GENIUS FORUMS

Most of us think linear when it comes to what happens in life: “My cheek hurts, because someone slapped me”; “And now I am angry, because I did not deserve it.” Scientists, at least the overwhelming majority, are certain that consciousness is caused by the grey matter residing in our head. So in this view having a revelation, for instance, is just a matter of some neurons firing and sending chemicals to other neurons – they even have a word for the discipline studying divine, mystical or other spiritual states of consciousness; neurotheology.

I have just read a scientific article which again states this theory in connection to free will – in this view the free will is an illusion as conscious states which lead to ‘free decisions’ are all caused by the brain. In this view “free will” cannot exist because everything is determined; in this case by firing neurons interchanging chemical substances as well. (Not once in all this scientific literature there is a deeper consideration of what most of us actually mean by free will, but I’ll let that go this time). So cause (neuronal activity) --> effect (conscious state).

It cannot be denied, without uttering nonsense, that to actually be angry and feel this anger one needs adrenalin, for instance. As it is quite impossible to make love to your beloved without the appropriate hormones moving in your blood. So there certainly is a deep connection between our state of mind and our neuronal-chemical state. And whoever had a friend or acquaintance who suffered a brain-stroke will know the shock that comes when the person has a very different character from before or doesn’t even remember one’s name or face. So we do think: cause (stroke) --> effect (change of character).

But if we do actually believe this I do not see how we can truly believe that our conscious states – let’s say a satori or divine vision – are actually what they themselves ‘say’ they are: revealing our true nature or the divinity of being, for instance. We cannot have it both ways. The scientists saying that consciousness is an epiphenomenon are then just more honest than the rest of us still wanting to believe in free will, angels, spirits etc., and/or a consciousness that is uncaused.

Surely this is not my view. The setting or finding of causes and effects happens in accord with a great myth, the myth of cause & effect. Even though the cause&effect-myth is really helpful and practical in many ways, especially when it comes to actions and their consequences or our technically advanced society (click ‘publish’ and this post appears on my blog, for instance). But what we usually do not see is that we create the story, we often divine the causes working backwards from the effect that we have differentiated from the whole situation/context.

What I do not like about this myth of cause & effect is that it fosters determinism – and in the case of the brain and consciousness a very impoverished story that robs its believers of a depth and richness another story might provide. So I’m reinterpreting the ‘facts of life’ that my culture is continually shoving onto me, reinterpreting the stale story of determinism.

In the case of brain and consciousness it seems to me that the states of consciousness and the physical states of the brain are synchronically coincident. Actually only in the materialistic myth it makes sense to say that brain and consciousness are separate phenomena and one is caused by the other. Everything is unfolding in concert, it is ‘resounding’ with everything else. The kinds of differentiations that we have used so far fosters the kind of culture we have in this day and age: an ecological, economic and political disaster-prone time. When we look with the eyes of the deterministic myth at the mystery called reality, for instance, trees are ‘things’ and not living beings with – yes! – a consciousness.

So beings move in concert – sometimes cacaphonically, sometimes polyphonically and sometimes symphonically, to differentiate a few of the many ways of relating between entities, beings and the whole. And when one looks in the cause&effect-way one takes a slice out of this resounding story to, maybe, know what to do. But looking at it as if the kosmos (signifying ‘harmonious whole’) were a concert one rather asks, how to be, how to sound right now.

In the cause & effect world there are laws. In the world of kosmic concert there are repeating melodies, rhythms and rhymes… which is why I’ve come to prefer that myth over the deterministic one.

z

zarathustra wrote:In the cause & effect world there are laws. In the world of kosmic concert there are repeating melodies, rhythms and rhymes…

What's the difference?

zarathustra,

So cause (neuronal activity) --> effect (conscious state).

Without a persons brain working, consciousness could not be.

cause (stroke) --> effect (change of character).

You got it!

The scientists saying that consciousness is an epiphenomenon are then just more honest than the rest of us still wanting to believe in free will, angels, spirits etc., and/or a consciousness that is uncaused.

Well, the belief in those things (free will, angels, etc) is also caused. So, in other words, it is caused for us to believe that we are in total control of our life. It can't be any other way. We make choices, whether those choices are of our making or not, doesn't really matter for us... why should it?

The setting or finding of causes and effects happens in accord with a great myth, the myth of cause & effect.

It works and that's the whole point.

But what we usually do not see is that we create the story, we often divine the causes working backwards from the effect that we have differentiated from the whole situation/context.

I'm not sure what you mean.

In the cause & effect world there are laws. In the world of cosmic concert there are repeating melodies, rhythms and rhymes… which is why I’ve come to prefer that myth over the deterministic one.

I see no difference in the two.

No one is ever going to understand everything, we just do the best we can. However, one myth is better then the other, especially when one, is able to be understood within the other.
There were people who once believed the earth was flat and through logic they concluded that it isn't so. Logic works. Cause and effect is logical. Anyways, I don't see how determinism can't fit into your cosmic view of the world. IMO, it's the same thing.

sagerage wrote:zarathustra,

In the cause & effect world there are laws. In the world of cosmic concert there are repeating melodies, rhythms and rhymes… which is why I’ve come to prefer that myth over the deterministic one.

I see no difference in the two.

No one is ever going to understand everything, we just do the best we can. However, one myth is better then the other, especially when one, is able to be understood within the other.

One is guessed at within the other and assumed (read: believed) not to be true, and one is known (read: felt and translated) as not fully true within the other. The difference is great, though logical words don't do it justice.

Zarathustra,

It cannot be denied, without uttering nonsense, that to actually be angry and feel this anger one needs adrenalin, for instance. As it is quite impossible to make love to your beloved without the appropriate hormones moving in your blood. So there certainly is a deep connection between our state of mind and our neuronal-chemical state. And whoever had a friend or acquaintance who suffered a brain-stroke will know the shock that comes when the person has a very different character from before or doesn’t even remember one’s name or face. So we do think: cause (stroke) --> effect (change of character).

But if we do actually believe this I do not see how we can truly believe that our conscious states – let’s say a satori or divine vision – are actually what they themselves ‘say’ they are: revealing our true nature or the divinity of being, for instance. We cannot have it both ways.

There is actually no incompatibility here. Even though satoris are caused, the insights they can reveal are still valid and real nonetheless.

A realization of truth is a realization of truth, regardless of where it comes from. For example, when a person realizes the truth of 1+1=2, it doesn't make any difference that the realization had been generated, at least in part, by the chemical activities in the brain. It still remains true, regardless. The same applies to any conscious state, mystical or otherwise, which perceives truth.

-

David Quinn wrote:Zarathustra,

It cannot be denied, without uttering nonsense, that to actually be angry and feel this anger one needs adrenalin, for instance. As it is quite impossible to make love to your beloved without the appropriate hormones moving in your blood. So there certainly is a deep connection between our state of mind and our neuronal-chemical state. And whoever had a friend or acquaintance who suffered a brain-stroke will know the shock that comes when the person has a very different character from before or doesn’t even remember one’s name or face. So we do think: cause (stroke) --> effect (change of character).

But if we do actually believe this I do not see how we can truly believe that our conscious states – let’s say a satori or divine vision – are actually what they themselves ‘say’ they are: revealing our true nature or the divinity of being, for instance. We cannot have it both ways.

There is actually no incompatibility here. Even though satoris are caused, the insights they can reveal are still valid and real nonetheless.

A realization of truth is a realization of truth, regardless of where it comes from. For example, when a person realizes the truth of 1+1=2, it doesn't make any difference that the realization had been generated, at least in part, by the chemical activities in the brain. It still remains true, regardless. The same applies to any conscious state, mystical or otherwise, which perceives truth.

-

I was going to add picture A=A, then globalization. Mind blowing. Or attempting to add 1+1 in your consciousness, then adding those the sum of those two numbers, repeatedly.

I was going to add picture A=A, then globalization. Mind blowing. Or attempting to add 1+1 in your consciousness, then adding those the sum of those two numbers, repeatedly.

HYPNOSIS, I think you better not test Dan's patience. It is much better to listen well before you speak.

Sapius wrote:

I was going to add picture A=A, then globalization. Mind blowing. Or attempting to add 1+1 in your consciousness, then adding those the sum of those two numbers, repeatedly.

HYPNOSIS, I think you better not test Dan's patience. It is much better to listen well before you speak.

Yes, but I picture in my own consciousness that I love david, therefore, he is my teacher infact.

I am; therefore I am not. Can't do no harm.

There is actually no incompatibility here. Even though satoris are caused, the insights they can reveal are still valid and real nonetheless.

A realization of truth is a realization of truth, regardless of where it comes from. For example, when a person realizes the truth of 1+1=2, it doesn't make any difference that the realization had been generated, at least in part, by the chemical activities in the brain. It still remains true, regardless. The same applies to any conscious state, mystical or otherwise, which perceives truth.

This might sound simple, but is in fact a very profound truth. What it does is preserve the integrity on an individual's consciousness while not violating cause and effect. For instance, one might "percieve" a truth or experince a satori or insight while under the effects of a psychoactive substance. The substance might have conferred an altered but valid state of consciousness which can be placed alongside of the normal state and produce an entirely new perception of something, perhaps a familiar thought which then takes on new meanings, much like two eyes working together confer the perception of depth, which either eye alone cannot accomplish.

What David is saying here is that while this state may have been "caused" by the substance, it does not necessarily detract from the validity of the new perception. It does not imply that the perception is the truth, but does mean that if it is, then its being so caused does not diminish it.

What zarathustra was saying, though, is that the basis of our knowledge can't be linear (as in cause, then effect) if the Truth that we envision about our consciousness has a timeless nature:

What I do not like about this myth of cause & effect is that it fosters determinism – and in the case of the brain and consciousness a very impoverished story that robs its believers of a depth and richness another story might provide. So I’m reinterpreting the ‘facts of life’ that my culture is continually shoving onto me, reinterpreting the stale story of determinism.

In the case of brain and consciousness it seems to me that the states of consciousness and the physical states of the brain are synchronically coincident. Actually only in the materialistic myth it makes sense to say that brain and consciousness are separate phenomena and one is caused by the other. Everything is unfolding in concert, it is ‘resounding’ with everything else. The kinds of differentiations that we have used so far fosters the kind of culture we have in this day and age: an ecological, economic and political disaster-prone time. When we look with the eyes of the deterministic myth at the mystery called reality, for instance, trees are ‘things’ and not living beings with – yes! – a consciousness.

So beings move in concert – sometimes cacaphonically, sometimes polyphonically and sometimes symphonically, to differentiate a few of the many ways of relating between entities, beings and the whole. And when one looks in the cause&effect-way one takes a slice out of this resounding story to, maybe, know what to do. But looking at it as if the kosmos (signifying ‘harmonious whole’) were a concert one rather asks, how to be, how to sound right now.

In the cause & effect world there are laws. In the world of kosmic concert there are repeating melodies, rhythms and rhymes… which is why I’ve come to prefer that myth over the deterministic one.

z

The basis of knowledge can only be linear if the timeless Truth isn't about us, personally. It becomes about the unknown but not about what we know personally to be true. The unknown trumps the known in terms of scale, so it is held high on a pedestal where it doesn't affect the basis of the known. This, of course, is understandable.

brokenhead wrote:

There is actually no incompatibility here. Even though satoris are caused, the insights they can reveal are still valid and real nonetheless.

A realization of truth is a realization of truth, regardless of where it comes from. For example, when a person realizes the truth of 1+1=2, it doesn't make any difference that the realization had been generated, at least in part, by the chemical activities in the brain. It still remains true, regardless. The same applies to any conscious state, mystical or otherwise, which perceives truth.

This might sound simple, but is in fact a very profound truth. What it does is preserve the integrity on an individual's consciousness while not violating cause and effect. For instance, one might "percieve" a truth or experince a satori or insight while under the effects of a psychoactive substance. The substance might have conferred an altered but valid state of consciousness which can be placed alongside of the normal state and produce an entirely new perception of something, perhaps a familiar thought which then takes on new meanings, much like two eyes working together confer the perception of depth, which either eye alone cannot accomplish.

What David is saying here is that while this state may have been "caused" by the substance, it does not necessarily detract from the validity of the new perception. It does not imply that the perception is the truth, but does mean that if it is, then its being so caused does not diminish it.

That's right. A drug-induced insight or satori is just as valid as any other kind of insight or satori produced by other means, provided that it expresses truth.

On the other hand, drug-induced insights and satoris always need to be treated with a grain of salt. This is because it is very easy for the person experiencing them to bring his own baggage into the arena and project his own deep-seated illusions onto them. The problem with drugs is that they tend to push people into these altered states before they are really ready for them. They are thrust into them prematurely, which greatly increases the danger of their misinterpreting them.

For example, a closet Christian who has been subconsciously stewing over Christian-related issues might smoke a joint and suddenly begin to see the forces of God and the devil being played out in his mind in an existential manner, not realizing that his subconscious mind has taken hold of the existential aspects of the altered state and created a Christian story out of them, one that is understandable to his mindset in that particular moment. Such an experience can easily crystallize his subconscious attachment to Christianity and bring it to the surface. Thus, far from inspiring his philosophic impulses and propelling him towards wisdom, his drug-induced encounter with an altered state instead diverts him down a blind alley and turns him into a born-again Christian.

That is the real danger of drugs. They can cause people to lose their souls, without them even knowing it.

-

DQ writes:

On the other hand, drug-induced insights and satoris always need to be treated with a grain of salt. This is because it is very easy for the person experiencing them to bring his own baggage into the arena and project his own deep-seated illusions onto them. The problem with drugs is that they tend to push people into these altered states before they are really ready for them. They are thrust into them prematurely, which greatly increases the danger of their misinterpreting them.

One of the problems is that a lot of drug use is recreational. Alcohol is a drug, yet a six-pack during a football game is okay, because under any circumstance, beer is not likely to produce many insights.

But if you use more psychoactive drugs recreationally, then you are far more likely to be unprepared to handle the results. Trying drugs because other people are doing it is a poor reason as well. It is difficult to say exactly what mental preparation is required to give you that grain of salt. A good start would be to read accounts of drug experiences written by responsible, thoughtful people. Aldous Huxley comes to mind. Most importantly, do not stop assimilating knowledge about the drug you are using. It's equally important - maybe more so - to continue learning after your altered-state experience.

IMHO, and in my experience, it is impossible to fully prepare. It is a risk no matter what you do. If what you "learn" through the use of a psychoactive substance is, in fact, the truth, it will stand up to relentless scrutiny after the fact. The importance of maintaining that scrutiny cannot be overemphasized.

David Quinn wrote:For example, a closet Christian who has been subconsciously stewing over Christian-related issues might smoke a joint and suddenly begin to see the forces of God and the devil being played out in his mind in an existential manner, not realizing that his subconscious mind has taken hold of the existential aspects of the altered state and created a Christian story out of them, one that is understandable to his mindset in that particular moment. Such an experience can easily crystallize his subconscious attachment to Christianity and bring it to the surface. Thus, far from inspiring his philosophic impulses and propelling him towards wisdom, his drug-induced encounter with an altered state instead diverts him down a blind alley and turns him into a born-again Christian.

I don't think one altered state experience would be enough to turn someone into a devout Christian if it wasn't pretty much in the cards already. And if that is the case, it wouldn't be that big a deal in terms of leading him or her astray from wisdom. You can come to wisdom through any religion. The only problem is growing after a certain point where you can't see how your beliefs relate to everyone else's beliefs. It's hard to see past beliefs that led you to what you know, seeing that which particular ones you have doesn't matter.