Yes, but what a trick!brokenhead wrote:You are a one-trick pony, David.David Quinn wrote:Given this, the whole thing becomes a non-issue. It has no spiritual importance whatsoever. In the end, the only thing of spiritual importance is the act of realizing the nature of reality while we are still alive. Everything else is an egotistical distraction.
Buddhists plumb for 84000, so they are way out in front.Ataraxia wrote:David Quinn wrote:
One sign of an insecure ego is the need to surround itself with lots of comforting layers - seven, in this case - as a kind of added protection against having to face reality directly and nakedly.
Dissapointed it wasn't 10;then the sephirot could be included in the equation for added authenticity. :D
Okay. So do you do that?David Quinn wrote:Yes, but what a trick!brokenhead wrote:You are a one-trick pony, David.David Quinn wrote:Given this, the whole thing becomes a non-issue. It has no spiritual importance whatsoever. In the end, the only thing of spiritual importance is the act of realizing the nature of reality while we are still alive. Everything else is an egotistical distraction.
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment." - Jesus
-
Nothing. It has no bearing on the issue.JohnEDPMalin wrote:It has been empirically observed that when one sees text in a dream (such as on a sign post or a book's title one is holding), one is unable to retrieve it a second time later in the dream (its next episode).
What does the group make of this datum?
No one here is asserting the claim. I am saying it is not provable either way.To prove after-death continuation of consciousness for the corpse---the burden of proof is on those who assert this peculiar claim.
Thanks. I'll file that in the "Another Country Heard From" file. It's in the same drawer as "That And $3.95 Will Get You A Mocha Latte."Life after death was the dupery of ancient kleptocracies (religious, military and kingly) to bamboozle peasants so they would be governable. Since animals have consciousness (they merely lack self-consciousness or intensified consciousness), due to inter- intra-neuronal signaling network complexities (emergent property out of disparate localized disorder to establish global individual order in the brain), I really do not see the great fuss here!
How do you know that? What's your proof? Oh, it's just your opinion. Carry on.I know one thing! When I am dead, I am indeed dead---all of me, until I decompose into the elements out of star formation by massive stars earlier that permitted my existence in the first place.
Exactly. Logic cannot tell us, and empirical inquiry cannot tell us.Nick Treklis wrote:If what you are looking for is absolute certainty that consciousness ceases when the brain stops functioning you wont get it because this is an empirical matter, and all empirical matters are uncertain.Carl G wrote:You're just assuming that one's consciousness is in all cases body-based. What if it is not? What if it is soul-based? What if the soul is extra-body? How would we know definitively? Seems we can only speculate.
And even if consciousness is body-based, how do we know it is brain-based? Or wholly brain-based?
No, there may be an appearance that this is the case, but there is no way to know.The point however is that all reasonable empirical evidence indicates that consciousness is heavily dependent upon a functioning brain to maintain it's existence,
Which shows the limitations of empirical inquiry. There are whole realms of possibility -- some spoken of in mystical traditions -- which science has no way of verifying.and there is no reasonable evidence that would indicate that consciousness can some how exist without a functioning brain.
Since we cannot know one way or the other, your belief system is simply speculation. There's nothing wrong with that, if you find it useful.This is why I think that when one entertains the idea that our consciousness will go on existing after our death, it is at best an indulgence in mystical speculation, and at worst a self deception derived from our ego's want of an unfettered existence.
Quinn, it's obvious that you define love as acceptance, but you reject much of what your fellow man does. How do you reconcile your love of the totality with the fact that you reject certain portions of the totality?David Quinn wrote:Yes, but what a trick!brokenhead wrote:You are a one-trick pony, David.David Quinn wrote:Given this, the whole thing becomes a non-issue. It has no spiritual importance whatsoever. In the end, the only thing of spiritual importance is the act of realizing the nature of reality while we are still alive. Everything else is an egotistical distraction.
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment." - Jesus
-
LokiLoki wrote: Quinn, it's obvious that you define love as acceptance, but you reject much of what your fellow man does. How do you reconcile your love of the totality with the fact that you reject certain portions of the totality?
It is precisely because I love the totality and place value on awareness of its true nature that I encourage others, through various means, to become aware of it also.Loki wrote:Quinn, it's obvious that you define love as acceptance, but you reject much of what your fellow man does. How do you reconcile your love of the totality with the fact that you reject certain portions of the totality?David Quinn wrote: Yes, but what a trick!
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment." - Jesus
Ok, so I see a distinction:David Quinn wrote:I love the totality and place value on awareness of its true nature
Just an observation. David has graciously identified his trick in the above quote. This is like David Copperfield telling us how he makes a building disappear.brokenhead: You are a one-trick pont, David.
David Quinn: Yes, but what a trick!
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment." - Jesus
brokenhead: Okay. So do you do that?
David Quinn: <no answer>
No need. That's a pretty good summary.Loki wrote:Ok, so I see a distinction:David Quinn wrote:I love the totality and place value on awareness of its true nature
A) awareness of the totality's true nature
B) awareness of particular manifestations of the totality
Although I'm not clear yet on A, the thing I want to focus on is my confusion about option B.
If I valued following Jesus' first commandment (love God), but at some point had a negative emotion in response to a particular manifestation (my dog died) - - I would be wrong, wouldn't I?
So, with that being said, loving God, according to your philosophy, would have nothing to do with being comforted, excited, saddened or angered by particular manifestations. Instead, loving God is about constant acceptance of God's nature. And death and destruction is part of God's nature, so we must be in total acceptance of that.
^ correct me if I'm wrong
In light of what you said above (which I agree with), if the teaching were to come from an emotional reaction to what is happening in the world it would have irrational underpinnings and be relatively ineffective. For even if such teachings were to have some truth to them, the teacher would be operating out of a deluded understanding of God and making all sorts of mistakes and errors of judgment as a consequence.The next point I want to discuss is whether or not it is rational to try teaching others, as this would seem to be irrational if it involved desire.
It can't tell us with absolute certainty, but it can tell us which is more likely.Carl G wrote:Exactly. Logic cannot tell us, and empirical inquiry cannot tell us.Nick Treklis wrote:If what you are looking for is absolute certainty that consciousness ceases when the brain stops functioning you wont get it because this is an empirical matter, and all empirical matters are uncertain.
What do you mean there may be an appearance that this is the case? There's either an appearance or there's not. How can there be no way to know if there is an appearance? Obviously if a thing is appearing then it's not not appearing. A=A.Carl G wrote:No, there may be an appearance that this is the case, but there is no way to know.The point however is that all reasonable empirical evidence indicates that consciousness is heavily dependent upon a functioning brain to maintain it's existence,
Carl G wrote:Which shows the limitations of empirical inquiry.and there is no reasonable evidence that would indicate that consciousness can some how exist without a functioning brain.
Yes people like to imagine up all kinds of ridiculous stories, but science is a very reliable method in figuring out the validity of these stories and whether or not we should even spend our time entertaining such stories at all. Science and empirical inquiry has made entertaining the idea of consciousness surviving the death of our bodies about as useful as entertaining the idea of the lockness monster, bigfoot, and the tooth fairy. Of course if you find these things fun to think about, so be it, but at least have the honesty to admit when something is unlikely and not turn it into some kind of religion, even if it is at the expense of your ego's pleasure in holding on to these ideas. But I guess that's just it isn't it, it would take all the fun out of it if we admitted that these stories are just childish figments of our imagination.Carl G wrote:There are whole realms of possibility -- some spoken of in mystical traditions -- which science has no way of verifying.
The point is that there's a difference between reasonable speculation, and unreasonable speculation. Obviously I find the former kind of speculation useful, and I'm going to continue to discourage the latter whether people consider it right or wrong.Carl G wrote:Since we cannot know one way or the other, your belief system is simply speculation. There's nothing wrong with that, if you find it useful.This is why I think that when one entertains the idea that our consciousness will go on existing after our death, it is at best an indulgence in mystical speculation, and at worst a self deception derived from our ego's want of an unfettered existence.
Science really has no bearing on any "ridiculous story," unless you take science to be a story itself (or THE story). Does science have an ending? Let's wait for it before we say what it means in relation to any other stories.Nick Treklis wrote:Yes people like to imagine up all kinds of ridiculous stories, but science is a very reliable method in figuring out the validity of these stories and whether or not we should even spend our time entertaining such stories at all.
Our limited viewpoint cannot establish likelihood. To think so would be illogical and naive.Nick Treklis wrote:It can't tell us with absolute certainty, but it can tell us which is more likely.Carl G wrote:Exactly. Logic cannot tell us, and empirical inquiry cannot tell us.Nick Treklis wrote:If what you are looking for is absolute certainty that consciousness ceases when the brain stops functioning you wont get it because this is an empirical matter, and all empirical matters are uncertain.
Seeming evidence may lead some to conclusions, but proof cannot be established because we are not dealing with a full deck of cards. We lack and probably will always lack conclusive information. We can therefore speculate but not with any degree of certainty. Therefore extrapolation and calling it "reasonable" would be simply self-serving. Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest about it.Carl G wrote:What do you mean there may be an appearance that this is the case? There's either an appearance or there's not. How can there be no way to know if there is an appearance? Obviously if a thing is appearing then it's not not appearing. A=A.No, there may be an appearance that this is the case, but there is no way to know.The point however is that all reasonable empirical evidence indicates that consciousness is heavily dependent upon a functioning brain to maintain it's existence,
"Ridiculous" as opposed to "reasonable"? You don't see your bias? There is no good reason to label one stance or the other with either term. Science does not trump esoteric tradition in this matter. The truth still eludes us either way, despite your advocacy of 'reasonable speculation'.Carl G wrote:Which shows the limitations of empirical inquiry.and there is no reasonable evidence that would indicate that consciousness can some how exist without a functioning brain.
No, logic shows the limitations of empirical inquiry.
Yes people like to imagine up all kinds of ridiculous stories,Carl G wrote:There are whole realms of possibility -- some spoken of in mystical traditions -- which science has no way of verifying.
This is simply your religion.but science is a very reliable method in figuring out the validity of these stories and whether or not we should even spend our time entertaining such stories at all. Science and empirical inquiry has made entertaining the idea of consciousness surviving the death of our bodies about as useful as entertaining the idea of the lockness monster, bigfoot, and the tooth fairy. Of course if you find these things fun to think about, so be it, but at least have the honesty to admit when something is unlikely and not turn it into some kind of religion, even if it is at the expense of your ego's pleasure in holding on to these ideas. But I guess that's just it isn't it, it would take all the fun out of it if we admitted that these stories are just childish figments of our imagination.
The point is that there's a difference between reasonable speculation, and unreasonable speculation. Obviously I find the former kind of speculation useful, and I'm going to continue to discourage the latter whether people consider it right or wrong.
Speak for yourself. If you are being serious about this then I don't know how you can ever make a single decision without losing your mind due to your inability to make reasonable predictions based on empirical observation.Carl G wrote:Our limited viewpoint cannot establish likelihood. To think so would be illogical and naive.
You didn't answer the question. How can there possibly be an appearance of something, as if when something appears to us, it's only a partial appearance, or like you said it may be appearing? How can you refute the fact that a thing either presents an appearance or not? When you are feeling cold would you tell someone you may be feeling cold? It makes no sense at all.Carl G wrote:Seeming evidence may lead some to conclusions, but proof cannot be established because we are not dealing with a full deck of cards. We lack and probably will always lack conclusive information. We can therefore speculate but not with any degree of certainty. Therefore extrapolation and calling it "reasonable" would be simply self-serving. Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest about it.What do you mean there may be an appearance that this is the case? There's either an appearance or there's not. How can there be no way to know if there is an appearance? Obviously if a thing is appearing then it's not not appearing. A=A.
Yes I see my bias, a bias toward rational inquiry. We have no choice but to accept the appearances presented to us as the most accurate way to make predictions and draw conclusions from them. To take something like our consciousness surviving the death our brain, santa clause, or the tooth fairy seriously is at best deceptive and at worst a form of insanity. Do you believe in the tooth fairy just as much as you believe in the idea of consciousness surviving the death of our brain? If not then please explain why, because based on my experiences the evidence, or lack-there-of, for both of these ideas is the same. Actually I'd say the tooth fairy theory is far more plausible since I actually remember putting the baby teeth I lost under my pillow at night and waking up in the morning to find that it had been replaced with a 5 dollar bill. Hey at least it's something, more than I can say for the idea of consciousness surviving our brain's death.Carl G wrote:"Ridiculous" as opposed to "reasonable"? You don't see your bias? There is no good reason to label one stance or the other with either term. Science does not trump esoteric tradition in this matter. The truth still eludes us either way, despite your advocacy of 'reasonable speculation'.
Since when is religion defined as being reasonable in our theories and explanations? Making things up which we have no good reason to believe in, e.g. our consciousness surviving the death of our brains, and holding them as equally valid as say, the theory of gravity, is akin to the religious mindset. It either boils down to one's ego not being satisfied with the way things are, or some kind of mental disorder. Perhaps you can indulge in why you choose to entertain such ideas so we can figure out what the case is with you.Carl G wrote:This is simply your religion.The point is that there's a difference between reasonable speculation, and unreasonable speculation. Obviously I find the former kind of speculation useful, and I'm going to continue to discourage the latter whether people consider it right or wrong.
I was speaking about one issue, the question of whether or not consciousness can survive death of the body. You are trying to broaden it to everything, which is just silly. You don't appreciate the differences of scale and quality inherent between that issue and some mundane one about daily living? Please.Nick Treklis wrote:Carl: Our limited viewpoint cannot establish likelihood. To think so would be illogical and naive.
Nick: Speak for yourself. If you are being serious about this then I don't know how you can ever make a single decision without losing your mind due to your inability to make reasonable predictions based on empirical observation.
I did answer your question, by rephrasing to avoid the confusion engendered by the word 'appearance'. But to answer directly, delusion. That would be the reason for an unreal "appearance". A mirage is an appearance. A hallucination is an appearance. Although they constitute evidence of material objects, it doesn't mean that they represent material objects. It has nothing to do with A=A. You are getting hung up on philosophical definitions at the expense of actual application of logic.Nick: What do you mean there may be an appearance that this is the case? There's either an appearance or there's not. How can there be no way to know if there is an appearance? Obviously if a thing is appearing then it's not not appearing. A=A.
Carl: Seeming evidence may lead some to conclusions, but proof cannot be established because we are not dealing with a full deck of cards. We lack and probably will always lack conclusive information. We can therefore speculate but not with any degree of certainty. Therefore extrapolation and calling it "reasonable" would be simply self-serving. Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest about it.
Nick: You didn't answer the question. How can there possibly be an appearance of something, as if when something appears to us, it's only a partial appearance, or like you said it may be appearing? How can you refute the fact that a thing either presents an appearance or not? When you are feeling cold would you tell someone you may be feeling cold? It makes no sense at all.
No, we can withhold judgment, wisely ascertaining that where we cannot be certain it is not wise to speculate.Carl: "Ridiculous" as opposed to "reasonable"? You don't see your bias? There is no good reason to label one stance or the other with either term. Science does not trump esoteric tradition in this matter. The truth still eludes us either way, despite your advocacy of 'reasonable speculation'.
Nick: Yes I see my bias, a bias toward rational inquiry. We have no choice but to accept the appearances presented to us as the most accurate way to make predictions and draw conclusions from them.
That is a wholly religious statement.To take something like our consciousness surviving the death our brain, santa clause, or the tooth fairy seriously is at best deceptive and at worst a form of insanity.
That is a religious diatribe almost fervent enough to be taken door to door in the neighborhood.Do you believe in the tooth fairy just as much as you believe in the idea of consciousness surviving the death of our brain? If not then please explain why, because based on my experiences the evidence, or lack-there-of, for both of these ideas is the same. Actually I'd say the tooth fairy theory is far more plausible since I actually remember putting the baby teeth I lost under my pillow at night and waking up in the morning to find that it had been replaced with a 5 dollar bill. Hey at least it's something, more than I can say for the idea of consciousness surviving our brain's death.
I find your talk on this subject dogmatic and delusional, not reasonable. I think your conclusions are based on leaps of faith, not logic.Nick: The point is that there's a difference between reasonable speculation, and unreasonable speculation. Obviously I find the former kind of speculation useful, and I'm going to continue to discourage the latter whether people consider it right or wrong.
Carl: This is simply your religion.
Nick: Since when is religion defined as being reasonable in our theories and explanations?
Your zeal is getting away with you. I have never advocated making things up. I have never stated what I believe. I have simply said that we do not know, and probably lack the wherewithal to ever find out, because of intrinsic limited view. This stands to reason.Making things up which we have no good reason to believe in, e.g. our consciousness surviving the death of our brains, and holding them as equally valid as say, the theory of gravity, is akin to the religious mindset. It either boils down to one's ego not being satisfied with the way things are, or some kind of mental disorder. Perhaps you can indulge in why you choose to entertain such ideas so we can figure out what the case is with you.
No I don't. Please explain these inherent qualities found in that issue, that are not found in other mundane phenomena.Carl G wrote:You don't appreciate the differences of scale and quality inherent between that issue and some mundane one about daily living? Please.
If we define an appearance as anything that is appearing to us, it doesn't matter if it's a hallucination, a mirage, or our leg, they are still appearances.Carl G wrote:A mirage is an appearance. A hallucination is an appearance.
So an appearance can at best only be a representation of the real material object? Then how do you make the distinction between an appearance and the real thing? How do you know the material object isn't just another appearance? Since we only have appearances to work with, does it even matter what "material object" it actually represents? All you're doing is creating another layer of appearances, which is completely unnecessary.Carl G wrote:Although they constitute evidence of material objects, it doesn't mean that they represent material objects. It has nothing to do with A=A. You are getting hung up on philosophical definitions at the expense of actual application of logic.
What about this judgment about withholding judgment?Carl G wrote:No, we can withhold judgment
You mean like how you speculate, in earnest, about the possibility of consciousness surviving the death of our body?Carl G wrote:wisely ascertaining that where we cannot be certain it is not wise to speculate.
As contradictory as it is, you stated that you believe in your judgment that we should withhold judgment. You also stated some appearances have inherent qualities which others don't, and you also stated that there is some kind of divide between an appearance and the actual thing it represents, as if there is a truer appearance beneath the one we are experiencing. None of this stands to reason.Carl G wrote:Your zeal is getting away with you. I have never advocated making things up. I have never stated what I believe. I have simply said that we do not know, and probably lack the wherewithal to ever find out, because of intrinsic limited view. This stands to reason.
Well, you are right the discussion is changing, but it's actually because I'm trying to steer it toward something far more profound. That you refer to what I'm steering it toward as semantics, when I'm actually trying to explore with you the fundamental nature of reality, confirms my suspicions that you have a very poor understanding of absolute truth. This would explain why you still entertain childish notions of life after death and other mystical, new age BS.Carl G wrote:Nick, it seems you are drifting the conversation into the semantic. I don't think that's going to help elucidate the issue.
Your suspicions are delusional. I do not dispute the ultimate truth. I would, however, like to know what you think the ultimate truth has to do with you or I knowing what happens to our consciousness after the body's death. Wait, are you getting ready to give me that religious notion about the dissipation of clouds, ergo, human consciousness?Nick Treklis wrote:Well, you are right the discussion is changing, but it's actually because I'm trying to steer it toward something far more profound. That you refer to what I'm steering it toward as semantics, when I'm actually trying to explore with you the fundamental nature of reality, confirms my suspicions that you have a very poor understanding of absolute truth.Carl G wrote:Nick, it seems you are drifting the conversation into the semantic. I don't think that's going to help elucidate the issue.
Please stop with the fantasy. I am talking nuts and bolts. Get real.This would explain why you still entertain childish notions of life after death and other mystical, new age BS.
I think Carl is just being open minded in this discussion the two of you are having. You cannot ascribe childish notions to anything he has so far said. You are talking about yourself, Nick.Nick Treklis wrote:Well, you are right the discussion is changing, but it's actually because I'm trying to steer it toward something far more profound. That you refer to what I'm steering it toward as semantics, when I'm actually trying to explore with you the fundamental nature of reality, confirms my suspicions that you have a very poor understanding of absolute truth. This would explain why you still entertain childish notions of life after death and other mystical, new age BS.Carl G wrote:Nick, it seems you are drifting the conversation into the semantic. I don't think that's going to help elucidate the issue.
It's hard to dispute something you don't understand.Carl G wrote:Your suspicions are delusional. I do not dispute the ultimate truth.
I've been trying to shift the discussion away from philosophically unimportant matters and steering it to something far more profound based on the few things you have let on about your stance.Carl G wrote:I would, however, like to know what you think the ultimate truth has to do with you or I knowing what happens to our consciousness after the body's death. Wait, are you getting ready to give me that religious notion about the dissipation of clouds, ergo, human consciousness?
Well come on Carl, what are these nuts and bolts you speak of? Every time I ask you to explain or go more in depth about what you are talking about you cower into the dark corners of your mind where you sling mud and poo at all who try to get you to come out.Carl G wrote:Please stop with the fantasy. I am talking nuts and bolts. Get real.
