God

I think the ideas of Plato, Adi Shankar and quantum mechanics’ infinite amount of dimensions work well together. Brahman = Plato’s ideal world and Reality, the manifested Atmans are examples of the infinite amount of universes. All reality, including time, concepts, matter and the experience of the self, are illusions, only God exists.

This idea is fine with me, to a certain degree. But Brahma/God IS an objective reality to some people, Brahma really does exist, if you believe in this form of Buddhism. As I see it, it doesn’t matter how aware you are of the fact that you’re delusional if you fail to see that you actually believe in a reality, no matter how transcendent, as I assume all buddhists do, despite calling themselves enlightened. Not talking about religious buddhists either, just philosphy.

Cuz really, what reason do we have to assume that the material reality is the illusion? We know we are delusional about the true nature of existence, but why assume that the true nature of existence is immaterial instead of material if we don’t have a clue to begin with?

Brahma is defined as the indescribable. For me, God is equated with “the unknowable”, not merely things that can’t be described by words, but pieces of existence that I don’t even know I don’t know about. It’s the blackness where my experienced universe is the light and I can’t even see the blackness, I can only see light.

So, for all practical purposes, the universe in my head is the universe i use to navigate through existence. But the true nature of reality is beyond me. However, at this point we can do what Descartes did, ask ourselves, what can we really be certain of.

“I am”, was his conclusion. But, “I am” is a circular definition. “am”, the idea of being, presupposes a subject or object, in this case I, that “is”. If we assume something exists, like we assume that a material or immaterial reality exists, we see that no matter how we manipulate our thoughts and language, we never free ourselves of our subjectively experienced universes. Like in my own case, in my world there are cucumbers, the colour green, bit of cords, supernovas, protons, and I necessarily form all my subsequent understandings based on this world-view. There is nothing I can be certain of, and at the same time I inevitably rely on my understanding of the universe, which is also true for my conclusion that there is nothing I can be certain of.

(Btw, if we can’t know anything for certain, then knowledge = belief). I believe that I am made from DNA. That is, 1 molecule, half of which comes from my dad and half from my mom, with some environmentally created chemical/radiation mutations and further upbringing factors added, which copied itself according to its own inbuilt map, and was and is me. The cell is like a bacteria, and before multicellular organisms arose less than 1 billion years ago, bacteria was the most complex form of life for more than twice as long, and they still exist. (Virus is like bacteria but without the cell structure, it’s like free radicals of DNA on the loose.) Is this material view right or wrong? Well, for all practical purposes it’s much better than saying “I don’t exist” (“I am not”).

The idea of a mind is part of my mind. An immaterial, unique mind that arose from a singular dual complex material molecule in a universe that is homogenous or heterogenous as strings or random fluctuations, which are the cause of the universe going from non-existing to existing and all these words are just different definitions on different levels of perspective for the very same universe. Is it coincidence that the earth and the atom are both spherical and unison, which might lead people to see the universe as infinite repetition where atoms in my foot are galaxies or universes in which other tiny sentient beings like ourselves exist, while everything on a visual level got edges, finite objects that are easier to grasp, both physically and mentally? It might be, how on earth should I know whether its by accident or not; whether it’s a reflection of how my mind works or not? A pattern is not necessarily devised. (Creationism is bullshit btw, but i think we’re beyond that already.)

However, I always return to consciousness, it seems to be a focal point, accidental or not doesn’t help me understand. A focal point is in itself more interesting than telling. The idea of oneness is an axiom of math. It’s an assumption that cannot be proven or disproven. And we base all our scientific understanding on this intuitive assumption, even when the resulting theory is counter-intuitive, like black holes and extra dimensions. (My intuition tells me black holes are no different from other material phenomena. People seem to think they’re supernatural, like the speed of light. It makes a tiny bit of sense to say something is immaterial in the sense that it’s below sub-atomic level if light is the building blocks of particles. But then most likely light can be divided into sub-particles itself. Either way, silicon melts into glass, carbon becomes diamonds under pressure, iron is fused in stars, what kind of processes and products can we expect to exist at the core of a black hole?)

