The redneck strike again.

[Little Rik]

Why the fuck is this thread polluting the philosophy section? Can it not be moved to the woo section where I don't have to see it anymore?

Wrong question Bboy.
The question should be.......why the hell some people who
haven't got a clue about the meaning of philosophy are polluting
the philosophy forum?
Does this sound better?

[Little Rik]

What are you talking about? Not only do Buddhists not believe that there is a god, they don't believe that there is a self either. Indeed according to buddhism god is just a deluded being born into a higher realm of existence (para 42 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/....bodh.html) Following on from this, the cosmology of Buddhism vs hinduism is very different, with the former denying any creation myth.
If meditation can allow us to see into some ultimate truth about reality, why does your view differ from the buddhists? Why do the views of Buddhism vs Hinduism differ so much?

1) You haven't taken in consideration one important factor.
What Buddha was saying ages ago is not necessary what
it is written in today books.
It is the same with the bible and every other book
written and rewritten countless of times with the addition
of so called truth (usually invented dogmas) or the taking away of some real truth.
2) It is quite possible that Buddha refrained from talking about God or in some cases could even let people know that there is no God.
I would have done the same if i would have to deal with certain situation.
Suppose i live in a situation in which people mind is overpower with materialistic attitudes.
What is the point in talking about something that at this stage can not
penetrate in people mind.
It is much better to start with something very very simple that people can understand.
Just imagine if i go to a party in which people smoke, drink or are affected
by drugs and i start telling them that what they do is wrong.
The result will be that i may well get bashed or if i am lucky i may only be kicked out.
It is like talking to a brick wall so it is much better to change tactic and i am sure this is what Buddha did.
The tactic is that you help someone when that one is ready to be helped.

In the earliest Buddhists writing, the Buddha also ate meat that was offered to him, although he forbade monks from killing for meat and eating meat killed specifically for them, the buddha was never recorded as saying lay people should not eat it. Indeed by eating meat they offered he is given his tacit approval. In my opinion this is wrong. Again if meditation can provide ultimate knowledge about something, why did he do something which is wrong?

Again, you got to believe what is written in books or you judge from what make sense.
To me it does not make any sense that Buddha would say that you can eat meat and at the same time say not to kill.

Additionally the buddhist idea of rebirth (which does not involve a soul, but rather a stream of consciousness that lacks self) is very different from the hindu one of reincarnation which is a soul with some element of permenance that transmittigates.
So meditation has not stopped different religions from have very divergent views about god, existence, the soul , and it did not stop the buddha from behaving immorally. Why then do you assume that anything you experience in meditation can actually provide factual answers to such questions?

I already said time and time again that the best way to understand how the system works is to practice.
If you believe what has been written in books you may well get lost in an ocean of dogmas.
That is what religion believe.

.
Take the acupuncture.
Few thousand years ago when this technique was invented people had a different nervous system and that technique was working then.
These days this technique it is not very effective as our nervous system is quite different.

How could you possibly know this? In what way was it different? How/why did it change? Why do you make such exaggerate claims that are obviously nonsense?

The nervous system in the humans change all the time according to
place and time in which we live.
You take a kid of today used to deal with computers and other technological things and you put him back in time 3-4 hundred years
were they use to do manual jobs that require little intellect.
He would go mad.
Also a kid from that age that would come in this age and deal with today technology would go mad as his nervous system could not deal with today way of life.
As the nervous system change also the system to deal with diseases change so what was good in the past is no longer good these days.
If we go back 2-3 thousand years when the acupuncture was invented then the difference is even more dramatic.

[Faith No More]

Changing your name won't make your nonsense any more coherent.

[Crossless2.0]

I'd like to see evidence that human nervous systems were different 2-3 thousand years ago. I'd hate to think you just pull stuff out of your ass, as usual.

[Little Rik]

[quote='Riketto' pid='657849' dateline='1398583667']
Spirituality and altered states of consciousness due to artificial means
have little in common

I wouldn't know which one came first.

In that case you can't claim that all religions have popped up out of spirituality.

You are making a bit of confusion.
You are talking about shamanic experiences and these
experiences always go hand in hand with hallucinogens.
Religions on the other hand do not rely on hallucinogens
so my claim regards religions not shamanic experiences.

In tantric meditation that Shiva taught you need a mantra or sound that goes on when you inhale and exhale while concentrating on a particular cakra.

So when did Shiva first teach tantric meditation and who did he teach it to?

Shiva teach meditation using a mantra in tune with those times and places and to those people who had a different stage of consciousness.
The mantra is like a combination to open a safe.
You can have countless combination but only one is able to open the safe.
My mantra and my combination is useless to you and yours is useless to me.
At the same time the mantras given 7000 years ago are useless these days.

World's oldest ritual discovered. Worshipped the python 70,000 years ago

I am not really worry about what people were worshipping ages ago.
Is not any good to me except for curiosity.

Various mammals are omnivorous in the wild, such as the Hominidae (which includes humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas)

Mother nature never goes wrong she build up creature
able to deal with a particular attitude.
As i already said many times if we would be omnivore
we would be able to deal with saturated fats, cholesterol
and toxins but we are not so it is obvious that we are not omnivore.

All this suggests that it's best no to be dogmatic about what humans are supposed to eat.

The evidence is there for all to see.
If we would be omnivore the world, the hospitals, the nursing homes,
the jails would not be full of physically and mentally sick people.
Evidence is one thing dogma is a different thing.
Ciao

[Confused Ape]

The nervous system in the humans change all the time according to
place and time in which we live.
You take a kid of today used to deal with computers and other technological things and you put him back in time 3-4 hundred years
were they use to do manual jobs that require little intellect.
He would go mad.

Also a kid from that age that would come in this age and deal with today technology would go mad as his nervous system could not deal with today way of life.

It would be very difficult for anyone to adjust if they suddenly found themselves transported to a different point in time.

There are still manual jobs today which require little intellect. There were jobs in the past which required skill and intellect. I found an interesting article on the School of Mathematics and Statistics University of St Andrews, Scotland.

Mathematics and Architecture

Nobody is entirely sure how much maths went into constructing the pyramids but maths was definitely required later on. So was engineering. They didn't have computers to help them either.

History of Computing - Abacus

With the complex adding systems that we have today, it can be hard to grasp that peoples were using small stones or other objects as numerical devices from time immemorial. The word calculate itself comes from the Latin calculus, which means small stone. These methods of calculations introduced some elementary kind of abstraction, but people gradually realized that this method did not go far enough to satisfy their increasing needs. To count up to 1000, for example, they would have had to gather a thousand pebbles, which was enormous work.

That is why, once the principle of the numerical base had been grasped, the usual pebbles were replaced with stones of various sizes to which different orders of units were assigned. For example, if a decimal system was used, the number 1 could be represented by a small stone, 10 by a larger one, 100 by a still larger one, and so on. It was a matter of time someone to think of to arrange some pebbles over a big flat base stone, wire or something else.

It is unknown when exactly were developed first devices to facilitate calculation, such as the counting board, or abacus. The counting board was invented when someone grasped the idea of placing pebbles or other objects in columns marked on a flat surface, and assigning an order of units to the objects in each column. Later, loose objects in columns were replaced with beads that could slide along parallel rods.

My father was born in 1899 and he died in 1989 - he lived to see the lunar landings and the very first home computers without going mad. I was born in 1949. If I was transported back to the 1950's I'd go mad without my computer even though I was a child in that decade and remember it well. Yes, my nervous system has changed because it does as one grows older but that has nothing to do with how my environment continually changed throughout my lifetime.

I've done a lot of googling to find out if people had different nervous systems in the past. All I could find was - A istory Of The Nervous System. This is just a history of how people came to understand the nervous system.

In the fourth century B. C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle believed firmly that the nerves were controlled by and originated in the heart because it was, in his interpretation, the first organ of the body and the seat of all motion and sensation. Not surprisingly, he was misled by his confusion between ligaments and nerves in drawing this conclusion. Six centuries later, the Roman physician Galen contradicted him, disparaging those "who know nothing of what is to be seen in dissection." Instead he concluded that the brain was the most important organ of the body, with the nerves emanating from it:

Aritstotle was wrong. The humans nervous system didn't alter after Aristotle's time period.

As the nervous system change also the system to deal with diseases change so what was good in the past is no longer good these days.

There is evidence that the immune system and nervous system are linked but I've come across nothing to say that anything's changed over the past few thousand years.

The Immune System and the Nervous System

Evidence is mounting that the immune system and the nervous system are linked in several ways. One well-known connection involves the adrenal glands. In response to stress messages from the brain, the adrenal glands release hormones into the blood. In addition to helping a person respond to emergencies by mobilizing the body’s energy reserves, these “stress hormones” can stifle the protective effects of antibodies and lymphocytes.

Another link between the immune system and the nervous system is that the hormones and other chemicals that convey messages among nerve cells also “speak” to cells of the immune system. Indeed, some immune cells are able to manufacture typical nerve cell products, and some lymphokines can transmit information to the nervous system. Moreover, the brain may send messages directly down nerve cells to the immune system. Networks of nerve fibers have been found connecting to the lymphoid organs.

When it comes to disease, however, populations can develop an immunity to some diseases which are still deadly to human societies which have never been exposed to them.

Uncontacted Tribes - The Threats

Introduced diseases are the biggest killer of isolated tribal people, who have not developed immunity to viruses such as influenza, measles and chicken pox that most other societies have been in contact with for hundreds of years.

One of the Murunahua survivors, Jorge, who lost an eye during first contact, told a Survival researcher, ‘The disease came when the loggers made contact with us, although we didn’t know what a cold was then. The disease killed us. Half of us died. My aunt died, my nephew died. Half of my people died.’

I can't find any studies showing that isolated tribal people have different nervous systems, though.

As for what was good in the past, umpteen millions of people died from bubonic plague. These days the chances of survival are a lot greater due to antibiotics, especially if the patient is treated within 24 hours.

If we go back 2-3 thousand years when the acupuncture was invented then the difference is even more dramatic.

It is? How do you know that acupuncture was more effective 2-3 thousand years ago? Can you provide a link to a reputable medical source explaining it?

[Confused Ape]

Making a new post instead of adding this to my last one.

You are making a bit of confusion.
You are talking about shamanic experiences and these
experiences always go hand in hand with hallucinogens.
Religions on the other hand do not rely on hallucinogens
so my claim regards religions not shamanic experiences.

I'm not getting confused at all. Nobody knows how human sprituality/religion got started but hallucinations aren't confined to people with mental illnesses.

Anomalous Experiences

Anomalous experiences, such as so-called benign hallucinations, may occur in a person in a state of good mental and physical health, even in the apparent absence of a transient trigger factor such as fatigue, intoxication or sensory deprivation.

It is not widely recognized that hallucinatory experiences are not merely the prerogative of those suffering from mental illness, or normal people in abnormal states, but that they occur spontaneously in a significant proportion of the normal population, when in good health and not undergoing particular stress or other abnormal circumstance.

The evidence for this statement has been accumulating for more than a century. Studies of benign hallucinatory experiences go back to 1886 and the early work of the Society for Psychical Research,[1][2] which suggested approximately 10% of the population had experienced at least one hallucinatory episode in the course of their life. More recent studies have validated these findings; the precise incidence found varies with the nature of the episode and the criteria of ‘hallucination’ adopted, but the basic finding is now well-supported.[3]

It's very likely that the human brain has always behaved like this. Maybe the first real humans came up with ideas about spirits and spirit worlds to explain their anomalous experiences. People who found ways of producing these experiences at will would have been the very first shamans. Gradually, over thousands of years, various religions developed. People continued to experiment, discovered meditation and came up with further explanations for the experiences they had through meditation.

Shiva teach meditation using a mantra in tune with those times and places and to those people who had a different stage of consciousness.

At the same time the mantras given 7000 years ago are useless these days.

So you're saying a Hindu god kept turning up in different times and places to teach mediation? If so, can you prove that Shiva actually exists?

I am not really worry about what people were worshipping ages ago.
Is not any good to me except for curiosity.

Why aren't you interested? Isn't there a possibility that what people were doing 70,000 years ago came before anyone discovered meditation tecniques?

Mother nature never goes wrong she build up creature
able to deal with a particular attitude.
As i already said many times if we would be omnivore
we would be able to deal with saturated fats, cholesterol
and toxins but we are not so it is obvious that we are not omnivore.

Evidence Foir Meat Eating By Early Humans

Eating Meat and Marrow

The diet of the earliest hominins was probably somewhat similar to the diet of modern chimpanzees: omnivorous, including large quantities of fruit, leaves, flowers, bark, insects and meat (e.g., Andrews & Martin 1991; Milton 1999; Watts 2008). Tooth morphology and dental microwear studies suggest that the diet of some hominins may have included hard food items such as seeds and nuts, and underground storage organs (USOs) such as roots and tubers (Jolly 1970; Peters & O'Brien 1981; Teaford & Ungar 2000; Luca et al. 2010). By at least 2.6 million years ago, a remarkable expansion in this diet started to occur; some hominins began incorporating meat and marrow from small to very large animals into their diet. Let's explore the evidence for this dramatic shift using the 5 "W" questions: When, Where, Who, What, Why (and How).

So when did this start?

Only those fossilized bones with butchery marks can confidently be tied to hominin diet (Blumenschine & Pobiner 2006). The earliest well-accepted evidence for this novel dietary behavior comes from about 2.6 Ma at the site of Gona, Ethiopia (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2005). Probably not coincidentally, it's also around this time that we start to see the first evidence of archaeologically visible accumulations of stone tools (Semaw et al. 2003). There may be evidence of hominin-butchered bones at 3.4 Ma at Dikika, Ethiopia (McPherron et al. 2010), where Australopithecus afarensis remains have been found, but this evidence consists of only a few bone specimens and has been disputed (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2010). The earliest well documented evidence of persistent hominin carnivory from in situ excavated fossil fauna occurring in association with large concentrations of stone tools is at about 2.0 Ma at Kanjera, Kenya (Ferraro et al. 2013). In addition to terrestrial animals, evidence from one site at Koobi Fora shows that hominins began to incorporate aquatic foods like turtles, crocodiles, and fish into their diets by about 1.95 Ma (Braun et al. 2010). Multiple localities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, dating to 1.8 Ma also show evidence of in situ butchered mammal remains, ranging in size from hedgehogs to elephants; these are also associated with large numbers of stone tools (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2007; Blumenschine & Pobiner 2006 and references therein). Three sites at Koobi Fora, Kenya, preserve evidence of several butchered mammals from about 1.5 Ma but are not found in association with any stone tools (Pobiner et al. 2008). Perhaps this signals a shift toward intentional specialization of activities, such as animal butchery and stone tool making, in different areas across the landscape.

Meat eating started with our hominid ancestors but, if their diets were like the chimpanzee diet, most of their food would have been fruit, leaves, flowers, bark and insects. The meat would have been free range, not from farm animals fattened up for the meat industry. There was no such thing as processed meat either. The same applies for the first modern humans who would have got a lot of exercise leading a hunter/gatherer lifestyle.

The evidence is there for all to see.
If we would be omnivore the world, the hospitals, the nursing homes,
the jails would not be full of physically and mentally sick people.
Evidence is one thing dogma is a different thing.
Ciao

Howard Cosby, Vegetarian Inmate, Says He Was Told Fish Isn't Meat

HARTFORD, Conn. -- A vegetarian prison inmate in Connecticut has a beef with his prison diet, saying the state is feeding him seafood three times a week and justifying it by telling him that fish is not meat.

Howard Cosby, who was sentenced in 2004 to 19 1/2 years in prison for sexual assault and other crimes, has enlisted the help of an animal rights group in his quest to receive a vegetarian diet at the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution in Uncasville as a practicing Buddhist.

Here's another article on the subject of vegetarian diets in prisons.

Do Prison Inmates Have a Right to Vegetarian Meals?

In Nevada, one prison offers pork-free and vegetarian alternative meals to all inmates and provides special medical diets to inmates who require such accommodation. Prison regulations provide that an inmate may choose one of the pork-free or vegetarian alternatives for religious, health, or personal reasons. These alternatives conform to the dictates of the Muslim, Hare Krishna, and Seventh-day Adventist religions.

Some vegetarian inmates have been transferred to other prisons that could accommodate their dietary needs. There is no specific right to a transfer of this sort; however, in some instances, a carefully crafted request to transfer may be effective after a showing that there are no feasible alternatives at the prison where an inmate is currently incarcerated.

When a prisoner is considering a strategy or plan of action in seeking vegetarian meals, it is important to carefully document any incidents where he or she is denied vegetarian meals. The prisoner should record the date, time, place, and persons involved. For example, if the prisoner requests vegetarian food from the physician or the chaplain, the information regarding that request should be documented.

CONCLUSION
Receiving vegetarian or vegan meals in prison is no easy process. Although it may sound crass, the easiest way to receive vegetarian or vegan meals in prison is to join a religion that has vegetarianism or veganism as a tenet of the faith. Although it could be argued that ethical veganism should qualify as a religion under the First Amendment, courts may rule otherwise.

I haven't checked the availability of vegan/vegetarian meals in psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes.

[bennyboy]

Why the fuck is this thread polluting the philosophy section? Can it not be moved to the woo section where I don't have to see it anymore?

Wrong question Bboy.
The question should be.......why the hell some people who
haven't got a clue about the meaning of philosophy are polluting
the philosophy forum?
Does this sound better?

No, it doesn't.

Philosophy means taking positions where there aren't necessarily clearly right positions. It doesn't mean making up a bunch of imaginary bullshit. That's "woo," not philosophy.

Philosophy means "love of wisdom" not "love of pulling random ideas out of your ass," although you are not the only one who can't tell the difference.

[Little Rik]

Wrong question Bboy.
The question should be.......why the hell some people who
haven't got a clue about the meaning of philosophy are polluting
the philosophy forum?
Does this sound better?

No, it doesn't.

Philosophy means taking positions where there aren't necessarily clearly right positions. It doesn't mean making up a bunch of imaginary bullshit. That's "woo," not philosophy.

Philosophy means "love of wisdom" not "love of pulling random ideas out of your ass," although you are not the only one who can't tell the difference.

I got a little little easy question for you Bboy.
It should not be any difficult for you to answer
considering your high degree of intellect.
How do you get wisdom?
Thanks for your help so i can understand
how the system works.

[Rampant.A.I.]

What are you talking about? Not only do Buddhists not believe that there is a god, they don't believe that there is a self either. Indeed according to buddhism god is just a deluded being born into a higher realm of existence (para 42 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/....bodh.html) Following on from this, the cosmology of Buddhism vs hinduism is very different, with the former denying any creation myth.
If meditation can allow us to see into some ultimate truth about reality, why does your view differ from the buddhists? Why do the views of Buddhism vs Hinduism differ so much?

1) You haven't taken in consideration one important factor.
What Buddha was saying ages ago is not necessary what
it is written in today books.
It is the same with the bible and every other book
written and rewritten countless of times with the addition
of so called truth (usually invented dogmas) or the taking away of some real truth.
2) It is quite possible that Buddha refrained from talking about God or in some cases could even let people know that there is no God.
I would have done the same if i would have to deal with certain situation.
Suppose i live in a situation in which people mind is overpower with materialistic attitudes.
What is the point in talking about something that at this stage can not
penetrate in people mind.
It is much better to start with something very very simple that people can understand.
Just imagine if i go to a party in which people smoke, drink or are affected
by drugs and i start telling them that what they do is wrong.
The result will be that i may well get bashed or if i am lucky i may only be kicked out.
It is like talking to a brick wall so it is much better to change tactic and i am sure this is what Buddha did.
The tactic is that you help someone when that one is ready to be helped.

In the earliest Buddhists writing, the Buddha also ate meat that was offered to him, although he forbade monks from killing for meat and eating meat killed specifically for them, the buddha was never recorded as saying lay people should not eat it. Indeed by eating meat they offered he is given his tacit approval. In my opinion this is wrong. Again if meditation can provide ultimate knowledge about something, why did he do something which is wrong?

Again, you got to believe what is written in books or you judge from what make sense.
To me it does not make any sense that Buddha would say that you can eat meat and at the same time say not to kill.

Additionally the buddhist idea of rebirth (which does not involve a soul, but rather a stream of consciousness that lacks self) is very different from the hindu one of reincarnation which is a soul with some element of permenance that transmittigates.
So meditation has not stopped different religions from have very divergent views about god, existence, the soul , and it did not stop the buddha from behaving immorally. Why then do you assume that anything you experience in meditation can actually provide factual answers to such questions?

I already said time and time again that the best way to understand how the system works is to practice.
If you believe what has been written in books you may well get lost in an ocean of dogmas.
That is what religion believe.

.
Take the acupuncture.
Few thousand years ago when this technique was invented people had a different nervous system and that technique was working then.
These days this technique it is not very effective as our nervous system is quite different.

How could you possibly know this? In what way was it different? How/why did it change? Why do you make such exaggerate claims that are obviously nonsense?

The nervous system in the humans change all the time according to
place and time in which we live.
You take a kid of today used to deal with computers and other technological things and you put him back in time 3-4 hundred years
were they use to do manual jobs that require little intellect.
He would go mad.
Also a kid from that age that would come in this age and deal with today technology would go mad as his nervous system could not deal with today way of life.
As the nervous system change also the system to deal with diseases change so what was good in the past is no longer good these days.
If we go back 2-3 thousand years when the acupuncture was invented then the difference is even more dramatic. :cool-shades: