Originally Posted by TnT

Why can consicousness not "simply happen," but yet be a function of the brain.

Because if it's a function of the brain, or of anything else we can identify, then it doesn't simply happen, it happens for a reason or due to a cause.

So why can consciousness not be a manifestation of what happens when a brain is generated by evolution of pieces of the cosmos?

Because that makes no sense. When we say that A causes B, both A and B are functions observed in the third person. But consciousness is the experience of reality in the first person. It's not a function, but a perspective on all functions.

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.

It differentiates it only from a small subset of the entire set of experiences, those that involve discrete material objects. By "discrete" I mean localized and with definite limits. Spiritual experience isn't of any discrete object; what it appears to be is an experience of the whole of reality -- all the universe -- at once. Nothing discrete about that.

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.

Untrue, or no more true than it is about your sensory perceptions. You can attach a tag-sound to your sensory experience that I have learned to associate with certain sensory experiences of my own, and we can agree that these tag-sounds refer to some object or event in our shared perception, but I have no way to know if the color green that I see (for example) is the same color green that you see. All I know is that we both use that tag-sound, "green," to refer to grass.

The same thing can be done with spiritual experience, although it's somewhat more complicated because human language isn't designed for the purpose.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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.

Well, what I'm getting at here is that matter is one thing, and anyone's ideas about what matter is are something else. Matter is what we experience via the senses as solids, liquids, and gases. Whether you think that this stuff is objectively real and independently existing or that it's all an illusion in the mind of God or that it is a "lesser aspect of spirit" changes nothing about that sensory experience. Matter isn't a lesser form of spirit, it's the stuff you breathe, eat, etc.; "lesser aspect of spirit" is not matter, but your theory or metaphysical concept about the ultimate nature of matter.

When you say that matter doesn't exist, what you mean is that the idea of matter as existing independently, and many of the correlates you associate with that concept and don't like, are wrong. But those are also theories about the nature of matter, and make no difference to that sensory experience which is what matter actually is. The ideas that you disagree with, are not matter. They're a set of philosophical concepts just like your own -- completely cognitive and mental. If those ideas are right and you're wrong, then matter is real. And if those ideas are wrong and you're right -- matter is still real. Because we still eat, we still breathe, and when you bonk your head on a doorway it still hurts. And that's all that "matter is real" means.

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

It's not a misinterpretation. We're not made to approach everything from the perspective of God at all times. Separation of one thing from another serves a practical purpose, and is just as valid as treating everything as one, depending on whether we're trying to achieve satori or successfully troubleshoot a software problem.

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.

Horseshit, Eric. For you, what holds is that when you find yourself confronted with an argument you can't answer, you use mysticism as a verbal defense mechanism. You dissolve the entire universe into formless nonexistence so that no statement is either true or false, and then recrystalize everything once the danger is past and go on as if nothing had happened.

For me, what holds is that I refuse to let you get away with that.

Anyway, this isn't a case of either-or or contradiction or non-contradiction or any such vague and mysterious goo. It's simply that the illusory nature of individual consciousness does not imply that there's no sense in which individuality is real. So you were mistaken: I do not regard the individual as an illusion. Only individual consciousness.

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

I can understand being defensive about such a claim; I probably would be, too. (Just ask my ex-wife, actually.)

But you're mistaken. I can see you don't believe what you're saying when you don't behave as if it were true. But I'm reasonably certain you're not lying, which means you're making a mistake about what you actually think is the case.

Nah; he did not definitely say any of those things.

Sure he did, and I can prove it. Which I will, on request.

Regarding that somewhat disjointed paragraph in which you defend modern Buddhists, none of that is pertinent here. All I said was that he said the same things I am saying here a long time ago, which means I can't claim to be unique. And in fact, he's not the only one; Lao Tze said much the same independently (I don't think either of them had any contact with the other).

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

I don't think you understand my views on thoughts and emotions, or on materiality. Perhaps what I said at the beginning of this post will help with that.

