorizing that goes too far away from what can be strictly deduced and inferred from empirical facts. Brian, Eric, and I are intuition-dominant types and have the opposite issue! We can navel-gaze all day long.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is probably more of a personality thing then a generation thing, your signature says that you are an ISFJ, a sensation-dominant type. Sensation-dominant types don't like theorizing that goes too far away from what can be strictly deduced and inferred from empirical facts. Brian, Eric, and I are intuition-dominant types and have the opposite issue! We can navel-gaze all day long.

Ah that makes sense now why it does not make sense to me. Yes I am a strictly facts person and this sort of thing just does not make sense to me. It is like they are talking chinese. What is the opposite issue? Thanks for that. I never thought of it like that before. I just figured boomers are known for more of the interior exploration journey than others on the whole.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

What is the opposite issue?

Our intuition can seem so inherently gut-feeling-level true that we forget to see if it fits the facts!

Originally Posted by Odin

Our intuition can seem so inherently gut-feeling-level true that we forget to see if it fits the facts!

Oooh that cant be good. Sometimes I am sure it works. You can sense something is wrong I am sure, but is always good too to check the facts.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But it's what I think and know.

No, it's a misstatement of what you believe.

You believe matter is really spirit. A physicist believes that it's really energy. But both of those are beliefs about the nature of matter, not about its existence. You breathe. You eat. You type on your keyboard. If matter didn't exist, you couldn't do any of those things, and if you believed (even erroneously) that it didn't exist, you would think you couldn't do them and so you wouldn't do them, and so we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Matter is what we eat, breathe, and type on. Anything else about it is just theorizing. As long as you eat, breathe, and type, you believe matter exists -- no matter what you believe about its ultimate nature.

As for "things," you most likely recognize the semi-arbitrary nature of divisions, and the part played by your own mind in defining "things" into existence, but again, that says something about the nature of thing-ness, not about its existence or nonexistence. If your mind creates a thing, that thing exists, every bit as much as a painting exists if you paint it.

That doesn't mean much for you, since you think the individual is an illusion. I think separateness is an illusion, but not individuality.

I believe individual consciousness is an illusion. The individual -- defined by behavior, and by memory and personality -- is certainly real. It's a functional reality. As for separateness, that's a component of individuality, so if you believe in the one, you believe in the other. If we are not separate, then we are not individuals.

According to your point of view

No, according to yours. What I'm saying is that I think you are deceiving yourself in some ways about what you really believe and why. That has nothing to do with whether your beliefs are objectively true, or whether I agree with them.

But a belief in the sense of something I am taught on authority to believe, or as something I hold true although I don't know it; that's not for me.

That's not what "belief" means. That's a particular type of belief, or a source of belief. Again, a physicist believes that matter is really energy. This isn't a belief based on authority or ignorance, but on empirical evidence such as the conversion of matter to energy in a nuclear reaction. It's still a belief. Of course you have beliefs; everyone does. Without them we can take no action.

In many cases, what I see you doing is believing things not because of authority or evidence either one, but because of desire. You want something to be true, and so you convince yourself that it is.

I relate a lot to Buddha. But Buddhism's different schools interpret him differently.

I was referring to the Buddha himself, what he clearly stated, which includes the illusory nature of individual consciousness, and rejection of the idea of personal immortality (which took the form in his culture of transmigration of souls rather than heaven/hell immortality). It's true that institutionalized Buddhism has (mis)interpreted the Buddha in many ways. There's that desire to believe again. The Buddha's teachings have about as much relation to orthodox Buddhism as those of Jesus have to orthodox Christianity.

As for science and the Buddha's teaching. it's true that I have access to empirical knowledge that he did not. What's remarkable is how much of that knowledge confirms what he said. It makes his achievement that much more praiseworthy, and definitely more impressive than mine.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Use the force. But that is like some sort of physical psychic ability they have. That is different I believe.

Actually, you're right. The psychic is not the spiritual. However, Star Wars developed a lot of spiritual themes, too.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, that's the most likely conclusion. But it means some things that you may not have considered. It means that consciousness, which "simply happens," therefore is not a function of the brain. It means that consciousness, which "simply happens," does not have a cause. It means that consciousness is on the same ontological plane as fundamental properties of reality such as mass, energy, and space-time, which also "simply happen," or even as the universe itself, which also "simply happens."

Why can consicousness not "simply happen," but yet be a function of the brain. Fundamental properties are functions of things, of individual items. So why can consciousness not be a manifestation of what happens when a brain is generated by evolution of pieces of the cosmos?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

As opposed to what? All experiences arise in the mind; many, perhaps most, have no simplistic and discrete material-object focus. These experiences nonetheless have meaning and significance. For example, the enterprise of pure mathematics does not refer to any discrete object, yet contributes much to our understanding of how the world works.

