Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Bowser, Oct 31, 2018.
I didn't realize that argument was a requirement. I can offer a sermon in this thread...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
And still you haven't answered the question of what the purpose of this thread is for. Care to do so?
A proposition for consideration. An opportunity for others to contribute. I appreciate the input of left-brain people.
There really isn't a proposition, though. You've simply stated that an aspect of spirituality is looking at things from a different perspective, and offered such a perspective.
I'm genuinely surprised the OP garnered more than an "and?" or a "So what?"
No. Not intentionally. I really did read that wrong. I thought you actually said you could point me at an example of the things you mention. So I was asking for the example. And I've cluttered up the thread with it.
Let's return to #15.
The fog and shadows are phrases like "the world (and life) is encapsulated within our true nature, which is consciousness."
What does this mean? How is the world encapsulated within something? What does it mean that "our true nature is consciousness"? And how does that help encapsulate the world?
The fog and shadows to which I refer - an example is your followup:
This sounds less like a clarification than just one more mysterious deepity i.e. it is more mysterious, not less.
You came up with the phrase "the world (and life) is encapsulated within our true nature". Why did you string those words together? Do you know what you meant by them? Are you able to express that here?
What makes you think I haven't? (You're invoking a Jan-ism here - declaring I have not accepted something, and therefore have not come to the same conclusion as you, and that somehow that is my shortcoming.)
How would seeing it in myself cause me to correctly - as opposed to erroneously - see it elsewhere? I see life and consciousness in me, yet it would be a mistake to conclude that life and consciousness exist in that rock there. Are we agreed on that, at least?
I redacted that. It was unwarranted.
Oh. I'm actually a right-brainer most of the time.
But Sarkus has a point; you haven't asked a question.
The OP is what it is. I can't control how it is perceived.
Isn't the whole point of communication an attempt to influence how something is perceived?
There's no guarantee that you will be successful.
Yo! You got time to address meta posts, but no time for content posts? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As a left-brainer myself, I can honestly say that this thread is tantamount to preaching. But I wonder if that's being logical and objective enough for Bowser, though. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The unfortunate thing is that in matters spiritual, one cannot draw any comparisons or conclusions of truth from different perspectives, as can be done looking at material patterns.
The problem "from my perspective", is that spiritual means "implicate" (enfolded potential truth) and material means "explicate" (unfolded physical truth).
If the explicate can be measured and explained, then any other "implicate" cannot be true..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i agree with both. i think though we probably sit on one of the starting rungs of the ladder, have the ability to position ourselves from a different perspectives.
note the micro tubules thread.
collective inference suggests there is much to be discovered and the anture of infinite smallness is not uncommon to our ability to perceptualise. note many storys about small worlds inside worlds etc.
the potential human biological consciousness could well be atunable to a small level, soo small that everything has a relationship to outside things from an inside comparible perspective.
this would give all the outside an inside frame.
im still slowly processing the wave thread.
the idea of an ever expanding space-time expansion idea, be it in a wave form or in an explosion form.
thus once the wave/explosion is actualised, we can be in relation to it.
in front, in the middle, behind...
though im not soo sure about the being behind part.
i think thats possibly not soo condusive to our model of biological function.
i tend to place spirituality inside the theory side of things.
so it fits quite neatly as a potential reality and has no need to argue with scientific fact.
it seems to me that leaning one way or the other to rule out a potential unknown seems to be un scientific.
is that polarity thing an american culture thing ?
the stuff in pakistan at the moment with blood cult savages using thename of islam demanding the murder of a women for talking and the government now siding with them in spite of the supreme court ruling is a clear and present reminder that not all people and countrys are the same. regardles of what some of their supposed ambassadors and government people say.
the cold reality of religion among millions is that religion is just another death cult blood lust
IMO, the main problem with "perception" is that all perceptions are approximations of reality.
When our mental approximation of what's "out there" agree, we call it reality (Anil Seth).
But our internal construct of reality is a very fragile almost fluid mental construct, which can be easily influenced by emotion, and definitely fooled by sensory (observational) limitations.
Optical illusion is but one example of erroneous mental interpretation (controlled hallucination) of reality, which can be falsely processed by the brain from its previous experience.
One of the most powerful image-forming requirements is comparative cognition of shade.
This cognition can easily be misled to "see" something that's not there.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
color and shade of blocks A and B are identical. But not to our perception (understanding). Even when we are shown that B is identical to A, we still see that they are not identical.
It's really strange.
Anil Seth demonstrated the fluidity of our brains ability in perception such as sound.
He plays a tape of a single garbled sentence uttered by some unknown entity. Then he plays a tape of a single sentence by a human voice, after which he replays the original tape exactly as it was before the sentence was uttered by a human, and behold, the word emerge from the garble and after a few more replays your brain can clearly translate the original tape.
If you participate, it's uncanny how perception is not just from the outside in, but just as much from the inside out; our controlled hallucinatory perception of reality.
I regularly play the tape to refresh my memory and each time I discover deeper, more fundamental implications.
It's an interactive medium. It doesn't stop at the OP.
How do you measure the intangible, such as consciousness?
I just see it wherever I look, all the same but hidden behind masks of personality. That's what I love about my dog, there's no obstruction of concepts or judgement. She just loves us.
Wondered if you were going to respond to post 25.
Why do you need to measure consciousness? Measurement requires measurable properties. Consciousness is intangible (still), not spiritual. Many animals are conscious, yet no one says they are spiritual.
And come to think of it, being able to look at things from different perspectives does not suggest spirituality, although it includes it. Relativity is based on the perspective of the observers, nothing spiritual about relativity.
Consciousness is not spiritual, unless it is assigned to a supernatural entity.
But there is a difference between perspectives from a scientific POV, which are tangible (measurable) and a spiritual perspective, which is an intangible (unmeasurable).
Separate names with a comma.