Trascending through time

[vulcanlogician]

According to yoga and to me everything is made of consciousness.
Matter is the most crude form of consciousness followed by plants, animals, human beings and God which is the supreme consciousness.
The brain is but a source of energy that consciousness use to expand.
The difference between brain and mind is that the brain is a like a vehicle while the mind is the driver.  

I neither accept you or "yoga" as an authority on any matter. I accept logical conclusions. Your particular conclusion was arrived at logically by Rene Descartes in the 17th century, but there are a number of problems with his view (which is called substance dualism btw). Descartes couldn't reconcile the mental imagery with which we are presented (mind) with the physical world we perceive to be there (body/material). He made an analogy much like your own. He said the mind relates to the body like a sailor relates to a ship. But even Descartes saw that it went deeper than that. When his ship is damaged, a sailor says to himself, "Okay, I need to go fix that." But when our bodies are damaged, we don't just say, "Ok. Let me go get a bandaid." We say, "Ouch!" So, assuming substance dualism is true, the vehicle analogy only takes us so far.

A brain without consciousness is a dead brain.

 Maybe you have that backwards. What evidence do you have that it works the other way around? Look. Tell me which view of these two you accept: panpsychism or substance dualism. They are distinct and it would be nice to know what I'm arguing against. Or is it some other theory?

Philosophy is not only about expanding the intellect.

I think I disagree with that, but the statement is open to interpretation.

Philosophy is rather love for knowledge.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom... true knowledge. How do we differentiate true knowledge from untrue (ie. false) knowledge?

First, by dispensing with your own prejudices and assuming you know nothing.

Then, by using logic and information to try to interpret the world. As you said in a previous post-- from the ground up.

[notimportant1234]

As Nietzsche put it: "Free from what?" Your eyes should tell me brightly, "Free for what!"

Wow , I didn't knew Osho took this from Nietzsche, I was so mind blown by this concept.

[Haipule]

According to yoga and to me everything is made of consciousness.
Matter is the most crude form of consciousness followed by plants, animals, human beings and God which is the supreme consciousness.
The brain is but a source of energy that consciousness use to expand.
The difference between brain and mind is that the brain is a like a vehicle while the mind is the driver.  

I neither accept you or "yoga" as an authority on any matter. I accept logical conclusions. Your particular conclusion was arrived at logically by Rene Descartes in the 17th century, but there are a number of problems with his view (which is called substance dualism btw). Descartes couldn't reconcile the mental imagery with which we are presented (mind) with the physical world we perceive to be there (body/material). He made an analogy much like your own. He said the mind relates to the body like a sailor relates to a ship. But even Descartes saw that it went deeper than that. When his ship is damaged, a sailor says to himself, "Okay, I need to go fix that." But when our bodies are damaged, we don't just say, "Ok. Let me go get a bandaid." We say, "Ouch!" So, assuming substance dualism is true, the vehicle analogy only takes us so far.

A brain without consciousness is a dead brain.

 Maybe you have that backwards. What evidence do you have that it works the other way around? Look. Tell me which view of these two you accept: panpsychism or substance dualism. They are distinct and it would be nice to know what I'm arguing against. Or is it some other theory?

Philosophy is not only about expanding the intellect.

I think I disagree with that, but the statement is open to interpretation.

Philosophy is rather love for knowledge.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom... true knowledge. How do we differentiate true knowledge from untrue (ie. false) knowledge?

First, by dispensing with your own prejudices and assuming you know nothing.

Then, by using logic and information to try to interpret the world. As you said in a previous post-- from the ground up.

I once asked people "how does a wound heal?" All the answer were related to the human brain. Then I asked them, "then how does a tree heal it's wounds?"

Upon further study, the tree does not "heal" but rather covers the wound. Still the question remains the same: how?

Upon even further study, I learned that trees have stem cells. This forced me to look at human hair. It is much like a tree growing in a cone shape with rings and bark! And, has stem cells which make them grow, which stem cells are borrowed to heal our wounds! Is that cool or what?!

Everything to me, keeps relating to Vacuum Mechanics! It seems the energy knows what it needs and how to fix the problem independent of the human brain! What does that mean? I'm a stupid surfer, you tell me!

[vulcanlogician]

I once asked people "how does a wound heal?" All the answer were related to the human brain. Then I asked them, "then how does a tree heal it's wounds?"

Upon further study, the tree does not "heal" but rather covers the wound. Still the question remains the same: how?

Upon even further study, I learned that trees have stem cells. This forced me to look at human hair. It is much like a tree growing in a cone shape with rings and bark! And, has stem cells which make them grow, which stem cells are borrowed to heal our wounds! Is that cool or what?!

Everything to me, keeps relating to Vacuum Mechanics! It seems the energy knows what it needs and how to fix the problem independent of the human brain! What does that mean? I'm a stupid surfer, you tell me!

I'm not proficient in medicine, but I think healing has to do with the cauterizing properties of blood and the activity of various cells. Nothing to do with the brain. It may seem that "the energy knows what it needs" but a closer inspection always reveals that there are other forces at work.

---

As Nietzsche put it: "Free from what?" Your eyes should tell me brightly, "Free for what!"

Wow , I didn't knew Osho took this from Nietzsche, I was so mind blown by this concept.

The quote is from Thus Spoke Zarathustra: a chapter called "On the Way of the Creator"... five or ten minute read... but very powerful

here it is for free online... https://gnosticteachings.org/scriptures/...eator.html

I googled Osho. Not familiar with his work, but he seems interesting.

[notimportant1234]

It is very easy read , he has a talent at making everything easy to understand . I liked his ideas a lot, he sometimes spoke about the spirit and meditation but not very much , most of the times he explains concepts and ideas.

[Little Rik]

According to yoga and to me everything is made of consciousness.
Matter is the most crude form of consciousness followed by plants, animals, human beings and God which is the supreme consciousness.
The brain is but a source of energy that consciousness use to expand.
The difference between brain and mind is that the brain is a like a vehicle while the mind is the driver.  

I neither accept you or "yoga" as an authority on any matter. I accept logical conclusions. Your particular conclusion was arrived at logically by Rene Descartes in the 17th century, but there are a number of problems with his view (which is called substance dualism btw). Descartes couldn't reconcile the mental imagery with which we are presented (mind) with the physical world we perceive to be there (body/material). He made an analogy much like your own. He said the mind relates to the body like a sailor relates to a ship. But even Descartes saw that it went deeper than that. When his ship is damaged, a sailor says to himself, "Okay, I need to go fix that." But when our bodies are damaged, we don't just say, "Ok. Let me go get a bandaid." We say, "Ouch!" So, assuming substance dualism is true, the vehicle analogy only takes us so far.

Mind and body are one and separated at the same time.
You as the driver are not the vehicle but as far as you drive the vehicle you become one with the vehicle so as far as you are inside a body you and the body are one.
However this oneness end up with the physical death and if you believe in reincarnation the oneness with a different body will take place once again and again and again until the goal of life is reached.    

A brain without consciousness is a dead brain.

 Maybe you have that backwards. What evidence do you have that it works the other way around? Look. Tell me which view of these two you accept: panpsychism or substance dualism. They are distinct and it would be nice to know what I'm arguing against. Or is it some other theory?

NDEs already established that while the brain die the consciousness does not.
In reality nothing never die brain included but the brain being made of matter once dead so to speak will eventually turn into other form of energy and in due time this energy will expand his dormant or latent consciousness into higher form of consciousness which in the future will need a medium such as a brain to expand further and further.
Everything is made of energy-consciousness which are but the two sides of the same page.
Both brain and the consciousness that live in the brain are made of consciousness but while one is in a latent or dormant stage the other is
aware of her reality.  

Philosophy is not only about expanding the intellect.

I think I disagree with that, but the statement is open to interpretation.

Philosophy is rather love for knowledge.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom... true knowledge. How do we differentiate true knowledge from untrue (ie. false) knowledge?

First, by dispensing with your own prejudices and assuming you know nothing.

Then, by using logic and information to try to interpret the world. As you said in a previous post-- from the ground up.

You tell me what is true knowledge mate.  

[Macoleco]

I think you are considering NDEs to be something supernatural. NDEs require an alive brain for them to happen. Just like regular dreams...

[The Grand Nudger]

Upon further study, the tree does not "heal" but rather covers the wound. Still the question remains the same: how?

Upon even further study, I learned that trees have stem cells. This forced me to look at human hair. It is much like a tree growing in a cone shape with rings and bark! And, has stem cells which make them grow, which stem cells are borrowed to heal our wounds! Is that cool or what?!

Everything to me, keeps relating to Vacuum Mechanics! It seems the energy knows what it needs and how to fix the problem independent of the human brain! What does that mean? I'm a stupid surfer, you tell me!

"The energy"...specifically the energy being referenced up above...doesn't need to know anymore than a ball knows to roll downhill. 

OFC trees have stem cells....but that's not why trees grow in a "cone shape" (for those that do) or why they have rings and bark.  All multi-cellular life has stem cells, but not all multicellular life "grows in a cone" or has rings or bark, nor is human hair anything more than trivially like a tree due to overarching external constraints in a shared environment.

[Haipule]

Upon further study, the tree does not "heal" but rather covers the wound. Still the question remains the same: how?

Upon even further study, I learned that trees have stem cells. This forced me to look at human hair. It is much like a tree growing in a cone shape with rings and bark! And, has stem cells which make them grow, which stem cells are borrowed to heal our wounds! Is that cool or what?!

Everything to me, keeps relating to Vacuum Mechanics! It seems the energy knows what it needs and how to fix the problem independent of the human brain! What does that mean? I'm a stupid surfer, you tell me!

"The energy"...specifically the energy being referenced up above...doesn't need to know anymore than a ball knows to roll downhill. 

OFC trees have stem cells....but that's not why trees grow in a "cone shape" (for those that do) or why they have rings and bark.  All multi-cellular life has stem cells, but not all multicellular life "grows in a cone" or has rings or bark, nor is human hair anything more than trivially like a tree due to overarching external constraints in a shared environment.

Yet, I thought to look at trees and hair and found it cool. One(if not a hybrid) has immortal stem cells(not subject to aging) and one has callous stem cells(subject to aging).

[vulcanlogician]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom... true knowledge. How do we differentiate true knowledge from untrue (ie. false) knowledge?

First, by dispensing with your own prejudices and assuming you know nothing.

Then, by using logic and information to try to interpret the world. As you said in a previous post-- from the ground up.

You tell me what is true knowledge mate.  

I didn't say I had true knowledge, just a consistent process for getting closer to it.