Pantheism

[beyelzu]

anyone a pantheist here?

if so why? just curious, i was listening to dawkins god delusion and it mentioned pantheism. dawkins called it sexed up atheism. and to be fair i understand that pantheism is more or less the universe is god. but if that is true, what exactly does that mean? and if it is not true what do pantheists actually believe?

[redbus81]

i don't really identify myself as pantheist now, but back when i was experimenting with various psychedelic drugs (:X) i had kind of a vague pantheistic notion of the world. it's kind of matrix-y in practice...a very mystic but loose "god is everywhere" feeling. i would sit on a rock and look at the trees and feel the breeze and get the overwhelming feeling that everything i was seeing and feeling fell into a loose pattern that i associated with "divinity". and i think most pantheists would probably prefer the term divinity or divine over "god", simply because of the negative stereotypes associated with the bearded guy in the sky. and i don't know many (any?) pantheists who believe that god is any kind of creator, but more of a facilitator/conductor for consciousness and awareness. like i said, i think it's that kind of a vague mystic quality to the universe that falls under the umbrella of pantheism.

anyone who is a pantheist is more than welcome to dispute me...i mostly consider myself atheist now, but dabbled with the idea of pantheism in my college days.

[premjan]

I used to be a pantheist - it is more trippy, but atheism seems a little sounder if combative.

[Karalora]

Pantheism is tricky. I lean toward it myself on some days, and I still don't understand it. With me at least, it's not so much a cosmological belief as a feeling of "Nature is so awesome, why would anyone ever need anything else for inspiration?" I guess that's what Dawkins means by "sexed-up atheism," though I think the distinction between the two is greater than his condescending turn of phrase implies.

[bekaybe]

It would seem I am something of a Pantheist... or maybe Panentheist, actually, in that I don't see God as simply the universe itself, but something greater than it also (and, I should say, when I say "universe" I'm speaking more about an infinite number of them). Although, I must confess, these are terms (Pantheist/Panentheist) with which I am not particularly familiar. I've never really been particularly interested in finding the right "label" for my beliefs and more interested in deciding what my beliefs are as they evolve as I age.

Maybe Dawkins' observation is why I find that so many "religious" folks think I'm an atheist.

Edit: Oh... to answer your question "why?"

I suppose it's fair to say I believe the way I do because it affords me the ability to accept reality as it "really" is (as discerned by science) while at the same time, not closing the door on God. That is to say, I think the decision to believe "God is" and "God is not" are both acts of faith, and not reason. So, until the nature of reality establishes that God is not, I'm starting from the position God is. I suppose that's Pascal's Wager in a way... But, it's not quite... as I do actually have "faith" in my belief (I believe it despite myself), and am not choosing to believe in God so I don't "lose the wager" if I'm wrong. In short, if I am to accept a God, I must (in my view) also accept that which is actually around me and not some collection of stories bound in some ancient book. I would believe (and do believe) that if God created the universe it would be exactly what this universe is, and not what traditional religions would make it out to be. If God created a universe, it should be whatever this universe is.

On another level, I think by exploring a "Creation" we can come to know something of its creator. Everything? Well, not so sure about that... perhaps given enough time? I dont' know. Anyway... I believe that God is expressed, if at all, by the universe... and so, by examining anything in it, I can come to know something about God. I'm not sure I'm doing a good job of explaining myself here... I'm trying to say, if God exists, I'm not willing to change reality to something its not (and the Bible would require me to do so, if I were to believe it hook, line and sinker).

At the end of the day, however, as I said above.... it's nothing more than "faith" But, then, I can't see how we are left with any other option but for faith. Faith that God is... Faith that God is Not... because, so far as I can tell, neither the believer nor the non-believer has any proof.

[No Robots]

The term "pantheism" was coined by John Toland in 1705 in order to describe the thought of Spinoza. Whether or not Spinoza's thought is in fact pantheist is another topic.

[abaddon]

Put a hundred pantheists in a room and ask your question and you'll get a hundred different answers.

I self-identified as a pantheist for a while. I'm still pantheistic, but having a label implies I have a creed, and I'm reluctant to adopt one. Besides, there's something redundant, vague and even contradictory in straight-up pantheism.

The etymology means "all is god" but "god" is not a being, not transcendent... that word signifies nothing other than nature or the universe. God is purely immanent, as the self-creating universe itself. So pantheism comes to mean, all is nature. Or, all is all. And that's what I mean by redundant; it's a trivial and thus worthless observation to say something so obvious as "all is all."

For many pantheists the intent is to say, "There's nothing more than nature but we LOOOOVE nature, a lot!" And that sounds like atheism "sexed up" with some emotion, hence Dawkins' notion of pantheism as "poetic atheism" (which makes atheism sound pretty drab to me... which rather fits my opinion of it actually ;) ). But being only very emotional about nature is too vague; there's no descriptive power to this "philosophy."

For some, the intent is to say more still: nature is sacred, something worthy of reverence, we're part of nature, expressions of nature, inseparable, to harm nature is to harm oneself. That takes it a step (or a universe) away from positivist atheism (which is good to put some distance from that). But there's a contradiction here. How do you revere nature if you're a part of it? Isn't reverence for something Other than yourself? And not everything in nature (like consumerist America for example) is very pretty or worshipful.

If pantheism reduces to strong emotions about a godless nature that can be described precisely by science, then it's not empirical enough for me. I want to know nature "as it is" too, but I don't see how science or any other conceptual construct can really do more than provide an orientation, using abstractions. And abstractions about reality are not "reality as it is." But since I do see all of nature as imbued with intrinsic value and no species in it of greater value than other species, in that degree I lean toward the "pantheistic."

[aupmanyav]

Most monist hindus believe in a God. I am pan (without being theist) or panen (again, without being theist). The terms philosophers use are too technical for me, and do I care? My favourite words are 'Brahman', 'quantum field', and 'universal substrate' which causes illusions (not due to any fault of its own, it is what it is) due to our scale and physiology; self, substance, time, and space. That is about belief (subject to correction with discoveries of science). As for the way I conduct myself in life, I would follow 'dharma' (duty or righteous action), according to my culture and times.

[SaguaroJen]

My mom (a pantheist) and I were having a chat about this not long ago. We agree on darn near everything philosophically except that she uses the word "god" in describing the interwoven, interdependent nature of everything throughout time and space. The energy of that interdependence is not separate but she thinks it merits a name and so she uses "God."

Not exactly helpful,
Jen
BTW, beyelzu, my UU minister is a metaphysical naturalist :)

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

My understanding of the statement that the universe is God is that the universe is conscious. It can be thought of as an organism of which we are an integral part. This view places us on par with the world around us; we are neither inferior nor superior to it; it neither exists to serve us nor do we exist to serve it. The God label is quite unnecessary, though people tend to use it to express their sense of awe and reverence towards the world of their experience.

My beliefs can more accurately be described as panentheistic rather than pantheistic, so my answer to the question why might not be what you are looking for. Briefly, it provides me with an explanation for our existence that is simultaneously the most meaningful, hopeful and accurate that I have come across thus far.

[ModernHeretic]

Would Taoism be considered pantheistic? If I understand it properly, the Tao seems to be something like a force or principle that transcends and pervades the Universe. I have heard the Tao called the 'Cosmic Spirit', although I am not sure if this is a generally accepted view of things. It strikes me as a naturalistic philosophy, but one which does not necessarily deny the reality of 'supreme being', although of course the supreme being in this instance is not a person.

So, I guess the reason why a person would be a pantheist is if you want a sense of spirituality without having to believe in the absurdity of an anthropomorphic God.

[beyelzu]

My mom (a pantheist) and I were having a chat about this not long ago. We agree on darn near everything philosophically except that she uses the word "god" in describing the interwoven, interdependent nature of everything throughout time and space. The energy of that interdependence is not separate but she thinks it merits a name and so she uses "God."

Not exactly helpful,
Jen
BTW, beyelzu, my UU minister is a metaphysical naturalist :)

any idea why? as to why your mom calls the the nature of everything?


and metaphysical naturalism is the shit, the very hard core, the chozen :)

[abaddon]

Would Taoism be considered pantheistic? If I understand it properly, the Tao seems to be something like a force or principle that transcends and pervades the Universe. I have heard the Tao called the 'Cosmic Spirit', although I am not sure if this is a generally accepted view of things. It strikes me as a naturalistic philosophy, but one which does not necessarily deny the reality of 'supreme being', although of course the supreme being in this instance is not a person.

So, I guess the reason why a person would be a pantheist is if you want a sense of spirituality without having to believe in the absurdity of an anthropomorphic God.

I think Taoism is pantheistic, less because the Way is a "force or principle" (and especially not one that transcends the Universe) but because the Way is wholly immanent. Nature is self-so, autopoietic; that is, it makes itself, grows and expresses itself by its own rules (or "virtue")... nothing is imposed on nature/the universe from without. Careful when reading Taoism. Expressions that get translated as "heaven" and "cosmic" often refer to how nature works, or to your unity with how nature works. They're not talking about ethereal realms but how nature is more than just the sum of parts.

The Dao simply follows its own course as does nature. The only rule of nature is its very own. The Daoist concept of nature is a concept of perfect immanence, of a perfectly closed (like a circle) monistic pattern of efficiency. It is a concept of autopoesis or self-generation or self-production. The course of nature is neither initiated nor dependent on any transcendent "maker" or "creator." Nature is so natural because it creates, makes and continues itself. This is the "greatness" of the Dao.
~ from Daoism Explained, Hans-Georg Moeller, pg.108.

[SaguaroJen]

any idea why? as to why your mom calls the the nature of everything?No, not really, oh, Chozen One, :Cheeky: but we were drinking Amarula Cream so I may have misfiled the finer points of the conversation. I don't think I can do a clearer job of explaining than I did in my last post, sorry. She doesn't consider herself to be a theist but she thinks that the concept of an "eternal, interconnected universe" merits the name "God."

[RareBird]

My mom (a pantheist) and I were having a chat about this not long ago. We agree on darn near everything philosophically except that she uses the word "god" in describing the interwoven, interdependent nature of everything throughout time and space. The energy of that interdependence is not separate but she thinks it merits a name and so she uses "God."

Not exactly helpful,
Jen ...

Perfectly illustrative. I concur with the conclusion. Oh, and btw, Hi Jen. :D

[wordy]

I agree with the "put hundred pantheist in one room and you get hundred answers on what pantheism is". Dawkins is typical of him when he names it sexed up atheism. Why doesn't he say that atheism is a reductionist way of dealing with pantheist feelings?
Atheism as "Mr Spock" version of P.

One member of IIDB suggested that panmonism was a better word for his way of seeing it. Getting the theism bit out of the term. Theism in pantheism makes it too confusing. God or gods are supposed to be "personal" in having an identity or persona sort of. Pantheism is more like panmonism in that way to see no "person" in the Universe. Some pantheist solve it by shorting it to pan or Pan. Which is more like wordplay I guess. A teasing approach?

Maybe to some it is a way to get survival after death? Or a hope for it. Transhumanism could be a modern variety of pantheism. that is why I don't support neither P nor T.

[aupmanyav]

There has to be, Wordy. Just think what happens to atoms/fields of your body, they cannot just disappear. Another thing, what is wrong with plain and simple 'monism' - all one, no God?

[bekaybe]

There has to be, Wordy. Just think what happens to atoms/fields of your body, they cannot just disappear. Another thing, what is wrong with plain and simple 'monism' - all one, no God?

To get where you're going, I think you're having to suggest a soul. That is, if we are simply our bodies, they do not simply disappear on death. They either have the greater part of their energy released in a fire, or they rot and release the energy that way (just to name a couple of things that could happen).

So, the question becomes, is there any support for the notion that we have souls? God - as a person - is not required for an afterlife (Not suggesting you argued that such a being was necessary... just wanted to say it "out loud" as it were...)

It seems to me, introspection would be one vehicle to examine the "do we have a soul" issue.
A discussion of ghosts might be another
Re-incarnation would also support the soul concept...
Philosophy, obviously....

Any other things we could explore in search of such an answer?

[aupmanyav]

I think you're having to suggest a soul. That is, if we are simply our bodies, they do not simply disappear on death. They either have the greater part of their energy released in a fire, or they rot and release the energy that way (just to name a couple of things that could happen).I am doing nothing like that. Yes , the energy/substance of the body does not disappear or is destroyed/annihilated on death. Cremation creates mainly three things, water vapour (our bodies have 93% or whatever of water), carbon-di-oxide (cells have a carbon base), and lime (bones reduce to that). Cremation does not release any energy, it is neither fission, nor fusion. If the body rots, the same thing happens (degeneration/putrification, basically chemical change) at a much slower rate (may take some centuries). You do not need to say anything "out loud" because I am also saying the same thing. I too believe that there is no other afterlife (apart from the chemical one) and there is no reason to believe in an entity like God (that also means no Avataras, no sons of God, and no Messengers). I have completed the investigation of the problem. No ghost, no reincarnation, no karma either. I also believe that understanding world in this way is hindu nirvana or moksha (deliverance from all doubts that trouble one). I would leave it to buddhists to explain their kind of nirvana.

[Rigel]

anyone a pantheist here? if so why?

I consider myself to be a pantheist of sorts. I don't believe in the supernatural but get a feeling of harmonious oneness when observing the universe at all scales, from the inner workings of a cell to a distant nebula. To me nature is fantastic enough, without reverting to a belief in a supernatural being.

[GenesisNemesis]

anyone a pantheist here?

if so why? just curious, i was listening to dawkins god delusion and it mentioned pantheism. dawkins called it sexed up atheism. and to be fair i understand that pantheism is more or less the universe is god. but if that is true, what exactly does that mean? and if it is not true what do pantheists actually believe?

There's good information at pantheism.net. (http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm) However, I would still question it, even if it does give warm comforting feelings. I was a pantheist, then a spiritualistic naturalist, now I'm not sure how to reconcile emotions with my intellectuality.

[aupmanyav]

Went to the site, agree with all but the last, freedom of religion. Does that mean belief in God? Because Article 8 of their belief statment says, 'Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature.' Does that not exclude a belief in God?

[Rigel]

'Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature.' Does that not exclude a belief in God?

Maybe, or maybe it just renders the question (or answer) unimportant. It seems the main point is that the universe is so fantastic, as revealed by science, that it is worthy of awe and reverence. So much so that the impression is almost a "religious" experience. For me the question of whether there is a divine being is meaningless since it can never be proven one way or the other definitively. We do have access to nature and our perception of reality, and are allowed to examine it as far as our tools can take us.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

It seems to me, introspection would be one vehicle to examine the "do we have a soul" issue.
A discussion of ghosts might be another
Re-incarnation would also support the soul concept...
Philosophy, obviously....

Any other things we could explore in search of such an answer?
Perhaps research into the abilities of mediums (http://veritas.arizona.edu/)?

[aupmanyav]

Maybe, or maybe it just renders the question (or answer) unimportant. It seems the main point is that the universe is so fantastic, as revealed by science, that it is worthy of awe and reverence.IMHO, that does not render the question (or the answer) unimportant. A belief in God is followed by christian and muslim evangelism, crusades, jehad, Palestine, Iraq, Thailand, East Timor, India too. The examples would recur.

[wordy]

NG says now I'm not sure how to reconcile emotions with my intellectuality.

that is how I feel about it too. I have emotions but it is confusing to name it Pantheism or Spiritual Atheist or Religious Atheist and to say Emotional Atheist gives the wrong connotation too.

[Rigel]

IMHO, that does not render the question (or the answer) unimportant. A belief in God is followed by christian and muslim evangelism, crusades, jehad, Palestine, Iraq, Thailand, East Timor, India too. The examples would recur.

Ah, let me rephrase that then. It seems that the question is unimportant to pantheists. I agree the belief in the existence, or nonexistence, of a personal god has certainly caused much bloodshed. I have yet to see a pantheistic jihad though.

Someone earlier asked if Taoists are pantheists. I believe that the philosophical Taoists are, but the ones that have made Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu into gods probably are not.

The Tao Te Ching was the catalyst that eventually let me escape christianity.

[Rigel]

NG says

that is how I feel about it too. I have emotions but it is confusing to name it Pantheism or Spiritual Atheist or Religious Atheist and to say Emotional Atheist gives the wrong connotation too.

I tend to look at it from the point of view that emotions are part of brain chemistry and physiology, which are part of the tapestry of reality. Our primitive reptilian brain is still there, buried under our cerebral cortex. To me the emotions that the beauty of nature cause in me are a part of why I revere nature.

Labels are difficult to apply in many cases. I have given up on finding one for myself. If someone asks me how I view myself, I generally say agnostic. If they want a deeper discussion, I will go into scientific pantheism or philosophical taoism, quantum mechanics etc. Most people don't go any further once they hear the agnostic reply however.

[wordy]

Thanks, easy for you who are agnostic but I aint agnostic in that way. :)

To me gods are so unlikely that it would be wrong to "be open" to a Bible god like Jesus. It is so remotely unlikely he was a god to me that I would rather live with being wrong about him than to entertain the possibility he is a god.

You revere? That is also a contamined word to me. But I do feel reverence toward nature too, I'm very upset over that we don't stop those that kill the big apes. We have no right to end their existence on earth.

I even have feelings of sacred places or such. But all such religious or spiritual words will be confusing from my perspective but I do feel them too.

So what to say then. Emotional Atheist goes wrong too. I'm not "emotional" in a hysterical way like teleevangelist who scream "Jesus" for hours.

[abaddon]

I understand what wordy's saying here. Labels are very difficult to apply. None really fit.

If you say you're a pantheist, some people are going to say, "Huh? What's that?" You'll always have explaining to do, if they're actually interested, because the variety of pantheisms are wide-ranging. Some don't mind calling nature "God"; but others find the connotation of "Big Guy in the Sky" impossible to overcome.

"Spiritual atheist" can sound like a self-contradiction. I often see the "spiritual = believer in spirits" equation here in IIDB. Too many people incorrectly think "religious" necessarily means theistic and supernaturalist; and "spiritual" sounds like a soft, fuzzy version of "religious." (IMV, it's just a more individualized version... with the institutional and dogmatic aspects of religion stripped out; and maybe, or maybe not, the supernatural elements as well).

If you say "emotional atheist" they'll wonder if you're going to cry or something. It's not clear that the adjective qualifies the noun. Are you an atheist who just happens also to be emotional for the moment? You could say "I'm an emotional <anything>"... but what does it mean? You're happy, you're sad, you're angry?

Besides, who's not emotional? Who doesn't feel some awe at nature? If you say to an atheist that you like "pantheist" better than "atheist" because sunsets make you think nature is awesome, he'll feel a little offended. "But I find nature awesome too! I just don't want to get mystical about it!"

I don't see how pantheism can reduce to emotions. If you're distinct somehow from other atheists, then you'll have to get "spiritual" or "mystical" about it. I have no problem with either of those words, I see neither as "fuzzy-minded" -- rather the opposite actually. They both imply access to very powerful experiences, which is as visceral and immediate as anything gets and therefore much less "fuzzy-minded" (less abstracted) than the "logician's" world where a person demands verbal precision for everything and holds emotion and subjectivity in disdain. But such "logicians" will always see "mystical" and "spiritual" as a kind of cop-out; they want you to point at something so they can see what's "mystical" and "spiritual" as if your experiences must have the same solidity as rocks to have validity. He's dismissing the subjective aspect of reality, which is a stupid thing to do; we're all seeing the same things but value them differently, and that's not negligible or something that needs obliterating in order to get at "truth."

The awe and reverence of pantheism may not fall so neatly into the category "emotion." Emotions are often temporary bodymind states, pleasant or unpleasant. They come and go. The reverence in pantheism is more a steady-state attitude to self, others and the world. The experiences of overwhelming awe, the sense of divinity immanent within sensible nature, can be life-changing experiences. That makes them something more than just "emotional." They initiate a new life-attitude, and so necessitate a new life-way. That is, they require that your behavior reflect your attitude, so that your ethics are shaped by your experience of self-and-other as imbued with intrinsic value.

[aupmanyav]

Excellent Abaddon. How about 'nature-awed monist'. I, too, am that.

NG says .. that is how I feel about it too. I have emotions but it is confusing to name it Pantheism or Spiritual Atheist or Religious Atheist and to say Emotional Atheist gives the wrong connotation too.Gently, wisely, my friends. Do not torture yourself (about labels).

[wordy]

aupmanyav to Abaddon. How about 'nature-awed monist'.

Which implies not all monists would awe nature? I'm a kind of 'nature-awed monist' too. But as you both know me seldom agree with neither Aupmanyav nor Abaddon on most things. so that label is too including.

Abaddon you reminds me of how Paul Harrison writes on his site about Pantheism. An attitude with ethical consequences. To act from that attitude and expressing that attitude. So I agree about that words like emotion don't communicate the width of what pantheism could be about. Paul suggest a meditation that is typical too. To be one with the Universe or the monistic aspect of the oneness of nature. Holding a pebble in ones hand maybe.

But pantheism is not good at communicating with ordinary people. Very few care about it. I guess humans are too much of social animals to go well with pantheism which look solitary to me. Pagans has more supporters here in Sweden than pantheist has.

[aupmanyav]

No, no one should hold a pebble in the hand, that may end up in that person throwing pebbles in all directions, or people from all directions throwing pebbles at that person. Try to feel oneness without that.

[Rigel]

My pantheism can be summed up by the feeling I get from this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H1S9d5h-Ps

My basic philosophy is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Is it pantheism? Agnosticism? Atheism? I don't know. The label is not important to me. It is time to stop killing over labels.

[philoSOPHIA]

anyone a pantheist here?

if so why? just curious, i was listening to dawkins god delusion and it mentioned pantheism. dawkins called it sexed up atheism. and to be fair i understand that pantheism is more or less the universe is god. but if that is true, what exactly does that mean? and if it is not true what do pantheists actually believe?

I call myself a pantheist, simply to express my belief that existence is singular, and that this unity deserves our attention. Respect for life as a single being is the foundation of pantheism, just as respect for god is central to monotheism. Also, the universe exhibits the traits usually assigned to "god" (all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, etc.etc.)...so the term is applicable.

Perhaps it is merely "sexed-up atheism"; but, sometimes, atheism is just stripped-down pantheism. Afterall, many atheists agree with pantheist principles, but drop the word 'god'...(perhaps due to its bad reputation).

[aupmanyav]

True, God does not have much a reputation here.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

anyone a pantheist here?

if so why? just curious, i was listening to dawkins god delusion and it mentioned pantheism. dawkins called it sexed up atheism. and to be fair i understand that pantheism is more or less the universe is god. but if that is true, what exactly does that mean? and if it is not true what do pantheists actually believe?
Another way of looking at this is to contrast pantheism with physicalism rather than atheism. Instead of defining pantheism in terms of belief in god, it can be defined in terms of believing that the essence of who we are extends beyond the outer boundaries of our physical bodies and encompasses the entire universe.

I got the idea from the following (slightly paraphrased) passage that I’ve read recently:
The body’s agenda is to survive, to be fed, to be kept safe, and to feel pleasure. The soul’s agenda is quite different. The soul knows that survival is not an issue, nor is keeping safe or feeling pleasure. The soul understands that it is life itself, locally manifested. Safety and pleasure are its inherent qualities. It does not seek these things because it is these things.

The difference is significant because, as Abaddon has already pointed out, it leads to radically different behaviour.

[aupmanyav]

Soul, Hrvoje!

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

:confused:

[wordy]

The soul’s agenda is quite different. The soul knows that survival is not an issue, nor is keeping safe or feeling pleasure. The soul understands that it is life itself, locally manifested. Safety and pleasure are its inherent qualities. It does not seek these things because it is these things.


Wouldn't a respectful and reverent physicalism accomplish the same without living a lie. We could as physicalists revere all of existence without having to imagine a soul. Matter matters to us physicalist. No need to mock up souls at all.

Physics is so wonderful in itself so that an imagined soul is a crude construct compared to the wonders of reality.

the bad thing is that organized religion has monopolized all words for reverence and showing respect is monopolized by the Mob or Maffioso. or Outlaws.

[adren@line]

Wouldn't a respectful and reverent physicalism accomplish the same without living a lie. We could as physicalists revere all of existence without having to imagine a soul. Matter matters to us physicalist. No need to mock up souls at all.

Physics is so wonderful in itself so that an imagined soul is a crude construct compared to the wonders of reality.

the bad thing is that organized religion has monopolized all words for reverence and showing respect is monopolized by the Mob or Maffioso. or Outlaws.

how is believing in a soul equatable to "living a lie"? Do you propose that individuals who adopt your position have the upper hand or are "in the know"?

A belief in pantheism or the eastern idea of a soul is largely harmless to both the atheist and the individual. These are not Abrahamic or Semitic beliefs, which are largely combative, antagonistic, and "in-your-face".

So what difference does it make if someone believes in eastern concepts, or not?

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Wouldn't a respectful and reverent physicalism accomplish the same without living a lie. We could as physicalists revere all of existence without having to imagine a soul. Matter matters to us physicalist. No need to mock up souls at all.

Physics is so wonderful in itself so that an imagined soul is a crude construct compared to the wonders of reality.

the bad thing is that organized religion has monopolized all words for reverence and showing respect is monopolized by the Mob or Maffioso. or Outlaws.
I have quoted that text to indicate where I got the idea from. The concept of a soul is not central to my point. It essentially says that people’s behaviour is closely related to how they identify themselves. A person who self-identifies with his body will tend to behave in ways that are mindful of the body’s needs. If she self-identifies with the universe, she will take into account the needs, desires and preferences of the portions of the universe that she comes into contact with as if they were her own, possibly overriding those of her own body. To use an analogy, a person who self-identifies with a specific cell in his body will put the needs of that cell above the needs of the body as a whole. A person who self-identifies with the body as a whole will put the needs of the body above the needs of any particular cell, and will not be perturbed by the death of individual cells as long as this benefits the body as a whole.

A respectful and reverent physicalist can accomplish the same, provided that he can extend the sense of awe at the physical world to self-identification with it. To effect the same behavioural changes, bodily concerns should cease to be concerns for the sake of the body and become concerns for the sake of the universe, if they are concerns at all. This seemed like a formidable challenge to me, which is why I chose physicalism as an appropriate contrast to pantheism. There could be other contrasts that are more appropriate.

[wordy]

Yes, but is that not to put the cart before the horses. The better approach could be to appreciate the whole universe from the body's perspective.

Not to look down on the body from the Universe perspective.

To start from the Body and to widen the circle of concern and care to the whole of what exists. A friendly universal naturalism. No need to mock up souls or other imagined things.

[SecularFuture]

I'm a blend of differently philosophical perspectives, but I do have some pantheistic leanings.

When it comes to the subject of Gods existence I'm an atheist. When it comes to whether or not God could exist I'm an agnostic. When it comes to medical science and technology I'm a transhumanist. But the source of my morality is very pantheistic. I believe nature (although it is without consciousness and self-awareness) sets a great example for how we should live, in harmony and one with another.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Yes, but is that not to put the cart before the horses. The better approach could be to appreciate the whole universe from the body's perspective.

Not to look down on the body from the Universe perspective.

To start from the Body and to widen the circle of concern and care to the whole of what exists. A friendly universal naturalism. No need to mock up souls or other imagined things.
We are talking about two different things – caring for something and self-identifying with it. A person who self-identifies with the body is likely to put the body’s needs ahead of everything else, no matter how much he may care about them. A person who self-identifies with the family, religious community, nation, universe or soul is likely to put their needs first, even if these conflict with the needs of her body. It is not a question of whether we care for the world around us, but why and to what extent.

If you want to extend this conversation to encompass the merits of introducing the concept of a soul, I would say that it is handy in conveying the notion that consciousness and personality survive bodily death. There is evidence to support this notion, some of it scientific in nature, though you may question its validity.

[aupmanyav]

A belief in pantheism or the eastern idea of a soul is largely harmless to both the atheist and the individual.Agreed (just like Karma), I would not take up arms against it, all people will not think in one way, some are not that strong enough.

[aupmanyav]

When it comes to the subject of Gods existence I'm an atheist. When it comes to whether or not God could exist I'm an agnostic. When it comes to medical science and technology I'm a transhumanist. But the source of my morality is very pantheistic. I believe nature (although it is without consciousness and self-awareness) sets a great example for how we should live, in harmony and one with another.You have my appreciation, SecularFuture.

Hrvoje, there are limits, are there not? Let us be practical (especially the two Abrahamic religions).

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Could you please elaborate?

[Ellis]

I think of God as all the things we don't understand in the universe, the sense of wonder. When knowledge increases, God decreases, which threatens clergy, etc; what they don't realize is there will always be more to learn. Knowing the physics behind a sunset or the neurochemistry behind love doesn't make them any less beautiful.

But the above is just my theory for what I've experienced. I guess I have "faith" in the sense that I'm sure this thing I'm calling God exists, but I don't know what that is. I've experienced something for sure. The hight of human experience, you might call it.

I don't anthromorphize God at all, or even believe it's conscious in a sense that humans believe we are conscious. Whatever the supreme force of the universe is, it's not going to be something we humans can identify with.

If this makes any sense. I'll write more later, when I'm not so tired.

[David B]

Perhaps research into the abilities of mediums (http://veritas.arizona.edu/)?

Research into the authors of books on the abilities of mediums

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/JREF?q=Gary+Schwartz&q2=-intitle%3AForums&q2=-intitle%3AForum&sa=Go!

David B

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Research into the authors of books on the abilities of mediums

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/JREF?q=Gary+Schwartz&q2=-intitle%3AForums&q2=-intitle%3AForum&sa=Go!

David B
Thank you for the information. I'm not really sure what conclusions to draw from this. Would you mind helping me out here? I'd rather not respond with personal attacks on James Randi.

[aupmanyav]

I think of God as all the things we don't understand in the universe, the sense of wonder.Nice, but why call it God? Do we not constitute the universe, we are it (other things also are).

[aupmanyav]

Could you please elaborate?The two religions look for domination. They would not let be.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Agreed, but how does this relate to what I said?

[aupmanyav]

You said, 'A person who self-identifies with the body as a whole will put the needs of the body above the needs of any particular cell, and will not be perturbed by the death of individual cells as long as this benefits the body as a whole.' (I see that drift in your other posts as well.) The problem is that one from the eastern philosophies may willingly identify with the universe, those from the two do not do this. This puts those of the eastern philosophies at a disadvantage. We, perforce, have to identify with our culture, our nation, or our philosophy. Ages ago our books said 'Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' (The world is but a family).

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

I apologise for being a pain, but I still don't see the connection. I was trying to contrast a form of pantheism with physicalism. I don't understand how this has led to the implication of Abrahamic religions, nor what kind of criteria were used to conclude that those who self-identify with the universe are at a disadvantage compared to those who do not.

[aupmanyav]

No, Hrvoje, I appreciate your views and tender an apology for whatever pain I might have caused to you. It is only that to us in so-called third-world countries, it is important that the menace of the two religions has to be recognized, one with evangelism and the other with fundamentalism leading to terrorism. Now, muslim terrorists have taken up bombing even the mosque in their attempt to disturb communal peace in India when bombing temples did not work. It happened in Delhi, in Bhiwandi (Maharashtra) where some 35 were killed in resulting stampede, and in Hyderabad recently where five were killed by the bomb and ten by police in quelling rioteous mobs.

When pantheism is defined in terms of believing that the essence of who we are extends beyond the outer boundaries of our physical bodies and encompasses the entire universe, then there is hardly any difference between it and physicalism. Though I would disagree with your statement 'I would say that it is handy in conveying the notion that consciousness and personality survive bodily death' and that there is any scientific support to that idea.

[wordy]

I was trying to contrast a form of pantheism with physicalism.

But physicalism is a more stringent? version of materialism? and some say one need to mention reductionism too.

How do you know that your take on physicalism isn't a kind of strawman version of physicalism or a based on the "official" version of it but that the "official" version is a temporary narrow version due to those defining it was reacting to views similar to yours. Maybe those who coined the new word physicalism had a narrow agenda.

Physicalism could potentially be more including and embracing and revering than Pantheism cause physicalism is open to feedback maybe and Pantheism maybe not open to feedback from science unless you do a new version of Pantheism and name it Scientific Pantheism.

I don't see physicalism to say that the body is a whole or that a single cell in the body is a single important one, I hope physicalism see the interaction of all cells as important and that physicalism realize that as bodies we are aware of our environ and are selfish enough to build sustainable societies and that altruistic care about the diversity of nature is preserved and so on.

Physicalism has all the potential to become very caring unless some smart logician has twisted words so it by definition is not possible to be open to feedback from science and human though on what to value.

Only literalistic readings on physicalism would make it a robotic nightmare philosophy.

I see it as a hope of a better future. A humane embracing reverence of the factual world. All of it.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

I see that we are getting caught up in the discussion of labels, their meaning and their merits. This was not my intention, so perhaps I shouldn’t have gone down this road. Let me try again.

I’m trying to contrast two views of the world. They both observe that the matter that comprises our bodies is no different from the matter that constitutes the world around us. They also note that this matter will remain in existence long after our bodies cease to function. The difference between the two views is that one sees our interconnectedness with our world as an intellectual curiosity, the other as experiential reality.

Most, if not all, of the people I know understand that we are all interconnected at the particle level. However, this knowledge does not influence their behaviour. They may care for other people and the environment to varying degrees, but this caring is not rooted in our physical interconnectedness. Nor is the prospect of death any less menacing because the particles will go on. To the extent that it drives behaviour, intellectual appreciation of our physical interconnectedness is irrelevant.

Most of the people I know self-identify with their body. This doesn’t mean that they are uncaring or unkind, only that their caring and kindness are limited by their bodily concerns, which is the overriding principle that governs their behaviour. This is true of members of my family, friends, colleagues, members of the Christian community that I used to belong to, etc. I also fall into this category a lot of the time.

Some of the people I know self-identify with their immediate family. I have seen them act in ways that compromise their physical wellbeing, in the understanding that this behaviour will benefit their family as a whole.

I don’t personally know any people who self-identify with the universe (my own efforts are sporadic). Those that I’ve read about treat the world around them as if it were intrinsically valuable, quite irrespective of any use that they may have for it. They are able to put its concerns, as they perceive them, ahead of those for their own body.

From my own limited experience, feeling an emotional as well as an intellectual connection with the world can definitively influence our behaviour. Self-identification with the universe deserves explicit mention because this is where the two connections become mutually reinforcing.

In previous posts, I have attached the label of pantheism to the latter view and physicalism to the former. Feel free to attach other labels that you find preferable, or none at all.

[wordy]

Most of the people I know self-identify with their body.

I guess I get what you talk about. But do we have to lie to accomplish what you wish? Have you read E O Wilson. He has very similar wishes you and I have.

A reverence for all there is.

He is kind of religious, but not a fundamentalist, agnostic but open to that there could be something. A Deist maybe.

But this "interconnectedness" thing. You don't seem to see it as only a tool that could help us accomplish a deep reverence towards all there is, you say that it is true scientifically don't you?

Not "only" as an experiential reality but true on a level of elementary particle something, deep down, fields and waves and such quantum like.

I mean that the end goal don't justify the means to reach it. We have no right to lie about us as social individuals being not connected at all just because the effect of such a lie would be good.

It could be scientifically true that every atom in the whole universe is in connection in some way. I have no idea who that is possible but the non-locality experiment maybe support it. It is beyond my grasp to discern if it do support it.

What I do know is that it is true on the level of us being human individuals we are not connected at all. We are so isolated, so not connected that we even fail to connect to what goes on in our own body. Our conscious interpretation on what goes on in our body is more likely a wild guess we think is more accurate than it is. Most of the time we go on auto-pilot. Some even say that we almost dream even when awake, so we are not connected and not interconnected even if every part of our body was one solid block with rest of the Universe.

Yes I want us to connect too but we have no right to lie about our failure to connect.
From my own limited experience, feeling an emotional as well as an intellectual connection with the world can definitively influence our behaviour. Self-identification with the universe deserves explicit mention because this is where the two connections become mutually reinforcing.


As far as I get what you talk about I fully support this as long as we don't lie or cheat doing claims that has no support.

What to name it is a mystery to me. I have tried since 1996 or so to find a good name for it but I don't have enough imagination to do it. A fiction writer maybe will write a book using a name for it and that one get known to all of us sooner or later.

We could still practice that feeling of connection without having an agreed upon name for it. Nature meditation?

[figuer]

I guess that's what Dawkins means by "sexed-up atheism," though I think the distinction between the two is greater than his condescending turn of phrase implies.

Sex sells, reductionism depresses. A sexed-up version of atheism might be just what society needs in order to survive the current trend towards irrational, religious fundamentalism.

[Jobar]

Hey, bey. Sorry you couldn't make the party this year.

I'm a pantheist; I've written many thousands of words about it.

Jobar's pantheism (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=128574)
Similarities of atheism and pantheism (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33316)
The divine You (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=200282#post200282)
Pantheism opposed to atheism? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33304)
Pantheism vs. atheism (lecture on Zen) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33228)
Pantheism, and doing quantum mechanics in Chinese (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33356)
Pantheism vs. naturalism- and discussing it in English (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33359)
From Relevance of evidence for God (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=575204#post575204)
The monist problem of evil (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62673)
The spirituality of atheists (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1399112#post1399112)
Robert Ingersoll, pantheist (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1920473#post1920473)
Unum's axiomatic god (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2140555#post2140555)
Why dost thou prate of God? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93045)

:)

I see pantheism as completely compatible with atheism, which is simply lack of belief in god(s). It might be argued that the universe itself is in some sense 'god'- but from my many years of study, I think that's a misuse of the word god. I prefer to think of existence as a single unitary system, of which we are one aspect or facet; there is no separate aspect or facet that can be fairly called god, any more than any other facet or aspect.

Yet still, all we see and seem are aspects of that singularity.

[abaddon]

But this "interconnectedness" thing. You don't seem to see it as only a tool that could help us accomplish a deep reverence towards all there is, you say that it is true scientifically don't you?

How about both? I've seen no lies or "the end justifies the means" thinking in any of the posts.

See chaos theory for one source of the scientific evidence for an interconnected universe (or just go outside and look at the sky for more direct evidence...). See systems ecology for scientific evidence of how everything in the biosphere in interconnected, directly or indirectly (or, again for something more directly experiential, just watch your breathing or grocery shopping or any detail from your life). See psychology for how human well-being is dependent on environment and vice versa (or just watch how you feel in different settings).

The atoms in our bodies were once in stars. Within a system of galaxies there's embedded within a system of stars a "sun" on which all life systems on Earth are dependent. The cells of our bodymind(s) are dependent on the well-being of the biosphere of which we are expressions. We're not "on" the Earth as Biblical mythology, and its offspring modernist mythology, depict humans' superordinate relation to nature. Rather we are "of" it. And that's a critical distinction that affects all religions and philosophies.

Even how we experience anything depends on the health of our relation with earth. So from intergalactic processes to your current mood, there are no evident gaps. All animals (even the human ones) are each an embedded feature of the universe and not one of them is an isolated, discrete entity.

If you perceive a gap between self and other, it's a conceptual blinder and not "the facts."

What I do know is that it is true on the level of us being human individuals we are not connected at all. We are so isolated, so not connected that we even fail to connect to what goes on in our own body.

Personal ignorance doesn't mean the connections aren't there. That we go on "auto-pilot" is evidence of interdependence, because if so many processes take care of themselves without our awareness, then that shows both bodily and environmental processes can reliably depend on each other. This serves Hrvoje Butkovic's point better than it serves your feeling about our lack of connection... An intellectual knowing isn't enough to help people realize, in the visceral experience of their lives, how interconnected we are with everyone and everything, psychologically, socially, ethically, biologically, etc.

Yes I want us to connect too but we have no right to lie about our failure to connect.

That you don't feel connected isn't evidence against the scientific fact that no one is isolated from their environment (which includes other people, even if you're a hermit in a hut in Antarctica).

We could still practice that feeling of connection without having an agreed upon name for it. Nature meditation?

That might be far more effective than only worrying about labels.

[aupmanyav]

Duplicate

[aupmanyav]

Nor is the prospect of death any less menacing because the particles will go on.Let us forget about labels for things which are so close. You are trying something, Perfectbite has achieved it to a great extent, I do not trying it opting to remain with some differences. But, THEN, why should death be menacing at all. It is so commonplace, happens to everything, to all animals including humans and even to suns and galaxies, how and why should body be go on for ever (there is nothing like soul). Some day or the other we all come to that stage, some are better prepared, some are not. I cannot visualize this as a menace. I suppose the eastern philosophies are not affected by it and it is more of a problem of Abrahamic religions.What I do know is that it is true on the level of us being human individuals we are not connected at all. We are so isolated, so not connected that we even fail to connect to what goes on in our own body. Our conscious interpretation on what goes on in our body is more likely a wild guess we think is more accurate than it is. Most of the time we go on auto-pilot. Some even say that we almost dream even when awake, so we are not connected and not interconnected even if every part of our body was one solid block with rest of the Universe.Are you isolated from your family, your society, your country? I think you are not. The auto-pilot in the body is working all the time without our realizing it, sort of frees ourselves from additonal responsibilities, evolution. IMHO, we are not that disconnected. Of course, when we are awake then also we are under an illusion. It is only when we are really awake, we realise complete interconnectedness, sunspots and SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) affecting our moods. Even menstruation occurs roughly according to moon cycle.

Figuer, reductionism depresses, disagree. The more I reduce, the happier I am.

Jobar, nice to know that you belong to our party. But do you think we should go through all the articles than you have written? ;) Well, for the beginning, I have picked up 'Pantheism, and doing quantum mechanics in Chinese'. I do quantum mechanics in English, Hindi, and Sanskit. BTW, 'Thou art that', 'Tat Twam Asi', is not Chinese, it is Sanskit (Chhandogya Upanishad), though I would not be surprised if Chinese also have an equivalent. There is hardly anything to try, in the above mentioned expression and in so many other expressions in Indian books (if we prefer not to call them scriptures, they are writings of wise men and not dictates of any God, including the Nasadeeya Sukta from RigVeda), there is no divide at all between philosophy and science.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Let us forget about labels for things which are so close. You are trying something, Perfectbite has achieved it to a great extent, I do not trying it opting to remain with some differences. But, THEN, why should death be menacing at all. It is so commonplace, happens to everything, to all animals including humans and even to suns and galaxies, how and why should body be go on for ever (there is nothing like soul). Some day or the other we all come to that stage, some are better prepared, some are not. I cannot visualize this as a menace. I suppose the eastern philosophies are not affected by it and it is more of a problem of Abrahamic religions.
I didn’t mean to say that I find death menacing. What I really meant was that the extent to which we find death menacing is not diminished by the knowledge that our constituent particles will outlive us.

[aupmanyav]

We should not be afraid of death to any extent. It is one of the routine things, and in most cases it brings relief, it is painless (my pet theory - as the supply of oxygen to brain diminishes, brain shuts of pain centers to conserve it, they cannot do any good, because the motor functions are already gone. Only seeing, hearing, and thinking remain, less demanding on oxygen, leading to visions of hovering around, seeing pastel shade lights, somebody coming to hold your hands, talking to you in soothing voice, and lead you through a tunnel to oblivion. I have asked my people try not to weep when I am going, keep laughing, talking, if they are around - Near death experiences). Evolution has perfected even death.

Add to my post above: Hormones are released early in the morning.

[wordy]

The fact is that we as individuals only have indirect ways of connecting. We could have the illusion of or being in delusion of being fully connected but the scientific fact is that none is connected to any other person, not even siames twins or clones or deep friends or parents to their children or siblings or lovers, we are all truly separate and that is the truth about human nature.

I'm unsure of but it could even be true that our consciousness is an after the fact reconstruction which makes us even more separate.

That our body on the sub-atomic level is one monolite of inter-connectedness has no relevance cause what makes us aware of us being live is what makes us unconnected, the very mechanism for making us aware is the reason we have no way of being connected.

Much support that conscious awareness is an emergent phenomena. Being emergent it has no way of connecting. To say that we are connected is to change the meaning of the word connected.

That is why I say we have no right to lie about it. To say that we are connected when we are not, that is to lie or to have an illusion or a delusion or being in wishful thinking.

[premjan]

Our consciousness is our awareness of being us. Below that level there is no awareness, hence below that level everything about all of us is connected. It is only the cosnsciousness layer that is not interconnected. Well it is not physically interconnected but it can be functionally interconnected via e.g. the internet.

[aupmanyav]

.. When did anyone say that you do not have a right to hold on to your opinions? What I may say is that unconnectedness is illusory and connectedness is truth. The connectedness does not make any demand on you to modify your actions, it is solely your prerogative. Hrvoje opts to remain connected as so many others also do, equally many don't.

[wordy]

Premjan, thanks indeed for this text. It is only the consciousness layer that is not interconnected. Well it is not physically interconnected

Maybe we are connected physically too but the delay could be a barrier that makes us not able to make a conscious connection even to our own brain and certainly not to anybody else either.

How come you are able to realize this and the others fail. Abaddon seems to think it is my own fault me don't get it.

Would be interesting if he thinks it is your fault to not get it either.

Could it be a matter of style of writing. Them using the word connected in a very lose way.

I mean metaphorically I could say that I put my finger on the moon to tickle the man on the moon on his nose. But the seriousness that abaddon display tells me he actually believe in this notion that we are able to connect in a way not trivial or metaphorical.

What is different with you that makes you able to use the word connect in a similar way like me but they fail to use the word that way.

It is a deep mystery to me.

The most disturbing about their view is that they have no motivation what so ever to even try to see it from my perspective.

I have seen it from their perspective from me being maybe 15 to me being maybe 25 or even 35 years old. So their view as such is not surprising it is the strong faith they have that is so disturbing. Like if they are dependent on it to be true to be happy about life.

I would be happy if it was true that we have the capacity to connect cause me is very lonely but all facts support that we have no way of connecting at all. Why should I lie about such important truth?

[wordy]

Suppose we are non-consciously connected to all there is. That doesn't help us as social human beings at all cause consciously we know the truth that we are totally trapped within our own conscious awareness that nobody else could share and that is also why we fail to connect to our own body's awareness.

We can only connect to the interpretation we receive from our non-conscious parts.

[abaddon]

Interconnection at all levels is factual, not metaphorical. And premjan's phrase "[consciousness] is not physically interconnected but it can be functionally interconnected via e.g. the internet" helps demonstrate my point, not yours.

You couldn't dissolve connections to other humans even if you tele-transported to another galaxy. You'd remain birthed by humans, your chromosomes remain those of your species, your personality remains shaped by human society; even the tool you used to travel away from humans is human-made. The universe is an interconnected system and you are inescapably part of that, and that's a scientific fact. My "strong faith" in that is based on examining the scientific and philosophical evidence and finding nothing that's even remotely convincing that anyone is somehow magically outside of the processes of their environment. Not at any level either physical or functional or perceptual. The connections are both direct and indirect.

That siamese twins, clones, deep friends, parents, children, siblings, lovers are connected is as obvious as the sun in the sky. Even the very words refer directly to their connections (their relationship). If consciousness is an "after-the-fact reconstruction" it's reconstructed from what? and remains in relation to what? If "emergence" is true, then emerged consciousness emerges from other processes and remains dependent on yet other processes still, and thus can never be a lone, discrete entity. That we're aware of our lives, or of anything, is definitive proof of interconnections and evidence against gaps in the connections.

If I'm misunderstanding your point, it's not for lack of trying to understand it. And if I'm misunderstanding, it's just that and not lying so could you try to avoid implying that people are lying? If I'm misunderstanding, you cannot clarify your point by making this into a moral issue. It's systems science. Either figure it out or explain yourself better.

[abaddon]

Suppose we are non-consciously connected to all there is. That doesn't help us as social human beings at all cause consciously we know the truth that we are totally trapped within our own conscious awareness that nobody else could share and that is also why we fail to connect to our own body's awareness.

We can only connect to the interpretation we receive from our non-conscious parts.

I don't understand the last sentence. But the phrase about being "trapped" looks like a denial of our intersubjective experiences. We do share our experiences in many ways.

This isn't going to become a "my perception of 'orange' might be your perception of 'red'" discussion, is it?

You don't have to be aware of all bodily processes to be connected to them. Lack of conscious awareness is not lack of connection.

I thought you had affirmed in prior posts, in other threads, that we are bodies? Are you now saying we're minds trapped inside of bodies?

[aupmanyav]

Don't, if that does not suit you. Not all people will think in the same way. "Eko Sad, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti' (One exists, well-intentioned people describe it variously). If you think about it physically, perhaps there is a connection. You never know that the chocolate that we ate was derived from the same tree, or the sugar was derived from the same plant, and now it is a part of us. There can be many possibilities. We do not fail to realize, we have a different opinion. Perhaps the nutrinos that struck our body and caused changes was from the fission/fusion of same atoms. We are not talking metaphorically. It is also possible that after we die, our atoms meet somewhere, after all we have been around for 14 billion years and will be around for a few more billion years. I am guided by what Lord Krishna says in 'Geeta' (repeatedly):

"Samam sarveshu bhuteshu tishthantam parameshwaram;
Vinashyatsu avinashyantam yah pashyati sa pashyati."
(The Brahman exists in all beings without discrimination;
the imperishable within the perishables, one who sees that really sees.)

Note: I am an atheist. I see Krishna as a hero of my culture and as the compendium of the wisdom of India, and not as a God or avatara. 'Geeta' has a theist exterior, don't be misled by it, it has an atheist core. Wherever it says God, I read it as a beam of nutrinos or a quantum field, the universal substrate.

I wish you could go to http://www.ahwan.org/article49.htm. It has excellent details from many hindu scriptures written over a few millenia. Then you would understand why hindus are so zealous about connectedness. Taittiriya Upanishad was perhaps written around 2,500 BC when the sun rose on the day of vernal equinox in the asterism of Pleidas (Krittika). (Copy the page on to Notepad, that way you would avoid the attempt of the writer to include pronunciation. It would make reading the text easier)

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

We should not be afraid of death to any extent.
Agreed, but the fact remains that many people are, be it due to the undesirability of oblivion, terror of hell or simply fear of the unknown.

I have asked my people try not to weep when I am going...
I think it is about mourning their loss rather than your hardship. It helps to express one's grief so that one is not burdened by it.

[wordy]

Maybe this is a difference in culture? Your usage of English and mine seems to have very far apart requirement on what words are supposed to mean.

Does inter-connected change the meaning of connected in drastic ways.

You say it isn't metaphor and when I read your text to me it is obviously a usage of the word connect that is on a totally other level than what I am used to.

Close to how New Age people use the word energy from an experiental perspective. From our human point of view it feels like we feel warmth or energy from somebody else. Those who claim to be sensitive feel the energy field from the other and name it Aura or similar.

As far as I know this is a different way to use energy compared to when science refer to energy fields.

Could this be same with the word "connect", when used here in this thread many of you use connect in a similar way. How it feels for you as a human.

You feel connected.

That is not same as really being connected, to have access to the others inner thoughts, you could guess what goes on but your not connected at all.

Even that person has no way of connecting to his or her inner circuits that produce the interpretation that makes up the experience of feeling connected.

Maybe my culture use words more formally. Or I belong to the part of my culture who use words more formally.

Was that of any help? English is not my native language so I struggle to grasp how you use it. If we had any connection at all none of us would misunderstand would we? Unless you use the word connect in a totally different way I do.

[aupmanyav]

Hrvoje, apart from the primal question (where did the substrate come from and how would it disappear), there is nothing much that is unknown. Why take death as oblivion, take it as immortality (Amrutasya Putrah, sons of the imperishable). Yes, many people are afraid, but I think that is due to ignorance. About your second quote, there is nothing to grieve about, it is one of the usual things, they would also come to it. Equanimity in life as well as in death.

Let me take this opportunity to say something more about Vedic history. Taittiriya Samhita (recension) was written around 2,500 BC. A Samhita is accompanied by its Brahmana (book of performances), Aranyaka, and Upanishad (Philosophical treatise). By the time it was written, the language had changed from the previous, the meaning of many verses was already unintelligible, and the Samhita writers noted their various guesses about it. That shows that the original RigVeda was even older. There is a clear mention of a time when sun rose in Orion (Mrigashiras), giving a date around 4,000 BC. There is also a hazy mention of a time when the sun rose in Beta Arietis (Punarvasu), that is 6,000 BC. What I would like to point out to Wordy is that the theory of 'connectedness' with Aryans/Hindus is around that old (like that of two siblings, whether they like it or not, they are connected, like christianity and islam. Considering that they may modify their inter-actions).

Wordy, your post came when I was writing my post. Please note that my use of energy is totally scientific. There is not even an iota of mysticism in it. I am a science person. I do not believe in 'auras'. When I say 'connected', I mean the common quantum fields. I can make a guess about the inner thoughts of others, sometimes correct, sometimes wrong, some other people may do it better, some not as well as myself. Basically, I am not one to believe in any kind of hocus-pocus. English is not my native language too. But what I mean here is physical/atomic connectedness first and then psychological/emotional connectedness.

[wordy]

Maybe it is an unfortunate word to use. answers.com suggest it has 6 different meanings or usage.

Meaning #1: being joined in close association
Synonyms: affiliated, attached

Meaning #2: joined or linked together
Antonym: unconnected (meaning #2)

Meaning #3: associated with or accompanying
Synonym: associated

Meaning #4: wired together to an alarm system

Meaning #5: plugged in

Meaning #6: stored in, controlled by, or in direct communication with a central computer
Synonym: machine-accessible

Some of them very trivial compared to what you claim here in thread.

Inter-connected doesn't have the nice but trivial meaning
Meaning #3: associated with or accompanying
Synonym: associated

I could be said to be associated with many people but have no connection at all with their thoughts. I'm still socially separated from them.

[wordy]

What I would like to point out to Wordy is that the theory of 'connectedness' with Aryans/Hindus is around that old.

That could explain it then. The word connected and inter-connected is translation from old words that simply has more specific meanings than the 6 suggested by answer.com like many terms from East they are hardly translatable.

It is even almost impossible to translate text in French to Swedish. or English too. We have different cultures. Being such an old concept but using a more modern term like connected is confusing then.

[abaddon]

Maybe this is a difference in culture? Your usage of English and mine seems to have very far apart requirement on what words are supposed to mean.
Does inter-connected change the meaning of connected in drastic ways.
I think that "interconnected" more strongly implies a give-and-take. "My hipbone is connected to my legbone" goes an old song... And all that tells me is they touch each other physically. "My hipbone is interconnected to my legbone" tells me that the hipbone not only physically touches but functionally relates to the legbone (and vice versa).

"How it feels for me as a human" is usually a feeling of separation. When I feel "connected" then I look at the concept of "connection" closer, to test how well it reflects reality. And I see loads of evidence for connection as a fact of nature.

However much I'm the only one with direct access to my own experience, still that interior experience isn't just mine because it's made by my body, memories, attitudes, environment, society. It's my experience alone inasmuch as no one can see and feel it directly as I do; but it didn't make itself. And it doesn't sit there "in my head" doing nothing either. Rather it affects others indirectly because it influences my behaviors. And because it does that, it becomes an ethical concern. Indirectly, my "interior world" will impact my local environment and the others in it. And what it's like reflects my relation to others (and vice versa).

Humans' feeling of separation causes many of them (in particular, the peoples of technological societies) to act like the world is a dead thing, like it's at our disposal to do as we want with it and showing it very little respect. That kind of manipulative way of relating reflects what we are like inside.

You wonder if were using the same word in totally different ways. Judging from what I see written here, we're using it the same way. I think we just disagree on the finality of our feeling about being alone in our heads.

[aupmanyav]

That could explain it then. The word connected and inter-connected is translation from old words that simply has more specific meanings than the 6 suggested by answer.com like many terms from East they are hardly translatable.

It is even almost impossible to translate text in French to Swedish. or English too. We have different cultures. Being such an old concept but using a more modern term like connected is confusing then.Then say 'sameness', even more connected, same quantum fields, same atoms, interchangeable, Brahman constitutes all, a man, a woman, an animal, a tree, a stone.

[wordy]

It's my experience alone inasmuch as no one can see and feel it directly as I do;

That is why I oppose the way you and others use the word inter-connected as if it imply something more direct. That is why I find this concept trivial, not to dismiss it in any way. To feel connected is vital to our well-being but to make extra-ordinary claims is to elevate a trivial truth, to elevate a truism to be a miracle or something very special or something sacred or holy or what word to use.

Trivial things is of high value too, I support trivial things too but I don't want to elevate them to be seen as extra-ordinary events.

I feel connected to my relatives, even to my dead parents but I have no direct link to either of them.

I am also rather sure of that none of us have a direct connection to what goes on in the non-conscious or non-verbal part of our brain. We only get indirect interpreted insight and hunches and hints from our behavior or feelings, we have to "read" these things and translate what we read and that is not to be in contact or to be connected at all.

aupmanyav, maybe the original words mean sameness? You have better knowledge than me about such things. Suppose then that you and me have that sameness. We are still totally separated by our consciousness. Like abaddon also is aware of. No direct connection or sameness on that level, and that is the level we are on as social human persons.

Maybe I should not use the word lie, is it ok that I say that to me it looks like many of you have a delusion or are into self-deception or use language in too trivial ways.

Words lose their communicative meaning if used in too trivial ways if they at the same time makes very special claims of being extra-ordinary but still very trivially true. Remember that I like trivial things as long as one say they are trivial.

[aupmanyav]

We are separate or close will depend on how we take things, individual conditioning and preferences. A green-span (the people in conservation work) worker may start weeping if he or she sees a dolphin in trouble on the beach, a butcher will think nothing of applying the knife to a lamb or a turkey. But I think I do understand your point, some people would accept connectedness, some people would not, and who am I to point a finger at one person or the other? Though, personally, I feel that to accept connectedness can take away a lot of strife from the world.

In our culture, it is very important to be connected, to parents, to children (my son is 35, lives us us along with his wife and a child, expecting another after some time, naturally, where else would he live?), to siblings, to relatives, to caste, to the city (a person from my city, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, once commented, 'how could one live without seeing the local fort in the morning', it is a prominent landmark for us), to the language, etc. We would feel completely lost without them.

[wordy]

Aupmanyav, maybe I am too keen on how to use words. I'm connected in that trivial way too but that is not what abaddon refers to is it? (by saying trivial I don't mean low in value. I see much value in totally trivial things)

Doesn't he say that the separation that I say is a fact that separation is an illusion I have. If I meditate I will be able to feel or experience the scientific fact that we are inter-connected, not in the trivial truistic way but in a awe-inspiring, extra-ordinary way. We are all one in that sense. All that exists is one consciousness and when our body dies then the consciousness that was aware of our body as separate merge with or get aware of that it is one with all there is or maybe experience emptiness which is the truth and so on.

Most likely I totally fail to get what he say at all.

If I get you and Hrvoje Butkovic, both of you find the good consequence of having this inter-connectedness view and thus we ought to accept that view cause we will have a better life that way.

That is why I say that is to use the means to get the end goal. To treat humans as means for a good goal. Why I say it is to lie cause both of you seems to be aware of that we are not really connected, it only feels like if we are connected. the connectedness is a delusion and illusion. In reality we are separate and not connected at all.

My solution is to embrace reality as it is and not to make ends force us to bad means.

We could still support the feeling of being connected but as a known illusion in same way as we support the good feeling of finding a sun rise as beautiful and a sun down? very beautiful too. We still know the trivial fact that it is the Earth who turn around an alleged axis.

I don't mind lying as long as one do it openly. Music is an open lie. Very few claim music to really tell emotional or intellectual truth, it only feels that way and still music is very highly valued among us, to me too. Music still is an illusion cause the feeling of understanding what the music says is a subjective interpretation with no connection to the intent of the musicians. It is a guessing and not a connection to them.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Why take death as oblivion, take it as immortality.
Does your view offer the survival of consciousness and the preservation of memory?

About your second quote, there is nothing to grieve about, it is one of the usual things, they would also come to it. Equanimity in life as well as in death.
There is a great deal to grieve about if they have formed an emotional attachment to your company and experience a profound sense of loss when it is terminated.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Wordy, when I said that we are physically interconnected, I meant this in the sense that our bodies were created from the matter that once comprised our environment, are continuously exchanging matter with the environment (through breathing, eating, drinking, sweating, defecating, etc) and will eventually relinquish this matter back to the environment. Our bodies are dynamic entities which cannot function in isolation from their environment. There are other ways in which this interconnectedness can be seen, some of which have been pointed out by Abaddon and Aupmanyav.

It might help the discussion if you explain in what sense we are separate.

[Jobar]

Note: I am an atheist. I see Krishna as a hero of my culture and as the compendium of the wisdom of India, and not as a God or avatara. 'Geeta' has a theist exterior, don't be misled by it, it has an atheist core.

Well said, and as someone who has studied your religion from the outside, I agree.

I'm thinking about starting a topic in GRD concerning the definition of 'religion'. In the latest issue of free inquiry there's a letter by DJ Grothe, which says in part,
Noebel's definition of religion is far too broad and by extension makes almost everything that shares a similarity with religion into a religion. A much more useful definition says that, whatever else religion is, it includes a belief in the supernatural. Consequently, in universities today, Zen Buddhism is properly described as an "Eastern philosophy", while Mahayana and Theraveda strands of Buddhism are still described as religions because of their supernaturalism.

What's your take on this?

[aupmanyav]

Wordy, friend, I am not talking of 'connectedness' as an illusion. I am talking of a physical 'connectedness', very real, of the same quantum fields, same atoms, interchanging all the time all over the universe (as Hrvoje mentions). That is on a factual level. This 'connectedness' in Brahman, of the substrate, does not intrude in our virtual, illusionary world, take it as you will. The consequences of accepting reality are good. Similarly, accepting that we are Brahman itself (some people say that we are divine and ourselves part of God, these are people who cannot forgo the idea of divine and God, which Brahman is not), gives us a goal to try to shape us in a way that the world is improved (Divine Life Society of Swami Sivananda - 'Realize your own divineness'). I do not need a contrived solution because I have a factual one.

Hrvoje: No, Harvoje, it does not offer lollipops. No survival of consciousness or preservation of memory (no re-birth, no heaven). This is only for those who are strong enough to face the reality. It does offer realization, nirvana, moksha, which means the person has understood the mystery of life. When it finishes, it only frees atoms and quantum fields for new forms.

Are we not advised to be equanimous? Emotions are weaknesses. Hinduism stresses that relations, possessions, positions, are all temporary; valued till their time is not up. Life goes on, do we not eat when somebody dies? Among hindus this has been made into a tradition. It is compulsory for family members to eat (normally people are cremated the same day, if it is not sun-down, otherwise early next day, though there are exceptions. At Manikarnika funeral ground in Varanasi, cremations take place all through day and night, non-stop) and the food is prepared and brought by the in-laws.

Jobar: Thanks for your compliment. For me Krishna does not need to be a historical personality, and perhaps he is not.

You have studied Hinduism. You know there is no religion in Hinduism. It is 'dharma' and 'dharma' is duty or righteous action which sustains the family, society, culture, and country. For personal beliefs, we have the word 'matam or mata' (opinion), or 'sampradaya' (sect). People are free to hold any 'mata' or change their 'mata' anytime without any notice, as many times as they want (till they finally settle with one which answers all their questions). I have done the whole gamut, been a polytheist, a saiva, a vaishnava, an atheist, and finally I am an Advaitist. People say hinduism is not a religion (they say that for Buddhism also), but till people (they may have differing views) continue to call themselves as Hindus, it is a religion.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Hrvoje: No, Harvoje, it does not offer lollipops. No survival of consciousness or preservation of memory (no re-birth, no heaven). This is only for those who are strong enough to face the reality. It does offer realization, nirvana, moksha, which means the person has understood the mystery of life. When it finishes, it only frees atoms and quantum fields for new forms.
You were asking why (some) people see death as oblivion rather than immortality, but the immortality that you have described doesn’t involve either consciousness or memory. So as far as people are concerned, in what sense is it not oblivion?

Are we not advised to be equanimous? Emotions are weaknesses. Hinduism stresses that relations, possessions, positions, are all temporary; valued till their time is not up. Life goes on, do we not eat when somebody dies? Among hindus this has been made into a tradition. It is compulsory for family members to eat (normally people are cremated the same day, if it is not sun-down, otherwise early next day, though there are exceptions. At Manikarnika funeral ground in Varanasi, cremations take place all through day and night, non-stop) and the food is prepared and brought by the in-laws.
I’m not saying that emotional attachment is a good thing, I’m saying that it exists and is quite widespread.

As far as emotions themselves are concerned, I don’t see how life could have any value without them.

[aupmanyav]

Only atomic immortality, which is a fact, if someone is not satisfied with it, it is his/her problem. He/she could seek refuge in religion, though it would not change the picture, there would still be atomic immortality and nothing else. No 72 houris in heaven and unlimited supply of booze or eternal life on the right (or left) side of God.

True, emotional attachment is the engine which drives life, me and mine. But as far as truth goes, is it not an illusion?

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

True, emotional attachment is the engine which drives life, me and mine. But as far as truth goes, is it not an illusion?
Emotions are the language of the soul, so no. ;)

[premjan]

Basically there is both unity and identity - this is known in Hinduism as qualified oneness (vishishta advaita). In point of fact, without unity, there can't be an identity either. There is both apparent separation (at one level) and probably complete unity at another level, though it is still being sought after as a theory.

[wordy]

Hrvoje Butkovic, It might help the discussion if you explain in what sense we are separate.I cited a sentence by abaddon that explained why we are separate. A related concept is "Theory of Mind". Try to read online texts by Simon Baron Cohen about people who have less capacity to go into ToM and thus have problem with social interactions.

I have several times now described why we are separate.

I fully agree with all these things about us being the result of Big Bang and exploding Stars. SuperNovas which created those heavier stuff that we are made of if I remember correctly.

But we are social human persons, sure we are made up of these matter and thus the subatomic parts of our body maybe is in continous sorry wrong spelling with everything else, but even if that is a scientific fact it still don't makes us in any way connected other than very indirectly and remotely from other human social persons.

Abaddon wrote It's my experience alone inasmuch as no one can see and feel it directly as I do

That makes us by definition, axiomatic, unabridgably, no way to bridge that gap between us. Worse is that we are not even connected to our own body.

We only indirectly guess what is going on within us. That we have direct connection to our inner circuits is an illusion or delusion.

We certainly feels as if we have insight or report from within but that is not so. It only feels that way to us. A useful illusion, like the blind spot in our eyes.

[aupmanyav]

'To you what you believe, to me what I believe' (Kafirun - Qur'an). No problem.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Worse is that we are not even connected to our own body.We only indirectly guess what is going on within us. That we have direct connection to our inner circuits is an illusion or delusion.
This leads me to conclude that you do not see yourself as your body. What do you self-identify with?

Edit: Congratulations Abaddon on your promotion. :notworthy:

[aupmanyav]

That is exactly what I have been trying to tell him all the time. One cannot identify with even one's own body, what to talk of sorrows, pleasures, thoughts, emotions, relatives, religions, countries; all illusions, all Maya. The only thing one can surely identify with is the substrate, Brahman. That is why the great Sankara said, 'Brahma Satyam, Jagan-mithya' (Brahman is truth, the observed is false).

[wordy]

This leads me to conclude that you do not see yourself as your body. What do you self-identify with?

If that is how you read me then I fail to express my view on it or your reading ascribe views I don't have.

The gap or chasm is a fact cause to be self aware is an emergent property if it exists at all. One suggested interpretation from Dennett and Pinker and many others. The body/brain has many many small units who are rather independent of each other. One could see our body/brain as a very big ant colony. The Queen even doesn't exist or "emerge" as an overlaying interpretation that through feedback try to suggest things to the independent myriads of doers. These doers do their own thing and may and may not pay attention to what the Emergent Queen suggests. She maybe is not in charge she could be the interpretator of what the doers do.

What to identify with. The combination of these doers and the emerging interpretator. When I am not aware then the body do it's thing but when I emerge out of the doing then the illusion is that I am in charge or sometimes it si obvious I fail to take charge, the body does it's thing regardless of my whims. The body is composed of these billion upon billions of small doers.

So as I see it you get me totally wrong. I try to see me as I am while you ascribe me to have views I don't even recognize.

Do you realize that if we where really connected you would have no reason to fail to read me correctly at all.

The fact that we are not connected explains why you totally fail to read the intentions of my text.

Is the interpretator an illusion? both yes and no, it all depends on how one use the word or what one is supposed to mean by it. Being an emerged property it only exists dynamically during the emergent procedure and go out of existence when it shuts down and get activated again when the doers are so active that it emerges again. The illusion is that the interpretator feels as if it is the unit or that there are no parts making it possible.

That is most likely why you warn me of identifying with the body as the single unit. The body/brain is more like a huge stack of Ants, very sophisticated Ants.

As far as we know none of these doers are self-aware, the awareness seems to require a lot of them working together. thus awareness is a byproduct of evolution. All animals have it in different amounts.

that we still fail to build computers that are self-aware shows how complex that procedure is.

[premjan]

oneness exists at the substrate level. qualified oneness exists at the human level - our consciousness maps the substrate to an imperfect extent. and duality exists between humans - though we are manifestations of the common substrate and though we have the ability to match the substrate in a qualified way, from one moment to the next, our unique needs, wishes, desires, all polarize us away from each other as individuals. And there is an impermanent and nonessential quality to our conceptions which can be avoided by focusing on stable states of mind (nirvana).

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

If that is how you read me then I fail to express my view on it or your reading ascribe views I don't have.

The gap or chasm is a fact cause to be self aware is an emergent property if it exists at all. One suggested interpretation from Dennett and Pinker and many others. The body/brain has many many small units who are rather independent of each other. One could see our body/brain as a very big ant colony. The Queen even doesn't exist or "emerge" as an overlaying interpretation that through feedback try to suggest things to the independent myriads of doers. These doers do their own thing and may and may not pay attention to what the Emergent Queen suggests. She maybe is not in charge she could be the interpretator of what the doers do.

What to identify with. The combination of these doers and the emerging interpretator. When I am not aware then the body do it's thing but when I emerge out of the doing then the illusion is that I am in charge or sometimes it si obvious I fail to take charge, the body does it's thing regardless of my whims. The body is composed of these billion upon billions of small doers.

So as I see it you get me totally wrong. I try to see me as I am while you ascribe me to have views I don't even recognize.

Do you realize that if we where really connected you would have no reason to fail to read me correctly at all.

The fact that we are not connected explains why you totally fail to read the intentions of my text.

Is the interpretator an illusion? both yes and no, it all depends on how one use the word or what one is supposed to mean by it. Being an emerged property it only exists dynamically during the emergent procedure and go out of existence when it shuts down and get activated again when the doers are so active that it emerges again. The illusion is that the interpretator feels as if it is the unit or that there are no parts making it possible.

That is most likely why you warn me of identifying with the body as the single unit. The body/brain is more like a huge stack of Ants, very sophisticated Ants.

As far as we know none of these doers are self-aware, the awareness seems to require a lot of them working together. thus awareness is a byproduct of evolution. All animals have it in different amounts.

that we still fail to build computers that are self-aware shows how complex that procedure is.
If I understand you correctly, you see yourself as your body and its emergent properties, but you simultaneously see yourself as disconnected from your body, in other words disconnected from yourself. I don’t quite follow this. Why does connectedness have to imply understanding or control?

[aupmanyav]

The connectedness is at the 'truth' level, and non-connectedness is at the 'illusion' levels. The first does not intrude in the second. I do not mean that one should not run if stalked by an enraged elephant. We have to live at our (illusory) level. We do not exist at the other level. Fact is fact.

[abaddon]

Do you realize that if we where really connected you would have no reason to fail to read me correctly at all.

Your conclusion would only follow if "interconnection" meant "identical." Everything is more-or-less connected, and that doesn't erase distinctions. The trees and the atmosphere are interconnected by processes (the trees rely on components of the air, the composition of the air is largely made by trees and other biota) but that doesn't make them the same. That one person can't directly see another's interior experience doesn't make those two persons totally separate. One mind doesn't have to meld with or be the other mind for the two centers of experience to have effects on each other, to "touch" each other.

Communication, for example, is a functional connection. That it fails sometimes only shows the two communicators aren't identical. The connection remains. It's a matter of degree, not all or nothing.

that we still fail to build computers that are self-aware shows how complex that procedure is.

It could also show that we're on the wrong track altogether with seeing mind as only mechanical. It's possible no one will ever make a self-aware computer. We can say it's only a matter of time, but then we can say the same about piling rocks to the moon. It's possible no one will ever explain consciousness. We appeal to "complexity" to excuse our failure to explain it, when actually we might have left something necessary out of the picture; IOW, our assumption that everything works like a mechanism might be hindering more than it's helping.

Your summary of Dennett and Pinker's views is interesting, but didn't really answer Hrvoje's question. You've described your interior felt identity (however illusional it may be) as disconnected from the processes you describe. Isn't that identity part-and-parcel of the processes that you've described? Or is it like the "smell of burnt toast" as I've heard someone describe the mind once... just an accidental and unnecessary (and therefore utterly unexplainable) byproduct of life's more necessary processes (the work of "the ants")?

[aupmanyav]

Abaddon, you (and other buddhists) place more emphasis on consciousness than perhaps it is justified. It is like finally proving the existence or non-existence of God. The pointers clearly say, there is hardly any possibility for both. I think science has explained 'nearly' everything and most probably will explain what is not yet explained. We are sure to build conscious computers with time. Rocks have been brought from the moon, we have already thrown some junk on Moon, Mars, even on Jupiter and Saturn. Some of the junk has already gone beyond the solar system. 'Smell of the burnt toast' is quite explainable.

Continuation of my previous post: Those who can see the first level from the second level are realized.

[wordy]

Why does connectedness have to imply understanding or control?

As I wrote in earlier post. The word connected lose it's particular usefulness as a tool for communication if it is stressed in that way. To be connected as I grew up to understand how to use the word in communication with others is to be in control and know what one is doing.

"Do we connect on this?" is a phrase people sometimes use to check if the other really do understand what they are supposed to do together at work or study. Take two Cops working as partners in one car. They have to rely completely on that the other do their outmost (utmost) to protect them if they come under fire by the criminals. So they ask each other.

"Do we connect on this?"

They check out that they are of one mind figuratively.

As I take your way of using connected or inter-connected then it is a truism or a trivial fact that we only have use of from a feel good poetry perspective. As I understand how you use the word it is a rhetoric and motivational pathos tool to create passion and not about facts. It is trivial fact that get reinterpreted to say more than the word promise. A bit like when the Fundies in US say.

"One Nation Under God" That is a trivial rhetoric motivational pathos wording too. Fundies in Europe try to mimic them in US claiming Europe is built of Christian ground or similar wording. It is spinning.

I felt unsure of if my english failed me here on how to use the word connect so I took the phone and called my teacher of English and told him about your usage here of connect.

His first reaction was that many of you here use a post-modern interpretation of the word. Or apply an old term from Sanskrit but use a modern word to translate it. Describe how it is intended to be understood in that old text but don't use connected for it.

He suggested that you would make all of us less confused if you would only use the Sanskrit word and not translate it. He say ordinary words are too ambiguous to be used in such defined ways. One should use terms for such communication. The Sanskrit word for being one is such a term. That would be much less confusing to all of us.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Thank you for clarifying, Wordy. :)

[wordy]

Here is a scientific research thats indirectly supports my take on that our consciousness has no direct connection even to our own brain.

The subject is different from us but that allow us to do a research that is clarifying. Our brain are not as orgarnized for music as his is. Greater part of his brain has specialized on hearing and to structure what he hears but he is not so different from us that the research is misleading. We have this inability that he shows too, but us not being autistic has more broad resources to tap into so we are more able to read our own brain and others brain but still the research shows we only guess based on experience, we have no direct connection to the brains inner circuits and that explains why we are totally separate as human social persons.

Being persons we have to emerge out of the doing that the brain does. That is why we have no connection. It takes time to go through the loop that makes us aware and the time lag isolate us completely from what the brain actually are doing. It is an after the act guessing on why the brain body acted that way. But the brain body get constant feedback from our consciousness and thus are able to calibrate what it does so it appear to us as if we "know" or "it feels like" as if we are connected.

The pantheist or buddhist doing a meditation that feels like as if they are connected are in same situation as Derek in the research, they are only guessing and have no clue on what is going on. That is why they have done this for thousands of years and created no knowledge at all. Only wishful thinking and claims.

https://www.five.tv/programmes/extraordinarypeople/musicalgenius/

Derek is taken to Goldsmiths college where Professor Linda Pring fixes 32 electrodes to his skull in order to test how accurately and quickly his brain monitors sound. She plays him 64 musical phrases from Moonlight Sonata, half of which contain errors. His verbal responses are random, but his brain activity filters the wrong sounds with startling accuracy.

[aupmanyav]

Connectedness is like two siblings being raised up in two far-away continents.

[wordy]

Connectedness is like two siblings being raised up in two far-away continents.

I've seen such on TV and it is obvious they had no connection what so ever. And those where even twins from same egg. More close to each other than ordinary siblings.

[aupmanyav]

That is true but saying they are not connected would also be wrong.

[wordy]

What they experience as social human persons are not connected to the Universe as One in any way. The word connected has different meanings and it is not fair to use one meaning of it and apply that on a not related other meaning of the word connected.

Two different meanings of the word connected.

1. subatomic something has non-locality, seems to be connected if the test result is interpreted that way.

2. Siblings seem more connected socially than complete strangers seems to be.

Connected in 1. is not used in same way as connected in example 2.

[aupmanyav]

I agree to that, there are grades of connection, and to what people will take as connection.

[wordy]

aupmanyav, wow I almost gave up so a big warm hug to you.

[premjan]

What aupmanyav is trying to get at is the potential to be as socially / consciously interconnected as we are anyway physically interconnected. This is what is known in Hinduism as Advaita or nonduality.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Connectedness is like two siblings being raised up in two far-away continents.

I've seen such on TV and it is obvious they had no connection what so ever. And those where even twins from same egg. More close to each other than ordinary siblings.

Here's another book (http://www.amazon.com/Twin-Telepathy-Guy-Lyon-Playfair/dp/1843336863/ref=sr_1_1/102-8014426-3327316?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181105319&sr=1-1) I haven't read that seems relevant to the subject. To quote one of the reviewers:
Playfair designed experiments that were broadcast on live TV and recorded. In each case, the pairs were separated so that they had no visual or auditory contact, and one of the pair was given an unexpected, strong (though painless!) stimulus. In each case, the other twin reacted -- which in one experiment was captured by a four-channel polygraph.

[aupmanyav]

aupmanyav, wow I almost gave up so a big warm hug to you.We always understood each other, it was only a question of putting it in words. :)

[wordy]

Here is a text by Playfair. Another instance of this kind of revisionist spin-doctoring by skeptics turned up in The Lancet for December 15th 2001 in which Chris French, editor of the CSICOP-supported journal The Skeptic was allowed to get his oar into a report from the Netherlands on near-death experiences (NDEs) of hospital patients. French could not very well deny that people do have such experiences, but he sought to minimise their significance by claiming that some such reports were simply false memories based on accounts they had read of the experiences of others.
He didn't produce any evidence to support this claim, of course. from here http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/observer/observer4.htm

When I read how that txt is set up I find it likely that this is not a person that trust James Randi and CSICOP (they use another name now "CSICOP becomes CSI after thirty years. Name change reflects growth, focus on science and reason. Amherst, N.Y. (Nov. 30, 2006)").

Playfair is opposed to them. Doesn't that say it all?

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Are you saying that opposing CSICOP is reason enough to disregard the research that he has done?

[aupmanyav]

I presume what people reportedly experience in NDE, will be experienced by most, if not all (they say some hear jarring noises). IMHO, this is a purely physical process (as I tried to explain in one of my posts, closing of non-essential services to conserve oxygen usage by brain), and probably, something like this happens in animals also (otherwise we would not have had it).