Comment by John Matthewson on December 6, 2009 at 7:17am

Here is an interesting link for a discussion of Atheism http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html . I think you are right to say that a believer in Baal would consider an unbeliever to be Atheist. But doesn't atheism also apply to a more general disbelief?

How could you accept God if you deny mind?

Comment by david thurman on December 6, 2009 at 7:49am

If they say "simultaneously" the word has a bigger angular separation at the centre of my experience (at my "now") than the word "go".

Nicely expressed!!!!

Many people experience what you have called "simultaneously" That is in a sense called by many people as simply the One. It can be God, it really depends on how you contextualize and what you are processing at the time of these kinds of experiences. It's the process of our brains breaking down the illusion of divisions. The illusion of self is fading away and self is no longer defined by this or that, Simultaneously implies your perception of duality breaking down. LSD, Bipolar, meditative life practices, yoga, religious experiences, all have an underlying theme of experiencing this. Some people are naturally disposed biologically some have to work at it a bit it's a very real experience. The resulting conceptualizations of this particular experience is what is discussed on this site, whether we discuss it directly or not. The flipside negative to this type of experience is that we very naturally try and roll around it and define it in some limited way and do this long enough I think is mentally unhealthy, So when Buddha says self is an illusion, that is in reference to you first word :go: when buddha say no self is not true as well, it's in reference to the word "simultaneously" where it's easy in particular certain individuals with natural biological tendencies to experience this to get lost in that experience, self is not that either. Bringing that experience of "simultaneousness", and the "go" together in a single fashion is well for me at least best described as the middle path.

I had struck upon the idea once that current Cosmology was all wrong I was shocked. I then walked to a tall mountain near my house here on the coast, a nice forest view, vs, tree view. There I laughed, I laughed at myself for being so stupid for being shocked that the Cosmology model is wrong. Of course it is wrong, it will always be wrong, we will never have a final cosmology model that we can "Here's the model, this is how things work". That is laughably stupid to think that and I for years went along thinking that. No the final cosmology model will be "This is who we are, we are integrated into it, we are not a separate from this we can't fully define who we are, we are defined by what we are, what we are cannot be defined". I can't tell you today what amazing things we shall know thousands of years from now, but regardless I do know, what I don't know, and what I don't know tells me that the above idea of self as an integrated, or consciousness as an integrated aspect of reality rather than a separate from reality is simply a fact and is as of yet, not clearly stated by any of us. That too is a fact...:D

Comment by david thurman on December 6, 2009 at 10:37pm

Jim, it is a bandwidth issue in some sense isn't it....:D I like that analogy in some ways as well.

Comment by John Matthewson on December 7, 2009 at 2:42am

"So I could see where time could be an issue if bandwidth is an issue."

I'm not sure that my article was written clearly enough. Either that or its nonsense!

Atheism, as espoused by many modern philosophers, is a belief that only the present instant exists. If this is the case then everything is meaningless. The 'instant' is static, it contains no time at all. The instant is like a still photo but less than that. If only the instant exists then everything would be meaningless because things could only be 'known' in the next instant. But of course, when you arrived at the next instant everything would be static and things could only be known in the next instant. But of course, when you arrived at the next instant everything would be static and things could only be known in the next instant....and so on. You could never actually know anything.

What I was trying to say is that your mind exists and at any instant it is events laid out in both space and time. The events laid out in time actually exist. The beginning of a word still exists at the time you first heard it even as you hear the end of the word.

You may have spotted a contradiction in what I have said. We are "now" so how can we hear a whole word which starts in the past and ends "now". Yes, things being laid out in time at an instant sounds like a contradiction but I am saying that this is not forbidden by modern physics and is obviously the case as you look around and listen to things. Say "Now!" when is the word "Now"? When is the "now" in your experience?

Comment by david thurman on December 7, 2009 at 7:31am

"What I was trying to say is that your mind exists and at any instant it is events laid out in both space and time. The events laid out in time actually exist. The beginning of a word still exists at the time you first heard it even as you hear the end of the word."

Bingo, you nailed it in that comment, You can't wrap around it. This is actually not inconsistent with by some people in Science as well. The question becomes what is consciousness, is it determined by the single observer, IE John at this time, in this body, or is consciousness a something else that transcends even the universe. It's like the quantum mechanics where the outcome of the particle falling into state is determined by not only it's position in the quantum state but it's relationship to the entire field across the entire universe. It's now supposed that this field may extend beyond the universe into multiverses. If we perceive a sense of connection into the past so the present exists deterministically to the past The future does as well. That isn't totally true. The future exists deterministically to the present and it's past, it does not exist in relationship to us in our now, so to speak. I think free will is the problem with this view, we perceive we have freedom, of action, and we do but it's extremely limited and it' limited to what we will choose based on our biology. I take a view of everything being a non linear dynamical system, it's simply for me a more accurate metaphor, where the systems outcome is determined by it's initial conditions, you can't determine the outcome by any condition in the system, nor can you determine the exact initial conditions in any deterministic way as well. Am i right, well they are starting to see the brain as this type of system, the machine metaphor is fading so I would say it's more accurate, but the best we can ever do are metaphors in particular of how we see the universe or reality and ourselves. We can't wrap around on ourselves or reality that is determinism/positivism and to some degree that is just nutty to me to think we can. The best we can do is understand.

Comment by Jim G on December 7, 2009 at 8:32am

Just because an object is stationary doesn't mean that it can't move in the future and doesn't mean it hasn't moved in the past. So perhaps it is our free will as David mentions, of being able to choose our possibilities that gives us meaning. If a planet is moving or stationary, I suppose it has no free will so I suppose it is meaningless. On the other hand we appear to be dependent on our planet, so if we have meaning then our planet and everything that we are connected to in the unified field has meaning.

And you are probably right, bandwidth is probably a separate issue, perhaps relating to connectivity to intelligence.

Comment by John Matthewson on December 7, 2009 at 9:49am

Manic or "rapture"? Rapture is a religious experience where the meditator feels at one with the content of conscious experience. As far as I understand the Buddhists see this as a necessary step towards enlightenment but also a delusion that must be passed.

On the subject of the future and free will, see New Empiricism and "meaning". My empirical knowledge only encompasses the past and only the immediate past (a second or two) in a four dimensional fashion. I do not know the future so, for me, empirically, the future is not determined. Certainly if you go beyond school physics it is not at all clear that the future is or could be determined.

Comment