EDIT: I just noticed you said "Buddhism," not "the Buddha." I was referring to the latter, not the former.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, what I'm getting at here is that matter is one thing, and anyone's ideas about what matter is are something else. Matter is what we experience via the senses as solids, liquids, and gases. Whether you think that this stuff is objectively real and independently existing or that it's all an illusion in the mind of God or that it is a "lesser aspect of spirit" changes nothing about that sensory experience. Matter isn't a lesser form of spirit, it's the stuff you breathe, eat, etc.; "lesser aspect of spirit" is not matter, but your theory or metaphysical concept about the ultimate nature of matter.

Well yes, our ideas about what exists are not necessarily what exists.

But matter is not "one thing" as opposed to our theories about it. We do not experience matter; period. Our interpretations change nothing about what we actually experience, which is spirit, and only spirit; at varying levels of consciousness at which those individualized beings have realized. You just have a different world view than I. Who's got the "theory" and who the "reality" just depends on your point of view. Ours is different. Many folks have different world views from you. Almost everyone, I would contend. You are not going to change. I have changed my views a few times as I grow and learn. But I would not go back to materialism of any sort; been there, done that. Pan psychism; yes I can allow that label to apply to me.

When you say that matter doesn't exist, what you mean is that the idea of matter as existing independently, and many of the correlates you associate with that concept and don't like, are wrong. But those are also theories about the nature of matter, and make no difference to that sensory experience which is what matter actually is. The ideas that you disagree with, are not matter. They're a set of philosophical concepts just like your own -- completely cognitive and mental. If those ideas are right and you're wrong, then matter is real. And if those ideas are wrong and you're right -- matter is still real. Because we still eat, we still breathe, and when you bonk your head on a doorway it still hurts. And that's all that "matter is real" means.

Yeah, what you don't like. I don't agree with your ideas and what you dislike about matter. If you bonk your head on a doorway, it's because you haven't learned to go through it yet, or to bump into it with enough spontaneity that it doesn't hurt you. Many young extreme sports artists can knock themselves all around and not get hurt. The rest of us are not so accomplished. But you don't really get to define the world based on your own lack of spiritual ability.

It's not a misinterpretation. We're not made to approach everything from the perspective of God at all times. Separation of one thing from another serves a practical purpose, and is just as valid as treating everything as one, depending on whether we're trying to achieve satori or successfully troubleshoot a software problem.

I am not a pragmatist. What's useful is not what's real. It's just our point of view based on our needs.

Horseshit, Eric. For you, what holds is that when you find yourself confronted with an argument you can't answer, you use mysticism as a verbal defense mechanism. You dissolve the entire universe into formless nonexistence so that no statement is either true or false, and then recrystalize everything once the danger is past and go on as if nothing had happened.

For me, what holds is that I refuse to let you get away with that.

No comment

But whatever you want to say about my views, is fine with me if you say it
It's a free forum.

Anyway, this isn't a case of either-or or contradiction or non-contradiction or any such vague and mysterious goo. It's simply that the illusory nature of individual consciousness does not imply that there's no sense in which individuality is real. So you were mistaken: I do not regard the individual as an illusion. Only individual consciousness.

In terms of your unique world view, yes. The individual exists for you only in a material, sense-based context. The individual in my view exists as God as Spirit expressing. The universe always expresses as individuals, at whatever level of consciousness we're discussing, from string and sub-atomic particles to living beings to spirit beings. My idea that "matter" is just a lower level of consciousness, is just one way to put into words what it is we actually experience. I prefer my words to your words about it.

Reality as I experience it, is not sense-based. The senses and the brain are just objects. The senses give us illusion unless we get rid of our limited interpretations of what they tell us. It is normal at our level of evolution to get stuck with those mis-interpretations. Society drums them into us, along with the instincts evolution has given us along the way.

I can understand being defensive about such a claim; I probably would be, too. (Just ask my ex-wife, actually.)

People normally get defensive if you try to foist your own view of them, on them.

But you're mistaken. I can see you don't believe what you're saying when you don't behave as if it were true. But I'm reasonably certain you're not lying, which means you're making a mistake about what you actually think is the case.

Yes, and I think you are the one who is mistaken. But it's OK with me if you have a different view from mine.

Sure he did, and I can prove it. Which I will, on request.

He didn't publish anything that you can quote. He merely started a dialogue that has lasted over 2500 years now.

Regarding that somewhat disjointed paragraph in which you defend modern Buddhists, none of that is pertinent here. All I said was that he said the same things I am saying here a long time ago, which means I can't claim to be unique. And in fact, he's not the only one; Lao Tze said much the same independently (I don't think either of them had any contact with the other).

Nah, they anticipated what I say, not what you say. Your views are complicated and very discreetly defined, in order to defend both science and mysticism. I don't have to have such polarized categories in order to defend both. My world view is more fluid; yours is cut and dried. Buddha's was not.

I don't think you understand my views on thoughts and emotions, or on materiality. Perhaps what I said at the beginning of this post will help with that.

I actually read what people post; unlike some people in regard to what I post. I understand your views; you don't understand my views. That's because my views are so advanced and insightful I throughly understand your views, and where I disagree. We've rehashed the matter of consciousness vs. mental activity so many times that I don't want to get into it again.

EDIT: I just noticed you said "Buddhism," not "the Buddha." I was referring to the latter, not the former.

I know what you meant; sorry.

Originally Posted by TnT

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?



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.

You and Brian have a good discussion going. I would like to turn your question around on you. Why can consciousness not "simply happen," without having to be a function of the brain or an item?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We do not experience matter; period.

You eat. You breathe. If you cut yourself, it hurts. You experience matter, because that's what "experience matter" means.

Our interpretations change nothing about what we actually experience, which is spirit, and only spirit

If you want to theorize that matter is really spirit, that's one thing, but you still eat, you still breathe, and when you cut yourself it still hurts, and therefore matter is real. If in your conception matter is a form of spirit, fine; it's still matter -- still distinct in observable, measurable ways from other manifestations of spirit such as imagination or emotion.

And you're still confusing the map with the territory.

Who's got the "theory" and who the "reality" just depends on your point of view.

False dichotomy and a complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying. We both have the reality. There is no conflict between theory and reality, only between one theory and another. If we have differing views of the nature of matter, then our theories about that conflict. Nonetheless, we both eat, we both breathe, and when we cut ourselves it hurts. That -- not any idea about it -- is what matter is.

I am not a pragmatist. What's useful is not what's real. It's just our point of view based on our needs.

Everyone is a pragmatist. What's real is useful, and I'm still not going to let you get away with dissolving the universe into formless goo whenever you find it convenient. Which habit, by the way, shows you to be more of a pragmatist than you think.

The individual exists for you only in a material, sense-based context. The individual in my view exists as God as Spirit expressing.

Again, confusing the map with the territory. Whether you think of behavior and personality as a function of brain activity or as an expression of God, it still behaves the way we observe it to behave. That philosophical concept is a froth on the ocean, an extra layer of cognition that in no way changes anything about what we see happening, and does not matter except to one's own personal satisfaction. The territory is what it is, whether your map is a Mercator projection or a globe.

And there is no way to argue, based on what we observe, that individuality does not exist. So I don't. But I do argue that individual consciousness is an illusion.

The universe always expresses as individuals

So there is no level of awareness where all is One? Do tell! What a shock!

Reality as I experience it, is not sense-based.

Sorry, but you don't believe that, either. Or if you do, stick your hand in a fire and tell me that doesn't really hurt.

People normally get defensive if you try to foist your own view of them, on them.

Yes, as I said it's perfectly understandable. However, it's also quite obvious that you don't actually believe many of the things you think you believe. I've already listed several examples.

He didn't publish anything that you can quote.

Technically correct; however, some of the things he said to his students are very strongly attested, and it's quite likely he did say them. That includes, for example, the idea of anatta or anatman, which is another way of saying what I'm saying here: individual consciousness is an illusion. (Although it can also be taken too mean that the consistent personality is also an illusion, since we change from moment to moment. That's the part that's confirmed by modern science, but it's not all of what I'm saying here.)

If in fact the Buddha didn't say these things, someone did, because they're written in the sutras, and so I'm still not unique. (Although I'd love to think I am.)

My world view is more fluid; yours is cut and dried. Buddha's was not.

Yeah, your world view is inconsistent both with itself and with reality, and shifts according to convenience so you can believe what you want to be true. If that's what you mean by "fluid," then you're right. But that certainly doesn't describe the Buddha.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something about your motivations that I'm not as certain of, but that seems to flow from other conversations we've had, especially about NDE. I think a large part of your reason for believing as you do is a fear of death. You are determined to preserve the idea that you -- not the cosmic you, but the little you, Eric Meese -- will not die when your body does. Everything I'm saying is perfectly compatible with spirituality in the sense of seeking enlightenment, union with the cosmos, personal transformation, and all that good stuff. But if I'm right, then while the real you -- which is the cosmic you -- will definitely survive the death of Eric Meese, Eric Meese will not.

And that is simply not an idea you can entertain without fear.

Eric, I'm obviously having a hard time getting you to understand what I'm saying here about matter, sensation, etc. Maybe if I draw it down to a specific example it will be clearer.

You eat a spoonful of peanut butter. It has a certain taste to it.

A materialist comes along and claims that the peanut butter you're eating, and your own taste buds, are features of an objectively-existing material world.

An idealist comes along and says, no, the peanut butter you're eating is an illusion, a dream in the mind of God; there is no objective material world.

What you mean by "matter" is what the materialist says. But what the materialist says, isn't matter. It's an idea about matter. It's not a part of the material world, but something in the materialist's head.

Matter is not the idea of the materialist. What "matter" really is, is the taste of the peanut butter. And it tastes the same whether the materialist is right or wrong. "There is no matter" doesn't mean the materialist is wrong. It means that you don't taste the peanut butter, and after eating it you're still just as hungry.

I am just guessing here, but Eric will not change his views on it so......waste of time really. Btw Brian, you are right in my opinion. Eric's view is his and not one i understand but when one will not change ones views it is a waste of time. Which is why on another thread I stopped talking to kinser regarding art because it was merely a waste of my time.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Eric, I'm obviously having a hard time getting you to understand what I'm saying here about matter, sensation, etc. Maybe if I draw it down to a specific example it will be clearer.

You eat a spoonful of peanut butter. It has a certain taste to it.

A materialist comes along and claims that the peanut butter you're eating, and your own taste buds, are features of an objectively-existing material world.

An idealist comes along and says, no, the peanut butter you're eating is an illusion, a dream in the mind of God; there is no objective material world.

What you mean by "matter" is what the materialist says. But what the materialist says, isn't matter. It's an idea about matter. It's not a part of the material world, but something in the materialist's head.

Matter is not the idea of the materialist. What "matter" really is, is the taste of the peanut butter. And it tastes the same whether the materialist is right or wrong. "There is no matter" doesn't mean the materialist is wrong. It means that you don't taste the peanut butter, and after eating it you're still just as hungry.

I know. I just don't call it matter. You do.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I am just guessing here, but Eric will not change his views on it so......waste of time really. Btw Brian, you are right in my opinion. Eric's view is his and not one i understand but when one will not change ones views it is a waste of time. Which is why on another thread I stopped talking to kinser regarding art because it was merely a waste of my time.

Taramarie, You must have been raised by Boomers, given the fact that you follow this discussion with patience

Originally Posted by annla899

Taramarie, You must have been raised by Boomers, given the fact that you follow this discussion with patience

Hahaha both my parents were born in 1957. But dad has never been around. But yes, raised by a late boomer. How does being raised by a boomer have anything to do with it though? Am very curious about that!

Originally Posted by annla899

Taramarie, You must have been raised by Boomers, given the fact that you follow this discussion with patience

Ohhhh I have an inkling what you may be on about. Many boomers think they are right about everything and when you try have a conversation with them it is like talking to a brick wall and they will not listen or budge on an idea they have. My mother is like that. Yeah, I am used to it and it pisses me off as it is a pure waste of time. I do not have the patience for that.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Ohhhh I have an inkling what you may be on about. Many boomers think they are right about everything and when you try have a conversation with them it is like talking to a brick wall and they will not listen or budge on an idea they have. My mother is like that. Yeah, I am used to it and it pisses me off as it is a pure waste of time. I do not have the patience for that.

I was thinking more along the lines of the "woo-woo" esoteric factor. That kind of discussion was/is pretty common among certain Prophet types. It strikes me that both posters, Brian and Eric, were using a lot of words to say very simple things.

