Reality, Theory, God

[immortal]

The default position is the logical choice in matters of no supporting evidence.

 

Yes we are not assuming or believing that the claims of Mysticism is true, I would like to test it and make some judgements which will not be conditioned on our pre-concieved belief systems.

 

Now here I think lies a disconnect, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) you seem to be assuming such claims have not been tested, when in reality they have been tested, over and over since even before scientific methodology was invented and so far all we get is a null result at best. Creationists often whine the mantra of "If you would only look, really investigate, the reality of creationism would become obvious. But this is a strawman, creationist writings have indeed been put to the test and they have failed in all cases. Mysticism, if it can be separated from religion and I do not think it really can, but mysticism is no better than religion and it's reveled truths, I have no doubt many people believe them with all their heart but such does not equal knowledge.

 

I'm not desperate to hold on to my beliefs just as creationists hold on and refuse to change even when the evidence is provided to them. Religious revealed truths have their own methodologies and I wouldn't test those religious claims by launching a space craft which will go to the far reaches of the universe and detect a radiation which will show us how the universe was at the inital stages of the Big Bang. This is not the way to test a religious claim, the words from the scriptures came from the angels and only through their knowledge we can understand those claims. So I would go and look out for angels to have the knowledge of the scriptures and depending on their existence I would decide the credibility of religious knowledge.

 

This is another strawman, "science can not claim to know what space time is?" so the default position is that the mental masturbation of mysticism can know what space time is simply because it claims to know??? On top of that who claims science cannot know what space time is? Again i am going to compare this to creationism, they consistently make such claims about science, science cannot know what caused the universe to come into existence but reveled truth to some slap happy televangelist snorting meth off the tight ass of a male prostitute can, the default position is not mysticism for the win, it's "we do not know"

 

Its better if we keep science and mysticism seperate. I'm not advocating that Mysticism is science. Creationists often attack science with absurd arguments because they don't understand how science operates. Mysticism doesn't claim that since "Science can not know what space-time is so by default mystics claim that they know what space-time is". Irrespective of what science claims and what it doesn't Mysticism stands on its own, it doesn't interfere with science, it lies outside of science.

 

The whole thread in the philosophy forum "Is philosophy relevant to science?" is to show to Owl that the ontology of space and time is irrelevant to science. I mentioned this because you said Mysticism doesn't serve any purpose, it does serve some purpose like to know the ontology of space and time. What space is? What time is?. It doesn't arrive at this position by default just because science claims it can't. Mysticism doesn't build its models based on what science claims and what it doesn't. It has its own models and its own methodologies and it lies outside of science.

 

The whole dogma of Mysticism lies in the following statement, it is the central dogma of mysticism. All their claims are based on this dogma.

 

Human beings can observe the world and have cognition with out any sensory inputs, perception and the act of knowing about the physical world can be achieved with out any stimulation of the sense organs or in other words observing the world only through the eyes is not the only way that exists to measure the physical world.

 

Disprove this statement i.e prove that observing the physical world through one's own eyes is the only way that is available to know about the physical world, then I'll take all this baggage of Mysticism from here and will go and hide somewhere.

 

As you can see it lies outside of science and just because science has tested its models and more we test them the more they stand the test of the times and more belief we have on those models. This doesn't necessarily mean that it has tested the claims of mystics and doesn't mean that it can be dismissed at off-hand. For example:- Science says that the earth is not flat but it doesn't mean it will appear in the same way when we observe the physical world in a different way unless one proves that the way science sees it is the only way that is possible to observe the empirical world. It was just an anology, I'm not doubting the methods of science, all I'm saying is that there might be other ways to acquire knowledge.

 

It is in this context I want to do some research on it and see whether there is any truth behind it irrespective of what science says about reality.

 

I claim to be an alien in disguise, my cloaked space craft is orbit as i type, none of the physical laws of the universe prohibit me from being an alien and having a space ship in orbit, can you see how lacking in substance both claims are?

 

Again, you would accept such an assertion with no evidence? My space craft can travel faster than light and I have used it to observe the dinosaurs and the extinction event that killed them all off.... unless you hold mystics to the same level of proof that you would hold me and my claims of a space ship in orbit they can claim anything and never have to back it up, never....

 

I am not accepting those claims but I doesn't want to dismiss it either. I'm not claiming those claims are the absolute truth as though we should believe or accept it with out any proof of it. As to the level of proof mysticism can not stand along with science because as I have been repeatedly stated that their observations can not be predicted and repeated in a way we repeat the scientific measurements. But once the observations are recorded they are consistent with previous observations. Mysticism can not say that a person will acquire the knowledge of teleportation by performing a particular technique for this much amount of time, say 1 year or 2 year it can not say that, but when he acquires, that knowledge is certain and its demonstration is repeatable.

 

Again like the creationists you are indeed asking not only for something that has already been done many many times and your requests for respect of mysticism will be just as never ending as the creationist whine about science not being fair....

 

I have been repeatedly saying that Mysticism is not science and it lies outside of science and I'm not advocating that it should be taught in schools as though it is true science as creationists demand. I used the term "intellectual community" and not "scientific community" because this is not science, even if I have evidence for all those mystical claims I will not be able to convince a scientist. Science works differently, it has its own methodologies. Mysticism is metaphysics, so it is best to keep it outside of science. I'm not desperate to prove that Mysticism is science, its not and it doesn't require science to get the respect that it deserves. It stands on its own.

 

Immortal,

 

I do not believe in magic.

 

Nor do I believe in teleportation as anything other than an "imaginary" trip.

 

Just have a mystic go retreive some objects that would be valuable to us from the future. Or have him pop around to local star systems, and let us know what they are like, and where the closest planet with life on it, is. Or teleport around under the sea and surface of the Earth, and tell us where to find the minerals and resources we need. Science would have no hesitation in accepting trustworthy info of this sort, and would be anxious to know exactly how the teleportation is achieved. They would probably be able to not only use it to our benefit, but use the principles involved, to extend human capabilities fast and far.

 

Yes, this shows that if there's any credence behind the claims of mystics then it does serve some purpose to humanity. It might change the way we think about this world completely.

 

I take back "a little" of my association with you, if you take the ideas that I assign as figurative in a literal fashion.

 

I'm a person who think that the universe is paradoxical, I'll be a completely different person when it comes to debating in hard science forums and my view and my thinking process will change when I'm in the religious forums and I'll be a different person in the philosophical forums. Therefore I would investigate a world in which the world is made of particles of the standard model in physics and I would also investigate the world made up of gods as said in religion. It seems contradictory and weird but humans have enough wisdom to seperate out the claims of science and religion and understand how they both work at the fundamental level in increasing our knowledge.

