Debunking New World Creationism 201 (Intermediate) -1

[Deeviant]

You have to admit. Imperical evidence sounds funny.

 

[Polly]

Hello FZ+ and Zero,

How are you? Although you and I must be very different, I have always enjoyed your posts in the forum. As I always say to myself, intelligent, very intelligent men these are.

And don't get me wrong, I am a fan of science and technology and I believe science will have everything figured out in the future. The biggest question for us in the forum though, is will we ever live to see that day.

This is where I must beg to differ from your view. Now in the study of the law, we know that general rules, exceptions to the general rules and exceptions to the exceptions of the general rules are always made in every area of the law to cater for every eventuality in human lives for justice (or its watered down notion of fairness and reasonableness) to be done. My view is, shouldn't science, if it is serious about the quest for truth, in the like spirit make certain exception to the general rule of objective and "empirical" evidence in some special cases? The initial stage of exploring another faith or discipline seems to me to be a perfect candidate in all fairness. For how can anybody judge the veracity of anything before he has a good grasp of it?

In fact this is the very approach that both the group of neuroscientists and psychiatrists and His Holiness the Dalai Lama have been taking in their every two year Mind and Life Conference. His Holiness would listen to the presentation of the speakers on evolution, cognitive psychology, developmental neurobiology, cosmology, AI, QM etc just as the scientists would listen to His Holiness' explanation of "subtle consciouness" and "chakra". Though I dare say the scientists must be mystified and His Holiness completely dumbfound at times by each other, they listen on. This is, in my view, the true spirit of science - the unbiased and objective attempt to understand something completely before pre-empting it, and perhaps the best way to go about finding out the truth about life if we ever aspire to know the answer in our life time.

On a personal level, I have never done well in maths, use to have to memorise all the steps for exams and tests. But I have always thought it is my problem, not the problem of the subject itself or of the mathematicians.

Let us keep talking with and listening to each other.

Warm regards,
Polly

 

[Polly]

It is my understanding that there is at least one major difference between Taoism and Buddhism. Taoism believes men can live forever and as such alchemy was historically a feature of its practice. Buddhism on the other hand aims at liberation from the six realms.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello FZ+ and Zero,


This is where I must beg to differ from your view. Now in the study of the law, we know that general rules, exceptions to the general rules and exceptions to the exceptions of the general rules are always made in every area of the law to cater for every eventuality in human lives for justice (or its watered down notion of fairness and reasonableness) to be done. My view is, shouldn't science, if it is serious about the quest for truth, in the like spirit make certain exception to the general rule of objective and "empirical" evidence in some special cases? The initial stage of exploring another faith or discipline seems to me to be a perfect candidate in all fairness. For how can anybody judge the veracity of anything before he has a good grasp of it?

Polly

As soon as science ceases to require theories to be validated by observation empirical evidence, it ceases to be science.

So yes, there are situations in which it would be right to do exactely as you say, however, doing so would not be considered an application of science but of philosophy.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by b11ngoo
I gave empirical evidence. It was a postulate. The postulate was the geometric point, and how it was created. In turn made it a digit.

This digit is the basis for a post big bang.
Because the digit is processed by the clock that the big bang started.

I stated that since this is considered true. As a postulate. Intelligence that is formed with digits and run by that powerful a processor, can create a life like man. If we evolved by the sea. It makes as much sense to see it happening with the intelligence made by digits, run by a powerful processor, too.

If this intelligence was made and run by the clock of the big bang. It is everywhere the clock is. And can use the clock to create intellectual stimulation, or create stuff.

And since this big bang only needs 4 dimensions to run. The use for infinite space and string theory is useless. And this life the big bang started and is. Is the only God(powerful one). And we are his creation.

This intelligence can hone itself to perfection. It would seem, since it's like A.I. by the use of digits being it's life.

God said he first made wisdom. He's called wisdom by the woman wisdom.
So he made his wisdom, then the woman wisdom. Then they planned and measured the way the digits would be used in the big bang. So we see the moon and sun water food, etc...