And also what you wrote above. (I am the same age as your parents, lol.)

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I am just guessing here, but Eric will not change his views on it so......waste of time really. Btw Brian, you are right in my opinion. Eric's view is his and not one i understand but when one will not change ones views it is a waste of time. Which is why on another thread I stopped talking to kinser regarding art because it was merely a waste of my time.

The question is whether you and other civics might change their views, not whether I will. I know many civics who changed their views once the Awakening came around.

You can't understand topics like this by calling them gibberish.

My views changed in the Awakening and it gave me a foundation from which I have learned many new things and had many experiences in all the years since.

Materialism is not a foundation for any learning about life; only about things in the world. You can't expect a prophet who had an awakening from materialism to go back to it. It is correct to call such a project a waste of time. It is a waste of time for the prophet too. There's no reason to go back to ignorance, once one has had an inkling of enlightenment. The only way forward for such a prophet or any other awakened person is to go forward on the spiritual journey, and keep learning.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Eric, I'm obviously having a hard time getting you to understand what I'm saying here about matter, sensation, etc. Maybe if I draw it down to a specific example it will be clearer.

You eat a spoonful of peanut butter. It has a certain taste to it.

A materialist comes along and claims that the peanut butter you're eating, and your own taste buds, are features of an objectively-existing material world.

An idealist comes along and says, no, the peanut butter you're eating is an illusion, a dream in the mind of God; there is no objective material world.

What you mean by "matter" is what the materialist says. But what the materialist says, isn't matter. It's an idea about matter. It's not a part of the material world, but something in the materialist's head.

Matter is not the idea of the materialist. What "matter" really is, is the taste of the peanut butter. And it tastes the same whether the materialist is right or wrong. "There is no matter" doesn't mean the materialist is wrong. It means that you don't taste the peanut butter, and after eating it you're still just as hungry.

I understand your point that you are discussing matter in terms of our physical, sense-based experiences regarding our basic needs.

Remember though that Berkeley said that "we eat and drink ideas"

You can't get away from "theories about matter" so easily. You don't. Once you have started from "you don't really believe that. You eat and breathe," I see that you went to something that can be "measured" and "observed" (in your sense of an empirical scientific investigation), and that its behavior can be explained by cause and effect. And on on. You are back to theorizing almost immediately. And yes that's all in your head, and has nothing to do with eating and breathing, or with matter.

I would say eating and breathing a part of the process of a spiritual life. Jesus said it's not what we put in our mouth that defiles us, but what comes out of it. He supposedly turned water into wine and fed the multitudes with 2 fishes and 5 loaves (or was it 5 loaves and 2 fishes, I forget). The point is not whether he actually did this. The point is he saw no contradiction between eating and a spiritual life. Breathing is said to be synonymous with spirit and the root words for both are in common. Eating and breathing, as I often point out, are examples of what materialists like kinser does not understand; that we are one with the environment and always connected to it, and not separate beings. By paying attention to breathing, we understand our interconnection as both subject and object-- as yogis and buddhists and hindus and new agers all teach.

Philosophy, not sense experience, is what trumps all as far as knowledge is concerned. Philosophy gives us truth; the senses deceive. I don't know of any mystics who would disagree with this. You are the only one. You are unique indeed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I understand your point that you are discussing matter in terms of our physical, sense-based experiences regarding our basic needs.

No. If that's what you think I'm saying, you do NOT understand. Matter isn't necessarily "physical" in the sense you mean here, nor is it just about our "basic needs."

There are five (I used to say four) modes of subjective experience: sensation, imagination, cognition, emotion, and will. The world we live in is made of various combinations of those five modes of experience.

The material world -- if you don't like that phrase because of the connotations, you can say "sensory world" instead, but I'm going to go on using the normal phrase -- is the shared reality we live in that's defined by the sensation mode of experience. It's everything we see, hear, smell, feel, and taste. That shared world behaves in certain regular and observable ways, which is the basis of science (although science is primarily cognitive, not sensory, and includes in its models concepts that we can't perceive with the senses, but that help explain and predict the behavior of what we can).

