Being religious or non-religious isn't an on-off, binary, this-or-that state of mind. It's a continuum. Much the same as drinking or non-drinking is.
If someone once was a serious alcoholic, changing to only drink a couple of beers a day will seem like a huge difference. He or she will think, "I'm barely drinking." But to someone who doesn't drink at all, that person will appear to still be wedded to alcohol.
These sorts of attitudes are reflected in both comments and posts on this blog. What seems non-religious to some, will look like raging religiosity to others. It all depends on where you are on a continuum. This can be called the Spectrum of Theistic Probability.
Richard Dawkins puts it this way:
- Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
- De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
- Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
- Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
- Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
- De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
- Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
But there is more to spiritual belief than God. Many people don't believe in God, but do believe in supernatural phenomena. They've given up a Father figure who resides in an ethereal heaven, yet hold on to other sorts of other-worldly entities.
Such as consciousness separate from the brain.
After heading down the churchless path, for quite a while I carried along this belief, or at least a "weak theist" version of it (I am very uncertain that consciousness exists separate from the brain, but I am inclined to believe that it does).
Now, though, I'm much more on level 6 of the continuum above. I live my life under that assumption that when I die, that's it. No more me. When my brain dies, so does my existence as a conscious entity. I can't be certain of this, but it seems like by far the most likely possibility.
A blurb on the cover of the most recent issue of New Scientist said, "Meaning of life. Learning to live with the reality of existence." Ooh... that sounded intriguing. It was the first story that I read.
Which turned out to be an interview with neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland called At peace with my brain. Or in the online version, The benefits of realising you're just a brain.
Here's some excerpts. I'll include the entire piece as a continuation to this post.
Why is it so difficult for us to see the reality of what we actually are?
Part of the answer has to do with the evolution of nervous systems. Is there any reason for a brain to know about itself? We can get along without knowing, just as we can get along without knowing that the liver is in there filtering out toxins. The wonderful thing, of course, is that science allows us to know.
Are there any implications of neuroscience that you feel unsettled by?
I'd have to say no. It takes some getting used to, but I'm not freaked out by it. I certainly understand the ambivalence people have. On one hand, they're fascinated because it helps explain their mother's Alzheimer's, but on the other, they think, 'Gosh, the love that I feel for my child is really just neural chemistry?' Well, actually, yes, it is. But that doesn't bother me.
By and large I find neuroscience liberating because it allows us to see our connections to other biological things, and because it's not full of metaphysical junk about preparing your life for the great beyond. Of course it's possible we're wrong. But it doesn't seem very likely, and that lack of likelihood is sufficient for me to not want to organise my life around this possibility. I want to enjoy it now. I don't want to make useless and meaningless sacrifices, and I don't want to trash this planet because I think a better one awaits me.
...Some might say the idea that you are just your brain makes life bleak, unforgiving and ultimately futile. How do you respond to that?
It's not at all bleak. I don't see how the existence of a god or a soul confers any meaning on my life. How does that work, exactly? Nobody has ever given an adequate answer. My life is meaningful because I have family, meaningful work, because I love to play, I have dogs, I love to dig in the garden. That's what makes my life meaningful, and I think that's true for most people.
Now, at the end of it, what's going to happen? I will die and that's it. And I like that idea, in a crazy sort of way.
It can be hard to accept that our hopes and dreams are just functions of our brains, but it shouldn't scare us
Our hopes, loves and very existence are just elaborate functions of a complicated mass of grey tissue. Accepting that can be hard, but neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland tells Graham Lawton that what we know should inspire us, not scare us
You compare revelations in neuroscience with the discoveries that the Earth goes around the sun and that the heart is a pump. What do you think these ideas have in common?
They challenge a whole framework of assumptions about the way things are. For Christians, it was very important that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. Similarly, many people believed that the heart was somehow what made us human. And it turned out it was just a pump made of meat.
I think the same is true about realising that when we're conscious, when we make decisions, when we go to sleep, when we get angry, when we're fearful, these are just functions of the physical brain. Coming to terms with the neural basis of who we are can be very unnerving. It has been called "neuroexistentialism", which really captures the essence of it. We're not in the habit of thinking about ourselves that way.
Why is it so difficult for us to see the reality of what we actually are?
Part of the answer has to do with the evolution of nervous systems. Is there any reason for a brain to know about itself? We can get along without knowing, just as we can get along without knowing that the liver is in there filtering out toxins. The wonderful thing, of course, is that science allows us to know.
Are there any implications of neuroscience that you feel unsettled by?
I'd have to say no. It takes some getting used to, but I'm not freaked out by it. I certainly understand the ambivalence people have. On one hand, they're fascinated because it helps explain their mother's Alzheimer's, but on the other, they think, 'Gosh, the love that I feel for my child is really just neural chemistry?' Well, actually, yes, it is. But that doesn't bother me.
By and large I find neuroscience liberating because it allows us to see our connections to other biological things, and because it's not full of metaphysical junk about preparing your life for the great beyond. Of course it's possible we're wrong. But it doesn't seem very likely, and that lack of likelihood is sufficient for me to not want to organise my life around this possibility. I want to enjoy it now. I don't want to make useless and meaningless sacrifices, and I don't want to trash this planet because I think a better one awaits me.
You seem to take it for granted that there is resistance to brain science out there. What led you to that conclusion?
For many years I taught philosophy of neuroscience and my students would often say, doesn't it freak you out that you're just your brain? Doesn't that bother you? So we would talk about why it bothered them. I know some people are ambivalent or apprehensive.
You say that some philosophers are resistant to brain science, too. Why is that?
Many philosophers think, hey, we thought we were going to have all the answers, and now you guys are wading in and telling us what knowledge is? I think there's fear of a territorial kind, and rightly so.
You accept that we don't have satisfying neural explanations for a lot of higher functions, including consciousness, problem-solving, decision-making, sleep and dreaming. Are we really ready to declare that we are our brains?
True, we don't have adequate explanations yet, and it's important not to overstate where things are. But that's where the evidence is pointing. Everything we're learning in neuroscience points us in that direction.
You say beliefs in things like the existence of the soul and life after death are challenged by neuroscience. But are they still widely held?
There are probably cultural variations; it may be that in Britain there is less need to challenge these ideas. But I find that here in America, it is important. Lots of people who don't necessarily have strong religious views nonetheless have the feeling that maybe after they die, there's something else.
It was quite interesting to see the comedian Jon Stewart interviewing Richard Dawkins recently. He said something like, you really don't think that after I die anything happens? I just rot? And of course Dawkins said, yes, I really do think that. And I really think that, too.
Even people who have largely come to terms with neuroscience find certain ideas troubling – particularly free will. Do we have it?
A better question is whether we have self-control, and it's very easy to see what the evolutionary rationale of that is. We need to be able to maintain a goal despite distractions. We need to suppress certain kinds of impulses. We do know a little bit about the neurobiology of self-control, and there is no doubt that brains exhibit self-control.
Now, that's as good as it gets, in my view. When we need to make a decision about something – whether to buy a new car, say – self-control mechanisms work in ways that we understand: we decide not to spend more than we can afford, to go with the more or less practical car. That is what free will is. But if you think that free will is creating the decision, with no causal background, there isn't that.
What about the argument that you can follow chains of causality back to the beginning of the universe, so everything is predetermined?
It's metaphysical goofiness. The reason I just scratched my foot is because of that causal connection to the big bang? Get real. Part of why we care about free will is because we care about assigning responsibility. Do we need to know about the relation between my scratching my foot and the big bang in order to make wise decisions about when to punish people for their actions? Of course not.
So I shouldn't worry that I don't have free will?
Here's one way to think of it. Suppose your doctor tells you they have found colon cancer. You have to make a decision whether to have surgery. If you thought there was no such thing as free will because it is causality all the way back, you might say, well, it's futile, I cannot make a free decision anyhow, I will just sit here and wait. That would be foolish.
If you are crippled by the thought that it is causality all the way back, you have essentially made a decision to make no decisions. That is very unwise. If by thinking that free will is an illusion you believe that it does not matter whether you acquire good habits or bad, hold false beliefs or true, or whether your evaluation of the consequences of an option is accurate or not, then you are highly likely to make a right mess of your life.
Do you see yourself as a cultural warrior?
Not at all. My intent is to say, I've made my peace with my brain, but there is a journey to getting there. I understand that journey, and not everybody will want to make it, but I'll let you know how I got there. And then you can take it or leave it.
So yours is not an evangelical message, you aren't seeking converts?
No, I have no intention or desire to shove anything down anybody's throat. People are, by and large, smart enough and reasonable enough that they come to a good decision eventually. But it takes time to think about it, to go back and forth. It's something that you have to marinate in for a while.
I just want to lay out what it looks like the science is telling us, because I think people want to know. I think it's important to accept what seems to be true rather than make stuff up. In general, I think that's a good life policy.
Can neuroscience offer a philosophy to live by?
Neuroscience doesn't provide a story about how to live a life. But I think that understanding something about the nature of the brain encourages us to be sensible.
Some might say the idea that you are just your brain makes life bleak, unforgiving and ultimately futile. How do you respond to that?
It's not at all bleak. I don't see how the existence of a god or a soul confers any meaning on my life. How does that work, exactly? Nobody has ever given an adequate answer. My life is meaningful because I have family, meaningful work, because I love to play, I have dogs, I love to dig in the garden. That's what makes my life meaningful, and I think that's true for most people.
Now, at the end of it, what's going to happen? I will die and that's it. And I like that idea, in a crazy sort of way.
This article appeared in print under the headline "At peace with my brain"
Profile
Patricia Churchland is a philosopher at the University of California, San Diego. She focuses on the intersection of neuroscience, psychology and philosophy. Her most recent book is Touching a Nerve: The self as brain (W. W. Norton)
How can there be any benefit to realizing that you are "just" a brain? There is no "you" to realize that "you" are just a brain. There are just brains surviving until they do not.
There is no hierarchy of relevance when it comes to what brains conceive "themselves" to be. There is just existence, under which all conception whatsoever is subsumed.
Posted by: Willie R. | December 08, 2013 at 04:30 PM
"6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there."
Yes, I qualify for the No. 6 category. And am also 'on the fence' regarding consciousness existing separate from the brain, although my strong feeling is that the brain is responsible for consciousness.
Just out of interest I include below my 'very personal' impressions of consciousness following a recent general anaesthetic :- "I felt the needle go into the back of my left hand – presumably to receive the anaesthesia drugs. An oxygen mask was placed on my face then [ . . . N O T H I N G, ABSOLUTELY N O T H I N G . . . ] Then I was aware of the bed being pushed to, I presume the recovery ward. I had no recollection whatsoever of anything from the moment of the oxygen mask to the bed being pushed. All that came to mind on waking was an impression of black nothingness.
It was not at all like awakening from sleep where there are usually a few images floating around of something dreamed which fade away as the surrounding environment impinges on the senses. We dream several times a night, some of them lasting 20-30 minutes. Dreaming is said to be unconscious thinking in the form of playing back memories.
Perhaps, because of the remembered dreams we accredit the black nothingness with some sort of substance. On awakening, the remembered dreams give the impression that ‘I’ was there sleeping and dreaming. With sleeping the brain is still quite active. A sensation – a sound or touch – can awaken us putting the body on alert, whereas with the general anaesthesia even the cutting and probing into the body is not registered.
Apparently, it is not known how anaesthesia works. Neuroscientists are studying the brain in fMRI scanners in an effort to understand how it renders us unconscious, makes us insensitive to pain, immobile and leaving no memory of the event. It opens the question and potentially may give some insights into consciousness.
My initial impression is that general anaesthesia renders the brain (almost totally) unconscious. All that makes me ‘me’, all the contents in my brain of memory, the sense of a self, my identity, etc., are not recognised because anaesthesia temporarily prevents consciousness.
To me, this black nothingness seemed just that – nothingness, no entity, no consciousness – nothing. Perhaps this is what death is – nothing at all."
Posted by: Turan | December 09, 2013 at 06:12 AM
There is no "you" to realize that "you" are just a brain
Right. There's no Willie saying there's no Willie - just a brain named "Willie" saying it's just a brain.
Posted by: cc | December 09, 2013 at 08:22 AM
Turan: death is not "nothing". There is NOT EVEN NOTHING in death.
When the organism is dead, there is no entity that once experienced life and then is no more. There is only the "condition" (if you will) that preceded existence. There is nothing to know about it - it is completely devoid of any qualities.
Yes, I know - unequivocal metaphysical gobbledygook, which I use to prop up my ego - but hey, it works for me! I don't know whether to shit or wind my watch. I don't own a watch.....
Posted by: Willie R. | December 09, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Hi Willie R. Yes I agree that there is NOT EVEN NOTHING because nothing is something, but nothing is just an inadequate word I use to attempt to describe when 'I' am not anymore.
For a naturalistic but confused (for me anyway) attempt to describe 'after death' have a look at the Organic. Org website Where T. Clark in the psychology section talks of 'Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity. I found it all unnecessary.
Posted by: Turan | December 10, 2013 at 02:21 AM
I am a number one. Perhaps we should start be saying what numbers we are, I don't think I will have much company though.
Posted by: june schlebusch | December 10, 2013 at 02:27 AM
june,
The last four numbers of my SS# are 9510.
My name is 9510. Do you need some company?
Posted by: Roger | December 10, 2013 at 09:48 AM
I am a number one. Perhaps we should start be saying what numbers we are, I don't think I will have much company though.
But you prefer the company of those you disagree with. Why else would you frequent a blog created and maintained by a confessed number 6?
Posted by: cc | December 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Hi June - I am actually a number 8 myself, which is not even on the Dawkins' list. Number 8 would be "none of the above".
No one escapes the truth: not even you number 1's.
Posted by: Willie R. | December 10, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Willie and cc I came to this blog for answers to sincere doubts I had about Sant Mat Brian being one of ex followers has actually help me. That no way distracts me from "Being a no 1" That's never going to change. Sant Mat was/ maybe still is, not sure yet, the approach I use to better understand the creation. Im sorry if my approach offends you or anyone else. But if truth is the main objective, surely the mystic one is as valid as any other or are you to pendantic to even consider it. I am in no way trying to convince anyone of the perspective I have of creation I am here to learn.
Posted by: june schlebusch | December 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM
That no way distracts me from "Being a no 1" That's never going to change.
And then you go on to say...
I am here to learn
You might start by learning about your confusion. You can't learn if you're "never going to change". Learning involves questioning everything and abandoning false premises.
Posted by: cc | December 10, 2013 at 01:51 PM
Willie and cc I came to this blog for answers to sincere doubts I had about Sant Mat Brian being one of ex followers has actually help me.
June, why do you presume to know why "Willie and cc came to this blog"? Does it even matter? I have no idea why you're here, but keep shooting off your mouth and I'm sure it will become clear.
Posted by: cc | December 10, 2013 at 02:49 PM
June - your comment seems unnecessarily apologetic in tone. However, to openly state that you are a number 1 and then further admit that you came to this blog to find answers to doubts you had about Sant Mat is blatantly disingenuous. You are in effect saying: I know where I am going - I just don't know how to get there. Blind faith. You cannot parse the assertion that comprises number 1.
Number 1's are cocksure of themselves, brook no tolerance of opposing views, and do not solicit counterpoint of any sort. Their method of living is codified in specific language, and their response to any random situation is completely predictable.
They are terminally boring, and so is their God.
Posted by: Willie R. | December 10, 2013 at 03:33 PM
I agree with willie and cc.
It appears that June is indeed confused.
Or else June is really a sant mat theist at heart - a firm believer in god - and so is someone who is not saying where they are really at.
One can not claim to be a number 1 and a firm believer of sant mat (as June has done), and then turn around and say that they are open to finding out the truth (and learning) whatever the actual truth may be about it.
June contradicts herself. Yet the reason for that contradiction remains to be seen.
A "Strong Theist" is someone who does not question the existence of God, someone who thinks firmly that they 'KNOW' God exists, someone who feels sure that God does exist.
If that is what June is, then June is indeed a number 1.
But if June has doubts about sant mat and the existence of God, then June is not a number 1.
So June needs to decide where she is really at, before making such contradictory and/or hypocritical statements.
For myself, I guess i would be an 8 (none of the above), or actually i would probably also be a 9 (somone who doesn't give a damn because its all bullshit anyway).
You will never know the answer, so you might as well get used to it.
Posted by: tAo | December 10, 2013 at 04:59 PM
I'm in the 4-5 range depending on the day. I went through a wannabe 1 stage and later found out that it was my most delusional and repressive part of my life.
Not good repression. Bad,bitter repression. That is what happens when you want to be a 1 but aren't, and that is what cults like Sant Mat (and all religions really)churn out thousands of. Wannabe 1's who tell themselves that they are humble servants of the lord but in reality are just like everyone else, and often worse.
I like girls and I like flirting with them. Regardless of if this is wrong,right or neutral, I couldn't have admitted it in my Sant Mat era. Trying to be a 1, and lying to my self that I was one, made me the biggest hypocrite in the world and I witnessed the same hypocrisy in my fellow satsangis who always wanted to one up each other with feigned humility and virtue.
There was one lady I can remember talking about her daughter in-law "whoring" and how it was "just his will." She laughed as she told the story knowing that any real emotional expression would lead to the same lectures on attachment or whatever other applicable sin. Emotion and real human connections seemed very distant and unwanted at all the satsangs i went to.
If one can lie to themselves about such a thing that is so blatantly obvious as being sexually attracted to someone or being in extreme emotional pain due to a loved ones dysfunction, what else will they lie about to make themselves feel important enough for the attention of god?
Posted by: Jesse | December 10, 2013 at 06:19 PM
You will never know the answer, so you might as well get used to it.
I have no doubt that God is a myth, a fantasy, a chimera, an illusion, a projection, etc., and that takes no "getting used" to because the question of whether God exists or not is too dumb to require an answer.
Posted by: cc | December 10, 2013 at 06:47 PM
I would just like to know how the moment ever arrived for me to be "just a brain" although I don't think my brain is capable of grasping that information. Infinity goes both ways you know, and no direction at all, which may be a key to understanding the mystery of time. Sure to be the greatest accomplishment of science if it can ever do it. UFO's should be consulted on this topic as they seem to have it figured out at least to some degree.
By the way, all this talk about numbers got my interest, so I looked up mine...3
Which means I am a superficial, gossipy, blabbermouth, that likes attention. Now I know why I am a blog commenter.
(hello to tAo who I haven't seen for a while)
Posted by: tucson | December 10, 2013 at 07:22 PM
For cc you have already inhibited me sometime ago about my spelling and English so I find it difficult responding... I don't presume to know why you are here. You told me in Nov. I don't see why it is a contradiction that if I question my belief in Sant Mat I must stop my belief in a Creator... I followed the Gurus because they were the best examples of humanity I had encountered....Now Im changing direction... I want their credentials..In others words want to know Who they follow..Mike Williams explains it better than I can., so Im not going to try... I have a more poetic nature than a scientific one so the only anologue I can give is "I saw the plane fly over head I don't know where it comes from or where its going" but to doubt that I saw it would only lead me into madness..Thats why I say IM a no1... Maybe not the correct definition but Im using the tools in the blog Brian gave.
Posted by: june schlebusch | December 10, 2013 at 10:02 PM
Hi June. If you really want to learn forget about this Sant Mat character and have a bash at investi-gating who/what you are. Much of this can be done by you without reference to a ‘teacher’ or be-longing to their groups. But, maybe our conditioning prevents this.
I have never held any particular beliefs so it was comparatively easy for me to feel free to question all and anything that I came upon – including questioning the existence of a self that can make choices.
But all that probably hinged on my particular conditioning and I would say that I had no choice but to take that route.
cc mentioned this sort of mechanics in a post of Nov. 24/13 :- “If free will is illusion, considering whether it is better to be or not to be attached is only an academic exercise because we are bound and determined by genetics and conditioning to do what we do, in spite of what we think we can or should do.
We think we are free because we can think about doing things differently, but such thoughts may only be the tip of the unconscious iceberg that is drifting with currents and conditions it can do nothing about.”
There may be a lot of truth in that statement, but a lot of fear and attachment may have to be acknowledged to see it.
Posted by: Turan | December 11, 2013 at 03:09 AM
I saw the plane fly over head I don't know where it comes from or where its going
You had an experience that convinces you of the existence of God, but the experience proves nothing but the existence of your mind. Until you can demonstrate, prove, that what you experienced exists outside of your mind, it's all in your mind. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Posted by: cc | December 11, 2013 at 07:59 AM
why is so difficult For You to understand. I don't have to prove anything. That's not my mogo. I study various religions, paths etc to find out how and what other folk think about the creation and the creator. The fact that their is :A CREATOR" is my first premous. I don't step out of that mold.... Bring on the critism.... As I said Im more of a poet than a scientist.
Posted by: june schlebusch | December 11, 2013 at 09:44 AM
"Which means I am a superficial, gossipy, blabbermouth, that likes attention. Now I know why I am a blog commenter."
---tucson, lol....the best statement
I like the "none of the above" category too.
Posted by: Roger | December 11, 2013 at 10:42 AM
"I would just like to know how the moment ever arrived for me to be "just a brain" although I don't think my brain is capable of grasping that information."
This is a good point.
There is no doubt to me that existence, nature or the universe is creative and displays intelligence. Now, I don't think for a minute that there is an intelligent mind behind the universe - but nor do I believe that the universe is somehow mindless. Neither mindful or mindless are adequate descriptions. How can that be? It is possible if not probable that there are ways to understand existence that we, at this point in evolution, are cognitively closed to.
Mindless and mindful are purely human-centric terms - they are poles that we understand from our human-centric perspective. And our human-centric perspective is on a need-to-know basis - our biology as determined by evolution dictates the extent of our cognitive capabilities. And this particular species at this particular point in time obviously does not represent the end-game in cognitive possibility. Evolution will go on to provide cognitive abilities that far outstrip ours - in the same way that ours far outstrip the shrew that we evolved from.
So it is highly probable that a new paradigm will emerge that will resolve these sort of questions.
(And one thing is for sure; religion and science are in accord in their aversion to this kind of talk. Religion thinks it's got all the answers. Science likes to believe that it could have all the answers RIGHT NOW if only it were given the right sort of evidence.)
By the way, I'm a 0.
Posted by: Jon | December 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnKqQk013xQ
Posted by: moongoes | December 11, 2013 at 03:05 PM
I don't have to prove anything.
...having proved you're irrational.
Posted by: cc | December 11, 2013 at 03:07 PM
"As I said Im more of a poet than a scientist."
Hi June. I'm a poet too - although my scribbling's are in response to being moved by the wonders of nature; but as natural phenomenon in their own right - without reference to the supernatural.
Posted by: Turan | December 12, 2013 at 01:59 AM
Interviewer:- So I shouldn't worry that I don't have free will?
Patricia Churchill replies:- Here's one way to think of it. Suppose your doctor tells you they have found colon cancer. You have to make a decision whether to have surgery. If you thought there was no such thing as free will because it is causality all the way back, you might say, well, it's futile, I cannot make a free decision anyhow, I will just sit here and wait. That would be foolish.
This is the only area where I disagree with Patricia Churchill. Even when believing there is no such thing as free will I’m sure my survival instincts will make the ‘decision’ to have the operation.
The only thing that may overrule that would be a mind full of beliefs and superstitions such as the various beliefs that it is God’s will; blood carries the soul so transfusions are bad, etc.
Interestingly, even religious believers do not entirely trust their god under such circumstances. I am reminded of an Islamic saying: - “Trust in Allah, but tie your camel first”.
Posted by: Turan | December 12, 2013 at 04:10 AM
Turan,
Nice comment. I think there is a difference between free will and freedom to make choices. One can have the freedom to choose or make a decision to see a doctor and still not have much free will, if any.
Free Will: when there is a sensation in the body, let's say a tingling in your finger, it takes half a second before it is perceived in your brain. Therefore, there is a delay between the stimulus in your finger and the registration of consciousness of it -- a gap of half a second, which could be call space. This gap is where the possibility of free will resides. What usually happens is that in this half second you immediately react and therefore there is never space, or what some call free will.
---this is an interpretation of what Free Will could be. Is there anyone that really has this free will? I don't know.
Posted by: Roger | December 12, 2013 at 09:55 AM
there is a delay between the stimulus in your finger and the registration of consciousness of it -- a gap of half a second, which could be call space. This gap is where the possibility of free will resides.
Conditioned response is reflexive; it's done before you know it. As for "a gap of half a second, which could be call space" in which "the possibility of free will resides", one can build an entire religion on this notion, as did Krishnamurti.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Krishnamurti/comments/1chfzu/why_krishnamurtis_teaching_is_bunk/
Most of us have the leisure to imagine alternative courses of action and to experiment, but even our capacity for imagination and experimentation is determined by genetics and conditioning, so it's more like wiggle room than freedom.
Posted by: cc | December 12, 2013 at 11:31 AM
Hi Turan I identify more with :Alice in Wonder Land: the mirror in reverse. All I can say.... Beware The Jabberwokkie my friend.....But don't forget.. I.m irrational.
Posted by: june schlebusch | December 13, 2013 at 02:12 AM
This time gap is slowly but definitely shortened up to
eliminated by experiencing the delicious sweet sound current asap !
Every human of compassion (vegetarian) can hear it by putting a little attention UP there instead of the constant mind stuff.
SatGurus give the method to be more and more absorbed in it.
When you are less the body by numbness and more the anahabd Shabd
the gap will be shorter
up to the level of a Saint, having total free will
The Key in all this is faith, yes
but much much more : Love
And Love can be obtained by Compassion,
and not in the last instance : Compassion towards the living Saint
This is the whole Path of The Masters
Don't try to see - seeing is the inferior light (creation) part -
Just dive in , ride This majestic ascending Sound Current
777
-
Posted by: 777 | December 13, 2013 at 03:09 AM