I think your just being stubborn. Look at my theory of everything. I redid a few bits. It explains what I'm saying exactly.

To put it quite simply, a postulate is not empirical evidence. I will restrain myself from commenting on your postulate's validity.

 

[Polly]

Originally posted by Deeviant
As soon as science ceases to require theories to be validated by observation empirical evidence, it ceases to be science.

So yes, there are situations in which it would be right to do exactely as you say, however, doing so would not be considered an application of science but of philosophy.

Hello Deeviant,

Thank you for your reply.

I am not at all asking for any evidence-validating observation to be ruled out. No no no, that would be unfair. In fact one of the things that His Holiness and the scientists agreed to do in the conference was the observation of the energy level of a monk in deep meditation. Having said so however one must also make allowance for the fact that the eastern practice has not been developed to fit into western scientific analysis and experiments do take time to be properly thought out and put together, perhaps more so when data involves "subtle consciousness".

So you see things are being done. We do want to advance our claim from testimony and anecdote to evidence and we do want to be convincing as a science. All I am saying is, in the mean time, shall we listen to each other with an open mind and give each other the benefit of doubt?

Yours sincerely,
Polly

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello Deeviant,

So you see things are being done. We do want to advance our claim from testimony and anecdote to evidence and we do want to be convincing as a science. All I am saying is, in the mean time, shall we listen to each other with an open mind and give each other the benefit of doubt?

Yours sincerely,
Polly

In this case I would warmly agree.

 

[Les Sleeth]

[zz)]

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello FZ+ and Zero,

How are you? Although you and I must be very different, I have always enjoyed your posts in the forum. As I always say to myself, intelligent, very intelligent men these are.

And don't get me wrong, I am a fan of science and technology and I believe science will have everything figured out in the future. The biggest question for us in the forum though, is will we ever live to see that day.

This is where I must beg to differ from your view. Now in the study of the law, we know that general rules, exceptions to the general rules and exceptions to the exceptions of the general rules are always made in every area of the law to cater for every eventuality in human lives for justice (or its watered down notion of fairness and reasonableness) to be done. My view is, shouldn't science, if it is serious about the quest for truth, in the like spirit make certain exception to the general rule of objective and "empirical" evidence in some special cases? The initial stage of exploring another faith or discipline seems to me to be a perfect candidate in all fairness. For how can anybody judge the veracity of anything before he has a good grasp of it?

In fact this is the very approach that both the group of neuroscientists and psychiatrists and His Holiness the Dalai Lama have been taking in their every two year Mind and Life Conference. His Holiness would listen to the presentation of the speakers on evolution, cognitive psychology, developmental neurobiology, cosmology, AI, QM etc just as the scientists would listen to His Holiness' explanation of "subtle consciouness" and "chakra". Though I dare say the scientists must be mystified and His Holiness completely dumbfound at times by each other, they listen on. This is, in my view, the true spirit of science - the unbiased and objective attempt to understand something completely before pre-empting it, and perhaps the best way to go about finding out the truth about life if we ever aspire to know the answer in our life time.

On a personal level, I have never done well in maths, use to have to memorise all the steps for exams and tests. But I have always thought it is my problem, not the problem of the subject itself or of the mathematicians.

Let us keep talking with and listening to each other.

Warm regards,
Polly

Hi, thanks for sucking up, now it is time to tear you to shreds, ok?

You've got the whole idea of science backwards in your head. We never start with an explanation, and then look for signs. We look for signs, measure them, and then try to figure out why those signs occured. I don't have an open mind to "chakras" or "subtle consciousness", and I don't need to ever have an open mind to that sort of thing. What I am open to is evidence, even if that evidence contradicts my preconcieved notions of the world.Show me something based on some "holy" principle that I can measure, and I'll measure it as fairly and accurately as circumstances and equipment allow. For instance, show me someone levitating, and I don't have to believe anything...I'll be able to see it with my own eyes. Show me someone who can generate some sortof previously unknown energy, and can use it to perform an otherwise impossible feat, and it won't matter what I think of his philosophy, his results will speak for him.