That shared reality may be "material" in the sense the materialist means: independently existing, objectively real, etc. Or it may not. Regardless, it exists, and it behaves as it does.

Materialism is a cognitive idea, but it has reference to something non-cognitive. It does not exist all by itself in a vacuum, so if you reject materialism, the material world doesn't disappear. You just adopt a different cognitive idea describing it. In every material respect -- every respect that we can observe and demonstrate, as opposed to the ones that exist only in the materialist's mind -- it's still there.

Philosophy, not sense experience, is what trumps all as far as knowledge is concerned.

Not if you're talking about that shared reality defined by sense experience. If you're talking about something else, then sense experience is irrelevant. But if your philosophy tells you that the sky is green, then your philosophy is demonstrably wrong.

Originally Posted by annla899

I was thinking more along the lines of the "woo-woo" esoteric factor. That kind of discussion was/is pretty common among certain Prophet types. It strikes me that both posters, Brian and Eric, were using a lot of words to say very simple things.

And also what you wrote above. (I am the same age as your parents, lol.)

Yes that too lol

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The question is whether you and other civics might change their views, not whether I will. I know many civics who changed their views once the Awakening came around.

You can't understand topics like this by calling them gibberish.

My views changed in the Awakening and it gave me a foundation from which I have learned many new things and had many experiences in all the years since.

Materialism is not a foundation for any learning about life; only about things in the world. You can't expect a prophet who had an awakening from materialism to go back to it. It is correct to call such a project a waste of time. It is a waste of time for the prophet too. There's no reason to go back to ignorance, once one has had an inkling of enlightenment. The only way forward for such a prophet or any other awakened person is to go forward on the spiritual journey, and keep learning.

Eric, I cant understand what you are saying, period. As Odin said, it is my type which cannot understand this type of subject. I am sure many civics will embrace it, perhaps depending on their type. I will probably not be one of them because for me I would probably have to be high as a kite to get an idea what you are saying. I also am no prophet. But at least I understand the awakening a little more and through it, my parents generation more. I watched a little movie called, Network.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Because if it's a function of the brain, or of anything else we can identify, then it doesn't simply happen, it happens for a reason or due to a cause.




Because that makes no sense. When we say that A causes B, both A and B are functions observed in the third person. But consciousness is the experience of reality in the first person. It's not a function, but a perspective on all functions.



It differentiates it only from a small subset of the entire set of experiences, those that involve discrete material objects. By "discrete" I mean localized and with definite limits. Spiritual experience isn't of any discrete object; what it appears to be is an experience of the whole of reality -- all the universe -- at once. Nothing discrete about that.



Untrue, or no more true than it is about your sensory perceptions. You can attach a tag-sound to your sensory experience that I have learned to associate with certain sensory experiences of my own, and we can agree that these tag-sounds refer to some object or event in our shared perception, but I have no way to know if the color green that I see (for example) is the same color green that you see. All I know is that we both use that tag-sound, "green," to refer to grass.

The same thing can be done with spiritual experience, although it's somewhat more complicated because human language isn't designed for the purpose.

Since we are doing our trapeze act here without a net ...

Suppose that there are an infinite number of universes. Further, suppose that each has its own set of randomly generated physical constants. Suppose that some universes simply don't work because their particular configuration of physical constants are inconsistent with a stable, functional universe.

Assume that our particular universe with our particular set of fundamentals is especially robust and relatively stable, so that stars and worlds and ducks and cockroaches and human beings "naturally"occur out of it.

Then ... if all that's true, everything is probability based. Nothing necessarily happens, but it can on occasion based on probabilities.

Shit happens. The basis for our universe.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Eric, I cant understand what you are saying, period. As Odin said, it is my type which cannot understand this type of subject. I am sure many civics will embrace it, perhaps depending on their type. I will probably not be one of them because for me I would probably have to be high as a kite to get an idea what you are saying. I also am no prophet. But at least I understand the awakening a little more and through it, my parents generation more. I watched a little movie called, Network.

Eric's just not understanding what Brian is saying because Eric is too caught up on the word "materialism". I suspect it is because Eric is unconsciously stuck in some "matter-versus-spirit" dualistic thinking despite believing himself to be not a dualist, something I have scolded Eric about before and it went right through one ear of his and out the other.

Dualism is the "default" metaphysical attitude in Western society because of Christianity, so such hang-ups are not really surprising. Eric is just too blinkered and sure of himself to recognize the hang-ups as hang-ups.

Originally Posted by Odin

Eric's just not understanding what Brian is saying because Eric is too caught up on the word "materialism". I suspect it is because Eric is unconsciously stuck in some "matter-versus-spirit" dualistic thinking despite believing himself to be not a dualist, something I have scolded Eric about before and it went right through one ear of his and out the other.

Dualism is the "default" metaphysical attitude in Western society because of Christianity, so such hang-ups are not really surprising. Eric is just too blinkered and sure of himself to recognize the hang-ups as hang-ups.

Does he really think everything is spirit? Because that is what it sounds like to me. To me, there is the physical world, and then there is the internal world. Our internal world as we know through this 4T theory shapes the outer world somewhat. Boy it must be a trip to see through his eyes. Brian makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Does he really think everything is spirit? Because that is what it sounds like to me. To me, there is the physical world, and then there is the internal world. Our internal world as we know through this 4T theory shapes the outer world somewhat. Boy it must be a trip to see through his eyes. Brian makes perfect sense.

I'm glad at least you can make sense of one of us prophets.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm glad at least you can make sense of one of us prophets.

Yeah that is true and the movie Network helped me to understand the awakening. Where it all began (culture war) but, what triggered it, I still do not know. You guys in many ways are a mystery to me as I am sure we are a mystery to you.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No. If that's what you think I'm saying, you do NOT understand. Matter isn't necessarily "physical" in the sense you mean here, nor is it just about our "basic needs."

There are five (I used to say four) modes of subjective experience: sensation, imagination, cognition, emotion, and will. The world we live in is made of various combinations of those five modes of experience.

The material world -- if you don't like that phrase because of the connotations, you can say "sensory world" instead, but I'm going to go on using the normal phrase -- is the shared reality we live in that's defined by the sensation mode of experience. It's everything we see, hear, smell, feel, and taste. That shared world behaves in certain regular and observable ways, which is the basis of science (although science is primarily cognitive, not sensory, and includes in its models concepts that we can't perceive with the senses, but that help explain and predict the behavior of what we can).

That shared reality may be "material" in the sense the materialist means: independently existing, objectively real, etc. Or it may not. Regardless, it exists, and it behaves as it does.

Materialism is a cognitive idea, but it has reference to something non-cognitive. It does not exist all by itself in a vacuum, so if you reject materialism, the material world doesn't disappear. You just adopt a different cognitive idea describing it. In every material respect -- every respect that we can observe and demonstrate, as opposed to the ones that exist only in the materialist's mind -- it's still there.

When you move on from what we sense, to what "behaves in certain regular and observable ways, which is the basis of science" you are no longer in the sense mode, but in the cognitive mode.

Not if you're talking about that shared reality defined by sense experience. If you're talking about something else, then sense experience is irrelevant. But if your philosophy tells you that the sky is green, then your philosophy is demonstrably wrong.[/COLOR]

I wouldn't disagree as I share your concept (a bit altered) of your 5 modes.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Yeah that is true and the movie Network helped me to understand the awakening. Where it all began (culture war) but, what triggered it, I still do not know. You guys in many ways are a mystery to me as I am sure we are a mystery to you.

I don't think it works that way. You are not a mystery to us; but we are a mystery to you.

Network was 12 years after the Awakening started. It's an Awakening movie, to be sure. But it only scratches the surface of what went on.

The culture war was triggered when new social and cultural movements were met with a reaction by those who felt threatened by them. The reactionaries largely drove the war, although the movements pushed forward. The movements and the reaction to them arrived simultaneously, in 1964-66. The reaction became dominant in the late 1970s with the rise of the moral majority and election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Does he really think everything is spirit? Because that is what it sounds like to me. To me, there is the physical world, and then there is the internal world. Our internal world as we know through this 4T theory shapes the outer world somewhat. Boy it must be a trip to see through his eyes. Brian makes perfect sense.

It sounds like taramarie is talking dualism here, not me. Spiritualism is not dualism.