[cheryl j]

Thank you for the poetry, Don Quixote. It's lovely. But I do think you are starting to compare apples to oranges. Here is another story:

I enjoy painting. If you lived in my neighborhood, I could sit in your yard, and paint a picture of your house. I could show you my finished painting and ask "Do you know what this is?" and if I was any good, you might say, "Why, yes. That is  my house. I can tell by color of the siding, just the way it looks when the sun shines on it at four in the afternoon, the slope of the gables, and the placement of the door. You've captured the rose bushes outside that we planted last spring rather nicely. Oh, and that appears to be me in the upstairs window typing furiously away at the computer."

The next day, you are rummaging through a drawer and find a set of blueprints. You show them to your son, and say "Do you know what this is?" He examines it closely and says "Hey, that's our house!" The blueprints show where the kitchen is, in relationship to the living room, and bedrooms, the hallways and closets, etc. and the dimensions of each.

Which representation is more accurate? Which is closer to the truth?

The artistic rendering, impercise as it is, may be closer to the image recreated in your visual centers in your brain from electrical impulses generated when photons stimulate receptors on the retina of your eye. It may be closer to  image of your house  stored in your memory. The painting may stimulate the same emotional response you have when you look at your house or recall it. You might like it so well, that you pay me a large sum of money for it, and hang it over your couch.

But if you are doing renovations or having any electrical work done, I suggest you provide the blueprints, not the painting.

[alancalverd]

Read the man's work,if you wanna know

No, I want to know how you know, not what someone else told you. This is a science forum, not a poetry club.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

There is also what can be called the  "science of spirituality or neurotheology " as well, as the logical consequence of the mainstream dominance  of materialism and the materialistic meta-paradigm in science, that tries to approach human consciousness, human spirituality , religious experiences, the "believing brain " (The latter by atheist Michael Schermer )....via studying the specific corresponding activity of the brain : that's a typical example of that magical materialism in science :

See this on the subject ,concerning the materialistic magical approach of the above :

Note :

No one yet  ,if ever , can be able to prove the paradoxical magical "validity" or "truth" of that magical emergency trick ,not even remotely close , and no one can tell how unconscious matter gives rise to consciousness , and therefore to such concepts and ideas such as the human  currents of thought ,philosophies , beliefs , cultures ...freedom,ethics ...

Studying the brain in the above mentioned sense by assuming that the brain creates human consciousness , religious experiences, the God feeling ,human spirituality ...is a false magical materialistic debunked premise or assumption,not to mention the fact that materialistic scientists do confuse epilepsy and its related  corresponding  illusions,delusions ....with the healthy spirituality of man   :

Those scientists do not make the difference between the 2 categories ,for obvious materialistic magical "reasons " , only materialists seem to possess the magical key to unlock their secrets haha, not to mention that if spirituality is created by the brain, due to the materialistic magical fact that consciousness was the product of the evolutionary complexity  of the brain  ,the brain that seems to create just a representation of reality via our senses, then, it's pretty logical  to assume that even all our knowledge , including the scientific one, including  our knowledge of evolution itself  .....are just some sort of sophisticated pragmatic survival strategies , or elaborate illusions , in the same sense spirituality is then ...= a paradox no one here or elsewhere seem to be able or wanna answer,except by some sort of magic then  .

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/god-on-the-brain/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/phantoms-in-the-brain/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/mystical-brain/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/michael-shermer-the-believing-brain/


P.S.: That earlier tv set ,radio ...analogy regarding  the brain , a tv set that can, obvioulsy ,not create those tv signals it receives ,neither can the radio create the sound waves it receives ,  was just that : an analogy :

The tv set proper ,  and the images of the tv set created by those tv signals the tv receives are 2 different separate things or processes  , while brain and consciousness are 2 different things or processes in 1 , mind and body as being 1 in any given human person   : a kindda combination between dualism and monism .

When the human brain is damaged at the level of  some specific areas ,due to some disease , handicap, accident , genetic defect ...disorders like Alzheimer or dementia, ...even the sense of the self is altered radically indeed , and many aspects of consciousness in those cases are also radically altered,to say just that  : but that does not mean that the brain  is the "home "  or is the creator of consciousness as a kindda magical "emergence " trick popping out suddenly from the evolved complexity of the human brain :

 I see the human brain as just some kindda receiver its own biological way that cannot be compared to any mechanical manufactured-by-man device  :

when the brain  gets damaged in some specific areas , the corresponding elements or aspects of consciousness that get apparently altered as a result , are still there , they are just disconnected from the brain as a receiver , they do not get through, as a result, i dunno  :

The question now is : do those people who do suffer from Alzheimer dementia ....still have levels of consciousness within we cannot detect ?
Or is there a way to find out about that and how ? 

Second : the main problem regarding telepathy and other high levels of human consciousness ,that can be easily confused with illusions, delusions, self-deceit , .......is that they are not only subjective, but they also cannot be generated on demand , they just happen to people , even though humans can be trained to develop those consciousness powers or skils in themselves, by developing their 'contacts " with their consciousness via some means  :

So, when science tries to take a closer look at telepathy, for example , it misses the fact that telepathy cannot be generated on demand ...

High levels of consciousness can also be experienced only under certain meditation and other spiritual circumstances where the body or the material world cease to "exist " or cease to be perceived as such for the given person under those meditation or under other spiritual states ,due to that extremely targeted attention or focuss of the given person at the level of the pure consciousness .

The other question that come to mind is : at which extent can science approach human spirituality .?

But , to reduce human spirituality and human consciousness to just magical "emergent " phenomena from the evolutionary complexity of the brain is not only magic , but also a paradox in the above mentioned sense + total non-sense ,science has nothing to do with .

Magical materialism can thus never be able to deliver any breakthroughs concerning human consciousness, not even remotely close , thanks to its very magical nature which reduces everything to matter , a materialistic nature quantum physics had already debunked .

I think that we need a radical shift of paradigm in science , a radical shift of meta-paradigm in science in fact , if we wanna ever be able to scientifically try to approach these eternal issues of human consciousness  ,humanity has been struggling with for so long now without any end in sight to that eternal human struggle , and we should combine those future scientific approaches in combination with all sciences and currents of thought = we need a revolutionary holistic approach thus .

You tell me ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Read the man's work,if you wanna know

No, I want to know how you know, not what someone else told you. This is a science forum, not a poetry club.

Read that work, and you will know : The man's work is so large and huge  that it cannot be really discussed this way, come on , be serious .

Taking drugs and using tons of Alcohol ,combined with  your false deceptive big ego won't help you in that regard or in any other for that matter .

First thing you should do : Get rid of your false ego, get rid of your ego,period : that should help you get in contact with your true self as a result, you have been hiding from all along .
Second : Reject that materialistic magic in science, by delivering science from its phony meta-paradigm  .

Do just that , and i will tell you all about the next steps.

Deal ?

Good luck

P.S.: I haven't seen much science from any of you, guys , so far , just magical materialistic interpretations of science : See the difference ? I hope you do,but i seriously doubt just that , sorry  .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Thank you for the poetry, Don Quixote. It's lovely. But I do think you are starting to compare apples to oranges. Here is another story:

I enjoy painting. If you lived in my neighborhood, I could sit in your yard, and paint a picture of your house. I could show you my finished painting and ask "Do you know what this is?" and if I was any good, you might say, "Why, yes. That is  my house. I can tell by color of the siding, just the way it looks when the sun shines on it at four in the afternoon, the slope of the gables, and the placement of the door. You've captured the rose bushes outside that we planted last spring rather nicely. Oh, and that appears to be me in the upstairs window typing furiously away at the computer."

The next day, you are rummaging through a drawer and find a set of blueprints. You show them to your son, and say "Do you know what this is?" He examines it closely and says "Hey, that's our house!" The blueprints show where the kitchen is, in relationship to the living room, and bedrooms, the hallways and closets, etc. and the dimensions of each.

Which representation is more accurate? Which is closer to the truth?

The artistic rendering, impercise as it is, may be closer to the image recreated in your visual centers in your brain from electrical impulses generated when photons stimulate receptors on the retina of your eye. It may be closer to  image of your house  stored in your memory. The painting may stimulate the same emotional response you have when you look at your house or recall it. You might like it so well, that you pay me a large sum of money for it, and hang it over your couch.

But if you are doing renovations or having any electrical work done, I suggest you provide the blueprints, not the painting.

Oh, boy , or oh , girl :  Editing my post afterwards : my little kids contributted in distracting me ,so, i lost focus at times , so, pardon me if this post seems a bit chaotic : thanks :

Oh, girl : You're putting your finger on a huge issue , i will try to approach this quick clumsy way :

You're confusing many things with each other , while separating  some areas of human consciousness , activity,reality,human dimentions, human condition, human knowledge , easthetics  ... from each other ,one cannot always separate ,not in the absolute sense at least ,simply because they all complete each other , feedback each other , influence each other , ...simply because they are all pursued by the same human spirit , and simply because those artificial boundaries between them are not really absolute .

You're doing all that and much more via this inspiring nice story of yours i do appreciate and thank you for indeed , a story  that cannot prove the point you are trying to prove ,or the implications it tries to illustrate : i   will tell you why in a sec : hint ?:

Art is both a subjective and a cultural  "product " of the artist's holistic approach via his /her whole being that includes , his /her relative understanding or knowledge regarding the  science of his / her  time,regarding the wisdom of his /her time , some artists can transcend and rise above which results in the transmission of universal timeless values , wisdom ...as the example of Rumi shows  + the artist's use of the tools and technology ,techniques, symbols ...or zeitgeist of his /her time ..........:

You're confusing or rather comparing science with art ,while they overlap each other in subtle ways , while trying to prove the obvious fact that science is not art , and vice versa

Nice story , i would love to see your paintings since i , myself , like to make amateur paintings ,among other creative things as well .

But , you forgot to mention that an artist knows that he / she tries to "reflect reality "
in his / her own creative work his / her own subjective way , he / she does not pretend to copy  "reality proper " : if an artist would try to copy "reality " as it is , and not as it should be , or as he /she sees it or how she/he likes to see it or likes it to be ..... then he /she (I am tired of this he /she haha ) ,then he/she is not an artist and should therefore pursue another different career .

Art is indeed subjective , is a matter of taste , but art "flies above the truth while trying not to get burned  by it " as Kafka used to say at least : art tries to approach the truth as well thus its own holistic way :

I am sure you prefer this style of painting to another , a style which might reflect your world view , your taste, your convictions, your easthetics,taste  ...

Make no mistake, even a casual painting can tell a lot about one's preferences, taste, likes and dislikes, personality , convictions, world view ...

You put your whole being into that painting , i presume : you put yourself in it ...

Art can reflect  the world view ,eathetics , ethics , taste , experiences, knowledge ,skills ....of the given artist ...

Any casual painting , ....is done through your whole spirit .

The same goes , and in higher degrees, with the art ,poetry of Rumi , the latter puts his whole accumulated wisdom, experiences ,spirit  .... in he communicates to the world in the process ,while succeeding in touching the hearts and minds of different people from different cultures , races, ........simply because Rumi knew , as great artists  do ,how to transmit universal values , emotions, feelings , universal love , universal wisdom...to people .

Those universal blueprints transmitted by art to all mankind are a kindda holy Grail only great artists can achieve ...while an architect , for example, just studies his practical work at the university : anyone can become an architect , but not any one can become an artist though : those universal blueprints communicated by great artists ,those universal wisdoms, through art, literature , music , ....cannot be studied in any school then : you can study about art , easthetics ...but no study can make you an artist or create that talent needed and developed by artists .


I am a big fan of world literature also, for example , and i am found of extracting wisdom , easthetics , ...from that literature .

I see ,for example, Don Quichottes everywhere, i see Don Juans like our friend with his false big deceptive ego here everywhere and in myself previously as well,  in life and here , and i was also one , i am still somehow, I do get also moved by some Dante's existential poetry , by the universal blueprints of the music of Yanni who succeeded , at the level of music , at least , to get the best from different cultures , schools of thought , religions ...,at the level of music at least , represented by the people he worked with ,as this awsome wonderful wonderful wonderful beautiful masterpiece of his shows, i dedicate to you,even if it's not mine haha  :

Science is only one way of approaching reality or the truth : i prefer a holistic approach that combines science with the rest though .

Science itself is a different form of art , poetry , a social cultural universal human activity ,a form of culture  ...practiced by humans scientists through their senses and minds brains , and through their world views and convictions as well , as the major example of materialism as a world view in science shows ,for example , one should try not to confuse with science proper , once again .

Thanks for your inspiring insights i do appreciate very much indeed .

Take care

[/b]

[cheryl j]

When the human brain is damaged at the level of  some specific areas ,due to some disease , handicap, accident , genetic defect ...disorders like Alzheimer or dementia, ...even the sense of the self is altered radically indeed , and many aspects of consciousness in those cases are also radically altered,to say just that  : but that does not mean that the brain  is the "home "  or is the creator of consciousness as a kindda magical "emergence " trick popping out suddenly from the evolved complexity of the human brain :

 I see the human brain as just some kindda receiver its own biological way that cannot be compared to any mechanical manufactured-by-man device  :

when the brain  gets damaged in some specific areas , the corresponding elements or aspects of consciousness that get apparently altered as a result , are still there , they are just disconnected from the brain as a receiver , they do not get through, as a result, i dunno  :

The question now is : do those people who do suffer from Alzheimer dementia ....still have levels of consciousness within we cannot detect ?
Or is there a way to find out about that and how ? 

Thomas Nagel, a philosopher you might like, who is also a critic of reductionism and materialism, says "Science can tell us everything about a bat except what it's like to be a bat."

Well, he has a point.

My response to that is: I had surgery once and received a general anesthetic. The experience, if I can even call it that, was nothing like sleeping. Nothing happened. I did not even have a sense of time having passed as when one sleeps, from the moment I lost consciousness until I regained it.

One might argue, "but you could have experienced something and the anesthetic simply erased your memory of the experience." However, if a bat is the only authority on what it is like to be a bat, I should likewise be the ultimate authority on my own subjective experiences, and I will testify that while under general anesthesia, there was none. For all intents and purposes "I" did not exist at that time, inside my brain or via the magical consciousness transmitter in outer space. Your results may vary.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

When the human brain is damaged at the level of  some specific areas ,due to some disease , handicap, accident , genetic defect ...disorders like Alzheimer or dementia, ...even the sense of the self is altered radically indeed , and many aspects of consciousness in those cases are also radically altered,to say just that  : but that does not mean that the brain  is the "home "  or is the creator of consciousness as a kindda magical "emergence " trick popping out suddenly from the evolved complexity of the human brain :

 I see the human brain as just some kindda receiver its own biological way that cannot be compared to any mechanical manufactured-by-man device  :

when the brain  gets damaged in some specific areas , the corresponding elements or aspects of consciousness that get apparently altered as a result , are still there , they are just disconnected from the brain as a receiver , they do not get through, as a result, i dunno  :

The question now is : do those people who do suffer from Alzheimer dementia ....still have levels of consciousness within we cannot detect ?
Or is there a way to find out about that and how ? 

Thomas Nagel, a philosopher you might like, who is also a critic of reductionism and materialism, says "Science can tell us everything about a bat except what it's like to be a bat."

Well, he has a point.

My response to that is: I had surgery once and received a general anesthetic. The experience, if I can even call it that, was nothing like sleeping. Nothing happened. I did not even have a sense of time having passed as when one sleeps, from the moment I lost consciousness until I regained it.

One might argue, "but you could have experienced something and the anesthetic simply erased your memory of the experience." However, if a bat is the only authority on what it is like to be a bat, I should likewise be the ultimate authority on my own subjective experiences, and I will testify that while under general anesthesia, there was none. For all intents and purposes "I" did not exist at that time, inside my brain or via the magical transmitter in outer space. Your results may vary.

I will check that philosopher you mentioned ,thanks .
I had a day off today,so :
The same happened to me when i went under the knife after a stupid group of drunks 'fight  haha  once,during my foolish period  : total black out after general aneasthetics: it happened to me just once i do not wish to go through  again,as i do not wish it for anybodyelse for that matter  .

Well, almost the same happens to all of us during deep sleep also ,science is still trying to figure out .

These things + Alzheimer dementia ,their repercussions and those of damaged brain areas  resulting in those corresponding loss of the sense of self , the loss of the capacity to recognize faces ,.....and much more ,as talked about in those videos i provided you with earlier do puzzle me a lot indeed.

So, i can only speculate about consciousness and all that ,and how that might happen : i might be as in the dark in that regard as you might be ,so .

But , art , meditation, spirituality , creative work ....music ....love...do make me get in touch , sometimes , with incredible states of consciousness , awareness, self-awareness ...that are , per definition, uncommunicable as the mystics say , science can never be able to give me .

Words cannot describe those states of consciousness i do experience sometimes , and i can tell you with relative confidence= i am not really sure , who can be in that context ?,  that i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ... : only me can tell what's it like to be a bat , as you said , what is it like to be me during those circumstances .

My own belief also warns me against illusions, delusions ....as well, so , in that regard .

Rumi, for example, just happens to touch and move the right "buttons " in me and in other people ,so, i do not rely much on authority in the strict sense , i just try to learn from the experiences and wisdom of others , so , while trying to figure all that out for myself and what it might mean for me , as a human being , and for the people around me as well ...:

I also do not agree with some aspects of Rumi's philosophy ,wisdom ...and he can try to sing all night about his alleged fact that he succeeded in reaching the so-called beyond thought pure consciousness and all that , but , as long as i cannot pretend to be able to do or reach just that myself , whatever that might be , that would mean nothing to me , personally .

He also tried to use some explicit coarse vulgar sexual stories to convey his so-called esoterics neither me or my faith that also happens to be his would agree with .

Some even call his Mathnawi the Qur'an in Persian: unacceptable pretentious bullshit  .

I read thus a study about those  unethical and perplexing vulgar coarse sexual stories of Rumi in order to convey some of his alleged esoteric messages i was outraged by : the guy might have lost it , i guess .

That study tried to apply Lacan'psychology to Rumi's eroticism ,and came up with disturbing conclusions .

I think that Rumi might have lost it to the point where he "killed " God that Nietzshean way ,via being deceived by his 'enlightened " ego to the point where he could say that God speaks through him , or stuff like that ....

The greatest mystic of them all , Ibn Arabi whose teachings influenced Rumi himself and all other Sufis made some lethal erros  as well .........

Another big shot sufi also made a huge mistake by saying : "I am the Truth= I am God " : he maybe thought he was God , or that he has become God haha  , or maybe he was misunderstood as some say , in the sense that he reached high levels of consciousness ...He was put to death , unfortunately enough , some 11 centuries ago .

This is thus a real minefield ,this risky field of consciousness we must be alert of ...


In fact , nobody teaches us anything , we do : you can take people to the fountain, but you cannot make them drink from it .

Let's just hope some genius would be able , some day , to discover some breakthroughts regarding all that ,so, we can benefit from it as human beings ,because i see nothing more important to human development ,self-development,  progress, enlightenment , evolution, health,peace , love  ...than unveiling at least some secrets of the mysteries surrounding human consciousness .

I must add that science alone cannot do just the latter : only a revolutionary holistic approach can, i dunno .

I do also believe in the fact that we , as individuals , must take that endless restless dynamic journey regarding our own consciousness and destiny : i do not rely much on science to do just that for me  it cannot do , per definition.

It's really amazing that  man can be able to send missions to Mars , conduct experiments about the Big Bang ...and all that , but cannot say almost anything intelligent about human consciousness, the latter , i see , as THE key to almost everything within and without : THE key to relatively trying to understand ourselves and the universe ...

Good night , best wishes , and thanks for sharing all those interesting insights of yours with me , i do appreciate very much indeed .I mean it .

Take care .

[cheryl j]

But , you forgot to mention that an artist knows that he / she tries to "reflect reality " in his / her own creative work his / her own subjective way , he / she does not pretend to copy  "reality proper " : if an artist would try to copy "reality " as it is ,

I don't think science tries to "duplicate" reality either. There are many pictures of molecules and cells in my textbook, and some of them are quite different, and exclude or include different information. No diagram or model of a molecule will include or represent everything that is known about a molecule or atoms. That said, some representations or models could be completely inaccurate, with no features that correspond to any of it's properties.

[dlorde]

The tv set proper ,  and the images of the tv set created by those tv signals the tv receives are 2 different separate things or processes  , while brain and consciousness are 2 different things or processes in 1 , mind and body as being 1 in any given human person   : a kindda combination between dualism and monism .

A combination of dualism and monism? Really? how is claiming mutually exclusive options not special pleading?

So, when science tries to take a closer look at telepathy, for example , it misses the fact that telepathy cannot be generated on demand ...

Except, of course, that the individuals claiming telepathic skills that get tested believe that they can do it on demand. There's no point testing them otherwise.  The better run tests have them satisfy themselves that their abilities are working in the test environment before putting controls in place. You may not be able to use your claimed telepathic abilities on demand, but can you legitimately contradict those who say they can?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The tv set proper ,  and the images of the tv set created by those tv signals the tv receives are 2 different separate things or processes  , while brain and consciousness are 2 different things or processes in 1 , mind and body as being 1 in any given human person   : a kindda combination between dualism and monism .

A combination of dualism and monism? Really? how is claiming mutually exclusive options not special pleading?

So, when science tries to take a closer look at telepathy, for example , it misses the fact that telepathy cannot be generated on demand ...

Except, of course, that the individuals claiming telepathic skills that get tested believe that they can do it on demand. There's no point testing them otherwise.  The better run tests have them satisfy themselves that their abilities are working in the test environment before putting controls in place. You may not be able to use your claimed telepathic abilities on demand, but can you legitimately contradict those who say they can?

I can't seem to be able to hold a grudge against anyone long enough ,i see .

Later , alligator : Time up, sorry : I will just say this , for the time being at least :

consciousness is really a highly risky deceptive elusive ...business ,even the greatest mystics of them all happened to have made lethal errors on the subject , by subjecting themselves to delusions they took for real, so .

See above .

I forgive you , my son, even though i am still young ...

[alancalverd]

Sorry, mate, but accepting someone else's absurd statement without question, isn't science.

Only real true mystics can experience the relatively full scale of human consciousness or pure consciousness and beyond

If you think that its true, how do you know it is true? What do you think "the relatively full scale of human consciousness" means? How do you know that (a) "true mystics" (whatever they are) experience it, and nobody else does? A categorical statement is open to demonstration and test. Have you seen it demonstrated, or tested it? 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

But , you forgot to mention that an artist knows that he / she tries to "reflect reality " in his / her own creative work his / her own subjective way , he / she does not pretend to copy  "reality proper " : if an artist would try to copy "reality " as it is ,

I don't think science tries to "duplicate" reality either. There are many pictures of molecules and cells in my textbook, and some of them are quite different, and exclude or include different information. No diagram or model of a molecule will include or represent everything that is known about a molecule or atoms. That said, some representations or models could be completely inaccurate, with no features that correspond to any of it's properties.

Indeed :
 who can say that what we see under the microscope as a cell ,bacteria,molecules, virusses, ...are in fact the way we see them through a microscope .
Quantum mechanics had shown that man's thought or consciousness do change the course or activity of atoms, neutrons ...when the observer looks at them .
If that can happen at that micro level,i see no reason why it cannot happen on the macro level .
I did not say that science does try to "duplicate reality " either : even science itself just give us a representation of reality through our senses ;science that's practiced by humans ,the latter fact we seem to forget about.
We talk about science as if it is some sort of an idependent totally objective tool out there ,it is not .
There  is in fact no such a thing as ...science : there is just a scientific method ,as an effective human instrument or tool to apprehend reality which were /are developed and practiced by humans scientists : science does not have an independent existence of its own ,even in the metaphoric sense .
Even the technology developed by man in order to extend the scope and reach of his /her faculties like seeing via microscopes , brain scans ...are just human manufactured tools to help man extend  the natural limits  of man's limited faculties .
I do not rely on science much when it comes to human consciousness ,love ,spirituality ...
Science just covers a tiny piece of "reality" : just the apparent material side of reality ,so.
I do pity those who do rely on science only though ,simply because they reduce themselves and their whole beings as a result to just that .
I think that the apparent material side of reality , or the natural reality as covered by science are just elaborate illusions, in the sense that that there is much more to them than science can reveal = the underlying reality behind that illusion is somethingelse we should try to approach via ...spirituality .
I see this natural reality as just a veil that deprives us from seeing  the underlying true real reality ,the latter we can only try to approach via spirituality,once again  .
I am gonna even go further by saying that the ultimate reality is...spiritual ,simply because there is no such a thing such as ...matter ,as we understand it to be at least : quantum physics had already shown to us that matter is not really what we think it is ...

But then again, you would argue that this is no science what i was saying : exactly, simply because science can only cover a limited area of "reality " = the illusionary side of reality .
I dunno.

But then again, you would say : there is nothing more tricky deceptive and elusive than spirituality ,i would say : that's the beaurty of it : we gotta try to figure it out for ourselves = an endless restless dynamic journey = a journey far more exciting and challenging difficult ..than science can ever be ,even thou science can help us somehow on that spiritual path we gotta take as well  ...
Spirituality is in fact putting ourselves, our whole beings , our destiny...our future in this life and beyond ..on the line ,while science is just a means to decode some secrets of this temporary apparent side of reality .
Science does not care about the truth or existence of things or beings ,their potential destiny ... it just tries to describe their apparent material processes ....
So, i need much more than just science to live my life and beyond , while trying to figure out what the meaning of life itself would mean to me , what lays ahead after death ........science cannot deliver any answers to, per definition.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Sorry, mate, but accepting someone else's absurd statement without question, isn't science.

You're extending the scope of science beyond its natural reach , buddy .
See what i said to Cheryl here above in that regard at least .
Critical thinking might be a better word to approach what people claim to experience , but then again, critical thinking fails short at the level of "pure " consciousness  "beyond thought "
This might seem to you as just semantics , but i see no better way to put it to you , since "pure 'consciousness via meditation and via other spiritual means is , per definition, uncommunicable = words fail short to describe it .

Only real true mystics can experience the relatively full scale of human consciousness or pure consciousness and beyond

If you think that its true, how do you know it is true? What do you think "the relatively full scale of human consciousness" means? How do you know that (a) "true mystics" (whatever they are) experience it, and nobody else does? A categorical statement is open to demonstration and test. Have you seen it demonstrated, or tested it?

[/quote]

See above : the only way to figure that out for yourself is by trying to experience those states of consciousnsess, via meditation and via other spiritual means = that's beyond the territory of conventional science and thought .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The tv set proper ,  and the images of the tv set created by those tv signals the tv receives are 2 different separate things or processes  , while brain and consciousness are 2 different things or processes in 1 , mind and body as being 1 in any given human person   : a kindda combination between dualism and monism .

A combination of dualism and monism? Really? how is claiming mutually exclusive options not special pleading?

So, when science tries to take a closer look at telepathy, for example , it misses the fact that telepathy cannot be generated on demand ...

Except, of course, that the individuals claiming telepathic skills that get tested believe that they can do it on demand. There's no point testing them otherwise.  The better run tests have them satisfy themselves that their abilities are working in the test environment before putting controls in place. You may not be able to use your claimed telepathic abilities on demand, but can you legitimately contradict those who say they can?

[/quote]

See above concerning what i said to our friends here above  .

The only way to figure out all that for yourself in that regard is by trying to experience those states of consciousness yourself via meditation or via other spiritual means : science or critical thinking alone cannot help you in that regard ,since "pure " consciousness is beyond thought , science ..
Have you ever done some meditation ,Yoga , or some other spiritual exercises ?
Do not reduce yourself to just ..science .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

P.S.: I thought i said what i thought of those mystics and their alleged "pure consciousness beyond thought " claimed experiences ...

[dlorde]

I forgive you , my son, even though i am still young ...

For what - trying to reason with you?

Or perhaps just early signs of messiah complex...

Quantum mechanics had shown that man's thought or consciousness do change the course or activity of atoms, neutrons ...when the observer looks at them .

Ah, no. The idea that consciousness could collapse the wave function is, and always was, that of a fringe minority of physicists. It clings on outside physics in pseudoscience partly due to a misinterpretation of 'observer' and 'observation'. An observation or measurement in QM is any particle interaction, and an 'observer' can be any measurement device (even a particle). By the time a conscious observer becomes aware of an observation, the wave function collapse is ancient history at QM timescales.

If that can happen at that micro level,i see no reason why it cannot happen on the macro level .

In a word, decoherence.

... there is no such a thing such as ...matter ,as we understand it to be at least : quantum physics had already shown to us that matter is not really what we think it is ...

An oddly backward-looking way to phrase it; quantum physics shows us that matter isn't what we thought it was. We now have a much better understanding of it than we had before.

[dlorde]

Have you ever done some meditation ,Yoga , or some other spiritual exercises ?
Do not reduce yourself to just ..science .

I meditate, and spent some years practicing Yang Family Tajiquan (T'ai Chi). If physical & mental exercise, relaxation, mood elevation, and emotional balancing are spiritual, then they're spiritual exercises.

As you might expect, I take the mystical, paranormal side of it with a pinch of salt (e.g. I see the popular concept of 'chi' as the understandable result of an holistic rather than reductionist approach to physical & mental performance, coupled with a lack of detailed knowledge of human biology, especially physiology - with the more absurd paranormal aspects driven by fakes & frauds and their coteries of hangers-on).

[Skyli]

There seem to be three different topics: conciousness, sentience and a thing called The Self. I'll have a go at the first two; my views on The Self are not entirely scientific and have no place here.

Back to our trusty old computer. It is not self-aware like me. I can "create" the value 2 in my head, double it, and "create" the value 4 - all on my lonesome! I don't need any prompting, any codes, my consciousness provides me with both the task and the goal and the means to effect both "in my head". The computer, on the other hand, needs to be told what to do and what to do it with - we are matched in the intellectual aspect of number-crunching only. Furthermore, I can decide whether I want to add 2 and 2, the computer cannot. I base the decision on stored data - there were dozens of examples I could have used, I "chose" this one effectively "unconsciously" while my "conciousness" was dealing with the problem "how to get my idea across?". To me, as the author, the example is of little significance; I know what I want to say. It seems to me that consciousness is no more than data handling. Data arrives through a set of senses; the five "physical" ones plus a "mental" one that allows us to be "aware" of our thoughts - working consciousness (is this the sense responsible for "imagination"?). We handle this data incredibly fast, so fast that the distinction between "conscious" thought - getting the view across   - and unconscious thought - the tool will be adding 2 and 2 - becomes blurred, but it is data handling none the less.

Sentience is another issue; it represents a new phase of Evolution which gives a species a drive to classify and a drive to aesthetics (we die for our art, animals die for the mate that the art should win). Put another way, sentience leaves us dissatisfied with merely having "enough" - the grass in the next field may appear greener to the cow so it wanders; we want to measure the field whether it has grass in it or not so we wander too. Life, an evolutionary milestone without doubt, put constructions into the universe that could change that universe to suit their needs - build nests, burrow holes. Sentience, the next milestone in Evolution, developed constructions that could, and do, change the universe whether they need it or not - just for the satisfaction of knowing. Sentience is, in this case, just another evolutionary drive like reproduction or finding a niche, but a strangely anti-evolutionary drive since, with our highly developed data-handling capabilities, we are capable of stopping the universe altogether. It is no wonder that Evolution saw fit to develop sentience and the highly-developed consciousness that we possess together; morality is certainly a sub-routine that I would have included.

To clarify, I see Evolution as a process that has been going on for the entire life of the universe; the "basic law" of Creation, if you like. The first "phase" was a foundation phase (from our perspective) where habitats eventually evolved, the second phase was Life, products that can change their environment to suit their needs, and the third phase is sentience.

[dlorde]

It seems to me that consciousness is no more than data handling. Data arrives through a set of senses; the five "physical" ones plus a "mental" one that allows us to be "aware" of our thoughts - working consciousness (is this the sense responsible for "imagination"?). We handle this data incredibly fast, so fast that the distinction between "conscious" thought - getting the view across   - and unconscious thought - the tool will be adding 2 and 2 - becomes blurred, but it is data handling none the less.

I wouldn't argue with that. Except that there are many more than five physical senses (up to about 21, depending on what you want to include); I also suspect the mental one is composed of multiple facets of awareness.

To clarify, I see Evolution as a process that has been going on for the entire life of the universe; the "basic law" of Creation, if you like. The first "phase" was a foundation phase (from our perspective) where habitats eventually evolved, the second phase was Life, products that can change their environment to suit their needs, and the third phase is sentience.

It's worth bearing in mind that the processes of natural evolution are undirected, so enumerating such phases of development is a retrospective convenience; the sequence is predictable, as each depends on the previous, but there is no evidence of (or need for) purpose or intent, and no implications for the future.

[alancalverd]

If nonsentient life evolved before sentient life, and sentience is the root of wanting more, how did nonsentient life come to populate the planet? Wouldn't it have been satisfied with the puddle in which it first evolved? So why did sentience evolve, if the primordial puddle was so pleasant?