Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior  Anagogy: These things you speak of about consciousness (i.e. ascendant nature, permeation of all of space/matter, evolving entity in a world of paths, creation of the Source, and probably other stuff as well), I personally have not experienced any of it directly. Not been told any of that by any'thing' that I deemed a trustworthy source of information. Nor have I reached those conclusions intuitionally, perhaps even of something similar, but of an altogether different quality. Moreover, the findings of the report in question here also doesn't have anything in particular to support those views of consciousness, except perhaps the comparison of consciousness to software. but as I pointed out earlier in a favorite quote of mine: "It's all hardware", software at a fundamental level is really just hardware and without hardware, the software could not exist, similar to the ideas in nondualist philosophy. |
Well of course, everything in the
physical world is physical, so any analogy I use from it will be....yep, you guessed it: physical.
Also, I wasn't trying to say the report supported the idea of nonphysical, I was just offering an alternate explanation for something observed. Rockchick was under the impression it
proved consciousness arises in the brain and I was explaining how that doesn't necessarily follow.
And also, please understand, I'm not out to win converts to my perspective, I require no validation from others for what I've personally discovered as truth. Some things people need to figure out on their own, which is fine, and it doesn't mean I'm right or your wrong or vice versa. You can't know ANYTHING 100% except perhaps, for the fact that you personally
exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior Granted, I don't think those ideas of consciousness are necessarily 'false', but at the same time, I also don't think that they are verifiable while we are in the physical world of those ideas in the case they are true, and that, unfortunately, is not very useful. (In any case, I'd like to get to the bottom of this whole consciousness thing as well, and bits and pieces like these don't help too much in getting any answers...  ). |
Depends on what would "verify" them for you. What evidence would you, personally, find acceptable? Oftentimes, I find that people demand
physical evidence for something that isn't even physical to begin with, which is a pretty hopeless affair, but that doesn't make it untrue necessarily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior In response to the evolutionary chain thing about human bodies and consciousness, I'm looking forward to the day which I can make my current self obsolete. (for those who've read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it is similar to the situation of 'Deep Thought' and the 'Earth'  ). Unfortunately, in this case, it is my guess that for it to be successful, what would be required is a sense of detachment of my current self with itself... a dissolution of the self (or if you enjoy puns, perhaps it will be a disillusion  ). |
I wonder why you are so disposed towards dissolution? I haven't read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, so perhaps you are referencing something I'm not completely grasping.
The current self is always becoming obsolete. Your self of ten years ago is less evolved than your current self. It is "obsolete" in a sense. From my perspective, spiritual evolution is all about rising to higher and higher plateau's of fulfillment, which are birthed from various places of contrast in the physical world.
Best regards.