Spiritual experience most likely does not refer to any discrete object, either, yet it is profound, and as much cognitive and intuitive as emotional. Any explanation for it that amounts to a nothing-but is unsatisfactory and does not explain.

The way I see it, spiritual experience, mysticism, arises in our minds, but is not apparent to anyone but the person experiencing it. This differentiates it from other, more physical experiences. For example, you and I can toss a ball back and forth and both of us experience the ball, the motion, the sensations. We share the same reality in pretty much the same way.

However, if due to some stimulus or other, I have a vital spiritual experience, you have no way of knowing what I have just experienced. I can tell you about it, even in great detail, but the experience itself is limited to my mind. What draws me to William James is his willingness to listen to folks' descriptions and at least try to catalog, compare and contrast and in that way come as close as one can to understanding these phenomena.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I was referring to the Buddha himself, what he clearly stated, which includes the illusory nature of individual consciousness, and rejection of the idea of personal immortality (which took the form in his culture of transmigration of souls rather than heaven/hell immortality). It's true that institutionalized Buddhism has (mis)interpreted the Buddha in many ways. There's that desire to believe again. The Buddha's teachings have about as much relation to orthodox Buddhism as those of Jesus have to orthodox Christianity.

Relevant article

EDIT: Another whole bunch of articles

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, it's a misstatement of what you believe.

You believe matter is really spirit. A physicist believes that it's really energy. But both of those are beliefs about the nature of matter, not about its existence. You breathe. You eat. You type on your keyboard. If matter didn't exist, you couldn't do any of those things, and if you believed (even erroneously) that it didn't exist, you would think you couldn't do them and so you wouldn't do them, and so we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Matter is what we eat, breathe, and type on. Anything else about it is just theorizing. As long as you eat, breathe, and type, you believe matter exists -- no matter what you believe about its ultimate nature.

I could relate to that idea, if I translate "matter" as a lesser degree of spirit that allows us to use it in those ways.

As for "things," you most likely recognize the semi-arbitrary nature of divisions, and the part played by your own mind in defining "things" into existence, but again, that says something about the nature of thing-ness, not about its existence or nonexistence. If your mind creates a thing, that thing exists, every bit as much as a painting exists if you paint it.

That "thing" which exists is merely my misinterpretation of it.

I believe individual consciousness is an illusion. The individual -- defined by behavior, and by memory and personality -- is certainly real. It's a functional reality. As for separateness, that's a component of individuality, so if you believe in the one, you believe in the other. If we are not separate, then we are not individuals.

We don't think the same way. For you, the law of non-contradiction holds. Either/or. For me, paradox can be the truth (both/and), and that's more in line with the Zen school of Buddhism.

No, according to yours. What I'm saying is that I think you are deceiving yourself in some ways about what you really believe and why. That has nothing to do with whether your beliefs are objectively true, or whether I agree with them.

You can think that way, but I have no reason to suppose that you in particular know more about my beliefs and how I am deceived than I do.

That's not what "belief" means. That's a particular type of belief, or a source of belief. Again, a physicist believes that matter is really energy. This isn't a belief based on authority or ignorance, but on empirical evidence such as the conversion of matter to energy in a nuclear reaction. It's still a belief. Of course you have beliefs; everyone does. Without them we can take no action.

I prefer to use the word faith for that aspect of our activities.

In many cases, what I see you doing is believing things not because of authority or evidence either one, but because of desire. You want something to be true, and so you convince yourself that it is.

You or I could say that about anyone. It's just your speculation, without any basis.

I was referring to the Buddha himself, what he clearly stated, which includes the illusory nature of individual consciousness, and rejection of the idea of personal immortality (which took the form in his culture of transmigration of souls rather than heaven/hell immortality). It's true that institutionalized Buddhism has (mis)interpreted the Buddha in many ways. There's that desire to believe again. The Buddha's teachings have about as much relation to orthodox Buddhism as those of Jesus have to orthodox Christianity.

Nah; he did not definitely say any of those things. From my experience, Buddhists are a lot closer to Buddha than Christians are to Jesus. And where they differ, they may often improve on Buddha. I especially appreciate the Tibetan Buddhists. And for me, beauty is often truth, and often reveals who has the truth and who doesn't. Buddhist and especially Tibetan art is remarkable. My opinion now is that tantra and kundalini have parallels with esoteric Western and new age teachings that get at the core of our being and our spiritual journey here. And even J.S. Bach was on to it.

As for science and the Buddha's teaching. it's true that I have access to empirical knowledge that he did not. What's remarkable is how much of that knowledge confirms what he said. It makes his achievement that much more praiseworthy, and definitely more impressive than mine.

I don't agree that Buddhism confirms what you say in many cases, such as the objectivity and materiality of thoughts and emotions.