Great points. And as far as burnt goes, we agree on practically everything , although I would point out that people have done horrible, stupid, destructive things for reasons other than just religion. But to belaganist, I think I see what you're getting at with the above quote, but to me it doesn't make a lot of literal sense. The idea of something "existing" outside of "physical reality," seems like a self-contradicting statement to me. If anything, I hope we focus on what is real, as in what we can observe/sense. And if something can be observed it must be in some way physical, not to mention how the whole idea of 'knowing' something that can't at all be sensed doesn't seem possible either.

In general, I'd have to say we need to learn to appreciate how material, how matter, CAN have value (ourselves being one example). To me this is a much broader and more encompassing world-view than most religions promote. If there is no fundamental distinction between that which makes up "you" and other people, and other life forms, and the planet, and the universe, then you have to extend your sense of self to include all these things. And if there's one thing life is good at, it's being selfish!

Yes there is a very important reason that your brain makes a distinction between your self and the rest of the world. Psychedelics can break that perception but that doesn't mean that broken down perceptions are more valid or offer some fundamental truth. The truth I see is how much our brain controls our perception of reality and how much drugs that effect it can change that.

But yes I also agree that anything beyond the physical that isn't interacting with the physical is basically not worth thinking about. If it does interact with the physical world then its subject to analysis.

I know this is all plain weirdo foolishness from a scientific or materialistic perspective, but what the heck:

What if that which is "beyond the physical" is a collection of blueprints, sort of an otherworldly DNA, which determines how things look like and work out in physical reality? In this case, there would be no direct cause-and-effect relationship, at least not in the way we think about it here in the world of manifestations. It would be more like another, hidden side of the same coin. Like Plato's world of ideas. A world with a different logic.

If this were so, then it would be worthwhile to know about it, and find ways to manipulate that other world, because if we could manipulate the blueprints, we could also have a great effect on the world of manifestations. (This is what is called "magic" btw.)

One "thing" in the idea world may influence a great number of manifestations at once (from timelessness to time, from one to many). A - rather silly - example: a certain fear may come up during a psychedelic experience, because a certain pattern is present in the idea world and this pattern manifests in everyone's thought processes. If someone could clear up that pattern over there, this fear - even the possibility of it - would disappear in an instant from everyone.

If this kind of magic is possible, that's a very serious matter. In this case, most of humanity is living under the control of the current idea systems, the present "configuration" of that other world, playing out the same muddy scenarios in the screenplay, again and again. At the current level of evolution, the idea world is evolving in an unconscious, vegetative manner. The world may be waiting for human beings to wake up and take responsible control of it.

Possibilities like this provide the fuel for new-age and spiritual thinking. From that perspective, materialism may be seen as a threat: once you believe in it, you may close down to these other possibilities and therefore stay in the shadows forever. From this perspective, it's frightening to see how "flawless" the materialistic prison looks like from within.

Relying on science alone, we may never wake up from the dream. As I see it, science is a part of the system. The only way it can help us getting beyond is by recognizing its own limits: from that realization it may indirectly follow that there is something beyond it. But science will never get us through that border. We have to "jump" over there - for example with psychedelics - and then approach the wall from the other side, so that the two sides may meet in peace.

Your argument is a contradiction.



If this other worldly whatever determines how things look and work out in physical reality then it is interacting with physical reality and my statement is no less incorrect. If this other worldly whatever interacts with some other reality which interacts with our reality then its still having an effect on our reality and thus it interacts with our reality indirectly. Its interacting though.

So where is this evidence for this nonphysical reality that supposedly has an effect in our reality but yet it doesn't interact with our reality? Can you see why that statement is a complete contradiction?

Note that what I mean by physical reality I mean all matter and energy even forms we don't yet know what they are composed of. Like dark matter for example, which we know exists because it exerts gravitational force on regular matter, it interacts but not with light so its not like the rest of matter that we know because we evolved to see an observe it.



Magic is not real. So many magicians and psychics have come out and said that its all tricks and even demonstrated how some of those tricks worth. The shamans aren't doing magic either. They are altering their everyday perceptions of reality and using those experiences for healing purposes whether or not they work for the reasons they think they work.



Again this other world is interacting with our world. So what are the properties of that other world? How does it interact with our world? So far all that goes on in our world is explainable by all the physical stuff in it we know about down to the standard model.

Fears that come up spontaneously from a psychedelic trip are just in appropriate associations your brain is making by looking at something like a "scary" tree or something. SWIM has looked at things and just felt fear for no reason. Its an inappropriate response to a stimulus because your senses are altered. Sometimes psychedelics can make you aware of a real legit fear too but that isn't magical either.

I don't really understand what you are saying though. I don't see how patterns from another world manifest themselves as fear in everyones thought patterns. I don't see how it really makes sense.




The world is not a life form. My ideas are not vegetative or unconscious. Neither is the rest of the worlds. Ideas don't come from some alternate reality they come from our minds. I don't see why there need to some magic blue print world calling the shots?



Possibilities and claims like that are why I think new age spiritual thinking is nonsense.

I also don't see why you are saying a materialistic view is like a prison. Our materialistic scientific view has shown us that the universe is a vast huge place with the possibility of other universes. If it points out that magic is not real that's not imprisoning its freeing us from a delusion. A delusion which many people are not willing to let go of.



Science has woken us up from tons of "dreams". Science taught us that the earth revolves around the sun and that we live in a vast old universe. Furthermore science is not part of the system that needs to just call it quits trying to understand stuff and just let random beliefs based on psychedelic drug experiences guide us. Science is a way to figure out how and why things work and how they come to be etc.

Yes, good point. Maybe I led us astray a little in this thread then, because my response was more a general point about the world (assumed to be based on evidence), and not related exactly to truths perceived through psychedelics.


And as for cellux's response to burnt's statement below (and the subsequent rebuttal):

No doubt I find your theory interesting, cellux, but like burnt I can't claim to really understand it. But that discussion is a dead ringer for the debate around Descartes's distinction between body and mind/soul (see "Cartesian division", which I personally think has to be one of the most important and fundamental concepts to our way of thinking today.

I think this dualism of mind/brain is another delusion that society is having difficulty letting go of. More and more evidence is accumulating that shows how our perceptions, our memories, our awareness, and our unified conscious experience is all a result of the activity of our brain.

I wouldn't say it's interacting with it. Example: we know that gravity exists, we know how gravity works, but we don't know WHY it exists. We don't know what gravity "means". That other world gives us an answer to the why. Science gives an answer to the how.

The other world is static, this one is dynamic. (Or perhaps the other one has a much higher inertia than this one.)



If "having an effect" means a cause-and-effect relationship in time (cause first, effect second), then no. Things play out in this reality because of how things are arranged in that other, but there is no direct cause-and-effect relationship. The other world is the blueprint, this one is the manifestation. The two are inseparable.



The only way to gather such evidence would be to invent a method with which we could alter the structure of that other world (the world of blueprints) and then observe the resulting changes in our world.

If we could repeatedly do this, that could serve as a source of the required evidence.

As I currently don't know of any such method, from a scientific point of view, my theory is nothing.



And by the "idea world" or the "world of blueprints" I mean an abstract world - much like the world of mathematics - which determines the structural and behavioral patterns of physical reality.



Sorry for this part, I see your problem. Forget it.



Why are you so sure?

Imagining the world (our Earth, to be more precise) as a life-form is of great value: we can relate to it as we would to another human being. If people cannot connect to the Earth, if all they see is a lump of matter then it may be harder for them to realize why it's important to take care of "Her".

I think that nobody came up with any evidence to support your claim (that the world is not a life form). Therefore I am free to believe it is (that it has extra "layers" beyond those currently observed by science). And if this has a positive effect on my life, I prefer this belief to that which states it's just matter.

(This same argument may be used regarding the existence of God.)



Yes they come from our minds, but we are able to conceive them because they are in that alternate reality as blueprints.

If they were not present as blueprints, they would be unthinkable. They wouldn't exist.

The blueprints make it possible that two humans can think of the same idea. The blueprint is manifesting in two minds at the same time.

Without the blueprints, we could never be sure that we can really share an experience. We would be alone.



Because it gives depth and meaning to my life.

I wouldn't believe in such things if there were any evidence against them, but fortunately there cannot be.



It's only a prison if it closes down. If it stops allowing other possibilities. If it doesn't want to face new facts, because it's sure everything is already known.

It's the same difference as between "atheism" and "agnosticism".

This seems to be becoming a discussion of the limits of science and the limits of our knowledge about the universe around us (which is all good with me ). I've ran into this stuff before with physics. An example (only one that comes to mind ) might be with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which basically says its physically impossible to find out exactly where a particle is (its location) AND where its going (its velocity) AT THE SAME TIME. It sure makes common sense to assume that the little bit of matter IS in a certain place at a certain time, but if it is theoretically impossible to know it, then can you really claim it has a definite location? Actually I think in this example the answer turns out to be no, but there are other examples of theories that make 'logical' sense to us, but can't be proved or disproved by evidence.



I kinda like this stuff too. About the 'existence' of abstract mathematical forms. I think Plato talked about an idea world like this? And Kant too? I'm a little rusty on my philosophy texts. hehe


Really though cellux, I'd like to know how you came up with this theory of yours. I find it's complexity intruiging.

I think it's the same as with everyone else: I'm living, experiencing and trying to find a framework into which I can fit my experience. During the process, I gather a lot of information, then filter it and use the seemingly valuable parts as building blocks in my own Grand Unified Theory.

Gravity exists because the laws of nature. Thats why all forces exist. The better question is why are the laws of nature what they are.

Regardless gravity is interacting all the other fundamental forces make complete sense, for gravity there is just not some particle detected to explain it completely. Also its much weaker which is odd. But you can't deny that gravity does not interact with matter. It does whatever or however. Thats how we know it exists. That also why your blueprint world doesn't make any sense unless it interacts with our world.




Well at the quantum level there is no such thing as cause and effect its completely indeterministic. All attempts to explain this with hidden variables has failed. So again I don't really see the need for some other blueprint world unless it somehow explains why things work in our world. So far I see no explanation for that or mechanism for how.



Look your saying that this blueprint world is essential for things to happen in our world. If it really is that important it must have an effect that is observable either directly or indirectly in our world. I see no evidence for such a thing unless it can explain why the laws of nature are the way they are. If you can connect that then I might take it seriously.



Like the laws of nature?



I am a biologist I can't stand the gaia hypothesis. The earth does not even come close to fitting the definition for what we consider life. We should care about the earth and the organisms that live on it for our survival and also because we are capable of feeling empathy for other forms of life.

It is just matter just like the rest of the universe (by that i mean all the forces particles and unknowns). This is also why I don't believe in a theistic god.



Why though? Why think it works that way? The brain has evolved to be able to give human beings the ability to think and calculate and make decisions whether rational or not. Its a survival tool that worked really well. I don't see how these so called blueprints have anything to do with why I or any other living being thinks. There is no reason to believe it is so. If there is please elaborate.



Well the absence of evidence is not evidence. I guess I mean just because there is no evidence against something that might not be correct does not mean its correct.

Also concerning depth and meaning. You want depth and meaning in your life. So do most humans. Most people can't accept that they are made up of matter and particles bouncing around. I happen to be ok with that as all evidence points to it being true. Just because people want something to be real to give their lives meaning does not mean that it is.

I find it just as beautiful and amazing that I exist at all when the odds are so against me being here. Had my parents had sex one day later I would not exist at all. Had my parents parents had sex one day later I nor they would exist. It goes on and on. That we exist at all is amazing.



It does not close down. Sure it rejects theories. But if theories have no evidence and people don't have coherant explanations and don't try to prove anything no one is going to believe it. Like evolution first it was just an idea Darwin had based on observation. But it took many years and tons of evidence to prove its real.

I'd say I lean more towards atheism then agnosticism but I still admit that I don't know for sure with 100% certainty that there is no god.

Hello Burnt
my dear friend.
Burnt how can you say.

" But yes I also agree that anything beyond the physical that isn't interacting with the physical is basically not worth thinking about. If it does interact with the physical world then its subject to analysis." [/quote]

No long response here but if we all still had that personal mythology the microscope would never have been invented.

We all have personal mythology(like it or not its true) that we can not be easily dismissed from.

Kind of like the ego


sincere
PEACE/LOVE


MV

Burnt: I was in a very deep and healing aya ritual the other night. One part of it was really tough, a real emotional and physical purge. I caught a glimpse of the true meaning of what healing is. How deep it can go.

I thought of you at one point in my journey. It feels as though you are holding onto definitions, proofs and such. These are only constructs we use to help us communicate ideas. There are deeper levels.

Have you been through an ayahuasca ceremony? I think you may learn something. One of Aya's functions is to connect us with the earth and nature. DMT on its own is like attaching yourself to a cannon, shooting into hyperspace. Very hard to direct.. With Aya, you are both on earth and up in hyperspace, it forms kind of a bridge.
I hope you dont find any of this patronising. Its not meant to be. I think your critical thinking is really important. But so is being open to new and ancient concepts that may not fit in with your worldview. When we have real deep spiritual experiences, we can see the reality of it, it is not like some hippy dippy stuff we read in a new age book.

No long response here but if we all still had that personal mythology the microscope would never have been invented.[/quote]

What I mean is it has no effect no place no role no interaction with our universe we will never know it exists. If it or anything is real and has an effect in our universe we can in theory know about it or learn something about it.

The microscopic world exists. It makes up our macroscopic world.



In what sense I dont understand what you mean exactly.



yes with a trained shaman.



i learned its a substance that has value for healing. especially for rainforest peoples who are always under attack by parasites. it also has value for mental healing and cleansing.



i don't think you are really going anywhere though or opening any door to another reality. i think all that happens can be explain by how the substance effects our brains. i guess thats my take on it though most people don't see it that way although i think there is considerable evidence to say it is so.



no i don't find it patronizing

anyway i am open to peoples concepts and ideas of course. but if its based on something that i don't think is true and their is evidence that shows its not necessarily true then i question it.

for example i don't think shamans can really communicate with the dead. i've had visions of communicating with dead ancestors but i don't think it was necessarily real. it was like a dream my mind created while i was awake because of the substances in my body changing the way it normally works.

i also think the shamanic concepts of healing through divination to be false. removing evil spirits doesn't cure disease. ayahuasca can cure disease in a few ways: by purging, by stimulating the immune system, and by providing a mental cleansing and giving an individual new perspectives on themselves the world and life (whether or not those perspectives are true they can still have value for healing someone). there is nothing magical about that and its completely explainable from a mechanistic view, although we don't know exactly how it works yet.


i know i may come off as close minded or too harsh and scientific. but understand my motivation is to seek the truth and to understand the value of these substances in medicine. i have been to0 many of the same places as many who have used such substances and i understand how people's world views can be changed by them. but i think its important to separate whats real from whats not real to better understand how to use them positively.

I too thought of the whole "hidden variables" hypotheses when I read cellux's post. From what little reading I've done on the subject, I'd have to agree with you that there is no good evidence supporting it, and in fact there is much evidence against it. I read a book by a guy named Bohm called "The Indivisible Wholeness" or something (sorry I'm too lazy to look it up), which I liked very much at first, but then he started talking all about hidden variables and I was severely disappointed hehe. Then again, I find the NON-hidden variable models much more pleasing to the mind, so I'm sure there's some bias there, regardless of my attempts to be impartial.



When you say the gaia idea, do you mean the idea that the earth regulates itself for the purpose of keeping conditions right for life? Because I don't care for those sentiments either, I mean when you consider that for a long, long time the earth wasn't suitable for life in its current form, and that 99% of all species are now extict, etc., and the damage even we humans seem to be doing to it with our pollutants, I don't see a lot of support of this hypothesis. However, I really like learning about all the cycles of the globe (ie. carbon, sulfur, heat, etc.?), and how different forces, from both living and non-living thing interact with one another to produce the conditions we live in today. I mean of course the conditions we see are going to be good for life, when we evolved to inhabit these very conditions.

Seriously though, as a biologist I wondered if you have anything to say about some of the gaia claims. (Maybe this should be a new thread, though?) One of the only one's i can remember from Lovelock's book is that the overall temperature of the earth hasn't changed more than a few degrees in thousands of years, even though the mix of our atmosphere has changed significantly. Any response to that just off the top of your head? I guess I'm also a biologist according to my degree, even though I've only found work as a chemist so far, but I don't think it helps me much here.

This platonic world of ideas....i always wonder if the laws of nature are there, because logic forces matter to a realm of certain possibilities or whether the possibilities of all particles in the universe determine the realm of logic.

I guess it's more complex. it's probably both.

Some people ask themselves the question:'why is there something instead of nothing?'
But maybe, without matter, there would not be empty space as we know it. Maybe space as we know it is a result of matter.
In our thinking there needs to be a space first, for matter to occupy it. But if matter and space both need eachother to exist, you could not even ask that question why there is something instead of nothing, because there could not even be empty space.

This question of why is there something instead of nothing has perplexed my mind to the utmost many times. It's almost like thinking about it brings a new religious awe of existence and the universe. In this way, I've thought it it like a Buddhist koan, an example of which would be, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Like its a meaningless question, almost absurd by definition, that forces the mind to comprehend reality and existence on a DIRECT level of experience out of our normal way of thinking.

It usually goes like, first I think, what if I'd never been born? Then it broadens, to what if there had never been people? Then what if there had never been earth, or our solar system. None of these levels totally flips my mind like the next. When I think "What if there were never anything??" it just blows my mind. It's just so illogical it's like my brain cant process the thought and instead turns inside out on itself. It's a really amazing feeling, but I can't have it happen just by thinking about it now, for example, it has to come organically through the steps I've outlined above for it to happen.

I have ran across the same thing in my head randomly from time to time and it is crazy how your mind kind of goes into a big loop coming back in on itself.

Crazy stuff indeed

Yes! That is exactly how I would describe the feeling as well! You're right, very strange.

] DECONSTRUCTED [

Going back to the netherworld, for some munition.

(Edit: it may be that the attempt to convert spiritual understanding to rational theories is futile. With such a conversion, the original revelation becomes rigid, dry theory. My comments seem dead now. I still feel the connection with that which generated them, but I cannot communicate this "invisible" part of the picture. And without it, the rest becomes meaningless.)

Bohm is into the mystical side of all this which I think is widely misunderstood. But anyway there is no evidence for hidden variables and some of Bohm's work involved nonlocal communication which essential violates the speed of light and is thus not taken that seriously.



Earth and environmental science is great but yes I am rejecting the idea that the earth is trying to maintain homeostasis for life and I am also rejecting the idea that the earth can be considered alive.



We can make thread about gaia hypothesis if you like. We may have once before. Anyway the earth just doesn't fit the criteria that are required to be defined as live. A major one is that it can't reproduce. Virus's don't really fit them all either but that's why there are kinda not alive but have life like qualities.



Empty space may not be so empty after all http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxlOMa6pdr4

This is a nice talk on the subject:

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/618

Anyway about why is there something instead of nothing may be because nothing is an unstable state. Here are a couple nice papers on the subject.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/11/4/008

http://www.colorado.edu/...enger/Godless/Origin.pdf



We can't imagine nothing. That's why such questions need to be described mathematically. Other language requires analogy which can't grasp it simply because are brains literally did not evolve to be capable of picturing such a thing. But our brains did evolve with intelligence to figure out how to do so mathematically.



A hand clapping sounds like a hand clapping. Different hands and different force gives different types of claps and different kinds of ears may perceive claps differently or not at all. Claps are the result of electromagnetic radiation hitting our ear drum and sending a signal into our brain where we create the perception of sound. Buddhist riddles don't really reveal anything.