Originally posted by Greatest I am
We have no idea how much consciousness can be held in a given electrical field and so cannot answer all questions.We also do not know how much brain is required, if any, for consciousness.
How big is the consciousness your brain creates? You cannot know nor can you know how small it can be before being compromised.
Regards
DL
Please define consciousness scientifically.
Originally posted by Greatest I amIn regards to your first sentence, it's better written as "we have no evidence that consciousness can be held in a given electrical field." The brain produces electrical output--but to equate that with being one and the same thing as consciousness itself is fallacious. There's a correlation, but not a proven causation. I think you're too impressed with the concept of a "field" of electro-consciousness, or whatever you think of it as.
We have no idea how much consciousness can be held in a given electrical field and so cannot answer all questions.We also do not know how much brain is required, if any, for consciousness.
How big is the consciousness your brain creates? You cannot know nor can you know how small it can be before being compromised.
Regards
DL
In regards to the rest, for someone who admits to not knowing much about any of this, you seem to have an oddly resilient (if strangely structured) belief in it. Can you not forsake your beliefs in favor of resigned ignorance, at least until further scientific evidence either confirms or denies something?
Originally posted by siriuswriter
Moose - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s_LadderExplains the "analogy of Jacob's Ladder" through Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I've used wikipedia for trying to understand the more cloudthought things described here - helps me understand Shaky much better, too!
ETA : I THINK GIA is talking about this part : "In the 3rd century, Origen[5] explains that there are two ladders in the life of a Christian, the ascetic ladder that the soul climbs on the earth, by way of—and resulting in—an increase in virtue, and the soul's travel after death, climbing up the heavens towards the light of God."
I tried looking at that too, but there's a lot of purple prose and conflicting viewpoints on it. If GIA couldn't define it in terms I could understand enough to verify, it stands to reason he hasn't examined his beliefs thoroughly enough. After all, would you trust a mechanic who can't describe to you the layman what is wrong with your vehicle?
GIA, I find all this Kabbalist esoteric nonsense to be impossible to scrutinize as it is presented. And this is not necessarily due to my ignorance of Gnosticism but a communication issue we seem to be having here. You are saying your Atkin's ten step program helps you magically understand and verify religious or spiritual belief suddenly through no particular cause but just out of thin air some day. Then there's some addendum about being God-like, etc. etc.
Things lilke "godhead", "esoteric" and "apotheosis" are like corporate buzzwords here. They may seem upon superficial glance to be profound, but the truth is they have no substance. You've admitted to having zero proof and furthermore been unable to render any reasoning for your conversion. I see no reason in turn to give it any more consideration than I do JIA's born-again rhetoric.
Originally posted by Greatest I amThis is why I said, "'consciousness' is being used here in the broadest sense of the term." Mind and consciousness are not synonymous.
Holistics are nice but as far as we know, a complicated consciousness cannot exist without a mind. Single cells can react but that does not quite mean conscious reaction.
Originally posted by Greatest I amIt would do you good to become familiar with the perennial philosophy. Without realizing it, it is, in essence, what draws you. But somewhere down the line, you got sidetracked into manufacturing a perspective which reduces the transcendent to the physical. This is classic category error being committed, imho, in the attempt to give your approach equal status with the dominant, reductive-materialist paradigm. If so, good luck.
We should stay in the real before invoking anything of a spirit world.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
In regards to your first sentence, it's better written as "we have [b]no evidence that consciousness can be held in a given electrical field." The brain produces electrical output--but to equate that with being one and the same thing as consciousness itself is fallacious. There's a correlation, but not a proven causation. I think you're too impressed with the concept of a "field" of electro-consciousness, or whatever you think of it as.In regards to the rest, for someone who admits to not knowing much about any of this, you seem to have an oddly resilient (if strangely structured) belief in it. Can you not forsake your beliefs in favor of resigned ignorance, at least until further scientific evidence either confirms or denies something? [/B]
I am quite ready to accept anything new in these areas.
Are you?
Try this.
I think this scientist has found where my apotheosis took me.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I tried looking at that too, but there's a lot of purple prose and conflicting viewpoints on it. If GIA couldn't define it in terms I could understand enough to verify, it stands to reason he hasn't examined his beliefs thoroughly enough. After all, would you trust a mechanic who can't describe to you the layman what is wrong with your vehicle?GIA, I find all this Kabbalist esoteric nonsense to be impossible to scrutinize as it is presented. And this is not necessarily due to my ignorance of Gnosticism but a communication issue we seem to be having here. You are saying your Atkin's ten step program helps you magically understand and verify religious or spiritual belief suddenly through no particular cause but just out of thin air some day. Then there's some addendum about being God-like, etc. etc.
Things lilke "godhead", "esoteric" and "apotheosis" are like corporate buzzwords here. They may seem upon superficial glance to be profound, but the truth is they have no substance. You've admitted to having zero proof and furthermore been unable to render any reasoning for your conversion. I see no reason in turn to give it any more consideration than I do JIA's born-again rhetoric.
If you do not have a spiritual side to scratch, then I cannot give you anything to ease the itch.
Nothing I say is particularly new.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Mindship
This is why I said, "'consciousness' is being used here in the broadest sense of the term." Mind and consciousness are not synonymous.It would do you good to become familiar with the perennial philosophy. Without realizing it, it is, in essence, what draws you. But somewhere down the line, you got sidetracked into manufacturing a perspective which reduces the transcendent to the physical. This is classic category error being committed, imho, in the attempt to give your approach equal status with the dominant, reductive-materialist paradigm. If so, good luck.
I report what I found.
My experience fit's well to what some of the ancients have said so I do give that real experience some veracity.
It is of the natural and not the supernatural and is definitely tied to the physical.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Greatest I am
The seat of our own awareness is my closest guess, --- because science is not yet able to define it accurately.Other than that, I do not want or need to re-write the dictionary.
Regards
DL
So, this is all guess work? Unravel the mystery of awareness and then tell us how it relates to the physical world. Now you have your life’s work cut out for you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, this is all guess work? Unravel the mystery of awareness and then tell us how it relates to the physical world. Now you have your life’s work cut out for you.
No one ever said it was anything other than guess work or speculation.
What else can be used for the unseen and unproven?
What I have beats hearsay and book say but only for me. Others, unless they choose to believe it, would get little if anything positive and will likely produce something negative.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you do not have a spiritual side to scratch, then I cannot give you anything to ease the itch.Nothing I say is particularly new.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y
Regards
DL
You've still failed to satisfy the most elemental method of sharing your viewpoint with others. If you want to write me off as 'non-spiritual', dodge the hard questions I posed you, and link me to a Youtube video I won't so much as waste my time with, then here's what I have to say:
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You've still failed to satisfy the most elemental method of sharing your viewpoint with others. If you want to write me off as 'non-spiritual', dodge the hard questions I posed you, and link me to a Youtube video I won't so much as waste my time with, then here's what I have to say:
If words alone could do it, Jesus would have won years ago.
The answers we all seek are within us in God's kingdom where Gnostic Jesus and even the bible Jesus said answers are.
If you want a magic bullet you have to dig it up yourself.
Jesus said to seek God. Not for you go just piggy back on someone else's.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Greatest I amRiveting response. So rich in substance and candor.
I am quite ready to accept anything new in these areas.Are you?
Try this.
I think this scientist has found where my apotheosis took me.
Regards
DL