(August 15, 2015 at 9:01 am)Lucanus Wrote:

(August 15, 2015 at 8:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: You don't have to go very far to find out why the energy and consciousness always go hand in hand
like the two pages of the same sheet.
Your body could not function without a mind and the other way around as far as a parallelism exist.
Bodies are made of energy.
If you could use the energy within a rock you probably could fuel a rocket that take you up in the moon and back.
Atheism is lacking in wisdom.
It rely on physical science and not even that most of the time.
It doesn't know where the consciousness start from.
Humans got consciousness, animals too and here is where it stop.
Atheism can not see that also plants and matter got consciousness.
Physical science can not see any sign of life in rocks so it doesn't recognize consciousness in it.
Isn't that obvious that the physical can only deal with physical?
Can your mind be explained by your physical senses like sight, smell, touch and so on?
Naturally not that is why abstract things can not be recognized by physical science.
We know that the mind exist so why not the consciousness?
But if you think that abstract things like the consciousness do not exist then you can always try
to get rid of your one.
Do you really think you can?  

And again, you go for more unsupported assertions and zero evidence. What do you mean when you say consciousness? How can I determine if something is conscious or not? How do I see that all energy is consciousness?

We can not see the mind and the consciousness because they are abstract things.
This doesn't mean that there is zero evidence that they exist.
Consciousness is what makes the universe but where is the evidence then?
The evidence can be seen when the evolution cycle take place.
It is next to impossible to see consciousness in a rock because it is in a latent state but we can see it in more evolved form of lives like plants, animals and human beings.
We are conscious that we are who we are.
Consciousness doesn't fall from the sky as a gift to us.
We evolved for long long time opening up in this way more and more consciousness.
Evolution start from matter not from animals as many atheists believe so if matter
start the consciousness evolution cycle then it means that the universe is made of consciousness.
Considering that a rock has got consciousness and energy in it all fall into place and if the universe is made of consciousness there got to be a superconscious mind who create this universe.  

(August 15, 2015 at 10:26 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(August 15, 2015 at 8:15 am)Little Rik Wrote: Your guessing is very silly.
Suppose you are in love with someone.
I pop up and i say to you.........FROM WHAT I CAN SEE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE IN LOVE.
This is how science works.
Science only look at the material-physical aspect of the equation not at the consciousness one
therefore it miss the whole.
Physical science is doing his job but we can not say that the job is completed.
Part of the equation is missing and guess what?
You need a different type of science to completed the job to come up with 100% solution.
And this other science is not physical obviously.  

It is quite possible for someone to say they love you and not mean it. To really know that someone loves you you would need some supporting evidence. Science does not only deal with the physical. There are whole schools of science that deal with non-physical concepts; behavioural sciences, psychology and psychiatry etc.

You are forgetting something plumb.
Science can deal to some extend with what lie in the mind but the mind is like an onion
with so many layers.
The outer mind is not the inner mind or superconscious mind and science can only scratch the surface of the outer layer of the mind.
To go deeper and deeper inside you need a more powerful type of science which is not physical.

(August 15, 2015 at 10:46 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(August 15, 2015 at 10:26 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: It is quite possible for someone to say they love you and not mean it. To really know that someone loves you you would need some supporting evidence. Science does not only deal with the physical. There are whole schools of science that deal with non-physical concepts; behavioural sciences, psychology and psychiatry etc.

You are forgetting something plumb.
Science can deal to some extend with what lie in the mind but the mind is like an onion
with so many layers.
The outer mind is not the inner mind or superconscious mind and science can only scratch the surface of the outer layer of the mind.
To go deeper and deeper inside you need a more powerful type of science which is not physical.

How exactly would you go about to show the validity of this "more powerful type of science which is not physical"?
What exactly can this "more powerful type of science which is not physical" do?
And lastly,what exactly is this "more powerful type of science which is not physical"?

Little  Rik : there is no such thing as non physical science. That is because it only investigates observable phenomena that
are physical by definition. It cannot investigate any thing non physical or metaphysical for that is beyond its remit. It is an
inductive discipline that uses evidence to validate its premises. And evidence is always physical. It cannot be anything else

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

(August 15, 2015 at 10:46 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(August 15, 2015 at 10:26 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: It is quite possible for someone to say they love you and not mean it. To really know that someone loves you you would need some supporting evidence. Science does not only deal with the physical. There are whole schools of science that deal with non-physical concepts; behavioural sciences, psychology and psychiatry etc.

You are forgetting something plumb.
Science can deal to some extend with what lie in the mind but the mind is like an onion
with so many layers.
The outer mind is not the inner mind or superconscious mind and science can only scratch the surface of the outer layer of the mind.
To go deeper and deeper inside you need a more powerful type of science which is not physical.

(emphasis is mine)

Well, somebody's been watching "Shrek" lately.

(August 15, 2015 at 10:34 am)Little Rik Wrote: Lucanus
And again, you go for more unsupported assertions and zero evidence. What do you mean when you say consciousness? How can I determine if something is conscious or not? How do I see that all energy is consciousness?


We can not see the mind and the consciousness because they are abstract things.
This doesn't mean that there is zero evidence that they exist.
Consciousness is what makes the universe but where is the evidence then?
The evidence can be seen when the evolution cycle take place.
It is next to impossible to see consciousness in a rock because it is in a latent state but we can see it in more evolved form of lives like plants, animals and human beings.
We are conscious that we are who we are.
Consciousness doesn't fall from the sky as a gift to us.
We evolved for long long time opening up in this way more and more consciousness.
Evolution start from matter not from animals as many atheists believe so if matter
start the consciousness evolution cycle then it means that the universe is made of consciousness.
Considering that a rock has got consciousness and energy in it all fall into place and if the universe is made of consciousness there got to be a superconscious mind who create this universe.  

Can someone please explain to me why anyone would even bother to reply to such herpederpical nonsense?

Any post that contains the bolded, underlined, italicized phrase is surely not to be taken seriously enough to respond to.

Oh wait, I replied to his post. Fuck me.

(August 15, 2015 at 8:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: You don't have to go very far to find out why the energy and consciousness always go hand in hand
like the two pages of the same sheet.
Your body could not function without a mind and the other way around as far as a parallelism exist.

But again, since in our experience we've never seen minds separate from bodies, could you please prove that the mind is a separate entity from the body? What happens to it when it separates from the body? How can you prove that what you say is true?

(August 15, 2015 at 8:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: Bodies are made of energy.
If you could use the energy within a rock you probably could fuel a rocket that take you up in the moon and back.

Bodies (and I mean, living organisms, not rocks) are specific arrangements of matter and energy that are perpetually in flux; they have adapted to respond in the fastest and most efficient ways possible by billions of years of natural selection. The energy within a rock is that of the chemical bonds that compose its crystalline structure. And even then, it would be pretty hard to "use" that energy as a fuel    
Oh, also its potential energy if you put it on a very steep slope, and kinetic energy if you let it roll down that slope; the kinetic energy dissipates with production of sound, heat and the movement of other stuff (dust, air, other rocks) that is hit by our rolling rock.

(August 15, 2015 at 8:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: Atheism is lacking in wisdom.
It rely on physical science and not even that most of the time.
It doesn't know where the consciousness start from.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s). Again, you are mistaking it for philosophical naturalism. Many atheists are philosophical naturalists; many others are not. Please use the proper words for stuff. It gets annoying.

"It rely on physical science and not even that most of the time": what the heck? "not even that most of the time"? are you serious?

From what we can reliably know and deduce at this time, we have good reasons to think that consciousness is the product of the activities of the brain. The brain itself is a centre of integration of external and internal stimuli (coming in the form of signals from neurons all over the body) and it's capable of elaborating responses to them in a very short time. Since there is nothing to prove that consciousness is separate from the brain and seeing what the brain is capable of doing on its own (a whole bunch of homeostatic functions that respond to external and internal stimuli), it's pretty reasonable to assume that the brain is responsible of our consciousness. And before you say "you atheists have NO evidence" look up a fucking physiology book. Jeez. I'm studying this shit right now. I'd even lend you my book, it's pretty clear and in a language you can understand.

(August 15, 2015 at 8:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: Humans got consciousness, animals too and here is where it stop.
Atheism can not see that also plants and matter got consciousness.

Humans and most animals in general have nervous systems that allow them to integrate external and internal stimuli and respond to them in an appropriate way. Plants respond to stimuli too, but before saying anything about them, way more research is needed.

Think about it, though. Being "conscious" generally means "being aware of your surroundings". The problem is, we only know awareness from a human perspective, which is a very privileged point of view, as our higher brain functions are particularly developed (and if our brain wasn't linked to our cognitive abilities then you should give another plausible explanation for the size of our brain). As part of our way of seeing things, we generally assume "purpose" as the reasons we do things. What about other living beings though? What about organisms whose brains are much less developed, like all other animals, or organisms that don't have a brain at all, like plants and fungi? What about unicellular organisms? 
What we can see, especially at the cellular level, is physical responses to physical stimuli. No "spiritual consciousness" involved. A cell's awareness of its own surroundings completely depends on its capability of detecting the environment itself, and the cell does so simply by physical means, without any apparent abstract intention or purpose.

One action potential runs through the axon of a neuron and arrives to the presynaptic terminal. This potential makes calcium channels open, calcium comes into the terminal and out the neurotransmitter goes, lighting action potentials in many other neurons. If these mechanisms are altered, our consciousness is altered too - this strongly implies that our consciousness is deeply linked to these processes. So deeply linked to them, in fact, that it's plausible that our consciousness is the result of them.

(August 15, 2015 at 8:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: Physical science can not see any sign of life in rocks so it doesn't recognize consciousness in it.

It's not just "physical science", it's common sense. If you couldn't see any sign of a 500€ note in my pocket, even after turning it inside out, wouldn't you say that I don't have a 500€ note? If I went ahead and claimed that the one in my pocket is a "non-physical 500€", wouldn't it sound a bit like bullshit to you? Would you accept a "non-physical 500€" as payment for anything?

(August 15, 2015 at 8:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: Isn't that obvious that the physical can only deal with physical?
Can your mind be explained by your physical senses like sight, smell, touch and so on?
Naturally not that is why abstract things can not be recognized by physical science.

You are greatly underestimating what our nervous system can do, bud. Seriously, open a physiology book. People have studied this stuff and yes, it is possible. The nervous system is not limited to the special senses; it is a center of integration of functions, and it's really, really complicated.

Abstract ideas are abs-tracted (that means, extracted) from our experience of reality. Would you be able to think about colours if you had no eyes to experience them in the first place? Would you be able to tell what numbers are without experiencing the multiplicity of things, without any sense to tell you even what "things" are in the first place?

(August 15, 2015 at 8:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: We know that the mind exist so why not the consciousness?
But if you think that abstract things like the consciousness do not exist then you can always try
to get rid of your one.
Do you really think you can?  

I'm not saying that the mind or the consciousness (which to me are pretty much synonyms) don't exist. I'm saying that they can be explained in concrete terms by studying the reality we can experience, without deceiving ourselves with unverifiable and unreliable spiritual bullshit.

(August 15, 2015 at 1:23 pm)surreptitious57 Wrote: Little  Rik : there is no such thing as non physical science. That is because it only investigates observable phenomena that
are physical by definition. It cannot investigate any thing non physical or metaphysical for that is beyond its remit. It is an
inductive discipline that uses evidence to validate its premises. And evidence is always physical. It cannot be anything else

Unfortunately you never made the effort to study the past where science started.
Everything goes back several thousand years with Tantra the first science.
Tantra is not much physical at all.
In fact is mostly a spiritual science.

http://www.anandamarga.org/articles/tantra-science/



Luc.
As soon as i got some time i will answer you.  

(August 16, 2015 at 4:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: [...]
Everything goes back several thousand years with Tantra the first science.
Tantra is not much physical at all.
[...]

Isn't "tantra" that thing your mother does with strange men for money? Seems pretty physical to me...


I get it now - when you say "science" - you mean "f*cking". That explains a lot...

I'll bet you're doing "science" with yourself right now...

(August 16, 2015 at 4:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: Unfortunately you never made the effort to study the past where science started.
Everything goes back several thousand years with Tantra the first science.
Tantra is not much physical at all.
In fact is mostly a spiritual science.

http://www.anandamarga.org/articles/tantra-science/

Ok, I had the masochism to open that link.
First off, I have to say that it does not look like a reliable website. They are trying to sell you something: meditation courses. So we're off to a bad start, with what amounts to a promotional website for somebody's business. My skeptic senses are tingling, but I'm still curious. I think I'll dissect this thing like a frog.

Let's begin:

Quote:Tantra is the original spiritual science first taught in India more than 7000 years ago.

Define "science". Science is a method of hypothesis and testing that wasn't "invented" until Galileo came along. Does Tantra follow the scientific method? At a first glance, it doesn't look like that. If it does not follow the scientific method, then it's not science. And if it's not science, it's likely to be woo that someone's trying to sell you.

Quote:During this epoch of warfare between the Aryans and non-Aryans, a great personality was born. His name was Sadashiva which means “He who is always absorbed in consciousness and one whose only vow of existence is to promote the all-around welfare of living beings”. Sadashiva, also known as Shiva, was a great spiritual preceptor or Guru. Although Tantra was practiced before his birth, it was he who for the first time gave humanity a systematic presentation of spirituality.Not only was he a great spiritual teacher, but he was also the founder of the Indian system of music and dance, which is why he is sometimes known as Nataraj (the Lord of the Dance). Shiva was also the founder of Indian medicine, and presented a system known as Vaedyak Shastra. In the social sphere too Shiva had an important role to play. He introduced a system of marriage in which both partners accepted a mutual responsibility for the success of the marriage, irregardless of caste or community. Shiva himself was of mixed parentage, and by marrying an Aryan princess he helped to unite the warring factions of India and gave them a more universalistic social viewpoint. Because of these social innovations Shiva has been called the father of human civilization.

Citation needed, please. This could be a whole load of bull. Is there evidence that any of this actually happened? Is there evidence that this guy actually existed and it's not a myth? No citations of scholarly historical research can be found in that website, which just proves my point that they are only trying to sell you something and they don't want you to think too critically about it.

Quote:Shiva’s greatest contribution to the birth of civilization was to introduce the concept of dharma. Dharma is a Sanskrit word which signifies the “innate characteristic” of something. What is the innate characteristic and specialty of humans? Shiva explained that a human being wants more than the pleasure provided by sensory gratification. He said that the human being is different from plants and animals because what he or she is striving for is absolute peace. This is the goal of human life, and Shiva’s spiritual teachings were aimed at enabling any human being to attain this goal.

This does not look like science to me. Science is a work of cooperation, where many people test their (often conflicting) ideas in order to get to the truth. This is just a guy (whose existence can be doubted, as there are no citations to support such a claim) who's spouting a lot of stuff without rigorously demonstrating anything. Everything he says is accepted acritically and presented as wisdom. This, my friend, is not science. This is an appeal to authority, and it's the most unscientific thing one could possibly do.

Quote:When Shiva first taught he gave teaching according to the development of the student. He saw that certain people were at a level in which they were dominated by animal passions and others were at a higher stage of development. He gave different practices depending on the qualities of the disciple.

The first M is known as Madya. It has two meanings. One meaning of madya is “wine”. For those people who were dominated by physical instincts Shiva instructed them to continue drinking wine, but he showed them how to control the habit and then finally leave it. For those at a higher level of development Madya has another meaning, it refers not to wine but to a divine nectar. Each month the pineal gland secretes a fluid known as amrta . A yogi who has purified his mind and practices fasting can taste the fluid and experience the profound effect of the fluid on his whole being, which has been described as a state of bliss. Thus, there is both a crude or material interpretation of Madya and a subtle or spiritual understanding of the term.

(emphasis mine)

The pineal gland produces melatonine. It does it all the time, not "once a month" and it's a hormone that is still being studied, as not much is known about it yet. But one thing it doesn't do, is secrete a fluid that can be tasted, because it's an endocrine gland. So oopsie, that is bullshit.

Quote:Another of the five Ms is Mamsa. One meaning of Mamsa is meat. For those who ate much meat, Shiva told them to continue to take it with a spiritual idea and finally to control the urge and quit the habit. For the subtle practitioner of Tantra, mamsa refers to the tongue and the spiritual practice of controlling one’s speech.

Matsya, the third of the Ms, refers to fish. For the physically minded practitioner Shiva applied the same instruction regarding fish as he did with wine and meat. In spiritual or subtle Tantra the “fish” refers to two subtle nerves which run up the body, starting at the base of the spine and crisscrossing each other and ending in the two nostrils. These nerves are known as the ida and pingala. By the science of breath control, Pranayama, the currents of the nerves are controlled and the mind becomes calm for meditation. This is the Matsya of the spiritual practitioner.

So this guy discovered how to avoid cold turkey when you're trying to quit something. As it's not intuitive enough

But look at how they word all of this. "The science of breath control, Pranayama" is not a science. It may be a traditional technique and it may even work, but it's not scientific because it does not explain anything, or worse, the explanations proposed are just plain wrong, as was the case with the pineal gland before. Controlling the frequency at which you breathe can and indeed does calm you, but it happens because of the changes in the nervous system's chemistry that follow it.

Quote:Another of the Ms is Mudra. Mudra has only a spiritual significance and there is no physical or crude practice associated with it. Mudra means to maintain contact with those who help us to make spiritual progress and to avoid the company of those who might harm our development.

This basically means to live in an echo chamber.

Quote:The last of the Ms, Maethuna, is the one which has caused the most confusion regarding Tantra. Maethuna means union. In its crude sense it means sexual union. For those who were dominated by the sexual instinct Shiva told that the sex act must be done with a spiritual idea and that gradually this instinct must be controlled. For the more advanced practitioners, those who were practicing subtle or spiritual Tantra, Shiva taught another practice of Maethuna. In this case “union” refers to the union of individual consciousness with Supreme Consciousness. In this case the spiritual energy of the human being, lying dormant at the base of the spine, is raised until it reaches the highest energy center (near the pineal gland), causing the spiritual aspirant to experience union with the Supreme.

(emphasis mine)
First off, there is no proof of a supreme consciousness. That leaves a big hole in all of this. Second, if the "spiritual energy of the human being" resides at the base of the spine, and then reaches the pineal gland (in ways unknown, btw) it would be pretty easy to register its activity in some way, wouldn't it? And yet, instead of proof, we just get a bunch of woo woo.

This site is trying to make a fool out of you. It masks the traditional methods it is trying to sell with science-y language but doesn't actually explain how the stuff it's describing works, nor does it cite any reliable sources. These people are predators, trying to feed on the scientific ignorance of others. The stuff they sell you may work, but that doesn't mean that it is right. I'm telling you as a friend, Rik. Don't fall for this shit. Look for the truth and never take anything for granted.