Spiritual Forum

Replies

• 

  Phylos August 30, 2014 at 5:02am

  I haven't seen the Objective Proof for the existence of "during life" yet. Somebody toss me a clue, how 'bout it?
  • 

    Acute Observer > Phylos September 24, 2014 at 1:49pm

    To even be able to see such evidence, you must first be outside of what you call "life". If the universe is a bubble, you will need to be outside of it to be able to see it Objectively. :)

    So, in order to accompany your request for evidence in this case, you will either need to modify the parameters on what you've set up as Objective Proof or, you will have to settle for proof that are based on Logical Reasonability (theory) instead. :)
• 

  Stick August 29, 2014 at 12:24am

  ~Suggesting that 'Looking Within', is akin to those who rely on Biblical doctrine as a primary means to discern 'reality' is beyond foolish, & speaks to a Spiritual immaturity that is, unfortunately, still too prevalent on the Gaian-Matrix. So it goes, Fourier. Do as thou wilt. Just keep in mind (& for what it's worth, continuing to act like a bitch changes nothing), if you're truly seeking answers to the 'circular' questions that YOU are asking???... then, YOU HAVE TO GO DEEPER... WITHIN! ;-)

  Here's some Multidimensional food for thought that may resonate: 

  

  Five Ways Materialists Beg The Question

  by Bernardo Kastrup

  To 'beg the question' is a logical fallacy in which one takes the conclusion of an argument as a premise of the argument. For instance, if one says: ‘God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because it was written by God,’ one is begging the question of God’s existence. As such, to beg the question is a kind of circular reasoning. Although the circularity of the reasoning is obvious in the simplistic example I just gave, one often begs the question in an indirect and somewhat hidden manner. In this essay, I want to summarize some of the common ways in which materialists beg the question: that is, the ways in which they argue for the validity of materialism by assuming materialism in the argument. The circularity of their reasoning becomes clear once it’s pointed out, but it is astonishing how often educated, intelligent materialists fall for it. The list below is in no particular order of importance or ranking.

  1 – ‘Our sense perceptions provide direct evidence for a world outside consciousness.’ Whatever else they may or may not be, our sense perceptions are certainly a particular modality of conscious experience. Other modalities are thoughts, emotions, and imagination. The difference is that we often identify with our thoughts, emotions, and imagination – that is, we think that our thoughts, emotions, and imagination are part of us – and seldom identify with our sense perceptions – that is, we do not think that the world we see around us is part of us. Moreover, we often have some degree of direct volitional control of our thoughts and emotions, while we do not have any direct volitional control of the world we perceive around us: we cannot change the world merely by wishing it to be different. Therefore, all we can really say about sense perception is that it is a modality of conscious experience that we do not identify with or have direct volitional control of. That’s all. When materialists assert that sense perception is direct evidence for a world outside mind, they are assuming that things we do not identify with or have direct volitional control of can only be grounded in a world outside consciousness. This, of course, begs the question.

  2 – ‘We cannot say that reality is in consciousness because that would require postulating an unfathomably complex entity to be imagining reality.’ The hidden assumption here is that consciousness can only exist if it is generated by something else; by an entity outside consciousness, whose complexity must be proportional to the level of consciousness being generated. This is a hardly-disguised way to assume materialism in the first place: to assume that mind must be reducible to complex arrangements of something outside mind. Naturally, when one claims that reality is in consciousness, one is claiming precisely that consciousness is irreducible, primary, fundamental. Consciousness, as such, is not generated by complex entities or, for that matter, by anything outside consciousness: it is simply what is. To say that irreducible consciousness generates reality requires no more complexity and poses no more problems than to say that irreducible laws of physics generate reality. In fact, it poses less problems, since it avoids the hard problem of consciousness altogether.

  3 – ‘The stability and consistency of the laws of physics show that reality is outside consciousness.’ The hidden premise here is that all conscious processes are necessarily somewhat unstable and unpredictable. This would be true only if all conscious processes were tied to neuronal activity, for neuronal activity is often unstable and unpredictable. But that is an implication only of materialism. There is nothing in the statement that all reality is in consciousness requiring that all conscious processes be tied to neuronal activity. There is nothing in it that precludes the possibility that certain processes in the broader, non-personal levels of consciousness unfold according to very stable, strict patterns and regularities that we’ve come to call the ‘laws of nature.’ If all reality is in consciousness, then it is brains that are in consciousness, not consciousness in brains. As such, consciousness is not limited or circumscribed by brain activity. To assume so is to beg the question of materialism.

  4 – ‘Since our minds are separate and we all experience the same external reality, this reality must be outside consciousness.’ The idea here is to suggest that, if reality is fundamentally in consciousness, as a kind of collective dream, how come we can all be sharing the same dreamworld, given that our minds are not connected? How can the dream be shared? Naturally, this begs the question entirely: it is only under the notion that our minds are generated by our bodies that we can say that our minds are separate; after all, our bodies are indeed separate. But if reality is in consciousness, then it is our bodies that are in consciousness, not consciousness in our bodies. The fact that our bodies are separate in the canvas of consciousness simply does not imply that our minds are fundamentally separate at the deeper, subconscious levels. To say so is analogous to stating that, because one has two applications open in a computer screen, one must be using two separate computers! It is the application that is in the computer, not the computer in the application. Separate applications do not imply separate computers.

  5 – ‘We know that subconscious brain activity can determine later conscious experience. For instance, by measuring brain activity neuroscientists can predict a subject’s choice before the subject is conscious of making the choice. Therefore, brain activity generates consciousness.’ Here, materialists beg the question by equating neuronal processes outside self-reflective awareness with processes outside consciousness. As I elaborate upon in my book 'Why Materialism Is Baloney', our self-reflective awareness amplifies certain contents of consciousness and, thereby, obfuscates others. This is analogous to how the stars become obfuscated in the noon sky by the much stronger glare of the sun. The stars are all still there at noon, their photons still hitting your retina. Strictly speaking, you are still ‘seeing’ the stars, but you don’t know that you are seeing them because they become obfuscated. Similarly, the contents of consciousness that become obfuscated by the ‘glare’ of egoic self-reflection are all still in consciousness, but you are not conscious that you are conscious of them; that is, you are not self-reflectively aware of them. There is a strong sense in which not knowing that you know something is equivalent to really not knowing it, this being the reason why we think that we are not conscious of certain things when everything is, in fact, in consciousness. The brain activity that neuroscientists can measure to predict a subject’s later conscious choices are simply the image of these contents of consciousness that become obfuscated; not their cause. I have elaborated on this notion that the brain is the image – not the cause – of self-localization processes of consciousness in my book 'Why Materialism Is Baloney'.

   

  I personally believe that most materialists beg the question sincerely. They truly are confused: they can’t see the circularity of the ways in which the interpret, and then think to confirm their interpretations of, reality. This happens because we live in a culture that has completely lost objectivity: we can’t see past the assumptions and beliefs we are immersed in, and indoctrinated into, since childhood. This is all understandable, even though it remains one’s personal responsibility – if one is actually interested in truth – to overcome it at some point.

   

  However, when it comes to militant materialists – often scientists – who make it their mission in life to promote the materialist metaphysics, the stakes are much higher. When these people come to the mainstream media and beg the question of materialism so vocally, arrogantly, and blatantly, they are going much beyond doing harm to themselves: they are doing harm to countless others. It is your children, especially those still going through the educational system, who are listening to them with the openness characteristic of those who trust authority and aren’t yet ready to evaluate more critically what’s being said. Whether these militant materialists are genuinely confused in their question-begging or not is irrelevant: by making the choice to militantly promote the materialist metaphysics, they take on the responsibility of knowing better. After all, ignorance of the law does not entitle anyone to commit the crime. Their actions are damaging and irresponsible. It would be hilarious to watch these people promote idiocy with the hubris of an emperor with no clothes. However, the reality of it is tragic, and something must be done about it.

   
  • 

    Stick > Stick August 29, 2014 at 12:30am

    “What we have forgotten is that thoughts and words are conventions, and that it is fatal to take conventions too seriously. A convention is a social convenience, as, for example, money ... but it is absurd to take money too seriously, to confuse it with real wealth ... In somewhat the same way, thoughts, ideas and words are "coins" for real things.”...“Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence.” ~Alan Watts
• 

  Lisa Barnthouse-Fraser August 26, 2014 at 6:42pm

  Yes but many would argue that point lol. What so many fail to see is there are many books missing from the bible that the catholic religion took out.  i believe if they were to have left those books in all the cryptic stuff could be answered and society would be different. Everything in this world is based in part or in whole on the bible. i would think all the answers lay in those missing books but the powers that be want to keep us in chaos over whats right and wrong and Who God is. if you look at the bible there is a big chunk of Jesus life not accounted for from the age of 13 i think until 33 when his ministry began. i know this because i went to school to be a minister.  i believe in a higher power but noone truly knows who God is its all in what you choose to have faith in our free will as it is.  but this was a great point you made and also remember the number three is the holy number of the trinity God confirms in three also.  food for thought.
• 

  Lisa Barnthouse-Fraser August 26, 2014 at 5:22pm

  My great great pap used to be a mortician well back in the day they didnt do too much to the body for three days in case the spirit would come back supposedly the spirit doesnt move
• 

  Lisa Barnthouse-Fraser August 26, 2014 at 9:38am

  Fourier you are intelligent beyond your years i enjoy reading your blogs.  i dont know if this will answer your question but i am going to tell you my experiences the past 3 years i have been sickly well twice i died on the operating table and once from carbon monoxide treatment.  The dr even called my death after 7 minutes but im here.   i can tell you this one of those times it was a void nothing i was alone but im a loner so maybe my own personal heaven i dont know. the other two times i could here and see the drs working on me i could see my family and hear them praying i tried to tell them im ok but they couldnt hear me i felt something pulling me and i felt lighter and something say not yet and back here i went. i know there is something after this body gives way but as to what i guess we dont know until it happens. i dont know if there is a way of recording what happens and science well only believes in science no tangible proof but from what i been through there is something.
• 

  Stick August 26, 2014 at 8:30am
• 

  Ara August 26, 2014 at 7:06am

  To my knowledge there is no scientific ‘proof’ of afterlife … ;) however:
  "Science shows us that everything is made up of energy and exchanges that with everything else at all times in a most complex way. It is the building block of all matter. The same energy that composes your flesh is the same one that composes the bricks of your house and the trees outside. It is all the same. It is constantly at flow, changing form all the time. This is a very simple explanation of a rather complex thing."

  Each human cell is made of molecules, each molecule is made of atoms, and atoms are made of electrons, neutrons, and protons.
  From Wikipedia: In physics, energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.

  So if the energy can’t be destroyed, it has to go somewhere? ….

  Max Planck ( 1858 - 1947 - physicist), who is considered to be the founder of quantum theory, and one of the most important physicists of the twentieth century, did extensive research into field of energy and he is the father of the expression called the "Planck Scale". The Planck scale corresponds to incredibly small distances (or equivalently, incredibly large energies) and some scientists believe that at this very low level we find vibrations - invisible connections - "stuff popping”. It is believed to be unimaginably 'hot' and energetic. LIFE AND ALIVE

  it’s interesting that scientist now start to measure: ‘human energy field’, “pathology alters the biomagnetic field’, ‘protein energy’, and that this E=mc2 is also very important equation in biology world. We’ve got some serious stuff that made us H U M A N S ... ;))

  “The new physics tells us that matter may actually be nothing more than a series of patterns out of focus and that subatomic "particles" aren't really made of energy, but simply are energy! The subatomic world of electrons, protons, and neutrons may thus be viewed as patterns of vibration within what Rupert Sheidrake calls a morphogenetic field, an organizing field that underlies a system's structure.” Buddhist and Hindu teachings have long told us that everything is energy dancing in form, and that the dance is a continuous weaving of the form and the formless. Now research from the frontiers of science is telling us the same thing. Thank God to Quantum Physics … lol … a tool to ‘theories’ a phenomena … ‘afterlife’ … good luck
• 

  Stick August 26, 2014 at 1:58am

  For the believers, no amount of proof is necessary. For the skeptics, no amount of proof is sufficient.

  ~So, you pose a Multidimensional question, & then give strict parameters on how it can be answered? Sorry, Fourier... that's not how to deepen understanding of this 'experience' we call 'reality'. In fact, those are the tactics that have kept the masses in abject ignorance about their true origins in the first place. & to say that: "OBJECTIVE means that after we present it to contemporary scientist, it will begin to be thought in schools!" is strictly old paradigm... a fading shadow of duality. Only by acknowledging & honoring our inner lives as valid extensions of our true selves, will we be able to fully integrate the reality of Unity-Consciousness. Asking: 'is there proof of an afterlife?' & adding, you can't seek the answer from within; is akin to saying 'I want a detailed essay on Greys Anatomy, but you can't read the book.' So, sorry to break the rules, Fourier... but if you want a real answer to your question... YOU have to look Within. Period. Humanity is literally enmeshed with 'proof'... they've simply forgot where to look for it. ~InLight555   

  AsAbove... SoBelow

  

  AsWithin... SoWithout

  ( ( ( NewWayDawning247 ) ) )