However, I have already given you my theory of what the mind is: A function of the brain. The brain creates a mind with it’s constellation of matter, just like a magnet creates a magnetic field with it’s consteallation of matter. You can slice and dice a magnet to oblivion too and won’t find, I don’t know, a piece of magnetism or however you imagine a mind should “look like”. Still, magnetism is bound to a magnet. And a mind to a brain. If you put a person into a magnetic resonance tomograph and have them think about different things, the mrt will show activity in different areas of the brain. This leads to the conclusion, that the mind is depending on the brain. If you remove parts of the brain, the person will lose aspects of their mind, like abilities or memories. That as well leads to the conclusion that the mind is depending on the brain.
What leads to the conclusion that the mind is not depending on the brain and not directly connected to the brain and therefore able to manipulate the brain, which makes it unlikely it can manipulate objects that it is not connected to?
This is not really your theory it is the classical theory of mind and is known as the epiphenomenalism theory of mind. Although many people believe in it, they don’t know that in contempoary philosophy of mind it is considered impossible.
So you are saying the mind is a function inside the brain. In that case how can it see the brain and manipulate the brain. You do not realise how fatal this objection is. Hilary Putnam put forward this argument a long time ago known as the brain in a jar problem. If you were really a brain in a jar how would you ever know you were a brain in a jar? In modern times this philosophy is shown in the Matrix movie where everybody is living out a reality in a matrix created by computers but they do not know the reality outside of it.
If something is contained within something else then you cannot see and act with the container. In a television set all the characters on the screen are functions within the television screen. They cannot see the television screen themselves.
Then pray/tell how is it at all possible that we could be functions of the brain and yet we can see our own brain.
The magnet example is a bad example, because we can indeed measure the magnetic field and can divide it up and analyse the magnet. However, we cannot measure mind or weigh it on the scales or examine somebodies thoughts. It is your burden of proof to prove the mind is in the body. Like I said we have examined every nook and corner and we not found anybodies mind.
Your argument is a religious and faith driven as the argument of Christians who insist there is a heaven and hell up there in space. However, we have looked very far into space and we not found in heaven and hell up there.
The MRI scan argument you gave does not prove anything other than the fact that whatever you think has a brain correlate. However, it does not just have a brain correlate it has a correlate to your entire body. If you are afraid not only will it show up in your brain it will also show up in your heart beat, in chemicals released in the body, in muscle contractions.
Moroever, we know it is not a one-way interaction. Just as manipulating the body(brain is part of the body) will affect the mind; the mind can manipulate the body and affect the body. We have already proven that mind does indeed manipulate body.
So what we have proof for here is the existence of mind and body being separate things that can interact with one another, but are not identical with one another. In which case mind would exist if the body did not exist because the mind is separate from it. It would continue to exist.
You do not realise how religious your own beliefs are.
[QUOTE=David;34544]Sounds pretty good to me. Can someone be strong overall but occasionally be weak?[/QUOTE]
Yes, because we are all have a human consciousness at the end of the day, we will have our weak moments. However, we need to strive constantly to gain from strength to strength. Our goal should not be anything less than perfection. If I start playing the guitar my goal should not be anything less than becoming the best guitar player there ever was. Then my guitar playing becomes more than guitar playing it becomes yoga.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34546]Yes, because we are all have a human consciousness at the end of the day, we will have our weak moments. However, we need to strive constantly to gain from strength to strength. Our goal should not be anything less than perfection. If I start playing the guitar my goal should not be anything less than becoming the best guitar player there ever was. Then my guitar playing becomes more than guitar playing it becomes yoga.[/QUOTE]
This sounds very much like the Tony Robbins approach. Aim for perfection. I would advise anyone reading this to avoid this approach. It is no coincidence that the ‘aim high’ motivational books are located in a book store right next to the low self-esteem books. It’s because when you aim high (especially for perfection!!) you expectation increased, and consequently your self-esteem drops. This also explains why people who hold the view of perfection, come across as insecure and inadequate. I would advise anyone wishing for happiness and good emotional health, to learn to be happy with what you have. Never plan to be happy, or you will never arrive, Just be happy with what you have, and who you are.
To advise somebody to not reach for the heights of success or to be happy with how they are and who they are is basically telling them to settle for mediocrity and such people never become pioneers and leaders. I have a computer that can play pacman, but it can also play Quake 3D. The former uses a percent of my computers power, and the latter uses much of it.
You can be mediocre at whatever you do only using a percent of your potential or you can be brilliant at what you do using much of your potential. If you are teaching people to settle for mediocrity you are teaching people to be mediocre. I must then say I caution those people who are listening to you. I think the truth is that you have low self-esteem yourself and do not believe in your potential, so you want everybody else to be like you.
It is only people who work really hard and passioniately with single minded focus that succeed in life. Those who cannot do this remain mediocre.
Yoga was not designed for people to become mediocre. It was designed for people who wanted to become masters of their own life.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34552]I think the truth is that you have low self-esteem yourself and do not believe in your potential, so you want everybody else to be like you.
It is only people who really work really hard and passioniately with single minded focus that succeed in life. Those who cannot do this remain mediocre.[/QUOTE]
Uncanny how I said this sounds like the ‘Tony Robbins’ approach. Tony Robbins tells people not to settle for ‘mediocre’. All I can do is disagree with this view, and advise people to be happy with their lives and count your blessings.
It is more ancient than ‘Tony Robbins’ It is the Hindu approach. This approach worked in ancient times when we produced so many great mathematicians, poets, astronomers, scientists, surgeons, logicians, philosophers, mystics. It is working today as well where we are producing so many doctors, scientists, engineers.
We are obviously doing something right. The secret is nothing more than the fact that whatever we do we strive to master it completely. Today we are pioneers in the fields that were actually started by the West.
In my opinion you lack drive in life.
count your blessings.
And become satisfied and not aim any higher? Would you say this to somebody in the third world living in a slum?
[quote]Electrons? It's common knowledge. We learned about them at school. It's an applied science, we have electricity everywhere. I am not going to reproduce anything I learned about electrons to explain to you why I accept their existence.
I know it is common knowledge, but do you know that we have never ever seen an electron? Nor have have we ever seen an atom. I bet you still believe in the old Rutherfod model of the atom as a mini planetary system with a nucleus at the core being orbited by electrons. Do you know that model does not actually work and and is disproven by quantum mechanics, the first to point this out was the danish physicist Neil Bhor which showed that if the electrons were orbitting the nucleus they would have flown into the nucleus in a fraction of a second and atoms could not exist.[/quote]No, I never heard of Neil Bhor, who is that? :lol:
But yes, I know Nils Bohr and I know the orbital model of the atom. But even if I didn't, that would not make a difference to my position, but only you look even more superior and ultra-educated in comparison.
We have not seen atoms and electrons, they are completely theoretical entites and by definition metaphysical. We infer their existence based on the effects we see. Now why is this any different to Yogic theory?
I already told you: Because we cannot observe the effects of the Yogic theory that people can fly, become invisible or read other peoples minds.
In Yoga we also infer the existence of metaphysical entities based on the effects we see. The entire theory of Yoga(Samkhya) is a metaphysics based on effects we can see and all tenets in Yoga are predicates of that metaphysics.
But there is not a single case of a flying person known to science. How come?
I will talk you through the basic logic that Yoga metaphysics is based on.
What for? You're going on a tangent. What we actually do here, with all your advanced quantum mechanics and now the Yogic metaphysics, is discussing wether the Siddhis of the Yoga Sutras of The Great Patanjali are proven by modern science or not. And let me tell you a secret: They are not. Not at all. You can type your very arse off and it remains: Clearly a fact.
In case of the question of the existence of electrons and Bohr's atomic model, the subject even only is why I am supposed to simply have faith in Patanjali. Or why not.
But talk me through your basic Yoga metaphysic logic:
It is based on the satyakarya vada(the effect is pre-existent in the cause in a potential state) The logic is that effect is not a random transformation, but is actually a transformation of its material cause. So for example the tree is a transformation of the material cause of the seed. We can see that all effects have material causes and all material causes have effects and this can ultimately be reduced to an ultimate material cause in which all that exists is potential. Therefore from this we conclude the existence of the Yogic metaphysical entity known as Prakriti the ultimate substratum of reality where all that exists in the universe exists in superpositioned in a potential state.
Fascinating.
And now?
Now what else do we know about transformations from cause to effect? We know that the effect evolves from the cause gradually from a very minute and subtle form to very large and gross. We know from quantum mechanics that matter first begins in the non-local state where it is potential and superpositioned as pure information, then it gradually evolves from very minute and subtle quanta to very large and gross planets.
I see.
And then?
Now you are so adamant that mind comes after the brain but this completely contradicts what we know about the principles of transformation of cause and effect.
I am so adamant that the mind comes with the brain. No brain, no mind. So the mind does depend on a brain. To make it clear: That's what it appears like. Maybe it is different, but that'd need some explanation.
Another funny question: If the mind wouldn't depend on a brain, why are there brains? What for?
You said yourself earlier on that mind was just pure information and meaning. Then why would something as subtle, minute and potential as pure information and meaning come after something as solid and tangible as the brain?
Mind and brain come together, as the brain evolves, so does the mind, as the brain decays, so does the mind. It is also known, that the quality of the mind depends on the quality of the brain. An example is Kim Peek. Oh. I just read that he died last year. Evil Wikipedia says:
A 2008 study concluded that Peek probably had FG syndrome, a rare genetic syndrome linked to the X chromosome which causes physical anomalies such as hypotonia (low muscle tone) and macrocephaly (abnormally large head).[5] It was discovered that Peek had no corpus callosum, the part of the brain that links the two hemispheres.
Also is the brain of a human, who has the most sophisticated mind observable, a lot more sophisticated than the brain of any other being.
Brain and mind and mind and brain: It is a unity. Your beloved continuum. If you'd ask why something as subtle as the mind would depend on something so gross as a brain: I don't know, but I'd guess it's a good theory that the mind needs a vessel. The mind might exist in some form chronologically before the brain does, it might be an unformed mind then, a non-individual mind, like that fundamental consciousness. The brain could be some sort of "resonance chamber". But I don't know.
In fact if we look at the continuum pure information exists at the level of the quantum and therefore either mind is identical with the level of the quantum or it precedes it. So mind has to precede the brain.
So there is a mind somewhere floating in... whatever? And then it creates a brain and then moves into a brain like those crabs move into sea shells? Why does the mind do that? Why won't it just float around?
We now know for a fact and this has been empirically demonstrated that without the observer there is no physical reality. The phenomeon known as decoherence in QM is when the wavefunction is appears to collapse on observation. In other words QM is very adamant the mind is already existing even before there is a physical universe.
I'm not so sure what you're talking about, probably the Copenhagen interpretation of the theory of quantum mechanics. "A fact" according to you. Hm..
And this is also what Yoga says that the superpositioned state of ultimate matter(prakriti) appeared to collapse only when consciousness(purusha) simply observed it. It then started to form transform(cause to effect) and the first thing that came into existence was not any physical matter, but mind. Physical matter is right at the end of the scale.
There is nothing wrong with the logic. It is in fact very watertight and quantum mechanics back it up to the tee. Now why would you not accept this which is also based on infering from observable effects, and yet would readily accept atoms, electrons etc exist?
I don't really know what you are talking about, you know, it's all so overwhelming... However, since we are actually talking about the Siddhis, like teleportation, flight, mind-reading, becoming invisible: That is not backed up by anything, not by observation and not by quantum mechanics. I actually am quite uncertain what this whole outburst about Yogic metaphysics is supposed to be about. It started with me not accepting The Great Patanjali as an authority to make me accept people can become invisible and travel through time. Are you trying to convince me that stuff in Yoga makes sense? I do not doubt that. A lot of stuff makes sense. Maybe people can fly. But - do I repeat myself like "often"..? - I never saw one.
[quote]However, I have already given you my theory of what the mind is: A function of the brain. The brain creates a mind with it's constellation of matter, just like a magnet creates a magnetic field with it's consteallation of matter. You can slice and dice a magnet to oblivion too and won't find, I don't know, a piece of magnetism or however you imagine a mind should "look like". Still, magnetism is bound to a magnet. And a mind to a brain. If you put a person into a magnetic resonance tomograph and have them think about different things, the mrt will show activity in different areas of the brain. This leads to the conclusion, that the mind is depending on the brain. If you remove parts of the brain, the person will lose aspects of their mind, like abilities or memories. That as well leads to the conclusion that the mind is depending on the brain.
What leads to the conclusion that the mind is not depending on the brain and not directly connected to the brain and therefore able to manipulate the brain, which makes it unlikely it can manipulate objects that it is not connected to?
This is not really your theory it is the classical theory of mind and is known as the epiphenomenalism theory of mind.[/quote]Yeah, I stole it from there and now pretend I came up with it myself. To look like mighty and kewl. Obviously didn't work out, damn.
Although many people believe in it, they don't know that in contempoary philosophy of mind it is considered impossible.
Too bad for us many people then, however, I am not familiar with that epiphenomenalism theory of mind, so I don't really have an opinion here.
So you are saying the mind is a function inside the brain.
I'm clearly saying it is a function of the brain. Where is brain, there is mind, where is mind, there is brain. Mind without brain has not been observed. Maybe it exists, though. And please spare me the cases of brain without mind, the brain is damaged then.
In that case how can it see the brain and manipulate the brain.
Why would it not be able to?
You do not realise how fatal this objection is.
Not at all.
Hilary Putnam put forward this argument a long time ago known as the brain in a jar problem. If you were really a brain in a jar how would you ever know you were a brain in a jar? In modern times this philosophy is shown in the Matrix movie where everybody is living out a reality in a matrix created by computers but they do not know the reality outside of it.
If something is contained within something else then you cannot see and act with the container. In a television set all the characters on the screen are functions within the television screen. They cannot see the television screen themselves.
Then pray/tell how is it at all possible that we could be functions of the brain and yet we can see our own brain.
I don't know about you, but I can't see my own brain. I can only see other brains or I can see images taken of my brain. But looking at my brain is not possible. Just like I obviously cannot see my eyes. How my mind manipulates my brain: I don't know. But again: Me not having an explanation does not mean there is none. Though, according to your interpreation of quantum mechanics, stuff really does not exist until it is discovered. So the doubtless truth of your interpretation of the theory of quantum mechanics did not even exist until it was discovered. By you. Weird, isn't it? However, maybe it will one day come into existence how the mind manipulates the brain and until then... I don't know. :lol:
The magnet example is a bad example, because we can indeed measure the magnetic field and can divide it up and analyse the magnet. However, we cannot measure mind or weigh it on the scales or examine somebodies thoughts. It is your burden of proof to prove the mind is in the body. Like I said we have examined every nook and corner and we not found anybodies mind.
I do that with some copypastes:
However, I have already given you my theory of what the mind is: A function of the brain. The brain creates a mind with it's constellation of matter, just like a magnet creates a magnetic field with it's consteallation of matter. You can slice and dice a magnet to oblivion too and won't find, I don't know, a piece of magnetism or however you imagine a mind should "look like". Still, magnetism is bound to a magnet. And a mind to a brain. If you put a person into a magnetic resonance tomograph and have them think about different things, the mrt will show activity in different areas of the brain. This leads to the conclusion, that the mind is depending on the brain. If you remove parts of the brain, the person will lose aspects of their mind, like abilities or memories. That as well leads to the conclusion that the mind is depending on the brain.
What leads to the conclusion that the mind is not depending on the brain and not directly connected to the brain and therefore able to manipulate the brain, which makes it unlikely it can manipulate objects that it is not connected to?
and
Mind and brain come together, as the brain evolves, so does the mind, as the brain decays, so does the mind. It is also known, that the quality of the mind depends on the quality of the brain. An example is Kim Peek. Oh. I just read that he last year. Evil Wikipedia says:
[quote]A 2008 study concluded that Peek probably had FG syndrome, a rare genetic syndrome linked to the X chromosome which causes physical anomalies such as hypotonia (low muscle tone) and macrocephaly (abnormally large head).[5] It was discovered that Peek had no corpus callosum, the part of the brain that links the two hemispheres.
Also is the brain of a human, who has the most sophisticated mind observable, a lot more sophisticated than the brain of any other being. How do you explain these relations?
Brain and mind and mind and brain: It is a unity. If you'd ask why something as oh beautiful as the mind would depend on something so shabby as a brain: I don't know, but I'd guess it's a good theory that like any information and meaning the mind as well needs a vessel. The mind might exist in some form chronologically before the brain does, it might be an unformed mind, a non-individual mind. The brain could be some sort of "sound box". But I don't know.[/quote]
Your argument is a religious and faith driven as the argument of Christians who insist there is a heaven and hell up there in space. However, we have looked very far into space and we not found in heaven and hell up there.
Rethorics.
The MRI scan argument you gave does not prove anything other than the fact that whatever you think has a brain correlate.
And why would that be so if the mind wasn't connected to the brain?
However, it does not just have a brain correlate it has a correlate to your entire body. If you are afraid not only will it show up in your brain it will also show up in your heart beat, in chemicals released in the body, in muscle contractions.
Sure. Signals enter the brain via our senses, the brain forwards the information to the mind, the mind gets into some state, manipulates the brain and the brain the brain puts out signals that will manipulate the heart beat and the release of chemicals and contractions of muscles.
Very simple. What's your theory? How come the heart rate will go up? It just happens non-locally? Because the heart wants to? Feels like?
Moroever, we know it is not a one-way interaction. Just as manipulating the body(brain is part of the body) will affect the mind; the mind can manipulate the body and affect the body. We have already proven that mind does indeed manipulate body.
Yes, we did. And indeed does information the mind becomes aware of have an effect on the mind. And to you, that is proof for mind and body being split phenomena? That have sorta like nothing to do with each other? Makes no sense where I come from.
So what we have proof for here is the existence of mind and body being separate things that can interact with one another, but are not identical with one another. In which case mind would exist if the body did not exist because the mind is separate from it. It would continue to exist.
No, we do not have that proof, you just listed all sorts of examples that show us that mind and brain are a unity. Just that you then conclude they have nothing to do with each other, therefore are split, while earlier in our discussion you were perfectly convinced of a contiuum. Quite absurd, overall.
You do not realise how religious your own beliefs are.
If that is the case, then we have one more thing in common.
About the stuff you linked me about quantum mechanics: I looked into it. Your summary:
In summary: Non-locality is a fact.
I didn't doubt that. A - by now - very common case of you not knowing what is going on in our discussion. Please read my previous post beginning at "No, I think that those methods of entanglement are required for non-locality. To observe non-locality, you have to entangle quantums first. They are not entangled by default. That is a relevant argument against your proposal that non-local manipulation of everything in the universe is possible with the mind." and ending with "So quantum teleportation does not mean any piece of matter or energy is teleported.". The article at
is the only interesting one, as it says that some people
"have proposed a scheme for teleporting a beam of light, including its fluctuations over time. They hope to show that it?s possible that a physical object (e.g. a quantum field) in one location could emerge at another location in the same quantum state, so that any conceivable measurement would yield the same result in both locations. In contrast, previous teleportation schemes do not seriously consider reproducing certain elements, such as temporal fluctuations."
and
"They discover that squeezing light - a technique used to enhance precision measurements - could allow for teleportation of a quantum photon stream if the squeezing is across a broad bandwidth."
and
"One of the biggest challenges for realizing the proposal, as Carmichael explained, is the requirement for high quality, flexible sources of squeeze light."
and
"If physicists can overcome these challenges, the ability to transport light beams could lead to many interesting applications."
Please note one more time, that I am not saying it's impossible. It's just not possible. That's why it says "proposed a scheme" and "they hope" and "could emerge" and "would yield" and "could allow" and "challenges for realizing" and "if" and "could". So from my inferior perspective it seems like all I said about quantum mechanics not proving what The Great Patanjali writes about Siddhis remains the case.
However, your style of discussion has not changed (it actually got worse, but I don't blame you for that, after all you see enemies everywhere and everything is a battle), so: This was my final reply. If you will be around, I might have something to say to you next year. If you will have calmed down a little bit and be a little more open. A little more humble, a little less powerful. For now: Thanks for the stimulation.
You claim the mind and brain came together. Prove it.
We know brain exists in space and time because we can see it, examine it, measure it. We have never seen, examined or measured mind. So if it not an object in this world why would it cease to exist if the brain ceased to exist as it exists in another world? In fact as all objects that exist in the world are in space and time. Then the mind has to be spaceless and timeless.
If it exists in then world then show me where it is.
Secondly, the brain is as much an object of our awareness as are chairs and tables. You can see your own brain in fact, open up your head and look in the mirror. We can be even more gruesome open up the top of your head and reach in and dangle something in there
The logic is clear if you really are just a function inside the brain and so is everybody else then you would not be able to see yours or anybodies brain. In fact it would be impossible for you to interact with anybody at all because you would be inside your own brain and another would be inside their brain. You could never meet. Just like characters on one tv set cannot meet characters on another tv set.
Thirdly, it is clear your body and brain has changed many times. However, still your consciousness has endured between those changes. The objects of your awareness are changing all the time. Your body is changing, the things in the world are changing, your mental content is changing. However the “I am-ness” is never changing. You still exist despite the incessant change your body and brain undergo every moment. Therefore your “I-am-ness” is never changing.
It is very clear that your belief that the brain is the mind is completely illogical.
Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra “hidden variables”. Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism – giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).
I am now going to ask you a personal question: Why are you resisting idealism so much?
If this entire world is made of consciousness and your mind really does exist separate from your body, then isn’t this great news? It means you will survive the death of your physical body. The moment your time comes you can be confident that you will just move onto another plane.
The logic supports idealism. QM supports idealism. Yoga supports idealism and the scientific evidence supports idealism. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of it, I am afraid. Your rejection of this evidence is as religious as believers in flat-earth theory who reject all the evidence and continue to believe.
I have already proven it that QM has shown levitation is possible, so far we can levitate micro objects, eventually we will be able to levitate larger objects, even people(just as the article itself says) I have also shown you it is achieived in the same way Patanjali describes it through the generation of a quantum upwards force which pushes the object up.
Why do you refuse to use your intellect so much? Shouldn’t it click in your mind that Patanjali is describing levitation and describing exactly the same mechanism on how it is done?
On teleportation:
didn’t doubt that. A - by now - very common case of you not knowing what is going on in our discussion. Please read my previous post beginning at "No, I think that those methods of entanglement are required for non-locality. To observe non-locality, you have to entangle quantums first. They are not entangled by default.
Everything is already entangled. I don’t think you yet understand even after the extensive tutorials, videos and links I provided you. Locality and realism is not real.
Do you understand? Actual experiments have been done to test the Bell inequalities which tests the assumption of separability. In all experiments the Bell inequalities
has been violated which contradicts the assumption of separability. This means, as I said to you, the entire universe is connected like a cosmic internet. There are no
such thing as isolated entities, but everything is just a web of relations and mutually dependent on one another.
The method of creating entanglement is just one particular method developed to exploit non locality. We know though that everything is already entangled at the quantum level.
So once it again it follows if the mind can manipulate matter at any point in time and space(we both accept the body) then it can manipulate matter at any other point in time and space as well through the quantum channels.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34557]It is more ancient than ‘Tony Robbins’ It is the Hindu approach. This approach worked in ancient times when we produced so many great mathematicians, poets, astronomers, scientists, surgeons, logicians, philosophers, mystics. It is working today as well where we are producing so many doctors, scientists, engineers.
We are obviously doing something right. The secret is nothing more than the fact that whatever we do we strive to master it completely. Today we are pioneers in the fields that were actually started by the West.
In my opinion you lack drive in life.
And become satisfied and not aim any higher? Would you say this to somebody in the third world living in a slum?[/QUOTE]
Possibly not. That would be patronizing, considering I live in very fortunate circumstances. Would you go into a hospital and tell a dying cancer victim, that they need to strive for more?.. I have a better question. When will you be satisfied?
SD, in your opinion, I lack drive in life, but you’d be incorrect. You’ve mistaken me being grateful, and content, with lacking drive. Psychologist Alfred Adler would say a personal goal is grown out of an insecurity, inadequacy, or feelings of inferiority. If you think about it, a personal goal is a strong yearning to change your life. Why would a happy, grateful, adequate person need to change anything. If I can understand this, anyone can.
If you think about it, a personal goal is a strong yearning to change your life. Why would a happy, grateful, adequate person need to change anything. If I can understand this, anyone can.
Because they are not really happy, grateful and adequate. If somebody who has lived a kings life, all of a sudden is made to live a paupers life, then they will feel how much they have been degraded. Similarly, we are spiritual beings with infinite potential, and we are living a degraded human life.
Why did Buddha say all was Dukha? Do you know what the word Dukha means? It does not mean suffering in fact, it means dissonance. That is that we are fundamentally in a state of dissonance with the world and this is why we desire. The desire is nothing more than a symptom that we are asleep, and we need to wake up.
If people were really happy, content, secure and adequate then why is there so much suffering, war, violence and conflict in the world? Your words do not sound like somebody who is content, happy and adequate. To say one has attained happiness and contentment is like saying one has attained the goal of life. Then why continue to live?
You have not attained happiness because your happiness depends upon the behaviour of others. You got frustrated with my comments enough to want to leave the forum and abandon Yoga. This is not the mark of somebody who is happy and content.
One of the worst things we can do in life is become self-satisfied and then complacent.
I am now going to ask you a personal question:
and I shall grant you an answer. You already know it, though:
Why are you resisting idealism so much?
I am not. You think your arguments and explanations are sound, just like anyone who is convinced of their viewpoint does, christians, moslems, buddhists, atheists, scientists, etc. But: Your arguments are not sound in my opinion. I told you why. You start discussing these reasons, but that is a tangent already, one can discuss anything until the end of time, it’s an option language provides. It would as well not be a problem for me to refuse accepting the most sound explanations if I did not want to, and I could discuss around them to my deathbed.
But believe it or not, your arguments are not good enough for me. I might have continued the debate for the fun of it (I like debate for itself) if English was my own language. But to write a text in English takes up to three-four times the time I need in my own, + the shitload of technical terminlogy + time to update my knowledge on physics to speak from another position but “wasn’t it so…?” and “if I remember correctly”. That’s no fun at all, it’s work. Stimulating, but these days, I prefer to invest more time in my study of Asana-practice.
And I had this all before, you know, I had discussions like this before, with people quite exactly like you. Who figured out the nature of existence. :lol: Also some with pretty much your viewpoint, “Advaita”, does that come close to your position?
Don’t get me wrong, I think you’re quite allright, I’m not saying you’re an idiot I want to have nothing to do with. You’re only a little too aggressive, trying too hard (you heard that before) and you’re pulling the “I know stuff”-card way too often. When I was your age doing your thing, I always adapted the level of my explanations to the level of my oponent’s capabilities, so that they could not say “yeah, I don’t know all these things”. Or I explained anything that was necessary to them in a language they’d understand. Very satisfying that was, try it out instead of quoting scriptures and papers back and forth or refering to them and even continously pointing out you know more and others know less. This isn’t a university, and the best we could get out of Star Wars episode one: There is always a bigger monster.
Interesting:
If this entire world is made of consciousness and your mind really does exist separate from your body, then isn’t this great news? It means you will survive the death of your physical body. The moment your time comes you can be confident that you will just move onto another plane.
Sure. And as I said do I not resist the idea. But I don’t trade logic and the integrity of my consciousness for candy. Isn’t it making you suspicious that the thing you’re so convinced of is so great? As I said: Passion clouds judgement. Many applied philosophies spend a great deal of time to minimize passions to gain clarity. Daoism for example, my favorite, but Yoga too.
May I ask (repeat) a personal question myself? What do you want on this forum? Evangelize? Enlighten people? Are you a Guru? Great teacher at least…? You write a dozen posts per day, state your intention! Why that effort? What do you get out of this? You said there is always something one wants to get out of their actions. The great feeling to win debates? The impression that your position is valid, because noone (in your opinion) can weaken or confute it? Speak from your heart in response, in this case, logic is irrelevant.
Your argument that my arguments are all religious beliefs is getting tired now, and in fact it seems you are projecting, because while I am giving several logical arguments, citing actual empirical evidence, all you are doing is reiterating religiously your position that we can’t know(agnosticism) without engaging the arguments. You feel your position does not need any proof because it is self-evident, just as a Chrisitan feels their position does not need proof, because it is self-evident.
It is simple you cannot respond to my arguments because you have no counter-argument. My objections are fatal to your position that the brain is the mind and you do not know how to answer them. Therefore as you cannot respond to my arguments, it is clear you have lost this debate.
I have proven the following in this debate:
Quantun Mechanics does indeed disprove locality and realism
Quantum Mechanics does indeed prove teleportation and levitation is possible
The brain is not the mind and the mind exists separately from the brain
The mind can manipulate matter anywhere in the world
The substance that makes up the world is consciousness
Sure. And as I said do I not resist the idea. But I don’t trade logic and the integrity of my consciousness for candy. Isn’t it making you suspicious that the thing you’re so convinced of is so great? As I said: Passion clouds judgement. Many applied philosophies spend a great deal of time to minimize passions to gain clarity. Daoism for example, my favorite, but Yoga too.
No, you are refusing to trade in your beleif. Like I said formal logic does not support you. Many of the arguments I have made have been made by contempoary and modern philosophers trained in formal logic such as David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, Hilary Putnam, Ken Wilber, Betrand Russel. They do not at all support your position that the brain is the mind and give formal logical arguments to prove it. Your position that the brain is the mind is an uncritical and untested belief.
You are not agnostic either because you actually do claim to know many things. So you have no consistent position on the world. This is as good as confusion.
In conclusion you already have undermined your integrity and logic.
May I ask (repeat) a personal question myself? What do you want on this forum? Evangelize? Enlighten people? Are you a Guru? Great teacher at least…? You write a dozen posts per day, state your intention! Why that effort? What do you get out of this? You said there is always something one wants to get out of their actions. The great feeling to win debates? The impression that your position is valid, because noone (in your opinion) can weaken or confute it? Speak from your heart in response, in this case, logic is irrelevant.
The same reason that you come here. To discuss. Why else would you go to a discussion forum?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34581]BIf somebody who has lived a kings life, all of a sudden is made to live a paupers life, then they will feel how much they have been degraded. Similarly, we are spiritual beings with infinite potential, and we are living a degraded human life.
has attained happiness and contentment is like saying one has attained the goal of life. Then why continue to live? [/QUOTE]
WTF?? Isn’t it the unhappiest people who don’t want to live? Don’t the unhappiest people in the world commit suicide? Also, a king would probably feel degraded to become a pauper, because he is a spoilt, selfish prick. If that person was a kind wise person, they would care, and they’d make the most of it. The Buddha was a king, and voluntarily left his meaningless rich ass world. It’s funny how you can judge my levels of happiness, simply by reading some colourful comments I’ve left on a forum. You don’t know me. I’ve been very very unhappy in my life, but I’m very happy now, however you many think what you like. At the end if the day, I don’t care what anyone thinks.
I’ve been very very unhappy in my life, but I’m very happy now, however you many think what you like. At the end if the day, I don’t care what anyone thinks.
I think your problem is that you feel you have reached the goal, when it is clear you have not. You quickly get frustrated and quick to anger. You are quick to assume the worst about other people. You are quick to mention your sexual exploits when you feel you are being undermined which are signs of insecurity. You seem to strongly dislike confident and succesful people or people who teach motivation and confidence like Tony Robbins. I looked at his videos on youtube last night after you mentioned him, and not only was I highly impressed and in admiration of him, I noticed almost everybody else was well. This is all giving the picture of somebody who is very troubled and bitter.
All that said, I am not underming the progress you have made. I have been where you have been as well unhappy and suicidal. However, to say I have reached happiness now would be a lie, because I have not. I have become happier, but not truly happy. Likewise, if you were honest with yourself, you too would conclude the same. You have become happier but not truly happy.
You first need to understand what happiness is. It is not something out there in the world of objects. If this was true eveybody could seek that object and become happy. There is no such object. Happiness is an ideal that exists within the roots of our being. It is like all other ideals love, perfection, power, unity. It is something that our deepest self tells us and it is something our deepest self invites us to explore. You are never going to find it out there in the world of objects, you wil only ever find it by searching for your self in the deepest layers of your being.
Buddha did not renounce his kingly life to become a pauper. He renounced his kingly like to become a master, who is higher than even a king. Why would you want to become worse than you already are? Would you want to return to the unhappiness of your past? No, because the only way is up. Nobody wants to become worse than they are, they want to become better than they are.
To accept yourself as you are is basically accepting stagnation. You stop living when you stop striving. However, no matter how much you stop striving, you cannot help the fact that you will always be impelled to move by nature herself. You either can allow yourself to move unconsciously and be taken anywhere she takes you, or you can move consciously and take control over your own life and growth.
