The world is screwed up and is not perfect . Religions are a piece of crap and they are not perfect ....!. So who on earth or in the universe is perfect ??!!!. To make something is to design it too .

For someone to have religion in their life is to have faith. So, faith is crap? Maybe, you are just sad and need a friend. When you are happy you see sunshine and beauty.

Most of the time I feel the same way as you.

I worship Him, but I get angry and curse at Him too. Why does He let this happen. I hope I am here at the end of times. I would love to be a soldier for Him. I will do the dirty work.

James...



You said this, and so I waited for some supporting evidence, which never came. You have once again extrapolated upon an illogical notion. The entire post made no sense to me, which is not at all indicative of the norm.






Ok James, so now you are stating that computers have the ability to perceive. I refuse to argue that.


I had said this...





Your response is below.




Emphasize that which you choose. You repeated what I said.

Take a different approach, as below...

Ability is contained within perception.

Remove the perception and you remove the ability.

You cannot remove the ability from perception. Which is why your statement is absurd to me.



James, I am beginning to wonder where all of this is coming from. It is quite unusual for me to find your to claims to be so illogical.

The ability to perceive absolutely requires that you have a subject to perceive James. For if there were no subject to perceive then the ability to perceive that subject is just as non-existent as the missing subject.

The ability requires the elements which comprise the notion to exist.

Do you have the ability to make french fries without the fries?

Do you have the ability to make a milkshake without milk?

Of course not... ability necessitates perception. Without perception there is no ability. Perception requires something to perceive.







No it's not. It is a misunderstanding of my claim, which is this...



These next words are yours, and were once again attributed to me... I will correct this though...



Uh no... not even close! I am saying that if perception has never been experienced at some time, then awareness is not possible, because there would be nothing to be aware of.

Then you continued with this...



James, if there could be an awareness of nothing, then the perception of that nothing has already happened.


I agree with your statements regarding the difference between awareness and self-awareness.




Yup they do, the question how have they became aware. More importantly what elements are required for this awareness to exist?

Perception, the ability to collect and process information.




Only if you have already perceived something and have the knowledge facilitating the ability to know that there is now nothing to perceive, and you understand this to be the case. Then you are aware that there is nothing to perceive. If not there is no ability to distinguish.



If you say so...






So what is most important, the place where you begin or the place where you end up?



Did you not claim earlier that computers can perceive, but they are not aware?




So then all that perceives also has the ability to comprehend?

I do not think so.

All that comprehends must have the ability to perceive that which is comprehended.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

That is the question really. But I base my notion on the fact that NOTHING cannot EXIST.

Based on this single premise, what remains is SOMETHING.

So what do you think it is? Does it have form? I don't think so.

What do you think it has?

I think it has only one thing. The ability to perceive.

So what does it perceive when there "seems" to be nothing there?

Nothing cannot exist so what is there?

ITSELF IS THERE because nothing cannot EXIST.

What is It?

It is the observer. It has the ability to perceive. That is all it is in this condition. I perceives ITSELF as the perceiver. Nothing else.

Simple. Too simple for complex minds.

JB

Michael,

I think our use of the words 'perceive' and 'aware' is too vague. In your last post you didn't seem to be using them consistently.

Let me just ask you the following:

What's the difference between a biological brain, and a silicon computer other than just their complexity?

Is complexity alone the only difference?

If so, then mankind could theoretically build an android sufficiently complex enough to be every bit as alive and sentient as a human.

If not, what's the difference?

Personally I believe that if you can answer the above boldfaced question you'll be eligible for a Nobel Prize.

And if you can't answer it, then this whole discussion has been moot.

According to your own definition in the previous post,..



Computer can most certainly do this. So by your definition here computers can perceive

This is based on your definition given in the above quote. Computers most certainly can collect and processes information. If you don't believe me ask NASA.

So by your definition computer can indeed perceive.

But are they 'aware'?

If you're going to make a distinction between these words you need to stick with it.

Personally I've always used the word 'perceive' to mean 'aware', but that's a whole other story.

You defined the word perceive above to mean the ability to collect and process information. And computers certainly do that. So by your definition of the word perceive, computers already do 'perceive' based on your definition given above

Human's both 'perceive' and are 'aware'. But it is their ability to be aware of what they perceive that is mystical.

That's my only point. The ability to be aware is the big thing. Not the ability to perceive (based on your definition of how you are using this term).

JB


I understand that you are considering the possibility of other dimensions. What I don’t understand is your view that this particular dimension requires some fierce bravery for a (soul?) to digest.

For one thing you have no knowledge of any other dimensions. Secondly if the soul has such an ability to create a journey into and through an unknown dimension, why would they choose to experience it from the state of the most lowly, terror filled, anguished and painful existence possible?



You call this experience a game. You admit that there is some control over the ability to leave behind “other” memory. I only know what I know from the experiences in this life, and I can tell you, I can certainly think of far better ways to ‘PLAY’ this game and at the same time experience MUCH more than most of the lives that are lived.

Your theory makes no sense to me – I can’t imagine that anyone would be so foolish as to create a learning experience as the ones we see and live with every day.



So you have accepted some theories that FIT IN the best with your experiences. That is called confirmation bias. It is psychological think you do, when you are attempting to fit ONLY those things that confirm your belief into your explanations and thought processes.

Fortunately for you JB – you are still confirming – meaning you claim you have not yet closed the door on your beliefs, therefore, there is hope and probability that you may, yet, find some alternative view. For you it will be easy to leave behind old notions – but some are so firmly entrenched that they no longer seek nor can see anything that does not confirm what they already believe.

Abra


Abra you are saying we are the same being with several mental states, each of which is separate and unknown by any other mental states. The ultimate Multiple personality or dissociative disorder, wouldn’t you say? (smile)

OK – the one source of consciousness, is the source of all consciousness. It is aware of the self as being one singe entity, one consciousness made up of several mental states. But you are allowing it to separate itself, consciously, and allow these separations to include mental states that function completely outside the consciousness of the One.

Exactly how did it do this? Did it create an Adam and Eve, first or did it allow life to evolve until it found a suitable being to carry out it’s …. Experiments? For lack of better word?



Once again, I loose your logic. If you have this kind of ability, then what purpose does it serve for one mental state to experience something that it already knows, based on the telepathic communication of the ONE consciousness? In other words what is the reason for reincarnation? With the multimillions of people that exist, it seems a bit redundant to keep sharing with the same consciousness the same experiences from a different mental state? How many can there be?



If I could only go back, what would I change? Abra, don’t you think that when you merge with that ONE consciousness you will be able to experience EVERY possible scenario – REMEMBER it is YOUR consciousness, not someone elses. When you finally experience it, it is yours – why would you need to live it again?




It really sounds to me that you have taken pieces of the Buddhist beliefs and pasted them where you would like to have them. But I have to tell you, the actual Buddhist belief system of Karma and reincarnation makes much more sense to me then what you have been trying to portray.
Abra, both you, and JB are creating a belief system that suits you. I enjoy reading about this very much, but like other belief systems I feel the need to point out the flaws I see.

I hope you don’t take offence.

Creative



Abra


Awareness is a mental state. It is attributed to mental processes that take cues from our perceptions. From these cues we can take assessment consciously of our existence, both physically and mentally.

How do we know what our physical relationship to the ground is, our body position? By the somatosensory cortex. Do we think about it? No; we don’t have to if that part of the brain is functioning correctly and IF our central nervous system is working equally well. So we perceive this important function without a conscious awareness.

In this Abra is correct, we only need the (proper) ability to be aware but that is an unconscious mental state and STILL requires that something is giving the cue to be aware, something is perceiving.

So Abra, your car theory flies out the window, because it did not have the ability to run of it’s own accord. In this physical form we do not have the ability to be aware without some form of perception. We can not exist, as we are, without perception.

So Creative is right and Abra would agree.

However, on a more universal concept, Abra says this is backwards. The way I understand Abra is that the One Consciousness, that is universal, has the ‘ABILITY’ to perceive because it is aware of self. It forwards this ability to the life forms that reincarnate, in the various life situations, and thus can perceive Itself. But it had to be Aware to be able to do this.

It’s like a mirror image or a negative of what we understand. While I don’t agree with it, I do think I understand where Abra is coming from.

Maybe not logical to our way of thinking, but does that make more sense to you, Creative?

JB


You are attempting to place some extremely complex inter-workings, of several physical systems in the body, into one single ‘specific’ place. Our memories are stored in different compartments, depending on the type of memory. We recall those memories when we need them in our higher thought processes. There is not a single part of the brain that is aware, or sentient, it is a complex set of processes, including perception, that give us the ability to be aware of our physical form within the context of our daily lives and activities. Some of these processes we are not even conscious of. Our brain gives AND TAKES cues from all parts of our body. Some parts of the brain think or are brought into consciousness, simply because of a hormone that was released from some part of our body in reaction to a stimulus. Just because the function of the appendix was unknown for so long doesn’t mean it was some mystically relevant piece of equipment.

This has recently been discovered not to be true in all cases. I wish I could find my book "The holographic Universe" and site the brain doctors thoughts on this. I also saw a documentary that disproved this. A person who had half a brain removed, developed her other half of her brain to function normally as if she had a whole brain. I think the brain adapts. I am sure there is more recent research on this subject.



Actually I believe you that there is not a single part of the brain that is aware, or sentient. I believe the brain only processes information and thoughts. I believe the person is not the brain or the body. I believe the person is the self, or the soul.

We are not just a brain and a body running on programing and instinct. If that is what we were, we would only be robots.

JB

Awareness of anything, self or otherwise, requires two things. The first being perception, and the second being the ability to consciously think about what is being perceived.

Conscious thought requires the perception of that which is being thought about.

Perception does not require conscious thought.

Awareness is conscious thought, not perception.

The ability to perceive is contained within the perceptive faculty.





I am at a loss for why this is so confusing.





If there is only a void and self, in order for either one to be distinguished from the other by self, there must be awareness of self and of the void. To be aware of self, the self must have knowledge of self. Knowledge of self requires the collecting of information about self, which requires experience.




Knowledge is collected through the perceptive faculty.

This is yet another example of modern people mucking around with theological philosophy without understanding what they are reading. In the way the bible was written many terms that were commonly used in communication meant something other than they do now.
Examples include:
"Son of" meant direct descendent of whether the relation was actually offspring of or far removed decendent seperated by endless generations.

"Heavens" meant the sky and it's content. It could mean the universe viewed from earth in an astronomical sense, or it could have simply meant the atmosphere depending on what the speaker had in mind. Depending on context or intent, in some cases heaven and earth could even simply mean a geographical location. If a volcano erupted destroying an area, it's peoples, and it's customs the earth and sky would perish. Per the writings of the bible the heavens and earth already perished during the great flood according to the understanding of the ancients.

"Divorce" was the practice of abandoning one's wife and possibly even her children because you were bored with her and wanted to be rid of her. This at that time was a known practice often implimented with no justified cause other than the man wanting to be free to enjoy life with another woman which would of course be cruel to the wife and a sin in that it was wrong and hurtful. (This is inprecise but if you go back and read the texts and the context in which divorce was mentioned things become very clear.)

Any time one wishes to discuss the bible, it's contents, or meaning one must actually do a bit more research than just reading the bible in order to even understand what was being said and the language of the times even after being interpreted into another language because the gramatical significance and the "slang" of the times are lost to most of the living population. Once this is done reasonably and one goes back (in some cases even without having done this) and reads with fresh eyes the passages can have entirely different meanings.

So far as what any real heaven may be I actually wrote a paper once explaining why the heaven described in sunday schools when experienced for eternity would be a intolerable hell. People can't even live a single life on earth without knowing everything without being bored yet think having all revealed and no change for an eternity would be pleasant?

Yes, that’s the idea, and it’s not my idea. This is an idea that I’ve read in many different books that address the issues of pantheism.

You can call it a Multiple personality dissociative disorder if you like. That’s one way to describe it.

When sages talk about it, they refer to the right-hand not knowing what the left-hand is doing.

They explain it in terms that this is what God chose to do in order to create the world. Otherwise God would be all alone. That’s the idea. I’m not saying that it’s the true nature of the world. But that’s the idea of pantheism. It has to be, because the idea of pantheism is indeed an idea that all-is-one. They question is, why break up? Why become a multiple personality disorder (as you call it). And the answer is, so that the one being “God” can experience a multitude of beings interacting with each other.

Other people have suggested that pantheism is “The God who plays with himself”

Sure, it’s weird concept. I’ll be the first to grant you that.

But then the idea of a jealous ornery egotistical God who created us as pets to bow down and worship him and do only his will for all of eternity whilst he plays the role of the Kings of Kings and Lord of Lords is pretty frigging weird too!

And then, of course, there’s the idea that the universe just exploded out of nothing by accident and just happened to form sentient life that will be born, complain, and then die. All for no reason whatsoever.

You have to confess Di that’s a pretty weird notion too.

They’re all weird. None of them are any less weird.

Here’s my view.

The idea that the universe is an accident happening from nothing and accidentally creating intelligent beings that will merely be born, complain, and die. Seems to me to be a worthless venture. Not to mention being completely without explanation. What exploded? Where did anything come from? It doesn’t offer any explanation. It’s almost just saying, “We can’t know so let’s give up”.

The idea that an all-powerful God who is a jealous egotistical ruler with ambitions of being worshiped by his own creation reeks of absurdity. If that’s what the all-powerful God wants why didn’t he just go for it directly? Why all the stupid game playing and hide-&-seek? The other problem with this picture is the doctrine that claims this story is fully of absurd contradictions. It trips over it’s own proclamations basically invalidating itself without even having to compare it to the real world. When compared with the real world it doesn’t agree with what we see anyway. Clearly there was death and imperfections in the world long before man ever evolved. Mankind could not possibly be responsible for the imperfections in this world. The story can’t possible be true as told.

What’s left?

Well, actually there’s quite a bit left.

One possibility is that there is an external person-like Godhead, something like what the Bible describes only not so screwed up. But then we’re riddled with the game-playing questions again. Why play games, why not just show itself and say what the frig it wants from us. And hopefully it wouldn’t just want to be worshiped so it can play king of the mountain whilst all its little pets lick its boots. That would be a seriously demented God. It’s just hard to imagine a truly just and righteous God playing hide-and-seek.

But it’s certainly not outside of the realm of possibilities. In fact, God could be a sadistic demon who just created us for his own amusement for all we know. I mean anything’s possible.

The other possibility is that the universe as a whole is a living entity. That would mean that we are it. We are the universe perceiving itself. We are the God who plays with himself.

This is the pantheistic view. But it’s not a rigid view. It’s not a dogmatic view. It just says that we are all collectively this thing we call the universe and the universe is what we are. And that may include non-physical properties. Properties that we can’t directly measure. At least not with our current knowledge and technology. Physics isn’t any where need being complete.

In fact, in physics demands that there is more to the universe than we can currently measure. We can detect its presence indirectly.

I think the pantheistic picture holds the most promise of being correct. (in some form) The way it is now it’s wide open, almost anything you can imagine goes!

Although, if you get into to talking about things being separate, you’re departing from the pantheistic picture. Not saying that such notions can’t be true. But rather that they would be something other than pantheism. Or at least a modification of pantheism (maybe like relativity is a modification to classical physics).

From my point of view there are three possibilities, and really only three,…

1. There is no God – Atheism – We are the form. We are the body.

2. God is an external being to us – but it certainly can’t be the biblical picture because that picture is already self-inconsistent and self-contradictory.

3. We are this universe – We are the thing taking the form. Our body is just a temporary vessel that we use to experience an incarnation.

I don’t claim to have a perfect and flawless description of pantheism. I just claim to have a vision of pantheism that can’t yet be shot done. It’s an incomplete vision. I don’t claim to know our true nature precisely.

But I do believe that pantheism holds out much more promise than either atheism or the idea of an external God who is up to something so bizarre that its ashamed to show itself.

I don’t agree with everything that Jeannie says. I think she gets far too carried away suggesting fairytales that don’t have any genuine or credible evidence beneath them. But I can’t necessarily argue against some of her ideas either. I just personally feel that they don’t warrant the support that she seems to be giving them.

So I’m not necessarily backing everything that Jeannie says.

We do seem to have a lot of common ground, but would most likely disagree on many of the details.



Absolute!

And the same is true of Buddhism! Some other humans created a belief system that suits them!

And the same for the Mediterranean mythologies.

It’s all created by men.

Let there be no doubt about it.

I never claim otherwise.

I’ve reached my conclusions partly due to my own personal experiences, partly due to idea I go from other people (like Buddhism) and mostly from what I know about science.

I confess, that the main thrust of my view is based on scientific thinking. I make not effort to hide that whatsoever. To me the only real bible that we have is the universe itself. There is no greater religion on earth than science. Science is the only true study of creation. And the best way to know our true nature is to study the thing that gave rise to our being.

I make absolutely no effort to hide this.

I am a scientist. As well as a philosopher. A scientific philosopher. That’s what I am.

(P. S. I didn't read all your posts yet, I might come back tomorrow and comment some more on specific issues)

"Dimensions" are probably just states of consciousness. I have personal experience with a few of them, but I am sure there are many more.

Why would a soul choose what you consider to be a "lowly, terror filled, anguished and painful existence possible?" Is that your question?

You actually want me to guess the reason why any soul would choose to come here and play the earth game? How do you expect me to know that?

I don't know why people would chose to join the service and go to war. War is hell is it not? It beats me why people would chose to do that. I don't know why anyone would chose to climb a cold and dangerous mountain in Tibet at the risk of their own lives. Why would anyone do that? Why would a woman purposely put themselves through the pain of child birth, several times during her life? Why do men like to ride bulls and get thrown off and possibly gored to death? Are they nuts?

I don't know the reasons souls come here. It's a game to them. Its something to do. Its an adventure. It has great pain and great joy and great challenges. That is one guess.

JB

It was just one little statement. The heaven and the earth SHALL pass away. This I have read in more books than just the Bible. The Bible does not belong to anyone. It belongs to everyone, so stop telling people they "just don't understand it because..blah blah blah... I just don't care.

JB

Ack...what a can of worms that should have been left closed!
If one believes in intelligent design it is easy to take a look at the big picture and understand quite a bit that it isn't easy to stomach as a human being.

Disease is a population control tool to keep numbers lower so that the population can survive without largescale chaos and cannabilism. If no one ever died we wouldn't even have room to breath or the oxygen we need to breathe. The more quickly man works to overcome the frail human condition through medical knowledge the faster natural forces or disease have had to progress to maintain any balance to control the population. It's far from hatred or cruelty, it's just logistic neccesity to counter the mandate from the RCC demanding people NOT use birth control causing mass overpopulation in entire regions of the world. So far as unatural disease such as many types of cancer caused by man made chemicals, poisons, pharmaceuticals, or food additives (which per some conspiracy theorists would include aids as a manufactured disease) they fall into the overall plan of population control but have nothing to do with the original intelligent design. The thought that disease is a punishment from the creator given to humankind as a punishment is incorrect. As much as people would like to use the creator as a scapegoat to blame for being cruel if one does the math it's impossible to miss out on the fact that a LOT of people have to die in order for the rest to live.

Before Critisizing the outrageous crimes against humanity take a look in our own back yard. Our govenernment does not protect people from big business, it doesn't protect human decency rights, or even honor the geneava convention rules. Sacrificing our population to dangerous drugs released by big pharma companies with politicians in their pockets, lying to the entire population about the results of experiments and testing, and disguising dictatorship methods while claiming it's in the name of national security when some of these rules serve no purpose whatsoever other than generating profit. Now if you want to really get going on this the U.S. was involved in two wars, and only two wars where white people were killed. EVERY LAST other conflict or war we were involved in had american racists soldiers tromping around the world killing, raping, and disrupting entire cultures based on the "american" way whether any of the people being invaded thought it had anything to do with freedom or not. I suppose the majority in power in the U.S. is more tolerant of destroying cultures if it's a non white non christian culture they can consider below themselves.

Hawaii wasn't adopted, it was invaded. Puerto Rico was taken because we wanted one of their islands as a nuclear testing ground and needed to control the area to do so. Korea and vietnam were more or less uesless conflicts born for profit.

I disagree with crimes against humanity but I think as Americans we need to stop talking about what they do in other countries when we can't face our own sins. Since this was brought up under a relgieous concept I will say point blank I think any caring higher power would care a lot more about the acceptance of killing, hatred, and racism whether applied socially or theologically than they would be sex outside of marriage.

If you go back and read the bible passages with real understanding and with fresh eyes almost all sins spoke of in the bible that I ever heard of had to do with doing wrong against others. Rather than sex without marriage it was rape or cheating on one's spouse that was evil.


Pardon me but did you just claim yourself equal to God by claiming to know his will and his exact meaning? The bible was written by men, even the bible states this. The only thing that god ever wrote in theory was commandments on tablets and even those were lost and had to be replaced almost immediately if I remember correctly. BLIND faith is following the words of men defining who your god is, and how your god should be followed. This would according to the bible be sacrilage I believe. I believe the term that used to be used was inspired by god, and the claim that god manifested himself on earth and wrote everything in the bible with it's own hand is a bit childish.

Were spanish conquistidors pardoned for their sins by their creator (if this process does indeed take place) and their rape, theft, and murder of the indigenous people forgiven because it was justified as the will of god under blind faith? Personally I think if there is a real hell they would be frying in it a lot longer for daring to blame their lust on a higher being. Cultural genecide disguised with or blamed on religion is still the same sin, it only sounds prettier.

The for or against concept in itself is a declaration of war against non believers or those that believe differently. This is a form of open hostility, and the cause of wars where entire peoples were hurt, tortured, or even killed.

So far as being a fence sitter I do believe that there is/are a higher power/powers in existence, but I reject the definition offered by others especially a church that has existed for it's own betterment and profit for 1500 years as to how that higher power should be defined. The idea that someone is FOR or AGAINST "God" is simply a mechanism born of the bloodthirsty wanting to kill people, take their property, or rob them of their own self identiy imposing theological slavery and then instead of facing these actions as a sin blaming it on god much like a four year old child might blame their "imaginary" friend. Personally I think that this alone if there is a vengeful judging side to god would earn someone eternity in hell. Notice I did say IF. This sin is one you don't even have to commit dirrectly when you commit it by proxy encouraging it in others. The idea of a holy war is a misconception. An all powerful being could wipe out any peoples it wanted to, if man kills it is for his own desire and bloodlust. If he strips another of power it is because of his own sadistic or controling nature. Leave god out of your lustful pursuites because if you believe you have to face your god, you can be sure that will be a point of major interest.

Unity requires acceptance of others, and their beliefs. Only slavery forces others to take your views. There is no invitation to life, you are already living it. How you choose to view it with a pure heart, or hatred and seperatism disguised as religion is up to you.

How one arrives at a certain conclusion is from information, personal experience, logic, reason, etc. I don't know of any other way to do it. Do you?

Confirmation bias is something you can literally accuse everyone of doing including YOU and including all Christians who seek out and find confirmations for their rigid beliefs.

My beliefs are NOT Rigid or stubborn. I actively seek any information that proves or shows evidence that I am on the wrong track. I willingly change directions if I find a REASONABLE and logical solution to the many mysteries we explore and witness everyday in this world.

If you have a better solution, I am still waiting to hear it. But it must be all encompassing. Most atheist solutions are very limited and stuck inside a very small box with no answers to the largest questions.

So no, you cannot accuse me of confirmation bias. I challenge and seek new information always. If you find me rejecting information please be sure to ask me why I am rejecting it. I will tell you why it does not fly. It must fit, not in my personal universe, but within the current world view that loosely defines my understanding of how things MIGHT work.

Why? Because I am looking at THE WHOLE. I am not satisfied with explaining a small part and ignoring the rest.



What alternative view might you hope I find? Do you have the answers? I don't yet see anything wrong with the my current view. I am sure it is not 100% accurate, and it could even be completely wrong but if you are so sure I am wrong then please prove to me that I am wrong or present evidence of a new view that makes more sense.



This is true. If you think you have the answers, why are you keeping them from me? Please explain it all. I am all ears.

JB

James,

To answer the question concerning the difference between a biological brain and a computer, I will attempt to clarify, although I am surprised that you would call this feat unusualin any way.

Humans have desires, wants, and needs.

Humans have self-adaptable perception.

Humans can distinguish.

Humans can reason.

Human learn to believe that they know.

Humans have self-awareness.

Humans have a will.

Humans have perceptual faculties.

Etc.



But the biggest difference to me is in the fact that humans can willfully learn more. Humans can choose what to believe.