 

I am looking for the "actual" ways before us.

 

Rationalism is one way, Empiricism is an another. Pure intuition is an another way. Knowing the noumenon of kant might be an another way. i.e to know the thing in itself which mysticism claims to know.

 

They indeed, in my expectation, have been, are and will be quite astounding. And there is "something" I suspect, that is "behind" the wisdom of the ages, that is still true now, as it was when first noticed...BUT we are "already" using it, and it has gotten us to where we are. We can learn more, and understand better, and increase our human knowledge. But we have not yet done what we have not yet done. And we have not yet known what we are yet to know. And the mystic is constrained to reality as is the layman. The truth of any "actual" journey the mystics have taken would not be hard for them to show us. If they actually had anything to show us. Insights surely. Outsightings? Evidently not.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

There is nothing that will prevent the Mystic from showing you the truth, he will show us but only if we are prepared to see it. The problem is there are hardly a few of them who can do that for you, if I had that knowledge myself I could've easily shown you.

[PeterJ]

Yes we are not assuming or believing that the claims of Mysticism is true, I would like to test it and make some judgements which will not be conditioned on our pre-concieved belief systems.

Respect to you Immortal. Many would prefer not to know anything about it before making their mind up. This is considered a rational way to make decisions.

 

Rationalism is one way, Empiricism is an another. Pure intuition is an another way. Knowing the noumenon of kant might be an another way. i.e to know the thing in itself which mysticism claims to know.

Erm. Not quite. The claim is that there is no 'thing-in-itself'. Phenonomena would be 'empty'.

 

There is nothing that will prevent the Mystic from showing you the truth, he will show us but only if we are prepared to see it. The problem is there are hardly a few of them who can do that for you, if I had that knowledge myself I could've easily shown you.

The truth cannot be shown anymore than consciousness can be shown and for not unconnected reasons. For some here the argument would run - we are unable to demonstrate our consiousness, ergo we are not conscious. Crazy. But this argument has been made in 'scientific' consciousness studies.

 

If we want to research the plausibility of mysticism without actually doing it then we would have to start with what we can know about it by scholarship. This is quite a lot, and certainly enough to allow an informed decision as to whether the more 'esoteric' claims are plausible.

 

Look forward to talking more about all this after Christmas.

[tar]

Immortal and PeteJ,

 

Just to get a handle on one small aspect of what I am considering, would you let me know to what extent, and in what manner, each of you believes that I may or may not know any of the "truths" of the mystics?

 

That is, of that body of knowledge which the greatest of the mystics might hold, which of it have I proven to you to hold myself, which of it is held by you and not me or the other (between TAR2, PeterJ and Immortal), which of it is held by the mystic, and none of the three of us, and which of it is yet to be held by TAR2, PeterJ, Immortal, the "real" Master Mystic, you have in mind, and a "hypotetical" super master mystic, each respectively?

 

Regards, TAR2

[PeterJ]

Um. I'm afraid I can't quite disentangle the question. Could you clarify it a bit?

[Moontanman]

Yes we are not assuming or believing that the claims of Mysticism is true, I would like to test it and make some judgements which will not be conditioned on our pre-concieved belief systems.

 

Again I'll say "The claims of so called mystics have been tested, many times and none have been shown to have any merit what so ever.

 

The whole thread in the philosophy forum "Is philosophy relevant to science?" is to show to Owl that the ontology of space and time is irrelevant to science. I mentioned this because you said Mysticism doesn't serve any purpose, it does serve some purpose like to know the ontology of space and time. What space is? What time is?. It doesn't arrive at this position by default just because science claims it can't. Mysticism doesn't build its models based on what science claims and what it doesn't. It has its own models and its own methodologies and it lies outside of science.

 

Nothing real lies outside science...

 

The whole dogma of Mysticism lies in the following statement, it is the central dogma of mysticism. All their claims are based on this dogma.

 

Human beings can observe the world and have cognition with out any sensory inputs, perception and the act of knowing about the physical world can be achieved with out any stimulation of the sense organs or in other words observing the world only through the eyes is not the only way that exists to measure the physical world.

 

Disprove this statement i.e prove that observing the physical world through one's own eyes is the only way that is available to know about the physical world, then I'll take all this baggage of Mysticism from here and will go and hide somewhere.

 

This sounds suspiciously like the idea that the truths of creationism can only be known if you use biblical glasses, do i have to use mystical glasses to to see the truths of mysticism? I would suggest that a mystic should show he can acquire such knowledge before he can claim to do so...

 

As you can see it lies outside of science and just because science has tested its models and more we test them the more they stand the test of the times and more belief we have on those models.

 

Horse feathers... totally false comparison

 

This doesn't necessarily mean that it has tested the claims of mystics and doesn't mean that it can be dismissed at off-hand. For example:- Science says that the earth is not flat but it doesn't mean it will appear in the same way when we observe the physical world in a different way unless one proves that the way science sees it is the only way that is possible to observe the empirical world. It was just an anology, I'm not doubting the methods of science, all I'm saying is that there might be other ways to acquire knowledge.

 

You would first have to show mysticism is or has access to knowledge, so far no one has shown that to be true.

 

It is in this context I want to do some research on it and see whether there is any truth behind it irrespective of what science says about reality.

 

As I have said before, mysticism has been tested over the centuries and it has produced nothing.

 

I am not accepting those claims but I doesn't want to dismiss it either. I'm not claiming those claims are the absolute truth as though we should believe or accept it with out any proof of it. As to the level of proof mysticism can not stand along with science because as I have been repeatedly stated that their observations can not be predicted and repeated in a way we repeat the scientific measurements. But once the observations are recorded they are consistent with previous observations. Mysticism can not say that a person will acquire the knowledge of teleportation by performing a particular technique for this much amount of time, say 1 year or 2 year it can not say that, but when he acquires, that knowledge is certain and its demonstration is repeatable.

 

Again, an example of such knowledge would be required.

 

 

I have been repeatedly saying that Mysticism is not science and it lies outside of science and I'm not advocating that it should be taught in schools as though it is true science as creationists demand. I used the term "intellectual community" and not "scientific community" because this is not science, even if I have evidence for all those mystical claims I will not be able to convince a scientist. Science works differently, it has its own methodologies. Mysticism is metaphysics, so it is best to keep it outside of science. I'm not desperate to prove that Mysticism is science, its not and it doesn't require science to get the respect that it deserves. It stands on its own.

 

This is nonsensical, mysticism stands on it's own? It has no place to stand and nothing to stand on, mysticism has produced no results what so ever.

 

 

Yes, this shows that if there's any credence behind the claims of mystics then it does serve some purpose to humanity. It might change the way we think about this world completely.

 

Yes, and if frogs had wings they wouldn't bust their little slimy asses every time they jump...

 

I'm a person who think that the universe is paradoxical, I'll be a completely different person when it comes to debating in hard science forums and my view and my thinking process will change when I'm in the religious forums and I'll be a different person in the philosophical forums. Therefore I would investigate a world in which the world is made of particles of the standard model in physics and I would also investigate the world made up of gods as said in religion. It seems contradictory and weird but humans have enough wisdom to seperate out the claims of science and religion and understand how they both work at the fundamental level in increasing our knowledge.

 

Religion has not added to man kinds storehouse of knowledge either, that's why we don't have faith healers in hospitals... or mystics for that matter...

 

 

Rationalism is one way, Empiricism is an another. Pure intuition is an another way. Knowing the noumenon of kant might be an another way. i.e to know the thing in itself which mysticism claims to know.

 

Sounds much like my spaceship....

 

 

There is nothing that will prevent the Mystic from showing you the truth, he will show us but only if we are prepared to see it. The problem is there are hardly a few of them who can do that for you, if I had that knowledge myself I could've easily shown you.

 

Nothing will prevent mystics from showing you the truth other than their claims to that knowledge are totally false....

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

Sorry for the entangled question. It was not meant for just anybody. I was meant for you and Immortal, based on what we have been talking about, and in the context of my OP question. "What is it that you know, that I am misunderstanding, that he is getting wrong."

 

I am using the three person structure to try and get at what we have in common, even if we think we don't.

 

But its good for me to know, in my investigation, what "insights" you grant me as being already in possession of, and what insights you think I have yet to have. And how you would characterize the same for Immortal, a run of the mill master mystic, and a "perfect", ideal, super master mystic.

 

I guess I am feeling that answering this type of question, would cause you to have to "make a decision" out loud, about what you think of your own grasp of the truth, as compared to the grasp of the second person, and the third, and the Ideal person.

 

You don't have to actually answer the question in full. It's too big anyway, with too many components that can be "taken" in different senses.

Well you don't have to answer at all, but I guess it is better to ask a simpler direct question, then a 12 page essay question.

 

PeterJ,

 

Name one thing you think I am misunderstanding, that you fully understand, that anti-mystics have absolutely wrong.

With an explanation in regards to me, one in regards to you, one in regards to Immortal, and one in regards to the anti-mystics.

 

Regards,, TAR

 

(I am already "guessing" that there is going to be a positive light cast upon your knowledge and that of the ideal mystic, a questionable light cast upon my knowledge, and a negative light cast upon the knowledge of the anti-mystic. This is not very scientific, in that I am trying to "fit" my guess to the facts, rather than "look at the facts" and see what they tell me. But I have already looked for a while, and am truely only interested in how you really see it. I will adjust any view I have to fit the facts, rather then try to adjust the facts to fit my view. And I ask only for an honest answer, so I have some actual PeterJ views to account for, and fit into my investigation of the meaning behind language.)

[PeterJ]

Again I'll say "The claims of so called mystics have been tested, many times and none have been shown to have any merit what so ever.

Ho ho. So the claims are testable then. That'll be news to a lot of people here. Perhaps you couild name just one single claim that has been tested and falsified. No? I thought not.

 

PeterJ,

 

Sorry for the entangled question. It was not meant for just anybody. I was meant for you and Immortal, based on what we have been talking about, and in the context of my OP question. "What is it that you know, that I am misunderstanding, that he is getting wrong."

 

I am using the three person structure to try and get at what we have in common, even if we think we don't.

 

But its good for me to know, in my investigation, what "insights" you grant me as being already in possession of, and what insights you think I have yet to have. And how you would characterize the same for Immortal, a run of the mill master mystic, and a "perfect", ideal, super master mystic.

 

I guess I am feeling that answering this type of question, would cause you to have to "make a decision" out loud, about what you think of your own grasp of the truth, as compared to the grasp of the second person, and the third, and the Ideal person.

 

You don't have to actually answer the question in full. It's too big anyway, with too many components that can be "taken" in different senses.

Well you don't have to answer at all, but I guess it is better to ask a simpler direct question, then a 12 page essay question.

 

PeterJ,

 

Name one thing you think I am misunderstanding, that you fully understand, that anti-mystics have absolutely wrong.

With an explanation in regards to me, one in regards to you, one in regards to Immortal, and one in regards to the anti-mystics.

 

Regards,, TAR

 

(I am already "guessing" that there is going to be a positive light cast upon your knowledge and that of the ideal mystic, a questionable light cast upon my knowledge, and a negative light cast upon the knowledge of the anti-mystic. This is not very scientific, in that I am trying to "fit" my guess to the facts, rather than "look at the facts" and see what they tell me. But I have already looked for a while, and am truely only interested in how you really see it. I will adjust any view I have to fit the facts, rather then try to adjust the facts to fit my view. And I ask only for an honest answer, so I have some actual PeterJ views to account for, and fit into my investigation of the meaning behind language.)

I'm not sure what to answer to this. I am making no claims to knowledge here. Or only to a knowledge of the literature.

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

Can"t answer without fear of contradicting yourself?

 

That is sort of the question here. In order to make a claim, you have to take a stand. If you're basing all your answers on the fact that there is no place to stand...what right at all do you have to say any definite thing.

 

Perhaps I am WWAAAYY off base here. Or perhaps I am right on the money. Or perhaps its up in the air.

 

I am just trying to "use" our own understanding, plus other people's understanding, plus "their" understanding to find out what "really" is the case.

 

Notice the way that the "ideal", is aligned with a "perfect" third person.

 

And the way that that "perfect" third person is both all the way outside us, and all the way inside us.

 

My hypothesis is that we already know the truth, and we already can not get our arms around it...but that there are reason for being in such a state.

 

Just trying to get at the reasons. The actual ones.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 20, 2011 by tar

[PeterJ]

PeterJ,

 

Can"t answer without fear of contradicting yourself?

 

That is sort of the question here. In order to make a claim, you have to take a stand. If you're basing all your answers on the fact that there is no place to stand...what right at all do you have to say any definite thing.

Why the niggly comment? Have you not read my posts? I've reported a number of claims here. My point is that they are NOT my claims, I am reporting what is said in the specialist literature. I do not claim any special knowledge. When we say that water is H2O this is not usually something we know ourselves but something that has been established by other people. I learnt it from a book, not from studying water molecules. There would be no point at all me claiming some special knowledge, especially here. I could be just making it up or having acid fantasies.

 

My hypothesis is that we already know the truth, and we already can not get our arms around it...but that there are reason for being in such a state.

Yes. Your guess or intuition would be correct. Thus Socrates is said to have considered philosophy as a process of remembering. Mysticism is about discovering what we know already but have not yet consciously realised. Hence over the entrance to the Oracle at Delphi were engraved the words 'Know Thyself'. The method is in part one of 'apperception', mind's perception of itself.

 

But this doesn't answer your question. Not sure how best to answer it. The most seeemingly unlikely claim might be that it is possible for you, while you are alive and have a body supporting consciousness, to realise the state that preceeded your birth and that will succeed your death. Sometimes this is called 'knowing your face before you were born'.

 

This is what allowed Schroedinger, who did make personal knowledge claims, and who is rigorous at all times in his writings, to state without proviso that we have no loss of awareness to fear. This is not 'life after death', and nor is it 'you' who will survive, and nor will our bodies be resurrected on the 'day of judgement', and nor would there be a God who judges us. It is the claim that all phenomena have the same source, with the consequence that we can know it. Indeed, we would already 'be' this phenomenon, and would realise this if we looked through the telescope.

 

A realisation of this leads the people who claim to have explored themselves this deeply to state that all positive metaphysical positions are false. This is the claim that all scientific and philosophical theories which embody such a position are false. It is a claim made by the also ever-rigorous Lao tsu when he states 'True words seem paradoxical'. These words could only be true if all distinctions are in an ultimate sense illusory. Thus the central claim of mysticism is consistent with the main finding of metaphysics, which is that all the positions allowed in the 'western' tradition of metaphysics are logically indefensible. This is a little unfair on our tradition, since Kant, Hegel and others who are considered to be members of it would allow Lao Tsu's position. But they are usually considered mavericks and ignored, and most peope in this tradition see metaphysics as a waste of time. When Carnap dismisses metaphysical questions as meaningless this would be because all the positions he considers are logically indefensible.

 

Thus the Taoist worldview would entail the adoption of a neutral metaphysical position. This is the only position that cannot be refuted in the dialectic and I believe it is the correct one. But I do not know, and do not claim to know that it is correct. For me it is a matter of logic, and logic does not produce certain knowledge unless it is tautological. I could claim to have had experiences that give me conviction, but such a claim would be meaningless here.

 

Is this the sort of thing you mean?

 

I'd be happy to make one claim for myself, and this is that there is only one metaphysical position that is not logically absurd and it is Lao Tsu's. This can be proved in logic so would not require any priveleged access to knowledge.

Edited December 20, 2011 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

Ho ho. So the claims are testable then. That'll be news to a lot of people here. Perhaps you couild name just one single claim that has been tested and falsified. No? I thought not.

]

 

You thought wrong, I can name an entire discipline of mystical knowledge that is nothing but horse feathers..... astrology

 

You keep making a positive claim, mysticism and or mystics have real knowledge, back it up, or stop making the claim that mysticism has real knowledge, mysticism is nothing but people making baseless claims, people who lie to impress the yokals, in our modern society they end up as multilevel marketing schemers or religious fundamentalists, they make outrageous claims but never back them up, proof is always just ahead but like the gold at the end of the rainbow it is never quite with in your grasp, mysticism is bullshit, wrapped in a candy coating.... come on peterj haul out that philosophers stone, show me you can remote view the surface of Pluto, hell tell me what is sitting on top of my monitor and I'll be impressed but don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. mystics are fakers, ju ju men, they are all flash and no substance.

 

Now it's your turn to back up your positive claim of mystic knowledge, and that would have to mean backing it up with someone or something that is not promoting the mystical view point, much like the point that you can't use the bible to prove the bible you can't use what someone claims as proof of mystical knowledge... I showed you mine.... now show me yours...

 

 

The whole dogma of Mysticism lies in the following statement, it is the central dogma of mysticism. All their claims are based on this dogma.

 

Human beings can observe the world and have cognition with out any sensory inputs, perception and the act of knowing about the physical world can be achieved with out any stimulation of the sense organs or in other words observing the world only through the eyes is not the only way that exists to measure the physical world.

 

Disprove this statement i.e prove that observing the physical world through one's own eyes is the only way that is available to know about the physical world, then I'll take all this baggage of Mysticism from here and will go and hide somewhere.

 

 

 

You do realize that is a positive assertion, you say that humans can have cognition of the physical world with no sensory input? Like the existence of god that is impossible to disprove, it is on your head to provide evidence this can happen not demand proof it cannot....

[immortal]

PeterJ,

 

Sorry for the entangled question. It was not meant for just anybody. I was meant for you and Immortal, based on what we have been talking about, and in the context of my OP question. "What is it that you know, that I am misunderstanding, that he is getting wrong."

 

But its good for me to know, in my investigation, what "insights" you grant me as being already in possession of, and what insights you think I have yet to have. And how you would characterize the same for Immortal, a run of the mill master mystic, and a "perfect", ideal, super master mystic.

 

I guess I am feeling that answering this type of question, would cause you to have to "make a decision" out loud, about what you think of your own grasp of the truth, as compared to the grasp of the second person, and the third, and the Ideal person.

 

 

Name one thing you think I am misunderstanding, that you fully understand, that anti-mystics have absolutely wrong.

With an explanation in regards to me, one in regards to you, one in regards to Immortal, and one in regards to the anti-mystics.

 

 

(I am already "guessing" that there is going to be a positive light cast upon your knowledge and that of the ideal mystic, a questionable light cast upon my knowledge, and a negative light cast upon the knowledge of the anti-mystic. This is not very scientific, in that I am trying to "fit" my guess to the facts, rather than "look at the facts" and see what they tell me. But I have already looked for a while, and am truely only interested in how you really see it. I will adjust any view I have to fit the facts, rather then try to adjust the facts to fit my view. And I ask only for an honest answer, so I have some actual PeterJ views to account for, and fit into my investigation of the meaning behind language.)

 

 

My view - I am able to understand the mystical claims because I have a model where Brain ! = (is not equal to) Mind. To me Brain and the Mind are two different things. That's how I see it. This is the central dogma of Mysctism. We misunderstand or do not understand Mysticism because we don't know its basic models and their claims obviously appears absurd, ridiculuous and silly to us because we don't view it through the eye of the mystic. There's nothing magical about them.

 

So when I'm talking about the experiences of the mystics I'm not talking about the events happening between the synaptic junctions of the Brain and its not in any way related to the brain or the synaptic junctions. Its a completely different thing.

 

 

 

Molecular Neurobiology has very well investigated on how the Brain processes information at the most fundamental level and very well explains on how it helps the humans to communicate and work as a machine and we know the process of how the brain fires a neuron generating an action pontential(Na⁺ and K⁺ ions) coupling itself with the ca²⁺ ions coupling it with the contraction and relaxation of the actin and myosin fibres in the muscles there by allowing me to type the words which I'm typing right now. The works of Kandel shows us the process of learning. This is the view of the Brain. This is reality. This is something which is common to all of us.

 

 

Anti-mystics view - Their view is that even quantum mechanics makes absurd claims but QM also provides a way to say that a particle appears at some places with a high probability and it doesn't appear at all in some other places and the probability of finding the particle at these places is zero. So when we put a detector at places where there is a high probability of finding the particle and if we find it there quite often then the theorectical predictions are said to consistent with the observations made. The more the theory is tested and found consistent the more is our belief on it.

 

If the particle appears often at places where the theory says that the probability of finding the particle is almost zero at those places then there is something wrong with the theory because the observations are inconsistent. So we look for a different model to represent that reality.

 

So they view that this is the only way to acquire real knowledge there by rubbishing the claims which are by random speculation, metaphysical, mystical mumbo-jumbo and other pseudosciences.

 

I'm saying that mysticism is not real science but its not garbage either, there is some knowledge in it which can be tested and accumulated by practising the techniques. If you're not willing to put a detector and measure the postion of the particle how will you know whether the theory correctly represents reality or not, in the same way if you're not willing to practice the techniques how will you know whether there is any truth behind them or not.

 

PeterJ - He doesn't go by models, all he is saying that the claims of mysticism should not be dismissed off-hand since there are too many literatures and scholars and even scientists all talking about the same stuff making positive assertions in favour of mysticism. He has a gut feeling that there is something which needs to be investigated. An opinion based on reason.

 

However there are differences in how he sees mysticism and the way I see it.

 

Peter - [God of Schroedinger or the thing called 'Unity' or the emptiness or whatever]

 

Immortal - [unity, gods and personal god (the reason for this is, the scriptures which speak about the Unity can not exist with out Gods according to Vedas and Upanishads which forms an important part of the literature of mysticism.]

 

You - You think that we already know the truth, I don't know in what context you said that, assuming that I know about you, you seem to be talking about the "pure intuition" or the true insight which we all have in us which helps us to know the truth behind the Language.

Let me put this way we already know the truth because the truths already exists and our minds have access to it. There are many mathematicians who think that integers and other numbers do exist in their own realm and its not something which mathematicians create on their own. They don't invent anything they just discover the hidden truths. This might be the ultimate truth to you but the scripture says there is something else more subtle than this which is the ultimate truth.

 

As for the Real mystic or the super mystic is concerned I can define them and make an another set of mystical claims but I don't like to do it because it sounds like I'm preaching here with no knowledge in it and also not demonstrating it to everyone as to how it is achieved.

I very well Know where I'm standing on this issue.

 

 

 

You do realize that is a positive assertion, you say that humans can have cognition of the physical world with no sensory input? Like the existence of god that is impossible to disprove, it is on your head to provide evidence this can happen not demand proof it cannot....

 

Yes I do, that's why I requested some time, the burden of proof is on me, I'm not forcing anyone to change their view when there is a lack of evidence, you can continue bashing mysticism.

[PeterJ]

You thought wrong, I can name an entire discipline of mystical knowledge that is nothing but horse feathers..... astrology

 

ASTROLOGY!!! Ha ha ha ha...

 

No seriously...

 

If you believe that mysticism has something to do with astrology then I'll be very depreressed.

 

My view - I am able to understand the mystical claims because I have a model where Brain ! = (is not equal to) Mind. To me Brain and the Mind are two different things.

I think most people do. Mind and Matter to most people are different things. 'Res extensa' and 'res cogitans'. The difficulty of understanding mysticism stems from the claim that there is a third category of phenomenon.

 

So when I'm talking about the experiences of the mystics I'm not talking about the events happening between the synaptic junctions of the Brain and its not in any way related to the brain or the synaptic junctions. Its a completely different thing.

Well, I'm not so sure. An event requires a consciousness and that would require some sort of material substrate. The idea would be to go beyond thing-events to where nothing ever happens. Pure or pre-conceptual awareness is what is explored, the phenomenon Kant characterises as 'not an instance of a category'.

 

ar Neurobiology has very well investigated on how the Brain processes information at the most fundamental level and very well explains on how it helps the humans to communicate and work as a machine and we know the process of how the brain fires a neuron generating an action pontential(Na⁺ and K⁺ ions) coupling itself with the ca²⁺ ions coupling it with the contraction and relaxation of the actin and myosin fibres in the muscles there by allowing me to type the words which I'm typing right now. The works of Kandel shows us the process of learning. This is the view of the Brain. This is reality. This is something which is common to all of us.

Yes. A brain would be a necessary condition, although not sufficient one for the words you're typing and the thoughts you're thinking.

 

... a way to say that a particle appears at some places with a high probability and it doesn't appear at all in some other places and the probability of finding the particle at these places is zero. So when we put a detector at places where there is a high probability of finding the particle and if we find it there quite often then the theorectical predictions are said to consistent with the observations made. The more the theory is tested and found consistent the more is our belief on it.

 

If the particle appears often at places where the theory says that the probability of finding the particle is almost zero at those places then there is something wrong with the theory because the observations are inconsistent. So we look for a different model to represent that reality.

 

So they view that this is the only way to acquire real knowledge there by rubbishing the claims which are by random speculation, metaphysical, mystical mumbo-jumbo and other pseudosciences.

Well, it is true that scientists often rubbbish mysticism and metaphysics, but they cannot deny that their data and findings fail to give them any ammunition. When any data contradicts the finding so metaphysics or mysticism there will be a big hoohaa wordwide, Nobel prizes and all that, so we'll all know when it happens.

 

PeterJ - He doesn't go by models, all he is saying that the claims of mysticism should not be dismissed off-hand since there are too many literatures and scholars and even scientists all talking about the same stuff making positive assertions in favour of mysticism. He has a gut feeling that there is something which needs to be investigated. An opinion based on reason.

 

However there are differences in how he sees mysticism and the way I see it.

Yes. That's about it. I'm not trying to persuade anyone, only to get people to take the idea seriously enough to have a conversation without continually being accused of being an idiot, as if my view will collapse before a few ill-considered objections. People have being trying to falsify this view for millenia, and it is not likely anyone here will succeeed any better.

 

Immortal - Unity, gods and personal god (the reason for this is, the scriptures which speak about the Unity can not exist with out Gods according to Vedas and Upanishads which forms an important part of the literature of mysticism.

But for the Upanishads the unity would come before anything. If you were right then Advaita Hinduism would be monotheism. Rather, it is nondualism. This would be the orthodox view. If mysticism were monotheism it would be no improvement on it. I wouldn't want to argue with your own belief in this respect, but it is not found in mysticism. It is true that the word God is used, but it would be a code word, often used for didactic purposes or to prevent charges of heresy and so on, or just because it is difficult to find a better or more evocative word, and not the claim that monotheism is true.

 

Let me put this way we already know the truth because the truths already exists and our minds have access to it. There are many mathematicians who think that integers and other numbers do exist in their own realm and its not something which mathematicians create on their own. They don't invent anything they just discover the hidden truths. This might be the ultimate truth to you but the scripture says there is something else more subtle than this which is the ultimate truth.

Good point. This would be what makes mathematics so relevant to metaphysics and psychology.

 

As for the Real mystic or the super mystic is concerned I can define them and make an another set of mystical claims but I don't like to do it because it sounds like I'm preaching here with no knowledge in it and also not demonstrating it to everyone as to how it is achieved.

Ah. There is way around this. Not ideal, but the best the intellect can do with no help. If we can read the literature of all the traditions, from the Buddhist sutras to the verses of the Upanishads, from the Tao Teh Ching to the Mystical Theology of the pseodo-Dionysius, from the Anelects of Plotinus to the poetry of Honghzhi and Rumi, from Schroedinger to Wei Wu Wei, from Badley to the Dalai Lama, and if these writers and texts seem always rigorous and perfectly consistent with each other, then you will know you have the correct interpretation, or are on the right track. If you see substantial disagreements between different traditions, more than just the usual cultural, linguistic and methodological differences, then some adjustment is indicated. I suppose it's a coherence theory of intepretation. It will work as long as there is only one mysticism and if there is only one truth.

 

If we adopt a neutral metaphysical position then there will be nothing to disagree with in the literature of mysticism, and if we want to render its doctrine implausible we would only need to refute this position.

 

It's the handy thing about mysticism, as a an area of intellectual study. If the issue is important then whatever we know about the doctrine of one tradition we know about the doctrine of all them.

Edited December 20, 2011 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

ASTROLOGY!!! Ha ha ha ha...

 

No seriously...

 

If you believe that mysticism has something to do with astrology then I'll be very depreressed.

 

 

 

I suggest you invest in a good psychiatrist, until it was clearly demonstrated that astrology was bunkum it was indeed included in the horse feathers that include mysticism, things like alchemy, tarot, all religions, pretty much everything supernatural is indeed considered mysticism by some one and since you cannot define or provide any evidence to the contrary you are going to have to suck up astrology along with all the other arcane knowledge claimed by the term mysticism. You sound like the guy who claimed there are no Christians in jail because a true Christian would never commit a crime.

 

The entire premise of knowledge that cannot be defined or demonstrated to have any effect on reality is well... not to put too fine a point on it.. meaningless, nonsensical, MBE... nothing more nothing less. I can (and have) construct realities of amazing complexity in my own brain, i could, if I was mentally unbalenced, assign real meaning and even reality to these imaginings but that wouldn't make them real in any way.

 

Once I had a condition that caused me to hallucinate what appeared to be symbols floating in the air around me, the symbols were red and held (i felt very strongly) superior meaning, so superior that nothing else could have possible been as important as those symbols. I was smart enough to know they could not be real because only i could see them, a few pills and the condition was gone never to return, but I can still remember how real and universally important those symbols were, they were of absolute importance, they held the meaning of life and death, but my feelings of their importance did not assign any reality to them or to me, they were false as is mysticism... If I had met someone else who also saw the same symbols imagine how crazy that would have been but the symbols would have still been meaningless drivel made up by a blood curculation problem in my brain. people with similar circulation problems have similar hallucinations....

 

Just because you don't agree something is mysticism doesn't make it so, in fact so far you have not demostrated that mysticism has any meaning what so ever other than the practitioners of mysticism rely on gullible people to continue on it's traditions, in that way mysticism is nothing less than religion with even less basis in reality...

 

Nothing unreal exists, simple as that....

[mooeypoo]

ASTROLOGY!!! Ha ha ha ha...

 

No seriously...

 

If you believe that mysticism has something to do with astrology then I'll be very depreressed.

First, drop the attitude. We're not here to laugh at people, especially with the abundance of misunderstanding in this thread.

 

Second, I do hope you're not seriously suggesting Astrology is anything other than pure unadolterated bunk, and suggest it in a science forum no less, giving no proof, no evidence, no explanation and no reason why it doesn't fit anything we know about physics.

 

Be careful what you laugh at, if that's the case.

 

 

Feel free to start another thread about this to convince the scientific community that astrology is not mystical. Until you do, I suggest you drop the mocking attitude.

 

 

PeterJ, you chose to post in a scientific forum, and you seem to ignore any and all methods science requires. It was semi-okay until now, since it seemed like it was a string of misunderstood statements. It's getting quite annoying now that you added the "ha ha"s.

 

We're a discussion forum, not your personal soapbox or blog space. Knock it off.

 

~mooey

[PeterJ]

I suggest you invest in a good psychiatrist, until it was clearly demonstrated that astrology was bunkum it was indeed included in the horse feathers that include mysticism, things like alchemy, tarot, all religions, pretty much everything supernatural is indeed considered mysticism by some one and since you cannot define or provide any evidence to the contrary you are going to have to suck up astrology along with all the other arcane knowledge claimed by the term mysticism. You sound like the guy who claimed there are no Christians in jail because a true Christian would never commit a crime.

I do apologise, Moontanman. I hadn't realised you knew absolutely nothing about it. 'Mysticism' is a technical term. Quite intelligent people write books about it. Here's a general definition.

 

"Mysticism is a term which has come into common use from about the year 1900 onwards. It has since then become terribly overworked. The term itself is derived from a Greek word, mustes, which means a person who has been admitted to secret knowledge of the realities of life and death. It is only that those who have once attained to such a state should desire to prolong it or to reproduce it at intervals. It has been suggested that all mystics, whether Christian, Moslem, Hindu or Buddhist, are agreed on a few fundamentals: (1) that all division and separateness is unreal, and that the universe is a single indivisible unity; (2) that evil is illusory, and that the illusion arises through regarding a part of the universe as self-subsistent; (3) that time is unreal, and that reality is eternal, not in the sense of being everlasting, but in the sense of being out of time."

 

A. C. Bouquet - Comparative Religion(288) Penguin, London (1962)

 

There is another definition for the word, by which it means something a bit more like what you take it to mean, but I hadn't expected to have this misundertanding on a science forum.

 

I'll probably not post in this thread again, given that one or two people seem hell bent on torpedoeing the discussion.

 

Happy Christmas...

[Moontanman]

I do apologise, Moontanman. I hadn't realised you knew absolutely nothing about it. 'Mysticism' is a technical term. Quite intelligent people write books about it. Here's a general definition.

 

"Mysticism is a term which has come into common use from about the year 1900 onwards. It has since then become terribly overworked. The term itself is derived from a Greek word, mustes, which means a person who has been admitted to secret knowledge of the realities of life and death. It is only that those who have once attained to such a state should desire to prolong it or to reproduce it at intervals. It has been suggested that all mystics, whether Christian, Moslem, Hindu or Buddhist, are agreed on a few fundamentals: (1) that all division and separateness is unreal, and that the universe is a single indivisible unity; (2) that evil is illusory, and that the illusion arises through regarding a part of the universe as self-subsistent; (3) that time is unreal, and that reality is eternal, not in the sense of being everlasting, but in the sense of being out of time."

 

A. C. Bouquet - Comparative Religion(288) Penguin, London (1962)

 

There is another definition for the word, by which it means something a bit more like what you take it to mean, but I hadn't expected to have this misundertanding on a science forum.

 

I'll probably not post in this thread again, given that one or two people seem hell bent on torpedoeing the discussion.

 

Happy Christmas...

 

 

Try this forum, they might allow turd polishing there...

 

http://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=51

[tar]

Mooey,

 

I am asking people to share their thoughts and beliefs in this thread. I thought the answers to my last post/question were excellent, honest, and exactly what I was asking for. I thank both PeterJ and Immortal for their great responses. Moontanman as well, though he does not seem to be coming from the "middle way" that PeterJ, Immortal and I seem to have in common as a target, he is being honest and holding fast to his beliefs and hence important to the discussion.

 

PeterJ,

 

I am sorry to have gotten "niggly". It was meant more as a goad, in a bantering type of way. Like saying "I double dog dare you".

 

I made an interesting self observation, as you were describing "true correct" views that certain people have a clearer understanding of than others...that was, that I DON'T WANT to be wrong...I want to be HOLDING the correct view.

 

I am now wondering if that is part of our reasoning in following the literature and rules of our group. We have a need to belong. By understanding and following the same rules, we back each other up, and actually DO extend our "mind" outside of our own brains.

 

I like your thought, that that which is the "same" in all the traditions is probably a "true" thing. In fact I think I take that even farther than you do, and consider that even "religious" traditions, and scientific traditions, and even astrology and devil worship and peyote hallucinations (that might just as well be dismissed from any "scientific" reasoned approach) might have to be included in the "traditions" and "common experience" subjects in which we can expect to find the "same" truths. After all, if we cherry pick the subjects, we might be biasing the results. I don't even exclude the "deeply important" red symbols during your circulation condition.

 

Had a wierd visual experience at work about half a year ago where the things I was looking at got "ripply". I mean actually looked that way. I knew I was "seeing things", but it seemed like reality was really looking that way. I googled the description and it came up with "visual migraine" and the descriptions of that, matched what had happened to me. Made me think "boy, we really put a lot of faith in some potentially unreliable equipment".

However I still continue to believe fully in the things I see.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 21, 2011 by tar

[immortal]

But for the Upanishads the unity would come before anything. If you were right then Advaita Hinduism would be monotheism. Rather, it is nondualism. This would be the orthodox view. If mysticism were monotheism it would be no improvement on it. I wouldn't want to argue with your own belief in this respect, but it is not found in mysticism. It is true that the word God is used, but it would be a code word, often used for didactic purposes or to prevent charges of heresy and so on, or just because it is difficult to find a better or more evocative word, and not the claim that monotheism is true.

 

Monotheism - belief in one god, Panthesim - nature is god, Panentheism - god is in everything, polytheism all these school of thoughts comes under the umbrella of mysticism and they are inseperable from it.

 

Sankara, the founder of Advaita himself in many of his works has glorified the gods with poems and verses. Advaita doesn't discard the existence of gods, all it says is that the universe is one which is called as the 'Brahman' or the Unity and it is the only eternal truth, the truth about the multiplicity is not an eternal truth but it is very much true and it has an empirical existence.

 

 

Rig Veda 1.164.46,

Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garuda.To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."(trans. Griffith)

 

This is the view that all gods are one who is the personal god. Sankara is saying that this multiplicity of gods, the world, and the personal god is true temporarily. The eternal truth is that there is only entity which is non-dual i.e without an another.

 

You are wrong or either you have misunderstood it. Mysticism is not the death of gods infact it uphelds their existence. Mystics are not religious but that doesn't mean they deny the existence of gods.

 

Ah. There is way around this. Not ideal, but the best the intellect can do with no help. If we can read the literature of all the traditions, from the Buddhist sutras to the verses of the Upanishads, from the Tao Teh Ching to the Mystical Theology of the pseodo-Dionysius, from the Anelects of Plotinus to the poetry of Honghzhi and Rumi, from Schroedinger to Wei Wu Wei, from Badley to the Dalai Lama, and if these writers and texts seem always rigorous and perfectly consistent with each other, then you will know you have the correct interpretation, or are on the right track. If you see substantial disagreements between different traditions, more than just the usual cultural, linguistic and methodological differences, then some adjustment is indicated. I suppose it's a coherence theory of intepretation. It will work as long as there is only one mysticism and if there is only one truth.

 

If we adopt a neutral metaphysical position then there will be nothing to disagree with in the literature of mysticism, and if we want to render its doctrine implausible we would only need to refute this position.

 

It's the handy thing about mysticism, as a an area of intellectual study. If the issue is important then whatever we know about the doctrine of one tradition we know about the doctrine of all them.

 

You seem too optimistic here but I'm not so excited. Mysticism creates more problems than it solves. I'm afraid such a coherent interpretation does not exist and we don't know whether the truth is one and our hope of refuting to only one interpretation may never be realized.

 

What about the Abrahamic God? What about the gods of the Greeks? Do Gnostics of the christians, sufis and fakirs of the muslim, sages of the Aryas, shamans, the native americans, mayans, the egyptians all speak of the one truth? They have their own gods, their own rituals and their own traditions and practices. How does it provide a coherent interpretation? On what basis they fall and doesn't fall under the umbrella of mysticism? what's so special about the god of schroedinger or sunya of the buddhists so much that we have to give them more credence and take it seriously.

 

If you think that we have to take them seriously just because it comes from the mouth of intelligent people and if that's how you define mysticism then its not mysticism at all. Why is that mysticism should be logically consistent to the rational mind? Its too much of a narrow view upon what mysticism is. This is the reason why I don't get into discussions like these, I prefer to remain silent and investigate on what the truth is rather than trying to give a rational logically consistent coherent interpretation on mysticism.

 

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

If you think that we have to take them seriously just because it comes from the mouth of intelligent people and if that's how you define mysticism then its not mysticism at all. Why is that mysticism should be logically consistent to the rational mind? Its too much of a narrow view upon what mysticism is.

Very well said, thank you.

 

This is the reason why I don't get into discussions like these, I prefer to remain silent and investigate on what the truth is rather than trying to give a rational logically consistent coherent interpretation on mysticism

I'm really grateful that you've taken the time, immortal. Your POV in this thread has been an insightful counterpoint to PeterJ's absolutist, mind-reading, condescending, mumbo-jumbo approach. You've kept this thread interesting and you 've done it without insult and derision. Thanks again.

[tar]

Phi,

 

Thank you for seconding Immortal's #143. I am in favor of the motion.

 

Regards TAR2

[Appolinaria]

I don't completely understand all of the arguing between mysticism/science... I clearly see how they differ, but they are closely intertwined, no? Many great scientists were mystics. Mathematics is unique in that it is untarnished by human emotion, 2+2=4 and this is not arguable. It's not subjective, not malleable. Unfortunately, people often make this their religion. However, the middle path is best.

 

 

 

 

And a unity, a trinity, the duality, the paradoxes, the eternal unity… I don't understand it really, but I'm content with that.... maybe it will happen with a flash of understanding, a Dante in Empyrean type deal.

 

 

[swansont]

ASTROLOGY!!! Ha ha ha ha...

 

No seriously...

 

If you believe that mysticism has something to do with astrology then I'll be very depreressed.

 

I do apologise, Moontanman. I hadn't realised you knew absolutely nothing about it. 'Mysticism' is a technical term. Quite intelligent people write books about it.

 

!

Moderator Note

I see my previous call for civil discourse has been ignored. Derision doesn't cut it.

 

There is an expectation that claims will be backed up and that rebuttals will contain substance. You need to be addressing claims rather than sidestepping them.

[Divyendu]

There we have alot about religion and hatered, here I have some work that shows the scientific side of Near death experience <a href=http://www.glideidea.com/2011/09/30/near-death-experience-the-scientific-explanation/>Near death experience | GlideIdea Science</a>

[immortal]

Interesting article. In Near death experience one dreams and sleeps while he or she is awake. Just like you cannot respond or control the events while you are dreaming in the same way in Near death experience you cannot respond to your surroundings and you cannot respond to people communicating with you even though you feel desperate to respond to their questions but the brain fails to link the thought processes and you feel like you have forgot what they asked even before you want to respond to them.

 

This clearly shows that the brain shuts down and fails to work properly. It is true that this happens in a weird state in between the boundaries of deep sleep and full awareness. You feel like that the brain has shut itself down and you feel like you will never be awake again once if you try to sleep by closing your eyes.

 

The subject will be afraid and it leads to anxiety and the subject feels like his brain is dieing and he starts eating food to keep his brain alive and he pleads the people in and around him to keep talking to him as he feels like he is losing his communication with them since the brain fails to link his thoughts and process them.

 

The important thing is that if consciosness is something associated or produced by an emergent property of the brain how can people expereince the shutting down of the brain and yet be aware of it. How can one be awake and experience shutting down of the brain if awareness is something produced by the brain. How can something shut itself down and also be self aware of its state, there has to be a state or a process running inside it to represent such an event consuming a small power right?

 

Normally scientific discoveries happen when things go wrong and not while everything is right. For example- to know the function of a gene we often switch it off to observe the effects in the organism and that's how we come to know about what the gene functions for the body. I believe there are some drugs or medicines which alter the EM signals of sleep, awake and dream states and patients who are under those medicinal treatment are more prone to such near death experiences. It is important for the doctors and people around the patient to be calm so that they can relax the patient from the emotional trauma.

 

A perfect analogy might be a Von Neumann Machine in which each component as some processing power like the monitor and other input devices and a central processing unit called the CPU.

 

A near death experience is like "Monitor going to sleep" while the CPU is running and is aware of the fact that the monitor has gone to sleep. A sleep state might be all the devices including the CPU going to sleep and a wakeful state is like both the monitor and CPU is running and you are aware of the processing occuring at the input and output devices which forms the tip of the consciousness(the part which we are normally aware of) and you are not aware of the processing which is occuring at the seat of the consciousness called as the subconscious.

 

There are only two possibilities -

 

Either this would mean that there is a subsystem with in the brain which is aware and forms the seat of consciousness while other parts of the brain shuts down when one is experiencing a Near death experience.

 

Or this would mean that the whole brain shuts down and there is an another subsystem called as the mind seperate from the brain which is responsible for the seat of consciosness and other mental qualia like pain, fear, anxiety etc which is the hard problem or the

binding problem in conscious beings. The two subsystems brain and mind may be made of different hardware platforms and there might even be a protocol for effective comuunication between the two systems. Philosophers have always wondered how can a material system like the brain can communicate or can interact with an immaterial system like the mind. What if the cosmos is made of two subsystems and there might be two realities and we might have to model those two realities to fully comprehend the universe and no wonder why the universe is a paradox. What if the scientific models and the scientific method of enquiry of the physical world are not sufficient to fully understand the universe. Will we be prepared to change and speculate on a different method of enquiry and develop falsifiable models and yet keep a check on pseudoscience and other fraudulents.

 

I got this insight because I recently experienced and went through a similar thing.

We often use this terminologies in the computer world Hibernation(computing) and Sleep mode. May be the brain might have peripheral systems inside it which processes information and also keeps a check on the power consumption, brain might be a super system administrator.

 

 

[PeterJ]

Very well said, thank you.

 

 

I'm really grateful that you've taken the time, immortal. Your POV in this thread has been an insightful counterpoint to PeterJ's absolutist, mind-reading, condescending, mumbo-jumbo approach. You've kept this thread interesting and you 've done it without insult and derision. Thanks again.

I seem to have forgotten this discussion.

 

I feel it is necessary to be absolutist when it seems rational to suppose that only one 'explanation of everything' can be correct. Postmodernism in science and philosophy is the death of both. Of course, absolutism should not mean dogmatism or simply shouting ones views at people.

 

If you have an objection to my posts please make it and I will try to meet it. Accusing me of absolutism is no use to anybody. Yes, I am an absolutist. What's wrong with that? If I have been condescending it will have been a retaliation, and I apologise for it. I shouldn't react in kind. When some crackoot comes along and say all religion is rubbish, or mysticism is the same as monotheism, then I should ask for the discussion to be moved to speculations or crackpottery.

 

If I have spoken any mumbo-jumbo please point it out.

 

But my approach has been too irritable, so sorry for that.