What is Spirit?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2014, 04:38 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
Quote:'Luminon'
Why do you assume this is true ? I thought I referred to the philosophy of Brahmanism somewhere. This is a common idea. It may be true in the sense that Big Bang is true or that kymatics is true.

Who says the Brahaman philosophy is true. Even the Brahamins cannot determine this - there are many ways to interpret the Veda's - just look at the Hindu's.
How do you know your interpretation of Brahaman philosophy is true ?

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
Quote:'Luminon'
If our reality is a simulation, then there must be another reality that is capable of simulating and influencing it, which means it must be more energetic/massive.
**IF** our reality is a simulation ?
Perhaps its not a simulation but the real thing.
You could end up with an infinite regress of simulations - what simulates the simulation ?
alternately Occam's razor may be used as a heuristic guide to avoid the overcomplexifying and accept - this is reality, we don't need to assume it is a simulation. There is another thread on TTA about simulations and Hilary Putnams argument against this for example (way too long for now) . I don't see why we have to assume "reality" is a simulation.

Quote:There can not be a simulated reality that is more massive/energetic than simulating reality, because energy can not be created nor destroyed.
Makes no sense. The ultimate substrate of our reality may well be energy that is eternal and neither created nor destroyed. We don't need to infer "other" energy realities simulating ours.

Quote:This is why we may consider that the visible universe is like a sand on a kymatical sound plate of the invisible yet real and undiscovered universe. Its massive presence can be detected, but not analyzed with our instruments, so we call it dark matter and dark energy.
Dark energy & Dark matter are not necessarily synonymous (just because they have the word "dark" - both may have completely independent explanations.
We call it "Dark" because we don't (Yet) know what these are.

Quote:Thus other "levels" of the universe may be even more real, meaning:
Just because something is hidden or we don't understand it yet does not make it "more real" aerodynamics & fluid dynamics are as real as quantum mechanics - just different levels of explanation. It is useless to use quantum mechanics when sailing a boat - but required to know fluid dynamics.

Quote:The rest of the unseen universe may be literally more massive, energetic and dimensional than the matter we are made of.
Lots of unnecessary assumptions. Sure the unseen universe as in what lied beyond the event horizon of the perceivable universe is unimaginably massive. For all we know "the universe" in its totality may be infinite in size whether spatially or temporally (likely to be both as space-time go together).

Quote:In that case our matter would be just a temporary and relatively inert precipitation of something grander, a shade of true reality.
Matter - at least in our part of the universe will be temporary according to current cosmology - the universe is accelerating in expansion and eventually in trillions or trillions or years matter will convert back to energy. Some physicists like Paul Davies speculate some cyclical process converting the energy back to matter - but we don't know.


Quote:sitting still and watching what is in the gaps between the thoughts. If there is something, and I'd say there is, then our world is not all of the world there is. What do you say on that?
Silence is silence - doesn't tell us anything about what's beyond. Just tells us we have noisy minds.

Quote:(please give me the benefit of the doubt that I can differ true observation from the makyo hallucinations of sensory deprivation, and such, I can also historically cros-reference results of meditative practices
)
I don't give you the benefit of the doubt but the doubt of the benefit.Drinking BeverageRolleyes
I have studied sensory deprivation and even done it. Does not tell you about alternate realities. Yes, the imagination may run wild. Yes - eventually there are experiences of hallucinations. When silence does develop - its silence. That's it.
Non sequitur to infer anything else about alternative realities.
Cross referencing meditative practices ? We know intuitions can be subjective & misleading - we are anthropocentric beings and so what if they are cross referenced ? Its like cross referencing Catholics, Mormons, Lutherians and Calvanists - sure they may agree on something about Jesus - but that doesn't make it true.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Baruch's post
18-01-2014, 05:20 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
(18-01-2014 01:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  I don't know much about consciousness

We knew that.
Maybe you'll get some of dat dere, some day. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-01-2014, 05:28 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
(18-01-2014 02:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  There aren't any self-conscious AIs yet, so there's that. Drinking Beverage
And there can't be, because ...

That's a bet you gonna lose Luminous. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 05:48 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
(18-01-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  I have practiced mindfulness ...

Mindlessness throw better parties. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 06:19 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
(18-01-2014 05:48 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  I have practiced mindfulness ...

Mindlessness throw better parties. Tongue

Mindfulness is overrated. Some techniques can actually improve psychological well being and there is evidence related research about this. However it is certainly not the key to understanding ultimate reality !!!
Do a pubmed search and you will see many peer reviewed citations:
eg: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20363650

As for the silent gaps between thoughts - well that's what they are, nothing more than silence - cannot infer any metaphysical insights about God, the universe, spirits, holy ghosts or alternate realities.

To understand reality one needs experiments, empirical research and a good dose of logic & reasoning which is essentially the practice of science and robust none woo woo philosophy. (you cannot have science without philosophy - but there is very bad philosophy just as bad quackery & pseudoscience) I particularly despise the Feyerabender postmodernistic relativism for example. I am a fan of Karl Popper. Someone like David Deutsch does both well. On the one hand there is profound question asking & creativity combined with mathematical rigour & reasoning and at the same time scepticism to cage the imagination from running too wild !
People who lack the scepticism & evidence based research end in woo woo, pseudoscience & quackery.
People who lack the creativity, question seeking and innovation just repeat what we know & make no breakthroughs - cant do new science.
People who don't have the scepticism, evidence base and just repeat the same dogma's from ancient scripture traditions end up religious.

Mindfulness can be relaxing & peaceful, can improve cognition & self awareness in some circumstances eg some research and my own practice with others & self shows benefit for anxiety or mild to moderate depression much like cognitive behavioural therapies. Definitely not a cure all.
Of course mindfulness can also be used to sell books and make money.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 07:49 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2014 07:52 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(18-01-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  What universals are you referring to? Have you gone Platonic?
And who said anything about random?
Universals are the basic properties of reality which can be contacted by minds and which allow us to know outside reality empirically and rationally. Such as identity, logic, linearity, non-contradiction and so on. This allows us to create truly universal and logical definitions such as universally preferable behavior, for example, which makes an interesting case for objective morality. Curiously enough, it is basically the golden rule in modern terms, but its ancient age makes it no less valid.

(18-01-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  All neurological evidence shows that every bit of personality resides in the brain.
There is no person without a brain.
Yes, but there is such a thing as a "higher self" or "true self" which manifests through the brain. Its existence was felt by countless people down the ages who meditated.
My current guess is, this feeling is the result of increased inflow of reality through integration of the brain. Meditation does have an interconnecting effect on the brain - and as some scientist said, integration is the measure of consciousness in a system. We become more conscious through meditation and we may become aware of phenomena completely dwarfing our small everyday personality residing in the brain. Thus the idea of mystical transcendent God is encountered by many people independently in our history, because they literally experience it. Note, that this is different from disruption of normal brain function through drugs.
There is an objective tendency to integration in human civilization as a whole, it is synonymous with the process of modernization. Similarly there is such a process in one's brain as we mature, develop personally and start thinking objectively.
I base this opinion on these sources: (and of course my own experience)
How God Changes Your Brain - Andrew Newberg
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...sciousness
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/73169...Experience


(18-01-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  However, your insistence that the brain be human is entirely anthropocentric. What about non-humans? What about aliens?
Or are you insisting that only a biological brain can support or host a person? Are we back to élan vital, for which there is no evidence?
By this definition, a "man" is derived from the root of Sanskrit word "manas", which means mind, so "man" is literally "the thinking one". To think means to contact outside or objective reality in some way. This is how we can distinguish a simulation, -which is completely enclosed and limited in itself- from a sentient being.
Sentience is derived from the material substrate itself, from energy that is the basis of existence of matter and everything. Software or information in a computer can not be conscious, it's a frozen snapshot of a state of matter. Only energy is conscious, because consciousness is a process (a cyclical process!).
We, biological brains are conscious only to a limited degree, how much our material substrate permits. However, this limit can be overcome by integrating our brain (and whole nerve and endocrine system) to such a degree that it can contact the "higher self" phenomenon. This extremely powerful phenomenon inspired people to create greatest works of civilization and as such represents the true potential of humanity and each thinker's rightful heritage. We are capable of knowing reality and this is a real phenomenon. When one contacts something from this reality, it is like an explosion of light in the brain. Such as when a prepared person learns and does philosophy.

Remember the integration model of the consciousness? We must see the parallel between human consciousness, human behavior (particularly the works of genius), integration of brain, effects on meditation and contemplation on brain, knowledge and perception of reality (works of philosophical and scientific geniuses), self-transforming mystical experiences and especially the general, whole, physical and metaphysical universe. Because we are a part of the universe and we were that before we invented empirical science. If you put all these things together, that might get you out of your Cartesian dualism. There is no us and the universe which we can know only by reading the Nature journal, there is only the universe, which is in a process of integration and we are a necessary part of it and our part of integration is done through some instruments one of which is the scientific method, but there are also other methods.


(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Our everyday consciousness is not an illusion but a real emergent property with new attributes the individual parts don't have.
Like wise a wave in the sea is not an illusion but emerges from water molecules, hydrogen bonding, wind, mathematics of fluid dynamics, enough water molecules etc. Individual water molecules don't have properties of "waves" or the concepts of "solid ice" or "liquid" don't exist - they emerge but are as real once emerged to the individual water molecules.
Consciousness - even the everyday sort is real once emerged and destroyed once its substrate is destroyed (brain in our case)
Our everyday consciousness, or ego, or false self is a self-contained mechanism of self-validation. It needs no physical reference to reality, that's why I say it is an illusion. A wave refers to a general property of reality, so it is a real concept. What we usually think of as thinking is not that, it is neither physical referencing, nor using real concepts.

Whether that does or doesn't destroyed with destruction of brain, that is a technical question. Some people have the reasons to think yes or no, but at our present shared, objective level of knowledge it seems like the answer is no.


(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Our everyday consciousness does not base itself on "attachment to random things" but have incredible order in the systems involved in perception. Granted the systems of perception can malfunction - see V.S. Ramachandran or Oliver Sacks work on bizzare neurological conditions.
There is a process of "substantiation of the random" and it is a way how people choose symbols of their identity into which they invest and how they thus construct their identity, which is quite false by objective standards. That is a sociological fact, this is what I referred to. Gangs have their names and colors, patriots have their flags, believers have their totems. Then they start using subjective logic, putting a barrier between "us" and "them". They start inventing tales of how "us" are better or just different than "them". This is not objective logic of true and false, this is the subjective, emotional logic of "ours" and "not ours". Fair enough? And these people are considered healthy.

(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  No reason why an AI with sufficient complexity and consciousness could not contact universals...
If you mean universal in the platonic sense then an AI might even be better at "awareness" of mathematical patterns underlying observable phenomena.
In any case as Kant rightly argued (& many others) we have limited access to the "absolute essence" of things (the numena) because our brain generates phenomena and is inherently anthropocentric which either distorts or has limitations - hence why some of our intuitions & introspections can be misleading. (i.e we don't automatically intuit quantum physics unless steeped in the mathematics & experiments required to reveal this level of reality.) Just because the mathematics of quantum physics is generally hidden it does not mean our everyday observable world is an illusion. I don't need understand quantum mechanics to fly an aeroplane but aerodynamics which emerges on a much larger scale and follows Newtonian physics. (again Newtonian physics emerges on a large scale - not applicable to the incredible small, or incredible massive or fast scales - but still "real" in the everyday sized world.
It is an interesting argument that an artificial brain might reveal other aspects of reality than our half-animal brain. But I don't think it's valid, because the brain is a general purpose computer, if used right. If used right, not even quantum physics is beyond its reach. What is needed is the necessary set of concepts and ability to re-wire itself dynamically, to integrate better. Ultimately, the brain is a lump of well-organized matter, a fine midway meeting point of energy and matter at its subtlest.

(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Also there is no hint that some meditating on OM / AUM is going to reveal quantum mathematics - for this we need hard work, good mathematicians and getting our hands dirty with experiments ! Rationality & empirical evidence is the way do this !
Yes, that is one way to do it. However, empirical method is philosophically very tenuous, because it examines only particulars, its proof is never absolute. And rational method again can't examine the empirical world. Both are limited by a language or scientific paradigm and I have discussed these in one of my earlier topics. Basically, in times of scientific revolution the rational evidence temporarily breaks down, because there are two or more competing paradigms with equally good explanations.
As for the OM method, yes, it obviously has severe limitations on empiricism and so on, but it may reveal some peculiar aspects of reality and human brain that can not be otherwise found and that can be deeper examined by proper science. Otherwise its usefulness is still high, but strictly for personal use or social and societal transformation by the virtue of our enlightened personality.

(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Your sentence doesn't make any sense.
Grasping causes is both within and outside our brain simultaneously. Your are assuming some dualism or "élan vital"
Please review my sentence in the light of the reply up there - objective vs subjective logic.

(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Again this doesn't make any sense. Like Chaos (or Kant & many others) said we must think anthropocentrically and limited by this when perceiving "full reality"
Granted we may have access to some universals in mathematics - but this is a huge debate in philosophy of mathematics I cannot go into here for sheer space. (Kurt Gödel was a mathematical Platonist and some of his points might be valid)
There definitely is an antropocentric limitation in our senses, such as hearing, smell or sight, and brain centers that process them. But our reason can grasp not only mathematics, but also instruments that extend our senses. Also, mathematics are based on philosophical disciplines (gnoseology and logic), which are based on basic properties of reality, not of human brain. Otherwise we could not manipulate the general nature, but only other people. So I must argue, that our brains, at least their biggest part, the neocortex are not antropocentric, they are reality-centric.

(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  "Free choice" may also be an emergent property when consciousness reaches a certain threshold of self organization. I don't actually like the word because the term "free" is ambiguous. We have choices, or a will and for the most part that is part of being conscious but not necessary & sufficient for consciousness. It is most certainly possible to be conscious and not experience "will" or "choice" eg in non lucid dreams.
I don't like the word either, because it is an illusion. Defining "free choice" as a "non-causal" choice is just unfair, impossible. So I define free will as internal, conscious will, which nonetheless may be perfectly predictable yet still perfectly free. But it is opposed to all things external and/or unconscious. What is or isn't conscious is again a reference to the degree of neurological integration of the brain and/or one's personal worldview.
Obviously, as our consciousness expands, we are more aware of good and bad consequences of choices and obviously a bad choice is no choice at all, so the more we know, the fewer choices we have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 08:13 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
(18-01-2014 03:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
Quote: Alla:
every theology has parts of the truth. Mormonism or Gospel of Jesus Christ embraces all the truth. It doesn't matter who has it or where it can be found.

There are elements of the gospel of Jesus Christ which are dualistic & assume transcendence - how do you reconcile this ?

Eg below are MANY references suggesting dualism & the notion of transcendence in the Gospels - this does not look anything like ideas of "emergent consciousness" at all.

Quote:EG
For New Testament Gospel writers, the notion of dualism in the universe is abundantly clear. About Jesus himself, the writers of the Synoptics and John affirmed a staunch belief that Jesus was an incarnation of God (cf. John 1:1, 14; 8:58; 10:30-33). All of the Gospels refer to the eventual reunion of the essence of Jesus (that is, his spirit) with the material body of Jesus in the Resurrection event (Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:36-46; John 20:1-27). Thus a dualistic affirmation seems to be a part of the Gospel portraits of Jesus. This has led many to conclude that Platonism, with its distinct and original view of the universe, is perhaps responsible for the dualism extant throughout the New Testament Gospels.


Any hint at Platonism in the Gospels (which is abundantly has quoted above) is in contrast to what you say Alla about your view on emergent consciousness. The Gospels make a distinction between a spiritual realm + physical realm as separate and distinct. The spiritual real is "transcendent" from the physical realm in the above gospel quotes.

I believe that spirit is material. It is organized system.

English is not my native language.
that awkward moment between the Premortal Existence and your Resurrection
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 09:26 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
A scientist tried to measure it once. He claimed it weighed 2ozs.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 09:53 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
(18-01-2014 05:06 PM)Baruch Wrote:  **IF** our reality is a simulation ?
Perhaps its not a simulation but the real thing.
You could end up with an infinite regress of simulations - what simulates the simulation ?
alternately Occam's razor may be used as a heuristic guide to avoid the overcomplexifying and accept - this is reality, we don't need to assume it is a simulation. There is another thread on TTA about simulations and Hilary Putnams argument against this for example (way too long for now) . I don't see why we have to assume "reality" is a simulation.
Yes, IF. The simulation question is a valid question that must be taken seriously, because
- there are people who believe it is possible to simulate people and worlds
- there are people who believe our world might be some kind of simulation within a greater world.
Yet I must honestly say that the question of simulation is not necessarily exclusive with Occam's razor (the real thing), as long as all the simulated worlds are made of the equally real substance, differing only in its parameters, such as the amount of contained energy or the dimensions in which its material particles are capable to move.
In this case, the question of just how many worlds are there is a technical, scientific question - or it depends how do you define a world. If someone proved M-theory, there would be 7 worlds, each with 3D space and time, as I understand it. That is a deeper than mere technical division.

(18-01-2014 05:06 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Makes no sense. The ultimate substrate of our reality may well be energy that is eternal and neither created nor destroyed. We don't need to infer "other" energy realities simulating ours.

Yes, but as I said, both may be true at the same time.

(18-01-2014 05:06 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Dark energy & Dark matter are not necessarily synonymous (just because they have the word "dark" - both may have completely independent explanations.
We call it "Dark" because we don't (Yet) know what these are.
Sure, that's what we know today. I have some guesses about dark matter, but dark energy rather baffles me. Anyway, there is multiple independent evidence.

I am coming to an opinion that integration is one of the basic processes or properties of the universe and thus we should search for phenomena integrating with other phenomena, instead of trying to isolate them independently. The question is never if, but when, where and how. This is why if something possibly exists, we must hypothetically presume that it interacts - presumably in the areas of greatest integration (organization) of matter. Thus I see it as a mistake that scientists search for dark matter in vacuum and empty chambers. They should look for its interaction in human brain and biology, as in the most integrated known object.

(18-01-2014 05:06 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Just because something is hidden or we don't understand it yet does not make it "more real" aerodynamics & fluid dynamics are as real as quantum mechanics - just different levels of explanation. It is useless to use quantum mechanics when sailing a boat - but required to know fluid dynamics.
Lots of unnecessary assumptions. Sure the unseen universe as in what lied beyond the event horizon of the perceivable universe is unimaginably massive. For all we know "the universe" in its totality may be infinite in size whether spatially or temporally (likely to be both as space-time go together).

Sorry, it's kind of complex. I am ever moving in the pre-scientific stage of generating a great amount of assumptions to be tested and re-tested in the future. I am balancing the creativity and rationality, the more I hypothesize, the less dogmatic I am about what I say. I take care to never contradict science, but open new logical ways for it. This is who I am, this is what I do, I am the fringe experience guy, I am not a scientist. We have a deal here, I put in enough "mights" and "maybes" and they don't ask peer-reviewed physics journal articles from me Drinking Beverage (or I do and then they do)

If I should judge two exactly the same realities - one computer-simulated and one material which one is more real, I'd choose the one which contains more energy, as I consider energy the yardstick of reality. Yet it seems that energy and also reality may come in multiple forms, most notably I am an enthusiast of M-theory (string theory) as the most fundamental way to divide reality beyond technical parameters such as fluid dynamics and so on. As I said earlier, this is division of reality basically according to sums of matter, each matter belongs to a dimension according to how many dimensions its strings can move.

A natural way to arrange worlds hierarchically is by how many dimensions can their matter move in, interact, contain energy... It is wise to assume that a higher-dimensional matter contains more energy, because our matter is basically a "frozen" version of it. Therefore, by the act of "freezing" (or restricting a dimension) in a portion of universe's matter/energy we get "simulations" of worlds. This much can we consider hypothetically, until we fall into problems like what is the mechanism of interaction between dimensions and why don't we observe it.

But one of reasons might be, that there is simply a technical problem. I have my theories on this and I already touched upon them. Our dimension contains both visible and dark matter and our measuring instruments don't interact well with dark matter, which is a true way of interacting with higher dimension matter. In my opinion there is only one thing that naturally contains and possibly interacts with dark matter and higher dimensions, and that is a very highly trained and integrated human brain, sensitized by discipline, or disrupted by drugs.

(18-01-2014 05:06 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Matter - at least in our part of the universe will be temporary according to current cosmology - the universe is accelerating in expansion and eventually in trillions or trillions or years matter will convert back to energy. Some physicists like Paul Davies speculate some cyclical process converting the energy back to matter - but we don't know.

Yes, I speculate so too. Everything in the universe is cyclical, so the universe probably is cyclical as well. I also don't think it will happen again by falling spatially into the same point, I think the matter/energy will take a shortcut through ascending by dimensions. I just don't know what physical process would that take - maybe conversion to dark matter and beyond. Someone should take a look at this idea once dark matter is better understood. Someone will, it's logical.

One thing about higher dimensions that some sources claim, space and time seems to be rather relative there. It is as if one ascended up a spoke of a wheel towards the center, the radial movement seems lesser, up towards "eternity". Which might mean these dimensions are indeed more massive, if they have space-time, it is more distorted, more like near a strong gravity field. That's not a dogmatic claim about reality, that's just putting one more imaginary notch on one imaginary tree of my imaginary theories to be verified some time in the future or corrected should I stumble upon new information.


(18-01-2014 05:06 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Silence is silence - doesn't tell us anything about what's beyond. Just tells us we have noisy minds.
Then you didn't meditate long enough, often enough and deep enough Wink From silence and darkness gradually emerges something like an inner impersonal sun - for some people, at least. It feels like God. It probably is God, as far as history is concerned. Possibly, it is a window into a greater reality, as Newberg speculates. In that sense, I practice mysticism much like all the mystics of history. I am free to think of it whatever I want, so I look for scientific research on it, such as Newberg's.
http://thinkinginopposites.tripod.com/ne...please.htm

At the heart of all the mystic’s descriptions . . . is the compelling conviction that they have risen above material existence, and have spiritually united with the absolute. The primordial longing for this absolute union, and the transcendent experiences to which it might lead, are the common threads that run through the mystical traditions of East and West, of ancient centuries, and of the present. And while the mystics of different times and traditions have used many techniques to attain this lofty union, . . . the mystical states they describe sound very much the same.

(18-01-2014 05:06 PM)Baruch Wrote:  I don't give you the benefit of the doubt but the doubt of the benefit.Drinking BeverageRolleyes
I have studied sensory deprivation and even done it. Does not tell you about alternate realities. Yes, the imagination may run wild. Yes - eventually there are experiences of hallucinations. When silence does develop - its silence. That's it.
Non sequitur to infer anything else about alternative realities.
Cross referencing meditative practices ? We know intuitions can be subjective & misleading - we are anthropocentric beings and so what if they are cross referenced ? Its like cross referencing Catholics, Mormons, Lutherians and Calvanists - sure they may agree on something about Jesus - but that doesn't make it true.
Imagination must be calmed down. The period of silence is long, dark and empty (not unpleasant), but when the silence is joined by something greater, you will know that. It is a universal experience of people in all history, that unites most religions and some traditions. (I know I talk like Alla, but I agree on that) It influences people so deeply, that they go forth and found their own religions or philosophies, or they become major figures in the mainstream religions and put lots of veiled hints into the mainstream religious books, which will be overlooked unless you went through the same meditative experience. Thus it is called "the common experience".
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/73169...Experience
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: