(June 26, 2017 at 1:59 am)nosferatu323 Wrote:

(June 26, 2017 at 12:25 am)Khemikal Wrote: Well, obviously, but what about all the other people..on the bus I;m driving?  What abou the people who depend on me, after I get eaten by the lion?  I don;t know, but it seems to me as though there would be a notable effect, things would be happening in the world...if we had this ability, or this sort of self switch.   Most of them very, very bad™.  

What other people? There are no people. There is the Universe, nothing else. When your "I" is dropped other's "I"s are also dropped.

That doesn;t follow..and if it were true..."I" wouldn;t be here if just one single guru had ever managed to achieve that state.  I feel like I;m not getting the question across to you adequately.  

Quote:Nothing can go wrong in the Universe. Does things go wrong in far space or in deep sea? The notion of "wrong" emanates from the fear of death which depends on the "I", once it's gone nothing can go wrong.

When I say "go wrong" or "very bad" I mean...why don't more buses crash, why aren't there more consumptions by lions?  These would be things that at least -could- happen.

Quote:The I is gone when you realize that it is already gone? The I is gone when you realize that there was never an I? The I is gone when you believe it's gone? The I is gone when you let it go? can you make any sense out of it? You'll somehow need to face a voluntary death. One aspect of emphasis on "martyrs" in different religions is to symbolize this for the mass.

IDK, I don't seem to have had to voluntarily face death...just read up on modern nueroscience.   

Quote:We are pre-supposing the existence and inexistence of "I" at the same time. There is no way to get rid of the contradiction through out our talk. The only solution is to drop the assumption that I exists. You ready?  

It's just not doing anything for me, the oneness switch isn't getting thrown, is all.

Quote:Clearly not. "being retired from evolution" is more appropriate. 

Right, especially if the bus crashes, or I get eaten by lions.

Quote:The Universe has always been perfect, was there any imperfection in the formation of our galaxy? the perfection and imperfection are irrelevant when you consider that there is only "the laws of nature" and nothing more. The "I" only obscures this fact.

Seems like a deepity, but still it's not what I'm trying to get at.

Quote:The Universe watches the dropped "I" dying in pain with absolute peacefulness. You can pick this one, at least the contradiction is gone I guess.

With it's universe eyes?  

Quote:I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Why someone should die because of an accidental switch?

Because they could...theres just no end of situations in which a malfunctioning (or even properly functoning) switch could lead to death.  Let me try to put it another way.  We can choke to death on our food.  Because we -can- choke to death..on our food, a certain number of us -will- choke to death on our food, every year.  Wouldn't the same also be true of this self switch?

Quote:These accidental switches might be the kind of "spiritual experiences" people report, they drop the "I" temporarily and after they pick it up they attach all sort of their personal brand of delusions to the experience. The experience itself isn't anything "spiritual" of course, because that word doesn't mean anything. I still don't get it why you expect people die because of malfunctioning?

Because we do.....die, from malfunctions in such critical systems.  Here again, though we see some notion of them "picking it back up"..but how, what; the failsafe or the reset on that?  Presumably, if we have these sort of ability...there has to be something keeping it from malfunctioning most of the time..ad there would be some way to reset it - or...seriously, alot of us would just be cabbages.  That;s what I;m wondering about.  Where are all the cabbages such an ability would ensure with certainty?

Quote:In fact there is no "malfunction" in the Universe, the Universe just works they way it works, there is no other "proper way" to compare the Universe with it and conclude that it's malfunctioning. 

Tell that to the people who choke on their food.

Quote:I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. The normal functions of the body involuntary or voluntary will be there, without the "I"  the "voluntary" label is gone though. Please clarify it If I'm not getting what you're saying.

Right, but, just because the I isn't there to do the voluntary stuff (as if it does anyway..god, don't you know anything, lol? )..whatever that is, that doesn't mean that the involuntary stuff wouldn't keep humming along, would it? Lights are on, but nobodies home situation?

(June 26, 2017 at 2:23 am)Khemikal Wrote: That doesn;t follow..and if it were true..."I" wouldn;t be here if just one single guru had ever managed to achieve that state.  I feel like I;m not getting the question across to you adequately.  

Because they could...theres just no end of situations in which a malfunctioning (or even properly functoning) switch could lead to death.  Let me try to put it another way.  We can choke to death on our food.  Because we -can- choke to death..on our food, a certain number of us -will- choke to death on our food, every year.  Wouldn't the same also be true of this self switch?

Because we do.....die, from malfunctions in such critical systems.  Here again, though we see some notion of them "picking it back up"..but how, what; the failsafe or the reset on that?  Presumably, if we have these sort of ability...there has to be something keeping it from malfunctioning most of the time..ad there would be some way to reset it - or...seriously, alot of us would just be cabbages.  That;s what I;m wondering about.  Where are all the cabbages such an ability would ensure with certainty?


That doesn;t follow..and if it were true..."I" wouldn;t be here if just one single guru had ever managed to achieve that state.  I feel like I;m not getting the question across to you adequately.  

I don't know why do you have the assumption that if there is this kind of ability in us, there should necessarily be some sort of "malfunctioning" in it. Anyways, even if that's true many psychological disorders can be as a result of this malfunction. In fact there is a disorder called "depersonalization disorder" which refers to the lack of "I" in the patient. The patient (The universe in fact) however will not experience any "depersonalization" that's how his(her) I reacts after being dropped due to malfunctioning. Another possibility might be that one use of asleep is to prevent such malfunctions. During REM you actually drop your I, but you drop too much stuff, so you also lose awareness. The person with a dropped "I" has awareness when "I" sleeps. They simply are aware of the voidness during the sleep and are very peacefully watching it. Many consider the ability to sleep and being awake at the same time (observing their asleep), as a clear sign of a dropped "I".

There are also other things that one can hypothetically consider to be related to a situation of an accidentally dropped "I". Take reported "demon possession" cases for example.  OBE, our out of body experience might be a common way that a returned "I" describes the experience of being dropped due to a malfunction. BTW, we can create hypothesis for ever. There is no way to verify any of them, at least with the current state of cognitive and neuroscience.

Another matter is that if prolonged meditation can cause the shift, why not trying a direct stimulation of the brain? This might be possible, however it seems currently known methods  can only "temporarily" remove the I, and also there are some side effects! check out God Helmet for example, which was a scientific experiment to see how direct stimulations of the brain using a magnetic field can trigger "spiritual" experiences. Psychedelic drugs are also believed to be in this category by many people. There are countless reports about the lack of "I" from the ones who have used the drugs. There are of course some side effects though, the hallucinations and stuff.

Quote:IDK, I don't seem to have had to voluntarily face death...just read up on modern nueroscience.   

What you do is irrelevant. Why you do is all that is relevant. Your reading of modern neuroscience can be your holy war to accept a voluntary death (dropping the "I") in the hope of returning to your Lord (your Universe) and attain his satisfaction (observing his oneness ).  Because you are doing it with the intention of dropping the I. The intention must be strong and constantly kept in awareness though. ISIS is doing it the wrong way, reading neuroscience or sitting cross-legged can be good ideas. 

Quote:Right, but, just because the I isn't there to do the voluntary stuff (as if it does anyway..god, don't you know anything, lol?   )..whatever that is, that doesn't mean that the involuntary stuff wouldn't keep humming along, would it?  Lights are on, but nobodies home situation?

I think the lights are on, no bodies home might be the case. There is a lot of emphasis on this in Buddhism. The quest is to "realize the voidness of beings" which means realizing the simple fact that there is nothing "in the" beings. They are just what they are observed to be. Am I getting to your point?

nosferatu323 Wrote:I wonder if there will ever be a theist visiting us, opening with 'I want to know what you think', who will ever actually ask us what we think without telling us what we think?

I'm sorry that you don't like the way it went.

It went exactly as I have learned to expect it to go. I'm not particularly disappointed you weren't an exception, my comment was general.

nosferatu323 Wrote:You see, I mentioned the idea of pantheism and I learned that you guys might not be quite familiar with the concept of god in pantheism which is drastically different from the western Judeo-Christian god.

How did you learn that we might not be quite familiar with the concept of god in pantheism? What would possess you to think that topic has never, ever come up here before?

nosferatu323 Wrote:So I thought it's a good idea to try to explain pantheism and discuss that maybe the existence of god in pantheism cannot be negated in atheism.

Is there a more arrogant way you could have approached that? Personally, I can't think of one. But you could have been more rude, I appreciate you at least didn't scream at us.

nosferatu323 Wrote:Anyways, I'll try to be more observant in my future post, thank you for bringing this up.

It's a really basic courtesy, not to assume that your audience is ignorant or has never given any thought to what's on your mind, or that in any way you can assume you know what they think beyond certain obvious basics. But we often forget our manners on the internet and behave in ways we would not in real life. It's all good if you start talking to us like equals instead of lecturing us like subordinate students. You've got the bones of a good contributor, I look forward to reading what you have to say going forward.

---

Coming here and saying 'the universe is God' is rather like coming here and saying 'black is one'.

(June 26, 2017 at 7:55 am)nosferatu323 Wrote: I don't know why do you have the assumption that if there is this kind of ability in us, there should necessarily be some sort of "malfunctioning" in it.

It's not so much an assumption as the conclusion born out by the fact that anything about us that -can- fail will fail, and nothing about us so far as we can tell is immune to failure.  If this switch were, it would be yet another special attribute of a special case.

I'm trying to approach the subject with a modicum of intellectual integrity.

Quote:Anyways, even if that's true many psychological disorders can be as a result of this malfunction. In fact there is a disorder called "depersonalization disorder" which refers to the lack of "I" in the patient. The patient (The universe in fact) however will not experience any "depersonalization" that's how his(her) I reacts after being dropped due to malfunctioning.

I think that, if you're going to refer to a clinical diagnosis...you might have to stick with the clinical diagnosis, rather than shoehorn on some other unknown and undemonstrated human organ or ability.  This is just to keep us from spiraling into complete and utter fantasy.  Speaking of dissociative disorders, I've been there.  I assure you, there was still an I "in there".  No one noticed my limp body staring lifelessly into a wall.  I talked.  I acted.  In fact, the problem was the fact that I kept talking and acting on a way completely unrepresentative of my actual situation.  That I, even though I was there, did not always seem to be at the controls of my right hand.  That I was satisfied with this state of affairs and did nothing to remedy it.  That I started to say and do things uncharacteristic of myself, that I began to take unneccesary risks with a body that I increasingly acted as though were not a part of my self.  This is what made it a disorder, what made it noticeable, what made it identifiable, what made it diagnosable.  I was not a selfless body, I was in no comatose state.  I was most definitely not one with the universe...I was barely one with myself. 

The nature of the breakdown of identify in a dissociative disorder is not such that a human body stands before the clinician with no noticeable identity or self.   While these disorders are interesting, they don't match the absence or lack of self, or of oneness with the universe.  So, these, wouldn't be candidates for a oneness switch malfunction.  Something else is going on...and generally speaking its a chemical imbalance or structural damage or some combination of the two.  For example..in my case, again...the break was proposed to have occurred in tandem with major trauma to the head, exacerbated by continuing traumatic events, while suffering from withdrawal syndrome.  
 

Quote:Another possibility might be that one use of asleep is to prevent such malfunctions. During REM you actually drop your I, but you drop too much stuff, so you also lose awareness. The person with a dropped "I" has awareness when "I" sleeps. They simply are aware of the voidness during the sleep and are very peacefully watching it. Many consider the ability to sleep and being awake at the same time (observing their asleep), as a clear sign of a dropped "I".

That seems to be an issue of counting hits and ignoring misses.  What about dreams?   Lucid dreams?  What about nightmares?  It seems as though, even in sleep, the I is firmly tethered to something.  If it weren't..one wonder why or how we would wake up.  Let;s run with it, though.  If this were representative of either the oneness switch or a malfunction...then are we talking about anything other..when we talk about meditation and the oneness that it purportedly can provide...than a dream?  Than falling asleep?

It seems as though we're attempting to talk about something distinct from that...and, again, I'm trying to figure out what that might be, and why it doesn't manifest itself as we would expect, either while we are meditating..while we have a dissociative break, while we're sleeping, or while we're driving a bus. 

Quote:There are also other things that one can hypothetically consider to be related to a situation of an accidentally dropped "I". Take reported "demon possession" cases for example.  OBE, our out of body experience might be a common way that a returned "I" describes the experience of being dropped due to a malfunction. BTW, we can create hypothesis for ever. There is no way to verify any of them, at least with the current state of cognitive and neuroscience.

No, I won't be taking demon possession.  Thank you.  It doesn't happen..and I try to limit myself to one bit of woo at a time.  If it's woo all the way down then searching for an explanation is an exercise in futility.  Why, though, do you think there would be no way to test a hypothesis capable of demonstrating this oneness switch, or why it doesn't malfunction, or why it does when it does?  Wouldn't you have to know alot more about it...namely..anything about it it, in order to make that pronouncement?  It just seems like a way to insist on a claim while conveniently scrubbing any responsibility for justying that same claim, and obviously saying that some is unverifiable does not explain anything at all about it.  

What is verifiable, is that people claim to possess an ability, or that some effect can be achieved.  What i also verifiable, is that those same people cannot do what they say can be done.  That what would happen, what would manifest itself as a verifiable effect -of- the claimed attribute or ability...just doesn't seem to be happening like we would expect.

Why, and why not?

Quote:Another matter is that if prolonged meditation can cause the shift, why not trying a direct stimulation of the brain? This might be possible, however it seems currently known methods  can only "temporarily" remove the I, and also there are some side effects! check out God Helmet for example, which was a scientific experiment to see how direct stimulations of the brain using a magnetic field can trigger "spiritual" experiences. Psychedelic drugs are also believed to be in this category by many people. There are countless reports about the lack of "I" from the ones who have used the drugs. There are of course some side effects though, the hallucinations and stuff.

Now, see, here, I think we're getting somewhere.  The effect of those drugs actually has a mechanism, that we can verify and measure.  There is a model for it's efficacy.  Monoamine oxidase inhibitors are used to treat depression.  They do so, so far as we can tell, by blocking the operation of the enzyme involved in removing the nuerotransmitters associated with human contentedness (norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamin).  In a very literal sense, this enzime flushes happiness out of your brain.  Preventing it from doing that, or at least slowing down the rate at which it does that, produces feeling of wellbeing with predictable regularity.   What we expect to happen, happens. 

So, what, in the case of this oneness switch, is an analog to that?  What explanation can we offer for it to justify that it exists and has an effect..particularly when it doesn't seem to, and doesn't seem to have an effect, and..if it does have an effect, it;s not the one we would expect?  Not a conflation between it and sleeping.  Not a superstitious claim of demonic possession.   Something like we have for psychotropics...since, at the best, we're trying to find out why people feel that way...they obviously -don't- actually dissolve and become one with the universe.

Quote:   

Quote:What you do is irrelevant. Why you do is all that is relevant. Your reading of modern neuroscience can be your holy war to accept a voluntary death (dropping the "I") in the hope of returning to your Lord (your Universe) and attain his satisfaction (observing his oneness ).  Because you are doing it with the intention of dropping the I. The intention must be strong and constantly kept in awareness though. ISIS is doing it the wrong way, reading neuroscience or sitting cross-legged can be good ideas. 

So the what doesn't achieve the effect, only the why?  The effect, even the existence of the effect, is variable on intent?  That would be.......one of a kind.  None of your cpmments here describe why I'm interested in nueroscience, btw, and I'll just leave it at that.  

So, what;s the proper intent, then?  I mean, lets say that I and some guru both do the exact same thing..you said before there was a process.  We both complete each step identically.  What is the difference between the intent of the guru and my own intent that accounts for the effect failing to materialize in my case?  Honestly, what accounts for it failing to materialize in his case..as well..lol?  

Quote:I think the lights are on, no bodies home might be the case. There is a lot of emphasis on this in Buddhism. The quest is to "realize the voidness of beings" which means realizing the simple fact that there is nothing "in the" beings. They are just what they are observed to be. Am I getting to your point?

Right, alot of emphasis on it in budhism, but no actual examples of it.  That's what I'm getting at.  Why don't we find those nobody home oneness switched bodies laying around? Why is it that the verifiable rate of occurrence for this switch being flipped is the same for intentional practitioners and unlucky bus drivers..namely, zero?

(June 26, 2017 at 9:31 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's a really basic courtesy, not to assume that your audience is ignorant or has never given any thought to what's on your mind, or that in any way you can assume you know what they think beyond certain obvious basics. But we often forget our manners on the internet and behave in ways we would not in real life. It's all good if you start talking to us like equals instead of lecturing us like subordinate students. You've got the bones of a good contributor, I look forward to reading what you have to say going forward.

---

Coming here and saying 'the universe is God' is rather like coming here and saying 'black is one'.

You are being right and I'm genuinely sorry about it. I think now I understand my approach was wrong in many ways. But I didn't have this perspective in this first place. This was my first attempt to get into a real discussion. I take your advice.

(June 25, 2017 at 6:58 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote: I was referring to belief in god. 

What is divinity? please define it concretely. Then define God. Please make sure you are avoiding a circular definition. You're rejecting the definition that Universe is God on the basis that the definition of these two is not compatible, also you say "the Universe is not divine" the definition of the universe is somewhat clear for me. But I don't know what God is. I really don't know. Please define it. I don't know what divine is either,  I use it in my conversations, but I think it's a nonsensical word an does not have any actual referent except our neurons activities. 

You say you believe but have no idea what god is but suggest it may be the universe.

Most definitions of god have it as some kind of powerful sentient being.

The universe displays none of those characteristics. I may as well call my left testicle the repository of all truth. It may have none of the things in common with a repository of truth but apparently that's good enough for you.

(June 26, 2017 at 1:26 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(June 25, 2017 at 6:58 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote: I was referring to belief in god. 

What is divinity? please define it concretely. Then define God. Please make sure you are avoiding a circular definition. You're rejecting the definition that Universe is God on the basis that the definition of these two is not compatible, also you say "the Universe is not divine" the definition of the universe is somewhat clear for me. But I don't know what God is. I really don't know. Please define it. I don't know what divine is either,  I use it in my conversations, but I think it's a nonsensical word an does not have any actual referent except our neurons activities. 

You say you believe but have no idea what god is but suggest it may be the universe.

Most definitions of god have it as some kind of powerful sentient being.

The universe displays none of those characteristics. I may as well call my left testicle the repository of all truth. It may have none of the things in common with a repository of truth but apparently that's good enough for you.

Can I make my left testicle tax-exempt if I make up some bullshit about it too?

(June 26, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Astonished Wrote:

(June 26, 2017 at 1:26 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You say you believe but have no idea what god is but suggest it may be the universe.

Most definitions of god have it as some kind of powerful sentient being.

The universe displays none of those characteristics. I may as well call my left testicle the repository of all truth. It may have none of the things in common with a repository of truth but apparently that's good enough for you.

Can I make my left testicle tax-exempt if I make up some bullshit about it too?

Certainly, would that benefit you at all?

(June 26, 2017 at 1:32 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(June 26, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Astonished Wrote: Can I make my left testicle tax-exempt if I make up some bullshit about it too?

Certainly, would that benefit you at all?

Well, I'd have to start performing in porn first for it to affect my earnings, but I'm too out of shape.

(June 26, 2017 at 1:26 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You say you believe but have no idea what god is but suggest it may be the universe.

Most definitions of god have it as some kind of powerful sentient being.

The universe displays none of those characteristics. I may as well call my left testicle the repository of all truth. It may have none of the things in common with a repository of truth but apparently that's good enough for you.

You are right what I said is nonsensical, but there is small point that it can suggest, A LOT of people have identified God with the Universe. That might account as sort of a weak evidence for someone to be intrigued about it and dedicates some time and effort to read and think about the concept before rejecting it. That's all. I think there is no other point in all that I said. I don't know what God is, but that mere word is the thing that has brought us here, isn't it?