Oneness links the multitude of Atmans to the one Brahman. The concept of transcendence enables 1=2. When we have a subject-object relationship, we can say that 1) only the subject exists, 2) only the object exists, 3) only the relation exists, 4) only an underlying thing exists, 5) any combination of the 4. Come to think of it, it all seems more like mind-play than enlightenment. It’s not really an explanation to say that reality doesn’t exist, it’s just caused by God, which is the thing that actually exists; or to say that it’s neither the object in the mind or the mind itself that exists, it’s the process of the mind that actually exists. You must remember that all these ideas are constructed by humans. They may be very intelligent, but they’re not omniscient. So-called enlightened people are still mere congregations of carbohydrates.

“Some medieval Christian mystics argued that it is incorrect to say that God exists, because existence amounts to taking a particular form within a space of time. God has no particular form and is outside of time. Therefore, God does not exist. However, God is. That’s an argument that many of us atheistic Buddhists can appreciate.”

If God doesn’t exist in a sense of the word exist that humans can talk about, then we can’t talk about God. God is the unknowable and indescribable and for all pruposes in reality does not exist and has no attributes. What’s the point of a God without attributes? Without attributes we don’t know if it’s a He, if it is omniscient, if it has a will, if it lives anywhere, if it created anything. We’ve reduced the concept of god to nothingness, to blackness, to the absence of everything, to the unknowable. God is dead, as it were. We’re left with the material world as the sole guide to understanding existence and we are very uncertain about the material world so we must be very uncertain of what existence is, for it is, isn’t it? Or what’s really going on? Why do I think? This question repeats itself forever, my thoughts are all circular definitions repeating themselves in new versions, avatars, of themselves every time I write a new sentence or my neurons reform from new experiences. Inventing brains in a vat is no different from inventing a God or an ideal world or any form of duality. It’s just adding a magical unknowable to the knowable and the error lies in the description of the magical unknowable because by definition we can’t know it. Therefore any attempt to describe a God beyond our knowledge is stupid. It might be true, but it is pointless to say so since we can’t know the anything about such a God.

This applies to free will as well. We have cause and effect. This means that all the input into your brain results in an output determined by the laws that govern electricity and chemical and biological reactions in your brain. Even quantum randomness is part of the predetermined reactions, unless that is how God’s free will affects the material world, but given the history of science it’s more likely we don’t fully understand what’s going on down on that level yet so maybe wait a bit before supposing magical and supernatural forces. Either way, on a neurological level there is no such randomness, all mental activities are possible to describe with simple molecular processes. Compare it to real numbers, like 1, 2 and 3. 1+2=3. There’s no room for a random factor in that equation. Similarly there is no room in the brain for a free will. If there was a free will it would be able to alter the effects that would occur on their own, and since all our decisions can be reduced to and explained by naturally occurring phenomena, like biology and environment to put it simplistically, there is no place for a magically affecting thingy.

The universe explains itself to itself like a dream within a dream and it thinks it is God but it’s clueless beyond it’s self.

Tags: , ,

22 Responses to “God”

  1. Soma Says:

    The exceptional finding that there is one God awaits each one of us, giving us the ability to change our lives for the better. When we understand the true meaning of one God, our concept of god expands and builds a greater awareness of God’s presence within us. It is a journey towards unity and a new way of living. Evolution is a part of this one God so when we talk about God and Evolution at the same time. I agree that God is everything so everything together is God.

  2. enleuk Says:

    Soma, I know a lot of people have found God through entheogenes (referring to your name here), but it’s not a credible source of enlightenment. Just like Descartes came to his conclusion by dismissing all information that come from the outside of his mind, one should be sceptic of the internal as well. Drugs can open the doors of perception but broadening your mind can only give knowledge as far as the limitations of a human mind goes, regardless of what and how much you take and if you are truly enlightened you will realize how the drug affects you and while no longer thinking you’ve found God you’ll still be able to find new thoughts in the drug. The delusion of the world which is a common theme in eastern thought applies to the unconventional methods of gaining knowledge just as much as the conventional ones and it applies to the introspective insights as well as the cognition of the material world.

