The problem with atheism.

[FinShaggy]

Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.

But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.

This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.

Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would.

I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world.

You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc)

[the joint]

Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.

But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.

This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.

Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would.

I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world.

You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc)

Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality.  The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. 


These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.

Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.

[FinShaggy]

Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.

But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.

This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.

Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would.

I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world.

You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc)

Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality.  The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. 


These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.

Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.

I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc.

But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things.
And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started.

[the joint]

Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.

But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.

This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.

Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would.

I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world.

You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc)

Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality.  The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. 


These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.

Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.

I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc.

But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things.
And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started.

It's deduced (not inferred) through the sameness-in-difference principle that I would share a fundamental identity with god if he exists.  So, in certain contexts, I much prefer the phrase god because 1) i believe it more accurately reflects the dynamic relationship between mental and physical reality and 2) I don't equate god with the universe. 

All those "why/when/how" questions are much harder to answer, though I believe it's possible to deduce some of the answers from tautologies.  Regardless, they are irrelevant until the existence of god is established.

[FinShaggy]

Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.

But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.

This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.

Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would.

I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world.

You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc)

Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality.  The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. 


These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.

Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.

I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc.

But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things.
And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started.

It's deduced (not inferred) through the sameness-in-difference principle that I would share a fundamental identity with god if he exists.  So, in certain contexts, I much prefer the phrase god because 1) i believe it more accurately reflects the dynamic relationship between mental and physical reality and 2) I don't equate god with the universe. 

All those "why/when/how" questions are much harder to answer, though I believe it's possible to deduce some of the answers from tautologies.  Regardless, they are irrelevant until the existence of god is established.

Just because you share fundamental identities does not mean there is any form of relationship between you and it. Ex: Do you have a relationship with the cells in your skin?

Sure, the universe is an organism... Which means it will have organs. And we can even see some of the structures (solar systems, galaxies, etc)
It MIGHT have consciousness, but we really don't even know what consciousness is yet, so we can't just assume other things have it.
Maybe it has to consume things to survive (gas, minerals, etc)

But I mean, other than that, you and god aren't going to have much in common.

[Rassah]

And the hope of a place after life where there is no more sickness, pain or suffering is a bad thing???

Wouldn't it be? 100 years of accomplishments and overcoming difficulties is a long time. An eternity of simply existing is kinda

Do you think that is what eternity will be?  Just simply existing?  I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do.  Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions. 

Sure, but how satisfying would it be if there is never any problems or difficulties with doing it? It'll be like, "Hey, let's learn pottery!"  *do a perfect job your first time, because otherwise it would be struggle and disappointment* "Well, pottery is done... " To me, the point of pursuing talents and dreams is to be able to achieve them and get good at them, but that inherently means struggle and lots and lots of overcoming failure. A life without that is not very interesting I don't think, since it would literally mean I can do whatever I can think of on my first try. Why bother to try if I know I will be able to by default?

[BitChick]

And the hope of a place after life where there is no more sickness, pain or suffering is a bad thing???

Wouldn't it be? 100 years of accomplishments and overcoming difficulties is a long time. An eternity of simply existing is kinda

Do you think that is what eternity will be?  Just simply existing?  I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do.  Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions. 

Sure, but how satisfying would it be if there is never any problems or difficulties with doing it? It'll be like, "Hey, let's learn pottery!"  *do a perfect job your first time, because otherwise it would be struggle and disappointment* "Well, pottery is done... " To me, the point of pursuing talents and dreams is to be able to achieve them and get good at them, but that inherently means struggle and lots and lots of overcoming failure. A life without that is not very interesting I don't think, since it would literally mean I can do whatever I can think of on my first try. Why bother to try if I know I will be able to by default?

Perhaps that is exactly what God Himself was thinking when He decided to create men.  What would be the point without people struggling to know Him because they really want too?  It is a thought.

I get your point.  I suppose that from our perspective Heaven could seem a bit unfulfilling.  I think we will all have the memories of the experiences we have had before death though.  Perhaps there will still be some "limits" or parameters on what we can and cannot do in heaven?  We will actually still have to work at things and we will need to still learn things there?  I imagine that not everyone will have the same talents and abilities, just like here on earth, so there will be an appreciation for each other and the accomplishments that others make.  I am not sure.  I have never been there. But I imagine we will be know more than we could ever know here.  We will be closer to everyone than we are here.  Just being able see God and know Him in a even deeper way will be amazing.  We need to leave behind the man-made ideas of fluffy clouds and harps.  If that was all heaven was I can see why people would not care to make it a goal to get there!

[the joint]

Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.

But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.

This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.

Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would.

I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world.

You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc)

Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality.  The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. 


These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.

Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.

I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc.

But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things.
And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started.

It's deduced (not inferred) through the sameness-in-difference principle that I would share a fundamental identity with god if he exists.  So, in certain contexts, I much prefer the phrase god because 1) i believe it more accurately reflects the dynamic relationship between mental and physical reality and 2) I don't equate god with the universe. 

All those "why/when/how" questions are much harder to answer, though I believe it's possible to deduce some of the answers from tautologies.  Regardless, they are irrelevant until the existence of god is established.

Just because you share fundamental identities does not mean there is any form of relationship between you and it. Ex: Do you have a relationship with the cells in your skin?

Sure, the universe is an organism... Which means it will have organs. And we can even see some of the structures (solar systems, galaxies, etc)
It MIGHT have consciousness, but we really don't even know what consciousness is yet, so we can't just assume other things have it.
Maybe it has to consume things to survive (gas, minerals, etc)

But I mean, other than that, you and god aren't going to have much in common.

Your concept of relationship in this discussion is different than mine.  Yes, I absolutely share a relationship with it if we share fundamental identities.  Yes, I absolutely share a relationship with the cells in my skin.  I share a relationship with any observable, identifiable phenomena through a subject-object relationship.  I (subject) perceive an event/thing (object).  I (subject) perceive my cells and skin (objects).  

The question "is it conscious or isn't it?" with respect to those 'structures' is, in my opinion, an inferior question when compared with, "is it consciousness dependent?"  Asking whether it's conscious or not invokes a false dichotomy and totally negates the ways in which things can and cannot be in a simultaneous state depending on your particular vantage point.  Specifically, it is a question posited from a lower level of logical syntax that attempts to explain something at a higher level of logical syntax.  Asking whether it is consciousness dependent is positing a question from a higher level of logical syntax to attempt to explain something at a lower level of logical syntax.  This is because the former question fails to assume the sameness-in-difference principle (i.e. simultaneous states) while the latter question allows this assumption.

[the joint]

Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality.  The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. 


These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.

Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.

I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc.

But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things.
And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started.

The problem I see with human-like gods is that they always seem to be an appeal to magic rather anything we can actually have faith in because we know it to be true in the same way that I know that I exist.

If you have faith in a 3rd-person god, then let's test that faith. How do you know this god exists if it's somehow outside of you and you can't consciously detect it? The only kind of consciousness that I know exists for sure is my own, see: philosophical zombies.

What do you mean by a "3rd-person" god?  Monotheistic gods, such as the Christian god, do not seem to be 3rd-person gods. "I am who am" in the Bible was God's definition of himself.  Are you referring to polytheistic gods?

[Rassah]

I get your point.  I suppose that from our perspective Heaven could seem a bit unfulfilling.  I think we will all have the memories of the experiences we have had before death though.  Perhaps there will still be some "limits" or parameters on what we can and cannot do in heaven?  We will actually still have to work at things and we will need to still learn things there?  I imagine that not everyone will have the same talents and abilities, just like here on earth, so there will be an appreciation for each other and the accomplishments that others make.  I am not sure.  I have never been there.

And that's kind of my point that leads to the next question, if heaven is still about learning, overcoming struggle, and enjoying achievements and accomplishments, then how it is different from what we already have? The way I see it, heaven was dreamed up by people who had WAY more difficult lives than we have now (and there are some people who still have those difficult lives), full of disease, loss, death, and very hard dawn-to-dusk labor with no chance of ever getting out of it. So, they invented an idea that maybe, after all this hard work that they can't see any escape from, they will have some nice reward after they die. Problem is, many of us in the present already have nice rewards, means of changing our lives and work if we want to, and are often happy and generally satisfied with our lives, so heaven may seem unnecessary even.

But I imagine we will be know more than we could ever know here.  We will be closer to everyone than we are here. 

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the concept of technological singularity, which is a point at which our computers are able to think and process as quickly and efficiently as our own human brains, and the point at which we can create artificial intelligence as real as us (with thoughts, feelings, wants, dreams, etc), and when we can upload our own consciousness into the machines, this making us effectively immortal, and being able to learn, remember, and think way more than we can now, as well as feel much closer to others by being able to directly share their thoughts and experiences? This is an idea that people believe we will achieve within this century.

[the joint]

The problem I see with human-like gods is that they always seem to be an appeal to magic rather anything we can actually have faith in because we know it to be true in the same way that I know that I exist.

If you have faith in a 3rd-person god, then let's test that faith. How do you know this god exists if it's somehow outside of you and you can't consciously detect it? The only kind of consciousness that I know exists for sure is my own, see: philosophical zombies.

What do you mean by a "3rd-person" god?  Monotheistic gods, such as the Christian god, do not seem to be 3rd-person gods. "I am who am" in the Bible was God's definition of himself.  Are you referring to polytheistic gods?

But the monotheistic Christian god almost always seems to be referred to as a "He" rather than "I". That seems confusing to me, and the above discussion about whether or not god is our own consciousness, doesn't help in that regard.

It can be extremely confusing.  These types of debates often go round and round because people typically aren't aware of when they shift the vantage point from where they attempt to base their argument.

There are two fundamental vantage points that one can take when attempting to discuss god: 1) from a lower vantage point, and 2) from a higher vantage point.  Speaking from a lower vantage point is like trying to talk about 4-dimensional spacetime from our 3rd-dimensional frame of reference through inference.  Speaking from a higher vantage point is like drawing a tesseract on a 2-dimensional plane and deducing its properties.  When speaking from a lower vantage point, infinite regressions result because of irreconcilable paradoxes.  When speaking from a higher vantage point, paradoxes become self-resolving.

[FinShaggy]

Do you think that is what eternity will be?  Just simply existing?  I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do.  Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions.  

I think "eternity" works like this:

1. You die, you decompose, you become word food, you become fertilizer, you become energy via grass, you become a mouse that eats the grass, you become a bird that eats the mouse, etc (but you don't get to "control" the animal, your energy is just allowing it to exist).

2. Your ideas last forever along with some on and offline content, and things you said to people will always be remembered

3a. This is a theory. But I think when we die, we are no where. There is nothing. We are completely happy... And we wonder why we ever cared about anything on this planet.

3b. We enter the 4th dimension, and live with length, width, height AND a dimension we could never comprehend. With creatures that have been here around us all along, but were invisible to us as we can't see the 4th dimension.

[the joint]

Do you think that is what eternity will be?  Just simply existing?  I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do.  Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions.  

I think "eternity" works like this:

1. You die, you decompose,, you become word food, you become fertilizer, you become energy via grass, you become a mouse that eats the grass, you become a bird that eats the mouse, etc (but you don't get to "control" the animal, your energy is just allowing it to exist).

2. Your ideas last forever along with some on and offline content, and things you said to people will always be remembered

3a. This is a theory. But I think when we die, we are no where. There is nothing. We are completely happy... And we wonder why we ever cared about anything on this planet.

3b. We enter the 4th dimension, and live with length, width, height AND a dimension we could never comprehend. With creatures that have been here around us all along, but were invisible to us as we can't see the 4th dimension.

What dies?  Your body?  Are you your body?  When I (subject) perceive my body (object), am I the body?  If I (subject) perceive a tree (object), am I the tree?

It seems that one or both of two things is/are true:  1)  You are your body, and thus you are also a tree and everything else (i.e. you are 'one' with everything, for simplistic phrasing, and subject is the same as object), and/or 2) you are not your body whatsoever and you are absolutely different from it, somehow so different from it that you can't even share with it a relationship of absolute difference.

If #1 is true, then that means you are also 'one' with, or the same as, every instance of a death or dead person you've ever observed.  But yet you're still here...  If #2 is true then please explain to me what the fuck you are, and then describe the death of such a thing. 

The point I'm making is that I question some of your assumptions implicated by your beliefs.

[FinShaggy]

Do you think that is what eternity will be?  Just simply existing?  I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do.  Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions.  

I think "eternity" works like this:

1. You die, you decompose,, you become word food, you become fertilizer, you become energy via grass, you become a mouse that eats the grass, you become a bird that eats the mouse, etc (but you don't get to "control" the animal, your energy is just allowing it to exist).

2. Your ideas last forever along with some on and offline content, and things you said to people will always be remembered

3a. This is a theory. But I think when we die, we are no where. There is nothing. We are completely happy... And we wonder why we ever cared about anything on this planet.

3b. We enter the 4th dimension, and live with length, width, height AND a dimension we could never comprehend. With creatures that have been here around us all along, but were invisible to us as we can't see the 4th dimension.

What dies?  Your body?  Are you your body?  When I (subject) perceive my body (object), am I the body?  If I (subject) perceive a tree (object), am I the tree?

It seems that one or both of two things is/are true:  1)  You are your body, and thus you are also a tree and everything else (i.e. you are 'one' with everything, for simplistic phrasing, and subject is the same as object), and/or 2) you are not your body whatsoever and you are absolutely different from it, somehow so different from it that you can't even share with it a relationship of absolute difference.

If #1 is true, then that means you are also 'one' with, or the same as, every instance of a death or dead person you've ever observed.  But yet you're still here...  If #2 is true then please explain to me what the fuck you are, and then describe the death of such a thing.  

The point I'm making is that I question some of your assumptions implicated by your beliefs.

Death is just electricity. My 11 year brother died 3 months ago, and he was still there even though he couldn't breath, or feel things. He was there for 2 days, then his head went cold. His brain didn't have any more oxygen. His body was still pumping blood, but his brain was too swollen to accept it. He still had electricity in his body, we all have a little electricity. That is how our hormones move, that is how our nerves operate, that is how our muscles do what they do. And once there is no oxygen feeding it, it goes out. Like a fire.

Like I said in option 3, maybe he is in the "4th dimension" or something. But that's just theories. I don't know what happens, and no one knows what consciousness consists of.

[BitChick]

Sorry for your loss FinShaggy.  That must have been really hard.  For what it is worth, my prayers are with you and your family and may you find some peace and comfort as time goes on.

[FinShaggy]

Sorry for your loss FinShaggy.  That must have been really hard.  For what it is worth, my prayers are with you and your family and may you find some peace and comfort as time goes on.

Thank you. I still don't feel like it's real, and I have to tell him I love him sometimes because I don't want to never talk to him again. I just never thought anything like this would happen.

[the joint]

Do you think that is what eternity will be?  Just simply existing?  I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do.  Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions.  

I think "eternity" works like this:

1. You die, you decompose,, you become word food, you become fertilizer, you become energy via grass, you become a mouse that eats the grass, you become a bird that eats the mouse, etc (but you don't get to "control" the animal, your energy is just allowing it to exist).

2. Your ideas last forever along with some on and offline content, and things you said to people will always be remembered

3a. This is a theory. But I think when we die, we are no where. There is nothing. We are completely happy... And we wonder why we ever cared about anything on this planet.

3b. We enter the 4th dimension, and live with length, width, height AND a dimension we could never comprehend. With creatures that have been here around us all along, but were invisible to us as we can't see the 4th dimension.

What dies?  Your body?  Are you your body?  When I (subject) perceive my body (object), am I the body?  If I (subject) perceive a tree (object), am I the tree?

It seems that one or both of two things is/are true:  1)  You are your body, and thus you are also a tree and everything else (i.e. you are 'one' with everything, for simplistic phrasing, and subject is the same as object), and/or 2) you are not your body whatsoever and you are absolutely different from it, somehow so different from it that you can't even share with it a relationship of absolute difference.

If #1 is true, then that means you are also 'one' with, or the same as, every instance of a death or dead person you've ever observed.  But yet you're still here...  If #2 is true then please explain to me what the fuck you are, and then describe the death of such a thing.  

The point I'm making is that I question some of your assumptions implicated by your beliefs.

Death is just electricity. My 11 year brother died 3 months ago, and he was still there even though he couldn't breath, or feel things. He was there for 2 days, then his head went cold. His brain didn't have any more oxygen. His body was still pumping blood, but his brain was too swollen to accept it. He still had electricity in his body, we all have a little electricity. That is how our hormones move, that is how our nerves operate, that is how our muscles do what they do. And once there is no oxygen feeding it, it goes out. Like a fire.

Like I said in option 3, maybe he is in the "4th dimension" or something. But that's just theories. I don't know what happens, and no one knows what consciousness consists of.

I'm sorry to hear about that experience :\  My thoughts and prayers sincerely go out to you.

To respond otherwise, I think that thinking about consciousness in terms of its "consistency" is sort of a "fail before you start" kind of thing.  I mean, I know consciousness...don't you?  Consciousness is directly evident at all times through experience,  It's a true no-brainer.  You can't really say much else about it.  You want consciousness?  Bam, in your face.

People need to just sit, take a breath, and just 'be' for a second.  It will teach you a lot.  I think if more people did this they would understand that some truths are just always there, and to deny them is, in my honest opinion, is a global form of insanity.

[FinShaggy]

Do you think that is what eternity will be?  Just simply existing?  I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do.  Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions.  

I think "eternity" works like this:

1. You die, you decompose,, you become word food, you become fertilizer, you become energy via grass, you become a mouse that eats the grass, you become a bird that eats the mouse, etc (but you don't get to "control" the animal, your energy is just allowing it to exist).

2. Your ideas last forever along with some on and offline content, and things you said to people will always be remembered

3a. This is a theory. But I think when we die, we are no where. There is nothing. We are completely happy... And we wonder why we ever cared about anything on this planet.

3b. We enter the 4th dimension, and live with length, width, height AND a dimension we could never comprehend. With creatures that have been here around us all along, but were invisible to us as we can't see the 4th dimension.

What dies?  Your body?  Are you your body?  When I (subject) perceive my body (object), am I the body?  If I (subject) perceive a tree (object), am I the tree?

It seems that one or both of two things is/are true:  1)  You are your body, and thus you are also a tree and everything else (i.e. you are 'one' with everything, for simplistic phrasing, and subject is the same as object), and/or 2) you are not your body whatsoever and you are absolutely different from it, somehow so different from it that you can't even share with it a relationship of absolute difference.

If #1 is true, then that means you are also 'one' with, or the same as, every instance of a death or dead person you've ever observed.  But yet you're still here...  If #2 is true then please explain to me what the fuck you are, and then describe the death of such a thing.  

The point I'm making is that I question some of your assumptions implicated by your beliefs.

Death is just electricity. My 11 year brother died 3 months ago, and he was still there even though he couldn't breath, or feel things. He was there for 2 days, then his head went cold. His brain didn't have any more oxygen. His body was still pumping blood, but his brain was too swollen to accept it. He still had electricity in his body, we all have a little electricity. That is how our hormones move, that is how our nerves operate, that is how our muscles do what they do. And once there is no oxygen feeding it, it goes out. Like a fire.

Like I said in option 3, maybe he is in the "4th dimension" or something. But that's just theories. I don't know what happens, and no one knows what consciousness consists of.

I'm sorry to hear about that experience :\  My thoughts and prayers sincerely go out to you.

To respond otherwise, I think that thinking about consciousness in terms of its "consistency" is sort of a "fail before you start" kind of thing.  I mean, I know consciousness...don't you?  Consciousness is directly evident at all times through experience,  It's a true no-brainer.  You can't really say much else about it.  You want consciousness?  Bam, in your face.

People need to just sit, take a breath, and just 'be' for a second.  It will teach you a lot.  I think if more people did this they would understand that some truths are just always there, and to deny them is, in my honest opinion, is a global form of insanity.

That is not an explanation of what consciousness is. Yes it is a "fail before you start kind of thing" but only if you don't care to actually ever find out, and are ok with accepting your own or other people's guesses. I am not.

Consciousness is the difference between an involuntary, and voluntary action.

Breathing, a "non conscious" task that we preform without thinking about it. Even when my brother was in a coma, they looked for signs of breathing. And heart beat, they don't care if your heart is beating, but that is a non conscious task.

Fighting. You don't just make a fist and put it in someone's face, you may do it "naturally" but you don't do it "non consciously"

We know that conscious activity is preformed mainly in the frontal lobe of the brain, but we still don't know what it really is. One day we will know though.

[the joint]

Do you think that is what eternity will be?  Just simply existing?  I expect it to be beyond our wildest imaginations, with plenty to do.  Basically all of the time to pursue our interests and dreams and talents without any obstructions.  

I think "eternity" works like this:

1. You die, you decompose,, you become word food, you become fertilizer, you become energy via grass, you become a mouse that eats the grass, you become a bird that eats the mouse, etc (but you don't get to "control" the animal, your energy is just allowing it to exist).

2. Your ideas last forever along with some on and offline content, and things you said to people will always be remembered

3a. This is a theory. But I think when we die, we are no where. There is nothing. We are completely happy... And we wonder why we ever cared about anything on this planet.

3b. We enter the 4th dimension, and live with length, width, height AND a dimension we could never comprehend. With creatures that have been here around us all along, but were invisible to us as we can't see the 4th dimension.

What dies?  Your body?  Are you your body?  When I (subject) perceive my body (object), am I the body?  If I (subject) perceive a tree (object), am I the tree?

It seems that one or both of two things is/are true:  1)  You are your body, and thus you are also a tree and everything else (i.e. you are 'one' with everything, for simplistic phrasing, and subject is the same as object), and/or 2) you are not your body whatsoever and you are absolutely different from it, somehow so different from it that you can't even share with it a relationship of absolute difference.

If #1 is true, then that means you are also 'one' with, or the same as, every instance of a death or dead person you've ever observed.  But yet you're still here...  If #2 is true then please explain to me what the fuck you are, and then describe the death of such a thing.  

The point I'm making is that I question some of your assumptions implicated by your beliefs.

Death is just electricity. My 11 year brother died 3 months ago, and he was still there even though he couldn't breath, or feel things. He was there for 2 days, then his head went cold. His brain didn't have any more oxygen. His body was still pumping blood, but his brain was too swollen to accept it. He still had electricity in his body, we all have a little electricity. That is how our hormones move, that is how our nerves operate, that is how our muscles do what they do. And once there is no oxygen feeding it, it goes out. Like a fire.

Like I said in option 3, maybe he is in the "4th dimension" or something. But that's just theories. I don't know what happens, and no one knows what consciousness consists of.

I'm sorry to hear about that experience :\  My thoughts and prayers sincerely go out to you.

To respond otherwise, I think that thinking about consciousness in terms of its "consistency" is sort of a "fail before you start" kind of thing.  I mean, I know consciousness...don't you?  Consciousness is directly evident at all times through experience,  It's a true no-brainer.  You can't really say much else about it.  You want consciousness?  Bam, in your face.

People need to just sit, take a breath, and just 'be' for a second.  It will teach you a lot.  I think if more people did this they would understand that some truths are just always there, and to deny them is, in my honest opinion, is a global form of insanity.

That is not an explanation of what consciousness is. Yes it is a "fail before you start kind of thing" but only if you don't care to actually ever find out, and are ok with accepting your own or other people's guesses. I am not.

Consciousness is the difference between an involuntary, and voluntary action.

Breathing, a "non conscious" task that we preform without thinking about it. Even when my brother was in a coma, they looked for signs of breathing. And heart beat, they don't care if your heart is beating, but that is a non conscious task.

Fighting. You don't just make a fist and put it in someone's face, you may do it "naturally" but you don't do it "non consciously"

We know that conscious activity is preformed mainly in the frontal lobe of the brain, but we still don't know what it really is. One day we will know though.

No.  You don't need to hear from me or anyone else what consciousness is.  You can know it absolutely right now, in the direct sense.  The 'activity' that you're talking about are the effects of consciousness.  If I intend to move my arm and do so, you don't point to my arm and say, "see, consciousness."  This is evidence of consciousness.  And while you look to the frontal lobe, or perhaps more generally, the brain, to try and 'find' consciousness, all you are really looking at are more effects or "evidence" of consciousness (evidence means "that which is apparent").

You can know consciousness directly or indirectly.  To know something indirectly is the approach utilized, for example, by the scientific method.  Utilizing this approach, you can only refine your theories with increasing accuracy up to, but neither meeting nor surpassing, a threshold of absolute knowledge.  To know something directly requires an absolute lack of evidence, and in fact, a lack of ratio (again, ratio is the root word of rationale).  You can do this anytime you like.  I'm just letting you know that there's another way to learn about things, one where you aren't trying to find certain things to help explain something else.

Or, phrased another way, there's a difference between knowing something and knowing about something.  You can find all the evidence you want and you'll just know 'about' consciousness.  The difference between knowing something vs. knowing about something is like the difference between going outside and feeling the sun's warmth vs. looking at a thermometer and saying it's 100 degrees.

[Rassah]

4th dimension is just time. We are all perfectly capable of experiencing it. Someone who actually exists on that level will just be able to see everything that has ever happened and everything that will ever happen at the same time. But they won't see the 5th dimension, which is all the other time lines running parallel and intersecting with ours.

Why do you guys say we don't understand what consciousness is? Our understanding of how the brain works is pretty advanced...