Until that time, I am close-minded to teh idea, but always, always open to new evidence that might change my mind.

 

[Polly]

Ha ha you saw through me. Yes I am beginning to see now science is not unlike a court of law which promises precedural justice rather than substantive justice (no offence intended whatsoever to judges and scientists alike). I guess those of us who want to convince the scientists just have to work harder on the evidence. Thanks.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Polly
Ha ha you saw through me. Yes I am beginning to see now science is not unlike a court of law which promises precedural justice rather than substantive justice (no offence intended whatsoever to judges and scientists alike). I guess those of us who want to convince the scientists just have to work harder on the evidence. Thanks.

Hey, no problem...lawyers often have a hard time with the scientific evidenciary standard, versus the legal standard. I guess it is the difference between using data to sue someone, and using data to build a bridge that cars are going to drive on.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
We never start with an explanation, and then look for signs. We look for signs, measure them, and then try to figure out why those signs occured. . . . What I am open to is evidence, even if that evidence contradicts my preconcieved notions of the world.Show me something based on some "holy" principle that I can measure, and I'll measure it as fairly and accurately as circumstances and equipment allow. For instance, show me someone levitating, and I don't have to believe anything...I'll be able to see it with my own eyes. Show me someone who can generate some sortof previously unknown energy, and can use it to perform an otherwise impossible feat, and it won't matter what I think of his philosophy, his results will speak for him.

Until that time, I am close-minded to teh idea, but always, always open to new evidence that might change my mind.

You enter discusions with certain assumptions already in place. One assumption of yours is a common one here at PF, and that is the assumption that everything worthwhile which exists has some observable aspect to it which can be measured. Logically derived from that assumption is that if it can't be measured it isn't worthwhile and probably doesn't exist.

That assumption is why your statement "What I am open to is evidence, even if that evidence contradicts my preconcieved notions of the world" is not true. No one has proven that evidence must be measurable to be evidence; all that's proven is that measureable evidence gives us measurable facts.

When I see a mind with such strong filters in place, I suspect it is for the purpose of rejecting everything which isn't what it wants to hear. So it seems to me that what your "openness" amounts to is a way to keep believing what you want to believe; it is not a true avenue for a two-way discussion about the nature of reality (as you imply).

 

[Nereid]

LW Sleeth wrote: *SNIP
One assumption of yours [Zero]is a common one here at PF, and that is the assumption that everything worthwhile which exists has some observable aspect to it which can be measured.
*SNAP

So, logically, everything else would seem to be EITHER:
1) worthwhile things which are observable but not measurable, OR
2) worthwhile things which are not observable

Taking the second one first, if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?

Then the first one, what sort of things could these be? Do you have examples?

 

[Zero]

LOL, of course evidence can be measured in some way, shape, or form, or else it isn't evidence. I don't see where the confusion lies. What I do see is that people like to denigrate rational thinking, which is a shame.

Now, if someone says "I believe in X because I feel Y", there is nothing there for me to say, except that I disagree. On the other hand, when someone says "X is a fact about the world which is true for everyone", then they have to back it up with some real measurable evidence. It is just that simple and rational, and I don't understand why people have such a hard time dealing with that.

There is a difference in the quality of certain claims, depending on context. If you make the claim "I feel that there is a guardian angel watching over me", there is no need for evidence(although I might ask anyway) because that is describing a feeling. If you say "Angels absolutely exist", then you have to show evidence beyond your opinion. After all, I feel like the darned traffic lights are out to get me when I am running late for work, but if I claim there is an actual conspiracy of lights against me, I'd be rightly treated like a psychopath.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
So, logically, everything else would seem to be EITHER:
1) worthwhile things which are observable but not measurable, OR
2) worthwhile things which are not observable

Taking the second one first, if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?

Then the first one, what sort of things could these be? Do you have examples?

To me, those sorts of discussions have the same value as discussing which flavor of Jello is the best...completely subjective, completely opiniion-based, and fun but mostly worthless.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Zero
To me, those sorts of discussions have the same value as discussing which flavor of Jello is the best...completely subjective, completely opiniion-based, and fun but mostly worthless.

Did Zero just agree with what Nereid said (sorta), or is it far too late and Nereid should go get a good night's sleep? [?]

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Nereid
So, logically, everything else would seem to be EITHER:
1) worthwhile things which are observable but not measurable, OR
2) worthwhile things which are not observable

Taking the second one first, if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?

Then the first one, what sort of things could these be? Do you have examples?

The issue was "observable and measurable." The usual meaning of observation is the use of the senses to detect information about something. Measureable is self-explanatory.

Now, we do have an inner life, aspects of which are neither observable by the senses nor measurable. Is it real? Is any of it worthwhile?

My point is, the standard of "observable and measureable" appies to external objects, and normally that which has mass. It has not been shown to be an effective way to evaluate internal qualities of consciousness, for instance, which do not appear to have mass.

Then you ask, "if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?" There is that assumption I was talking about. You have it in place already, it is part of the demand of how to contemplate things. It is my opinion that part of what goes on with the physicalists is they frame every debate in terms that eliminate all non-physical issues. How can that be done? Why, insist all aspects of reality to be discussed be observable and measurable. Also effective is to characterize all human inner sensitivity as hormonal or emotional; that's because the aspects of reality some of us want to consider possible are only known through the sensitivity of one's inner being.

Can one have a sensible discussion about that? Not if external proof is the goal. Personally, I don't consider the internal stuff provable to others. However, with open minds and sensitivity undulled, I do consider it possible show inner stuff is reasonable.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
To me, those sorts of discussions have the same value as discussing which flavor of Jello is the best...completely subjective, completely opiniion-based, and fun but mostly worthless.

You continuously forget or refuse to accept that nothing you experience and know is other than subjective. There are no other possibilities for consciousness, humans have no "objective" experience. That is a fact and undisputable, so why not accept it once and for all? The question is, what sorts of subjective experiences are you open to?

Every experience you have is the result of your sensitivity to information. You can say you are only open to that information which comes through your senses, which can made provable to others. Others will say they are also open to information that originates within. Sensitivity is sensitivity, but you seem to insist that that which cannot be extenalized and made provable to others has no validity. That might be the state of your inner life, but it isn't necessarily the case with everyone.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
Did Zero just agree with what Nereid said (sorta), or is it far too late and Nereid should go get a good night's sleep? [?]

I dunno, what time is it there? It is 2 in the afternoon here, which means it is almost nap-time...

 

[Zero]

Last time I checked, nothing originates completely inside of your brain except you. We can discuss "you" all you want, and there's a certain pleasure in it. However, claiming to be able to determine the external without consulting external evidence, simple doesn't make any sense to me.

Why don't you tell me an example of what you consider "internal" that has some sort of existence, and we can discuss that specifically.

 

[Iacchus32]

Is consciousness measurable? And in what way is it material? It certainly is aware of that which is physical but, does that make it physical? And where does it go when we sleep? It's certainly not aware of any physical reality at this point. And where do we go when we dream? Why do dreams seem to take on a reality of their own? Are dreams to be considered material as well? Or, is there another possibility that we seemed to have overlooked, that we have an immaterial part of ourselves called "a soul?" And why is it so irrational to even consider such a possibility?

So here it is we have this questionable nature of consciousness and yet, the very thing which allows us to measure anything at all ... Go figure?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Last time I checked, nothing originates completely inside of your brain except you. We can discuss "you" all you want, and there's a certain pleasure in it. However, claiming to be able to determine the external without consulting external evidence, simple doesn't make any sense to me.

Why don't you tell me an example of what you consider "internal" that has some sort of existence, and we can discuss that specifically.

I am trying hard to understand why we can't agree about things that seem very obvious to me. I can't understand why, for instance, you said, "claiming to be able to determine the external without consulting external evidence, simply doesn't make any sense to me." I have consistantly said (in past threads) that I think information about externals must come from externals. So, if you think I am trying to argue one can know external things without reference to the external object/event one is trying to understand, that isn't so.

I am saying that there are a set of internal conditions present inside you that exist independent of what's external. You already know this because those conditions do not cease to exist when you are deprived of external input.

Now, have you ever taken the time to do nothing but pay attention to those basic conditions? I mean, turn your attention away from external input, and then focus on the neutral sensitivity inside you that waits at the ready to respond to stuff? That is a "you" most people know very little about because they are so busy thinking and being stimulated by externals to feel it.

And then, how does it feel to directly experience that sensitivity anyway? Is it worth focusing on? Is there a benefit? Trying to answer that question is where I think our discussion breaks down because you seem convinced only externals are worth experiencing, and there is no possible way for me to "prove" the value of getting to know that unfettered self.

 

[Deeviant]

What really separates your internal from external? If they were on a completely different level of existence, then life would be quite hard without a physical world in which to sustain us.

So we know that our inner self, conciousness, soul or whatever the heck you want to call it is similar enough with the physical world to allow them to co-exist, suggesting to two would have similar rules governing them(laws of physics).

Even if there is some sort of untapped aspect of the human psyche, does it really require some sort of mythological power to explain?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
What really separates your internal from external? If they were on a completely different level of existence, then life would be quite hard without a physical world in which to sustain us.

What separates light from space it travels through? Space does not seem to need light to exist, yet it accommodates light quite well.

Originally posted by Deeviant
So we know that our inner self, conciousness, soul or whatever the heck you want to call it is similar enough with the physical world to allow them to co-exist, suggesting to two would have similar rules governing them(laws of physics).

No, all you know is that consciousness can handle its interaction with physicalness. Anyway, why assume if they do have something in common it will be the laws of physics? Maybe the laws of physics are a concentration of the more subtle thing.

Originally posted by Deeviant
Even if there is some sort of untapped aspect of the human psyche, does it really require some sort of mythological power to explain?

Who said anything about a mythological power? To tell you the truth, I am not really trying to explain the how or why of the untapped thing. I have been trying to say that an untapped thing exists, that it can be directly experienced, and that it can never be investigated by any of the observation/measurement methods used to study the physical world.

 

[Zero]

Actually, we don't exist without external input; literally, your brain doesn't function without learning from the external world. So, there is no way to claim that anything inside you doesn't come from outside first.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, we don't exist without external input; literally, your brain doesn't function without learning from the external world. So, there is no way to claim that anything inside you doesn't come from outside first.

When you speak of your self as non-existent without external input, it's very alien to my own self experience. Yet I didn't say you don't need external input to learn. I said that if you take away external input, something is still there that has nothing to do with externals, an inborn sensitivity that's present in all animal life. True, mostly we see it when it responds to external input, so maybe that's why you concluded that external input is the source of self.

I say the basis of the self is: the contained sensitivity of an individual, that sensitivity's ability to know it senses (i.e., experience), and that sensitivity's ability to retain/accumulate experience and so learn. We are born with all of that potentiality established, no external input needed. The question is, is there a beneficial reason to delve into the potentiality of that original self, or does an exclusive preoccupation with the external world give us all there is to offer in life?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
When you speak of your self as non-existent without external input, it's very alien to my own self experience. Yet I didn't say you don't need external input to learn. I said that if you take away external input, something is still there that has nothing to do with externals, an inborn sensitivity that's present in all animal life. True, mostly we see it when it responds to external input, so maybe that's why you concluded that external input is the source of self.

I say the basis of the self is: the contained sensitivity of an individual, that sensitivity's ability to know it senses (i.e., experience), and that sensitivity's ability to retain/accumulate experience and so learn. We are born with all of that potentiality established, no external input needed. The question is, is there a beneficial reason to delve into the potentiality of that original self, or does an exclusive preoccupation with the external world give us all there is to offer in life?

Really, AFAIK, that's wrong...a child is born with a mostly undeveloped brain, and without external stimulation nothing happens. With out external stimulus, there IS no person.

Again, while there may be something else, no evidence points to it.

 

[Polly]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am not really trying to explain the how or why of the untapped thing. I have been trying to say that an untapped thing exists, that it can be directly experienced, and that it can never be investigated by any of the observation/measurement methods used to study the physical world.

Sleeth dear,

Ummmmm, I see, I see, so all you are saying, if I can paraphrase you by way of a very simply example, is that you have seen this DVD called "Inner self", a relatively obscure French production, think very highly of its subtlty and sophistication and would like to invite all of us who have not so much as heard of it, to watch it? Certainly sounds like a very benign invitation to me. Phew, why didn't you say so? For a while I thought you are trying to put down the trilogy of "The Lord of the Rings" and all its cinematic wizardry and technical merits, which to be honest I would resent, it being the epitomy of cinematography to me and is very close to my heart.

Well I see what you mean now, yes yes, how very kind of you to think of me as a friend and recommend to me something you've enjoyed in the hope that I will enjoy it as much. You must have liked "Inner Self" really well to have been arguing so vehemently in its favour. Yes yes I see what you mean now. But you will understand of course whether or when I will be able to watch the DVD will depend on a whole lot of conditions, i.e. my work, review of other movies, whether my other friends are interested etc. And to be honest I do have other DVDs to catch up on, "Chicago", "AI" and "Crouching Tiger and (?)Dragon" to name but a few. But having you, my friend, saying the most agreeable things about "Inner Self" would certainly work in its favour. Until I am able to watch it and compare notes with you, I do hope we remain the best of friends and share our views on movies and many other things, and I shall always be,
Yours sincerely,
Polly

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, we don't exist without external input; literally, your brain doesn't function without learning from the external world. So, there is no way to claim that anything inside you doesn't come from outside first.

Yes, but doesn't everything exist within its center? Isn't this how we operate, from the center of who we are? Isn't this in fact how everything else operates? In other words everything that affects us, although it may appear external, is still operating from within its center ...

So, does science have an explanation for the center of existence? Of course now we seem to be speaking about the nature of intent, and a sense of purpose which exists behind it all now don't we? In which case wouldn't it be fair to say that intent was the driving force behind existence?

Doesn't science understand that everything operates from the inside out? Yes, so what is the nature of intent? Could it be that this is the very immaterial thing that we're looking for?

 

[Iacchus32]

What about "Evolutionary Theists?"

Originally posted by treat2
(A Note for Theistic Evolutionists:
I do not engage in debating Theistic Evolutionists about
the existence of any deity, unless an invitation is extended.
Below are a few reasons why I choose not to do this:
I’ve no beef with Theistic Evolutionists.
Theistic Evolutionists are not religious extremists.
In general, Theistic Evolutionists are not known
to me as typically being social or political fanatics,
they do not seek to ban Evolution, nor Science either.
I DO debate Theistic Evolutionists,
where their social and political view differ from my own.
For these and additional reasons,
this post is not targetted for a debate with Theistic Evolutionists.
Accept this “Note” as true, “on faith”, from an Athiest.)

Actually I think you're putting the cart before the horse by calling someone a Theistic Evolutionist, because although you may believe God was responsible for evolution, your beliefs are still predicated upon the belief in God, in which case I would call myself an "Evolutionary Theist." Of course to put it the other way can only suggest I've chosen sides, perhaps because the Theists (Creatoinists) would consider me nothing more than an Ahteist? (or traiter). However, it's Atheists I seem to be most at odds with ... at least when it comes to debating anyway.

And yet when you get to know me, you would understand that I'm more of a realist which, would probably put me more at odds with the Creationists. In which case it's obvious that I don't fit in with either camp, and I pretty much have to choose to go it alone, and experience reality on my "own terms."

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Really, AFAIK, that's wrong...a child is born with a mostly undeveloped brain, and without external stimulation nothing happens. With out external stimulus, there IS no person.

Again, while there may be something else, no evidence points to it.

I am not disputing your points about the brain. We know, for example, that in a newborn a great many neuronal connections are yet to be made, and as they develop so too does the infant's relatively smooth brain acquire gyri and sulci. So clearly brain development happens. (What we don't know is whether a being's use of its brain is what is developing it, or if the being actually is the brain. I am of the former opinion, as you know.)

However, a healthy child is born with the williness to learn, the ability to experience joy, to laugh, to be interested, to acquire wisdom . . . External conditions may stimulate those potentials, but the potentials are not created by the external stimuli. Surely you see that the potential is inborn. That potential, I say, is the original self.

Where is that self now? An analogy one might use to explain it is if we say about a room full of ice scuptures that water is the original self of all those sculptures. The water is still there, and can still be known in it's unsculptured, pure condition if someone wanted to take the time. So too does consciousness take a "shape" which we believe to be our self. It seems to me that most people are taken with the shape, and shaping themselves, and that few go to the trouble to know the original thing.

It doesn't matter to me whether you look "backwards" at that potential or not. I do spend time experiencing it, so I know it is there, and that it is there is what I am trying to argue. I find it adds a dimension to my consciousness I didn't have before I started experiencing that. I like it. You might not.

 

[Polly]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The water is still there, and can still be known in it's unsculptured, pure condition if someone wanted to take the time. So too does consciousness take a "shape" which we believe to be our self. It seems to me that most people are taken with the shape, and shaping themselves, and that few go to the trouble to know the original thing.

I do spend time experiencing it, so I know it is there, and that it is there is what I am trying to argue. I find it adds a dimension to my consciousness I didn't have before I started experiencing that. I like it.

Hello, would you tell us a bit more about this "water" as you have experienced?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello, would you tell us a bit more about this "water" as you have experienced?

Although you've not suggested anything about my motives, nonetheless first let me make it clear I am not trying to be an all-knowing expert on the subject, and I have nothing "mystical" to say. What I am talking about is something exceedingly simple. I will try to answer your question, and then at the end of this little essay I will also try to explain why I at least might appear frustrated at times in these discussions.

In one of my posts to Zero I said something like the following, "I am saying that there are a set of internal conditions present inside you that exist independent of what's external. . . . [if you] turn your attention away from external input, and then focus on the neutral sensitivity inside you that waits at the ready to respond to stuff . . . that is a "you" most people know very little about because they are so busy thinking and being stimulated by externals to feel it."

What is that "neutral sensitivity" I am referring to? To use an analogy, say you sing into a powered microphone so much that you only see a mic as the amplified sounds it makes. Then someone points out that even if you don't sing into it, the mic sustains a field of sensitivity which waits in readiness. They show you that the field has its own internal dynamics, and how if the field is noisy with its own noise, it colors every note of your music.

Similarly, I am suggesting that the foundation of consciousness is sensitivity; in its neutral or pure condtion I've come to refer to it as base sensitivity. On the perception end, much of what stimulates our base sensitivity is information the senses send to it, but we also think and imagine with it. The incessant stimulation of that sensitivity now, combined with all the stimulation from birth that has left it "colored" or condtioned with patterns of the past, means we never get to experience our base sensitivity "clean" of that stimulation or conditioning.

Also significant is the effect of our base sensitivity always being being in some shape or another. If you can imagine that all our non-stop current thought, stimulation, and past conditioning require the use of our base sensitivity's power, then you can see we may never find out what it feels like to experience existence with our base sensitivity functioning at full senstivity.

Can one ever achieve a neutral, still base sensitivity? Well, this is where I've argued here (and at the old PF) that there is a three thousand year old history of individuals who've seen the value of this consciousness potential, and have seriously undertaken a certain type of inner practice to achieve it. Of the many people who achieved skill with it, two are most famous.

In India, the Buddha seems to have been the first to have realized perfect stillness (nirvana) through the practice of samadhi. In the West, devotees of Jesus took up the practice calling it union (the term "samadhi" means union). If you can accept my explanation of base sensivity, then the term union makes a lot of sense. That is, all the thoughts, conditioning and pursuit of external stimulation keeps our base sensivity fragmented; when one achieves the stillness of base sensivity, consciousness integrates (i.e., unifies) into a single experience.

To cite an example, here’s a quote from a Western practitioner of union, Teresa of Avila, a 16th century nun (most practitioners in the West were monastic residents) describing how she worked toward union through three stages of inner prayer: recollection, quiet, and then finally union. In the recollection phase of union Teresa says, “the soul [what I am calling 'base sensitivity'] collects its faculties together and enters within itself . . .” In other words, an individual withdraws his or her attention from the senses and mind and allows it to return to, or be “recollected.” The next stage of union is the “quiet” which Teresa says is, “In it the soul enters into peace . . . The soul understands in another way, very foreign to the way it understands through the exterior senses . . . that not much more would be required for it to become one . . . in union.” Now Teresa says the inner practitioner is ready for the final stage of prayer she calls union where awareness, “neither sees, nor hears, nor understands . . . for the union is always short and seems . . . even much shorter than it probably is. . . . And I say that if this prayer is the union of all the faculties . . . we already know [how union comes about] since it means that two separate things become one. . . .”

Now, are the advantages of union worth the effort? If one does acquire skill with it, might it allow one to become aware of subtleties a "noisy" awareness never detcts? Does the integrated experience (as many pratitioners claim) give us a blissful joy and lasting satisfaction independent of external conditions? Is the deep realization of this experience the source of reports of something some individuals called God? All those questions can only be answered one way, and that is to learn the experience for oneself.

Bringing all this a little closer to discussions which take place here, that experiential standard for unon is exactly the same standard for verifying the truth of an empirical statement. In other words, once I claim some external situation works or is a certain way, the truth of that empirical statement is verified by experience (i.e., observational, or sense experience). The difference between union and sense experience should be obvious because in the former there is no external input needed (or wanted) or externalization possible for "observation." All of it takes place within. Union is not an attempt to experience something "other," it is an attempt to experience one's self more fully.

At this site, if you see me frustrated it is usually because of debating with people who think they know all there is to know about conscious experience. In this thread you can see Zero and Deeviant, for instance, insisting there is no genuine conscious experience besides that derived from the senses and brain. They demand a "proof" of the inner thing that requires sense data and intellectual operations to establish.

When I try to explain to them what a ludicrous proposition that is for union, they simply again demand more external proof. When I site the long history of the practice of union, they refuse to look at it, often characterizing it as some sort of cult or weirdo mystical deluded practice. Do they know the first thing about it? Hell no. Does that stop them from spouting ethnocentrically educated opinions to the whole world. Hell no. Even when I tell them I personally have gone to the trouble to practice and learn the experience, that too is ignored. What am I to conclude from such discussions except that they have already decided reality is a certain way, and they are therefore pre-committed to rejecting out of hand any evidence which doesn't conform to their model of existence. To me, that is not how one participates in a philosophical discussion. Of course, you have not participated this way here, so none of that applies to you.

My interest here at PF is not to get people to try union. I don't think that is appropriate for a forum format. If you were interested in investigating the history of this practice, I might privately suggest reading or some other avenue. But here in the forum, my sole purpose is to confront the narrow empirical claims about what consciousness is and is capable of, and to open minds a bit.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

My interest here at PF is not to get people to try union. I don't think that is appropriate for a forum format. If you were interested in investigating the history of this practice, I might privately suggest reading or some other avenue. But here in the forum, my sole purpose is to confront the narrow empirical claims about what consciousness is and is capable of, and to open minds a bit.

LW Sleeth, Nice post, my very words, do not be frustrated. Its difficult communicating with zombies. Its only important what one thinks to satisfy himself. Although it is right and just to help others understand good things. I most certainly understand you and know of the life of Teresa of Avila.