    As I wrote in the post, I think God is an empty word, it holds no attributes and is as such useless in the best sense of the word use. But please share your understanding of the true meaning of God.

  3. soma77 Says:

    Soma is a word with many meanings. You chose the meaning of a drug that affects the mind. I don’t use drugs so that projection is misleading. Soma has another meaning which has been described as amrit the mystical nectar from the crown chakra. I see Soma as just a name. I see you have also projected images on the word God. The word is just a symbol to a unifying principle where everything can live and subsist. We need a unifying principle or nothing can be recognized because we would not even be knowledgeable of living in the same world with each other. Our presence and awareness of the physical world around us implies something that coordinates everything into one complete accord. This means that there is a universal Reality which we do not create, but which we can discover. This Reality I associate with the word God, which is everything, in everything and always moving toward that which expresses life, happiness and unity, but if our desires are destructive, we will not see God and will suffer until unity is learned. I feel God is a symbol for the unifying principle of pure consciousness

  4. enleuk Says:

    Soma is also a moon goddess in hinduism and a lot of other stuff.

    “Our presence and awareness of the physical world around us implies something that coordinates everything into one complete accord.” I don’t see any reason to assume anything like that. That’s like saying “The universe exists, therefore it must have a unison consciousness.” No, it doesn’t.

    I understand why people want to believe in a universal consciousness, but I have no factual reason to believe it. If you look at why people believe in nirvana, the end of suffering, or paradise, the reward for your earthly trials, it’s easy to see that people are afraid of death and would believe pretty much anything that helped them not have to deal with death. The other part of belief, besides fear, is the unknown. (We often fear the unknown as well.) A storm god is a metaphor for an unexplainable natural phenomenon, like thunder and lightning, but a metaphor is a product of the mind. Likewise, the universal consciousness is a metaphor for each individual’s experience of being because, just like it’s hard to understand how lightning works, it’s hard to understand why we think.

    But just because we don’t understand something, doesn’t mean we should invent magic, like gods, chakras and souls et cetera.

    But if you believe in a magical unifying consciousness, please explain why. And “I can feel it” or any other introspective reason, (back to entheogenes again), is a bad reason for believing in god, as the mind plays tricks on you all the time, evident in near-death experiences, apparitions of ghosts or saints and so forth, which were previously not explainable since we couldn’t watch the neurons work before.

  5. Soma Says:

    String theory is not a metaphysical theory, but a scientific theory supported by great physicists such as Stephen Hawking and is taught at universities throughout the world. ‘String theory’ is the latest theory to attempt to create a theory that unifies the electroweak, strong nuclear and gravity forces.

    According to scientific data, the strings are the smallest possible particles. I view feel these particles are vibrating Consciousness.
    This Unified Field is called superstring theory, which poses that absolutely everything that exists including conciousness, is made of extremely small strings of energy, that are more than a trillon times smaller than an atom.

    Quantum Interconnectedness also supports this unified field, physicists have come to realize that the universe is interconnected in much subtler ways than had once thought. In quantum physics the observer and the observed can no longer be separated and the whole is more fundamental than the part.

    You can go on talking about your drugs and magical play land, but just because you can’t experience unity doesn’t mean it does not exist. I can’t give you the experience you need to take down the barriers in your mind that keep you separated from the experience. Judging others without prove is one barrier that keeps one separate

  6. enleuk Says:

    I’ve talked to Edward Witten in person, one of the founders of string theory, more specifically the M-theory. You should know that nobody really understands string theory beyond the mathematics of it.

    I’m not disagreeing with you on this. The material world is (possibly) made of strings and consciousness is a part of the material world so I agree that consciousness too is made of material strings. But, spirits, souls and God are metaphysical, while Jesus was just a regular monkey like the rest of us DNA-carriers.

    Btw, from your website it seems you believe in Satan. Please explain that. And you believe that God is omnipotent. That seems like a very strange idea, if we are all together God, then we are almighty because we are the only thing that can affect the world, which is the definition of power. But every time one tries to define God’s attributes one ends up with God being a superfluous label, a misnomer, since God historically has meant things like “the cause of existence” and not “existence”, which are two fundamentally opposed ideas. So, why do you insist on using a label like God to define what you cannot explain about your personal ego, your consciousness? Also, love is a metaphor for chemical reaction in the brain, what does love have to do with God? That’s like samsara or any other axiom.

  7. soma77 Says:

    God is only a word, I don’t understand why you are so upset with a word. People use that label so why not expand on the meaning of that word. Samsara and love are also words that are used to convey thoughts. I think you are against your definitions of these words so why not expand on your definitions.

    I agree that some Christian philosophies and some scientific theories have a lack of total explanation; therefore, they have lost the power to bring about the original experience of oneness and have become superstitions and an impediment on the road to spiritual development.

    As we perceive God or expressed as pure collective consciousness pervading all things, we understand more clearly that God has absolute control over all creation, and that each individual is already one with God, inseparable from Him. People are not aware of this because they are immersed in creation and the idea of materiality. They are deceived into thinking that disease (not being at ease, dis-ease) is real, and that the devil and sin are everywhere. I don’t believe in the power of Satan, develop a higher view don’t be afraid and enjoy life and the material things. The words God, Satan, samsara and love will not threaten those enjoyments so don’t be afraid of them.

  8. enleuk Says:

    Ok, but what is God, if the material world is an illusion? If trees, flowers, scents, colours, feelings, blood, time, plastic, hope, brotherhood, monkeys, fingers, iron, gravity, reflections, speed, numbers, neurons, depths are all illusions, then what does the oneness consists of? What is left to comprise God?

    Yes, I am against all definitions of the word God that define God as being beyond the material world, because if he is immaterial, then we have no way of knowing that he exists. Our thoughts are material, they are measurable, we can see them happening in the brain, so if God is immaterial, God cannot exist to our thoughts. Any definition of God is therefore pure speculation, it’s just an arbitrary invention with no basis, no connections to anything else (literally, no neuronal pathways connect, that is how the brain works, by building and destroying paths which leads subsequent input to output), nothing that explains or makes sense of the word, it is an empty meaningless husk, if it is immaterial. If you don’t know, and can’t know, anything about God, then why even use the word?

    But, I don’t believe in God so I don’t have to invent a meaning of the word God. You, who believe in God, have not said a word about what God is, instead you’ve only talked about what comes from believing in God. What is it we’re supposed to believe in? What is God? (Not “What comes from believing in God?”) And what attribute of God is it that gives him omnipotence?

  9. soma77 Says:

    You say the material world is an illusion, I don’t think it is an illusion. I think it is a part of God. It is strange that you write so much about God, but you don’t believe in God and think God is an illusion. You ask what and why about God and that is for you to answer. Omnipotence, Rene Descartes says trying to develop a theory to explain, assign or reject omnipotence on grounds of logic has little merit, since being omnipotent would mean the omnipotent being is above logic. For example, can God create a mountain that he can’t move?

    The Tao is said to have inexhaustible power, but that power is simply another aspect of its weakness.

    God can be an illusion and he is in your arguments. I don’t argue against that. God is different things to different people and it is all good. People get high on God and I don’t see anything wrong with that I encourage it. I am not going to say they are not high that their God is an illusion. I would say enjoy it while it last.

  10. enleuk Says:

    Ok, my answer to what and why is: God is nothing, because God does not exist.

    Now, your turn to answer that question. (I will keep asking till you answer)

    The spaghetti monster is a good example of what happens when we say that things like logic or rules of any kind does not apply: it enables us to invent whatever we like without any credible basis whatsoever.

    I’m not saying that logic is flawless because it’s not. But you have yet to show me a feasible alternative to logic. So far you’ve given no reason to believe in the existence of God. Should be noted that the rules of logic are a means to find circular definitions, like 1+1=2, it is true because that’s how we define it to be. The crux of logic is not the deduction, but the induction, which can never be proven, they have to be assumed, like axioms, and so logic can never say anything for certain. Same for all of science and all our knowledge.

    But what’s the alternative? What other knowledge do we have to base our ideas upon? Well, none. We only have access to our material world, (which is a delusion, not an illusion, sorry if I wrote otherwise – I know I wrote it once to point at the fact that you had written that the material world is an illusion, but I only did that to question that statement). It’s a flawed understanding and our only chance of understanding and therefore our best chance of understanding despite it’s flaws. The flaws are necessarily inherent in our epistemology. What alternative ways of proving God’s existence do you offer besides observable, measurable, tangible, material effects? (Feelings and thoughts are material effects, observable, measurable and tangible). Why not assume we are brains in a vat like Descartes’ reasoning would just as likely lead to? One of the problems of chakras is that the body works as it does because of the laws of nature, if you introduce a magic free will we would see that the body is no longer behaving according to the laws of nature but since it operates like a material robot there is no room for any magic immateriality.

    Btw, how can you be surprised that I’m interested in a concept that has affected humans as much as the idea of God has?

  11. Soma Says:

    You are looking for material proof that God exist. I would say evolution is the best proof. The universe operates with uniform laws. It is exactly what we need even with a DNA code.

    The first cause everything needs to start somewhere as behind the growth of every tree there is a seed.

    The best proof is in the experience that is why God is different things to different people. Some don’t have that experience that is OK, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. The people that have the experience doesn’t mean that is does exist, but if they get high why try to pop the balloon if they don’t harm anyone. I know many have harmed others in God’s name. I would say they are not having the experience.

  12. enleuk Says:

    “behind the growth of every tree there is a seed.” = For every effect there is a cause. But is there really an original cause or is that just our way of understanding the world; as “causes and effects” instead of a continuous flow? And even if there was an original cause, why assume that it is intelligent or has a will? Why didn’t it happen without anyone willing it to happen?

    Also, I’ll ask for the third time. What is God in your opinion?

  13. soma Says:

    Good questions. I believe in a flow. Let me explain, God to me is an ocean of pure consciousness or energy similar to string theory. In this ocean of pure consciousness which comprises everything are icebergs. The Icebergs are H20 similar to the ocean which is H20. Everything is H20 so the flow is from the icebergs pure consciousness manifest with qualities to pure consciousness which has no qualities and then back again. The flow or dance continues from pure consciousness to pure consciousness one with qualities to one without. The key is to surf the flow, just enjoy the waves or dance to the tune, all options are viable. Cause and effect would come with the qualities, but is not in the pure consciousness without qualities. May we all vibrate together.

  14. enleuk Says:

    I agree with you. Energy becomes matter becomes energy again. But I don’t see why string energy (which is material and can be measured) is the same as immaterial pure consciousness. I assume that by pure consciousness you mean something that has intelligence and a will, which there is no need for. As I’ve repeatedly written, there is no room for a free will in this world. Example below. Quantum fluctuations happen without anyone making them happen. Chaos theory doesn’t mean that things happen randomly without a reason, it just says that for a human it seems random and is very hard to predict.

    Free will is like taking a stone and dropping it on the Earth. Normally, wind, radiation, moisture, friction, density, composure and the deciding factor in this example gravity would make the stone fall towards the center of the Earth and stop when it hits a sufficient amount of matter. If there was a free will, the stone would either rise from the earth, fall slightly to the side of the expected drop spot or disintegrate or turn into a chicken. Now, none of these things happen when you drop the stone. Instead the effect of the drop can be measured precisely using the laws of nature taking into account all the things I listed. It would be impossible to add another factor to the equation because the equation already gives the correct answer. It’s like 1+1=2, if you add anything on the left side (besides *1 or +0 et cetera which can be added on both sides and cancel each other out) the right side is never 2. There is no room in that equation for an additional factor. Same thing with the universe. There’s no room for a random free will factor in it. At least not on a level we can interact with meaning it would have to be unknowably small and therefore pointless to debate since we’re back to the stupidity of defining the blackness we can know nothing of. Let me give you an example of the blackness too.

    Let’s say there is a person in front of you. The person is invisible, odourless, frictionless (can’t and doesn’t make a noise) and consists of no molecules. Now, the only proof we have that there is a person in front of you is because we started off by assuming this was true. Now, we have the option to further assume that events we encounter are caused by this person, like cold drafts or moments of inspiration or tripping on flat surfaces and thereby prove that this person exists. These happenings can be explained by other natural things, but we assume the invisible person is responsible because we assume that person exists. Living 50 years believing in the existence of this person will amount to a long list of events that can be explained by the presence of this person, but they are all assumptions. When you die, aged 50, you somehow learn the truth. The truth is that that person never existed. Instead all those events were caused by an invisible panda holding an invisible umbrella made of invisible blueberry jam. See the problem with trying to define the unknowable?

    Now, you still havn’t explained what God is. You said God = pure consciousness, but you have only defined pure consciousness as string energy, which gives no information at all as to why the energy is intelligent or why it has a will and thus why it created the universe in any way that was not a random process.

    So, try again, what is pure consciousness?

  15. Soma Says:

    Pure consciousness is consciousness without qualities. Creation is pure consciousness with qualities. God is everything together. Jung talked about a collective consciousness. You want to only talk about creation which can be qualified and that is OK, believing in the machine of nature is good. I hope it makes you happy. If people tell me they have experiences that are beyond are limited senses and they show signs of peace, happiness and good will to others as an affect then I am happy for them. We have instruments to help us, but we still are limited from experiencing something that is too big or small.

  16. enleuk Says:

    The collective consciousness is at best a metaphor. The sum is not greater than its parts. And you’re wrong, I’d rather not talk about creation because that implies a creator and a moment of creation.

    Also it is per definition impossible to experience something beyond your senses. Introspection falling into the category of sensory regurgitation. All people who have experiences of God, angels, ghosts, near-death-experiences or love are just experiencing their own neurochemicals like the rest of us. But as we’ve talked about, lots of delusions in the world, God being one of them.

    Also, feeling good isn’t a good reason for accepting a view-point. Some people feel good when they’ve murdered someone.

    Lastly, you still havn’t made a distinction between the material energy of strings, which also lacks qualities (icebergs), and the immaterial pure consciousness you have invented for no reason. I mean, why would energy have to be intelligent and have a will? Why aren’t these icebergs created without a will or an intelligence?

  17. soma Says:

    You just one to talk about the physical machine.

    I enjoy talking about the life beyond the machine, which you can’t seem to grasp. That is OK if you are satisfied, I am happy for you.

    The research of Paul Ekman, of the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, suggests that meditation and mindfulness can tame the amygdala, an area of the brain which is the hub of fear memory. Ekman discovered that experienced Buddhists were less likely to be shocked, flustered, surprised or as angry as other people.

    Biologist Rupert Sheldrake and other scientist have conducted experiments that show how widespread psi abilities are—even in animals. Using synchronized video cameras placed in the homes and workplaces of dog owners, he has proven that dogs go to wait at the front doors of their homes at the exact time their owners decide to return home from work, even when those times are changed daily. Sheldrake, Radin, and other scientist have conducted numerous telepathy experiments on human beings demonstrating that people can sense the thoughts and intentions of others across space and time.

    Science cannot tell us how the brain works, but they can see it working, different parts lighting up as we think or dream. I feel we are more than just our brains and body, and it is obvious that you think we are not. Many scientist believe that our brains produce thoughts that actually change brain chemistry. Drugs are effective in treating depression so one could say changing one’s brain chemistry can change one’s thoughts. Meditation can produce changes in brain chemistry. It’s definitely not a one way street. While depression can be caused by chemical imbalances, a depressing event can lead to those chemical imbalances. So, our thoughts are clearly not only produced by our brain chemistry. Something, outside of our brain, is the observer I call this observer consciousness.

  18. enleuk Says:

    Rupert Sheldrake is a conman in pseudoscience. Check your sources next time.

    And yes, meditation and depression and drugs and thoughts change the chemistry of the brain. In a physical way. Because thoughts -> chemical reactions -> thoughts -> chemical reactions et cetera. And asking which is first is like asking if the egg or the chicken came first. Neither came first, they’re both just steps in the process (evolution in the case of the chicken). Thinking is like this:

    A photon (electromagnetic radiation) hits the photo-pigment membranes filled with opsin at the back of your cone cell. The chromophore part of the opsin molecule changes shape when a photon hits it (photoisomerisation) and the “new” molecule reacts with its chemical environment and leads to the ion channels opening and the synapse releasing neurochemicals. The electric current and chemical reaction flies through the neuronal network of the brain at a very high speed and this is only 1 cone cell, there are a huge amount of sensory receptors in the body and all activations together create the massive activity in the brain where lines of reactions spread and converge like a multi-armed bolt of lightning in the air.

    Cells in lines that are not activated are left to die while often used lines are under heavy reconstruction like maintenance on busy high ways that make the reactions through those particular lines go faster. Same biological process as for building muscles through work-out. This is how we learn things. We repeat a thought until its firmly built-up in the brain.

    Next time we encounter the same sensory input. Like we saw a tree the first time, now we see a different tree with a lot of similar shapes and colours, and a lot of similar sensory hits, and the reactions lead down many of the same lines used in the thought of the first tree. Our thoughts run through the same corridors and come to similar conclusions. One tree is similar to a second tree and through logical deduction of this induction of samples of trees we form a metaconcept of the idea of tree. The idea of tree is like a Platonic Ideal tree, each real example of a tree deviates in its unique way from the model in our brain. But whereas Plato said God had put the original Ideal in the head, I say we form it through reductive neuronal convergence (Simply put, the universe does not physically fit within the brain, so we form a simplified version of reality in our minds).

    And we can go back to the will here. Free will is a metaphor for describing the process of the brain. We may see a finite object, an iceberg in the continuous flow, such as a human being. We form the icebergs (I obviously like this metaphor you’ve given me) when the majority of the sensory input results in dead cells that fall out of our conscious minds reducing our thoughts to coherent neuronal pathways that simplifies the enormity of the outside world’s inputs and gives things finite shapes (in essence, makes them into things) so that we can manage them more easily in day-to-day life. (It’s hard to eat a strawberry if you only see the quarks that make up the parts of the strawberry and the parts of the surrounding atmosphere.)
    When we see the finite object, like this strawberry, the brain reacts chemically and when we taste it it reacts again. Next time we see a strawberry the chemicals in the brain have been arranged so that the input of the strawberry light results in the memory of the nice taste and so, given the right circumstances (other chemical processes going on simultaneously, like it’s dark, it’s winter, your parents are looking at you) the chemical reactions in the brain lead to the motor part of your brain and the line leads all the down to your fingers that snatch the strawberry and the motor region of your brain tells your mouth to taste and chew the strawberry, swallow it, digest it and shit it out somewhere far away from other food cuz the chemicals in your brain are arranged so that you body reacts to the environment in a way that separates harmful feces from nutritious food, or at least according to what your particular brain’s idea of harmful vs nutritious items are.

    The complexity of that process, from first experience to gluttony involves an unfathomable amount of atoms and chemical reactions from the molecules that form each protein in the eye to the calcium ions in the neurons in the hand. It would take an almost infinite amount of time to describe it all. If you want a complete description you’d have to include the process of DNA building each molecule and the process of building DNA, the entire history of your individual DNA molecule’s evolution and it’s origins where it’s components, like iron, is formed from protons, neutrons and electrons in a process in the center of stars all the way back to the big bang or beyond.

    It would be way easier to instead of listing every event in the process that led up to an action, like me eating a strawberry, just give as the reason for the event an act of “free will”: I like strawberries. Subject verb object.

    That’s how we simplify reality, through grammar.

    Now, on to observer consciousness. “Something” outside the brain observes? Isn’t it time you stopped inventing immaterial nonsense terms and tried to actually understand existence?

    “I” am not an observer of my body, because “I” am my metaphor for the body that observes. It’s just a grammatical delusion.

  19. Soma Says:

    Physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a nonmechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter . . . we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter” (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436: 29, 2005).

    Johns Hopkins physicist professor R. C. Henry suggested that we “get over it” and accept the inarguable conclusion: “The universe is immaterial—mental and spiritual” (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”).

    Fact one: Immaterial is defined as the absence of matter.

    Fact two: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

    Conclusion One: Something that is immaterial cannot be created or destroyed.

    Fact three: Thought exists only as something immaterial.

    Fact four: Thought exists only in one’s own mind.

    Conclusion Two: Something immaterial exists only in one’s own mind.

    Conclusion Three: The presence of something immaterial can be created or destroyed only in one’s mind.

    Conclusion Four: The creation or destruction of something immaterial in one’s own mind is determined by belief.

    Final Conclusion: You thought I used drugs and it was not true the thought would not have existed if you did not believe it in your own mind.

    Your thoughts are similar to a fundamental Christian only your beliefs are different. Open your mind and experience what is there. Your tight fisted attitude makes barriers to new thoughts so you defend old thinking.

    Einstein quote
    “I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

    It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this in a participatory universe.

    John Archibald Wheeler Wikipedia: John Archibald Wheeler

    — It from Bit, 1989

    You can talk about people like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Confucius, but the thing that convinced me that such people existed were the conversations with Bohr.

    — New York Times, “John A. Wheeler, Physicist Who Coined the Term ‘Black Hole,’ Is Dead at 96”, April 14, 2008

  20. enleuk Says:

    That was the sadest attempt at logical deduction I’ve seen in many months.

    “Fact three: Thought exists only as something immaterial.”

    Thoughts are not immaterial, that’s a very old misunderstanding. You still don’t seem to understand what I’ve been trying to explain. I’m saying that your experience, every single thought you’ve ever formed in your brain is a part of the physical universe. If you think about it you’ll realize that all your thoughts represent something that you believe exists. That’s no coincidence. It’s because your thoughts = your universe. All subsequent conclusions are deluded by this fact.

    You do not have a soul, you are your universe. You understand?

    Now, what old thinking am I defending? Christian mysticism that’s been bullshit for almost 2,000 years? No, unlike you I’ve opened my mind to all types of knowledge and formed a belief of my own and some of the most fundamental parts of my belief are ideas I’ve come up with on my own. As an example, my view of the continuous flow and how the ego forms it’s opposite, oneness, is a fusion of Deconstruction, my interpretation of the axioms of math and logic, the science of neurology and Buddhism that I formed on my own. Last year. Not exactly old dogma.

    Maybe it’s you who should open your mind to new ideas instead of regurgitating the at least 20,000(!) year old idea that immateriality exists and stop being afraid of the truth that you’re just a meaningless collection of atoms in the vast chemical reaction called the universe.

    Or, if you still believe in immateriality, give me a reason for it at least. And saying “I can’t explain this experience I have of existing in any other way” is only a mark of your mind’s shortcomings.

    I see you use a lot of quotes, your website is full of bible quotes, a book written by deluded priests and power-hungry rulers many years ago. I don’t rely on other people’s fancy lingo, instead I try to formulate my own thoughts anew every time I write a sentence, because as Voltaire said “A witty saying proves nothing”, but I’ll give you that quote and throw in a second one: “When one rows, it is not the rowing which moves the ship. Rowing is only a magical ceremony by means of which, one compels a demon to move the ship.” -Nietzsche.

  21. Soma Says:

    What is the chemical formula for thoughts? What elements are they made of? Your opinions sure don’t make you happy or bring you peace, can you give me the elements that make them up so I can avoid them.

    You studied Buddhism and wrote about it then you would know that Buddha discusses in the context of nirvana a kind of consciousness described as:
    Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around.

  22. enleuk Says:

    Ya, I know and I have come to this conclusion despite Siddhattas conclusions. What he perceived as becoming enlightened was the same mental delusion that all other people who believe in immateriality suffers from.

    Also, I am happy, so I guess there could be some serotonin in there. Thanks for your concern though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: