Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

11 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Sunmaster is the only one whom occasionally has some interesting posts, but they're so far off the topic of anything remotely "god" that it's not worth discussing on this thread.

Are you trying to say that consciousness research, especially the one exploring mystical experiences is off topic??
Are you serious right now?? 

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Sunmaster is the only one whom occasionally has some interesting posts, 

Actually,  @Sunmaster is the only one left, who, for some reason, is still thinking that it's worth answering your drivel.????

[Sunmaster]

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Actually,  @Sunmaster is the only one left, who, for some reason, is still thinking that it's worth answering your drivel.????

Every hero needs a nemesis. ????

[VincentRJ]

30 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Are you still climbing mirrors ?

So, if meditation is so dangerous,  would you suggest people to get drunk and drive faster instead ?

Or perhaps sit and watch the TV until they become totally obtuse ?

I guess that you can find plenty of scientific studies which show how dangerous life is, according to that logic, we'd all better kill ourselves. 

I wrote; "I imagine the majority of participants do experience an improvement in their well-being, and I was quite surprised when I first came across reports of the negative effects (of meditation), a few years ago."

 

And you respond; "So, if meditation is so dangerous,  would you suggest people to get drunk and drive faster instead? "

 

Sorry! I can't follow your reasoning. There are both positive and negative effects of many types of activities and situations, and we should not ignore the negative effects. In some situations, many people even ignore the positive effects and dwell only on the negative effects, such as the negative effects of human-caused CO2 emissions on the climate, ignoring the positive effects of enhanced plant growth, the 'greening' of the planet, and that a generally warmer environment is better for civilization than a generally colder environment.

 

Oops! Hope I'm not off-topic. ????

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Sorry! I can't follow your reasoning. There are both positive and negative effects of many types of activities and situations, and

See, if you meditate,  your general understanding of situations slightly improves. 

.. and I assure you,  it's the same for almost everyone.

Thanks for proving my point. 

Meditation is good and healthy,  and is not responsible for mental illness. 

 

[Sunmaster]

Meditation is like a medicine and some "negative" side effects can be: shaking loose old repressed trauma, facing your shadows, discovering parts of yourself you might not be so proud of, questioning your core beliefs, questioning the role you play in society and many others.
But of course, these are only "negative" side effects for as long as they are not dealt with, which can cause depression and anxiety. Once they are though, you'll find that they are great opportunities for growth. And therein lies the great power of meditation.
 

[Skeptic7]

57 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Are you trying to say that consciousness research, especially the one exploring mystical experiences is off topic??
Are you serious right now?? 

Yep. Are you?

 

Human consciousness, at all levels, is the product of the natural processes of the human mind/brain. No magical mystical (or gods) required, despite a very fringe few who make these wild claims. 

[Sunmaster]

7 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Yep. Are you?

 

Human consciousness, at all levels, is the product of the natural processes of the human mind/brain. No magical mystical (or gods) required, despite a very fringe few who make these wild claims. 

How do you come to this conclusion, when not even the best scientists in the world know how and where consciousness is formed? I wonder...

And even IF it were a product of the brain, consciousness research of mystical experiences would still be very relevant to the discussion. A lot more than global warming and black holes are, that's for sure. But I've never heard you complaining about them being off topic, right?

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Yep. Are you?

 

Human consciousness, at all levels, is the product of the natural processes of the human mind/brain. No magical mystical (or gods) required, despite a very fringe few who make these wild claims. 

Yeah, mind, brain, same same but different eh ????

[Sunmaster]

Here are a few interesting articles for you @Skeptic7, or for anyone interested in consciousness research.

https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143

https://interestingengineering.com/consciousness-101-the-minds-greatest-mystery

 

https://www.wired.com/2013/11/christof-koch-panpsychism-consciousness/

 

As you can see, there are lots of theories out there about what consciousness is or where it comes from, but there is no definite scientific consensus at all.

[Elad]

On 8/9/2021 at 3:43 PM, Sunmaster said:

I was just about to say the same thing. Alcohol and opiates are completely different substances from entheogenic substances. That much should be clear by now.

Alcohol withdrawal can give you auditory and visual hallucinations. In fact the phrase "Seeing Pink Elephants" comes from alcoholic hallucinosis. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_pink_elephants 

[Sunmaster]

14 minutes ago, Elad said:

Alcohol withdrawal can give you auditory and visual hallucinations. In fact the phrase "Seeing Pink Elephants" comes from alcoholic hallucinosis. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_pink_elephants 

A person can hallucinate for a number of reasons, thirst, hunger, exhaustion, heat, sleep deprivation...

But it would be illogical to equate them to entheogens like mushrooms and LSD, just as it's illogical to equate alcohol to them.

 

Alcohol is a depressant which slows down parts of the brain. Entheogens on the other hand are chemical substances that activate dormant parts of the brain, resulting in altered states of consciousness for religious and spiritual purposes. 

[mauGR1]

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Alcohol is a depressant which slows down parts of the brain.

Just to be back on topic, the first drunken man in history is Noah, the same Noah who survived the catastrophe with a few selected friends. 

Noah is supposed, by some scholars, to have been given the knowledge of alcohol by some unspecified deity, or god,  with the specific purpose to make humankind more centered on earthly pleasures.

According to all religions, as far as i know, alcohol is considered a great hindrance for individual and collective spiritual growth. 

Yet, for some reason it's very popular ????

[mikebike]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Just to be back on topic, the first drunken man in history is Noah, the same Noah who survived the catastrophe with a few selected friends. 

Noah is supposed, by some scholars, to have been given the knowledge of alcohol by some unspecified deity, or god,  with the specific purpose to make humankind more centered on earthly pleasures.

According to all religions, as far as i know, alcohol is considered a great hindrance for individual and collective spiritual growth. 

Yet, for some reason it's very popular ????

Wow! I didn't think it was possible. None of what you wrote us even remotely true.

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Wow! I didn't think it was possible. None of what you wrote us even remotely true.

Really? Well, I just reported very succinctly what I've been reading about some very old history of humankind. 

If you want to know more,  and better,  Google is your friend ????

[chicowoodduck]

A God? That might be the joke of the day.....the Bible should be on the Best Sellers List.....in the fiction section...IMHO.....????

[Kanada]

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Only you can answer that, as it lies within you.

 

The path to discovery has been discussed often on these pages by Sunmaster, but it's up to you to decide whether you want to put in the work.

Some, like myself, had a Damascus moment and don't need to do the work, so I consider myself fortunate.

 

God is everywhere, but only you can open yourself to see.

Well if he’s truly there I have to say he’s a bit of a <deleted> and I’d like to tell him that to his face!!

[Skeptic7]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

As you can see, there are lots of theories out there about what consciousness Kos is or where it comes from, but there is no definite scientific consensus at all.

Thank you for the interesting articles. I read all 3 as well as many others. Have been watching some informative vids along the way also. 

 

We seem not to be on the same page. While I'll concede there is (perhaps) no current scientific consensus, the dominant prevailing view is consciousness/mind is a process of the brain. @mauGR1The "mind" is one of many aspects of the brain and what the brain does. That seems quite basic really, as there is not one example ever of a mind or consciousness without a brain. Do we agree on this? 

 

Correct me if I've misunderstood, but seems you're claiming it's not known from WHERE mind/consciousness is derived, when actually you're looking for the how and why. The brain is the "where"...yes?

 

I'll also concede that there exist differing views on the this subject by credible scientists...but it's nowhere close to 50-50. The majority of neuroscientists are in the materialist/biological naturalist camp. That's also where my tent is pitched. I also find it reasonable to accept that all non-human brains have consciousness as well. 

 

Is there more research needed? Always. On the how and why as well as the where? Absolutely. 

 

But we reside in 2 different camps and IMO, not meant to be dismissive nor at all condescending, the current knowledge, science and philosophy favors my side. And from my camp, certainly no need or useful purpose for including or inserting any god or creator. Granted your camp disagrees...and that is the "why" question I just cannot understand and which I find fascinating and unfathomable. 

 

If nothing else, perhaps this helps amiably explain my views and where I'm coming from. 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, mikebike said:

Wow! I didn't think it was possible. None of what you wrote us even remotely true.

Are you claiming that someone alive at the time has written an authentic book to prove that it isn't true.

Surely there should be an IMO in there?

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Thank you for the interesting articles. I read all 3 as well as many others. Have been watching some informative vids along the way also. 

 

We seem not to be on the same page. While I'll concede there is (perhaps) no current scientific consensus, the dominant prevailing view is consciousness/mind is a process of the brain. @mauGR1The "mind" is one of many aspects of the brain and what the brain does. That seems quite basic really, as there is not one example ever of a mind or consciousness without a brain. Do we agree on this? 

 

Correct me if I've misunderstood, but seems you're claiming it's not known from WHERE mind/consciousness is derived, when actually you're looking for the how and why. The brain is the "where"...yes?

 

I'll also concede that there exist differing views on the this subject by credible scientists...but it's nowhere close to 50-50. The majority of neuroscientists are in the materialist/biological naturalist camp. That's also where my tent is pitched. I also find it reasonable to accept that all non-human brains have consciousness as well. 

 

Is there more research needed? Always. On the how and why as well as the where? Absolutely. 

 

But we reside in 2 different camps and IMO, not meant to be dismissive nor at all condescending, the current knowledge, science and philosophy favors my side. And from my camp, certainly no need or useful purpose for including or inserting any god or creator. Granted your camp disagrees...and that is the "why" question I just cannot understand and which I find fascinating and unfathomable. 

 

If nothing else, perhaps this helps amiably explain my views and where I'm coming from. 

Of course i don't agree, the brain is a physical part of the human body, the mind is not physical and surely it's not as easy to define.

I like your post though, because it shows some openness to a civil discussion ????

[Skeptic7]

32 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Of course i don't agree, the brain is a physical part of the human body, the mind is not physical and surely it's not as easy to define.

I like your post though, because it shows some openness to a civil discussion ????

So I'm not surprised by your answer, but my question should have been more precise perhaps.

 

The actual question intended was..can we agree that there has never been an example of a mind or consciousness absent a brain? 

 

Which now arises a further question. Do you dispute that mind/consciousness is a process of natural brain function? 

[Sunmaster]

40 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Thank you for the interesting articles. I read all 3 as well as many others. Have been watching some informative vids along the way also. 

 

We seem not to be on the same page. While I'll concede there is (perhaps) no current scientific consensus, the dominant prevailing view is consciousness/mind is a process of the brain. @mauGR1The "mind" is one of many aspects of the brain and what the brain does. That seems quite basic really, as there is not one example ever of a mind or consciousness without a brain. Do we agree on this? 

 

Correct me if I've misunderstood, but seems you're claiming it's not known from WHERE mind/consciousness is derived, when actually you're looking for the how and why. The brain is the "where"...yes?

 

I'll also concede that there exist differing views on the this subject by credible scientists...but it's nowhere close to 50-50. The majority of neuroscientists are in the materialist/biological naturalist camp. That's also where my tent is pitched. I also find it reasonable to accept that all non-human brains have consciousness as well. 

 

Is there more research needed? Always. On the how and why as well as the where? Absolutely. 

 

But we reside in 2 different camps and IMO, not meant to be dismissive nor at all condescending, the current knowledge, science and philosophy favors my side. And from my camp, certainly no need or useful purpose for including or inserting any god or creator. Granted your camp disagrees...and that is the "why" question I just cannot understand and which I find fascinating and unfathomable. 

 

If nothing else, perhaps this helps amiably explain my views and where I'm coming from. 

MauGR1 is right. It's quite refreshing reading a post like this. We can disagree on many points, and that's absolutely OK, but we should never forget that a productive conversation (or even a heated debate) needs mutual respect for each other's views. Otherwise it just becomes an ego trip to see who's got the bigger one...ego, that is. ????

 

While reading the above articles, I came across the term "panpsychism" in relation to the "hard problem of consciousness". The term was new to me, but I found myself agreeing with it, because I believe in consciousness not being restricted to a body, but as an all pervading force throughout the universe. I liked the example that the philosopher/author made about degrees of consciousness...basically that compared to a horse, a duck has a lesser degree of consciousness and an amoeba less than the duck and so on. And that for a panpsychist, there is no defined limit as to where consciousness exists, ie plants> stones> atoms etc., but also on the macroscopic level: human< planets>< solar systems< etc. 
I think this fits my own understanding very well.

I also learned that there are 2 issues: the "soft" problem and a "hard" problem of consciousness. The soft one being the material/objective consciousness research, done by analyzing the brain and its functions. I agree with you that human consciousness, in order to fully express itself, needs a functioning brain. But for me this is not a synonym for consciousness being the product of the brain (just like the internet is not a product of your PC, but you need a functioning PC to access the internet).
And this then is the "hard" problem of consciousness: the why and how of consciousness, which I find a lot more interesting, and for which there is no scientific consensus.

Keep 'em coming. 

 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

And this then is the "hard" problem of consciousness: the why and how of consciousness, which I find a lot more interesting, and for which there is no scientific consensus.

Obviously i agree with your post, i ve been saying the same things since the beginning of this thread. 

The part i quoted is open to speculation though. 

Personally i think that there's a "purpose " in all that, and it's indeed an interesting subject to discuss. 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Personally i think that there's a "purpose " in all that, and it's indeed an interesting subject to discuss. 

I agree. What I don't understand is why so many are apparently happy that after death "THEY" become nothing, zero, extinct. IMO just wanting one's life to have some meaning or "purpose" would incline most to want to believe in some sort of continuation of "THEM", which would necessarily involve a supernatural element eg God.

[mauGR1]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree. What I don't understand is why so many are apparently happy that after death "THEY" become nothing, zero, extinct. IMO just wanting one's life to have some meaning or "purpose" would incline most to want to believe in some sort of continuation of "THEM", which would necessarily involve a supernatural element eg God.

I would definitely compare sleep with death.

When we wake up,  body is rested,  but the knowledge of the previous day is still present.

In this exact moment,  we are "building " our next body.

Why ? We can speculate about that, but i could not give an exact answer. 

[Skeptic7]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree. What I don't understand is why so many are apparently happy that after death "THEY" become nothing, zero, extinct. IMO just wanting one's life to have some meaning or "purpose" would incline most to want to believe in some sort of continuation of "THEM", which would necessarily involve a supernatural element eg God.

This is a fearful and emotional response to facing the possibility of not existing. Not existing is a daunting and fear inspiring thought, as existence is all any of us has ever known...but a very possible and extremely probable outcome, regardless how one feels about it or believes there's more or "everlasting".

 

No one here, other than you, have claimed we're "happy" about it. It's just the reality we face. Just believing something without evidence, like an afterlife, because it makes you feel good or more comfortable does not make it true. It makes you feel better, sure...but does not make it real or true. And it's certainly not the way I want to conduct my life. 

 

IMO...this incredible and amazing roll of the dice life journey is made more meaningful and special knowing it's my one and only chance to experience it fully and make the most I can of it. I've lived by this credo all my life. No re-do's, no second chances. Knowing it's a one, and only one, shot deal makes me live and appreciate and try to enjoy the richest and fullest life possible. It's been (and slowly still continues to be) fan-<deleted>-tastic, despite the tragedy suffered earlier this year of the brutal murder of my most cherished loved one. 

 

Am I afraid of dying...of not existing? No. Am I "happy" about it or looking forward to it? No.

But tbh, since 5 Feb that thought seems rather appealing at times and much easier than the grief, torment and anguish. 

 

One, of many, fave Mark Twain quotes...

 

"I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

This is a fearful and emotional response to facing the possibility of not existing. Not existing is a daunting and fear inspiring thought, as existence is all any of us has ever known...but a very possible and extremely probable outcome, regardless how one feels about it or believes there's more or "everlasting".

 

No one here, other than you, have claimed we're "happy" about it. It's just the reality we face. Just believing something without evidence, like an afterlife, because it makes you feel good or more comfortable does not make it true. It makes you feel better, sure...but does not make it real or true. And it's certainly not the way I want to conduct my life. 

 

IMO...this incredible and amazing roll of the dice life journey is made more meaningful and special knowing it's my one and only chance to experience it fully and make the most I can of it. I've lived by this credo all my life. No re-do's, no second chances. Knowing it's a one, and only one, shot deal makes me live and appreciate and try to enjoy the richest and fullest life possible. It's been (and slowly still continues to be) fan-<deleted>-tastic, despite the tragedy suffered earlier this year of the brutal murder of my most cherished loved one. 

 

Am I afraid of dying...of not existing? No. Am I "happy" about it or looking forward to it? No.

But tbh, since 5 Feb that thought seems rather appealing at times and much easier than the grief, torment and anguish. 

 

One, of many, fave Mark Twain quotes...

 

"I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

Perhaps I'm born different. 

Since I was a little boy,  I have been thinking about reincarnation. 

After traveling to India at a young age, I've started to see my physical body as a vehicle,  sometimes as a prison, sometimes as a device, but definitely i just partially identify with my physical body.

Btw, I am conscious of the fact that this opinion makes me a bit too much of a fatalist, hindering my development in a way, so I'm not at all against living a life like it's the only opportunity to exist.

[Sunmaster]

28 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

This is a fearful and emotional response to facing the possibility of not existing. Not existing is a daunting and fear inspiring thought, as existence is all any of us has ever known...but a very possible and extremely probable outcome, regardless how one feels about it or believes there's more or "everlasting".

 

No one here, other than you, have claimed we're "happy" about it. It's just the reality we face. Just believing something without evidence, like an afterlife, because it makes you feel good or more comfortable does not make it true. It makes you feel better, sure...but does not make it real or true. And it's certainly not the way I want to conduct my life. 

 

IMO...this incredible and amazing roll of the dice life journey is made more meaningful and special knowing it's my one and only chance to experience it fully and make the most I can of it. I've lived by this credo all my life. No re-do's, no second chances. Knowing it's a one, and only one, shot deal makes me live and appreciate and try to enjoy the richest and fullest life possible. It's been (and slowly still continues to be) fan-<deleted>-tastic, despite the tragedy suffered earlier this year of the brutal murder of my most cherished loved one. 

 

Am I afraid of dying...of not existing? No. Am I "happy" about it or looking forward to it? No.

But tbh, since 5 Feb that thought seems rather appealing at times and much easier than the grief, torment and anguish. 

 

One, of many, fave Mark Twain quotes...

 

"I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

Very sorry about your loss.

[VocalNeal]

16 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Alcohol is a depressant which slows down parts of the brain.

Maybe if drunk to excess and alone. Drunk with friends in a pub can hardly be described as a depressant?

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

despite the tragedy suffered earlier this year of the brutal murder of my most cherished loved one. 

I missed that bit, pls accept my condolences.