How minds change. It isn't by brute force.

Since I started this blog in 2004, I've been trying to change the minds of religious believers in the direction of being less dogmatic, judgmental, and rigid.

In this endeavor I've been guided mostly by my own experience and intuition. So when I saw a book review in the July 2 issue of New Scientist about "How Minds Change: The new science of belief, opinion, and persuasion" by David McRaney, I was interested to see what the book is all about.

After all, how many of us have changed our mind about something after someone started screaming in our face that we were wrong, they were right, and we needed to start thinking like them?

In my case, exactly never. So these passages from the review rang true to me.

McRaney spends time with former members of the Westboro Baptist Church in the US, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as "arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America", learning how they came to disavow their vitriolic beliefs and become more beneficent to others.

The answer, he finds, isn't willing people to come around to your point of view, but letting them realise the folly of their ways.

...The concept -- that, with more knowledge, long-held hypotheses can be disproved -- isn't likely to be news to New Scientist readers. But it doesn't make McRaney's book any less interesting.

Indeed, his writing is a tonic for those who might scratch their head at how others could be so nonsensical as to distrust vaccines, believe the Earth is flat or subscribe to any other number of conspiracy theories.

It helps shift perceptions from the unhelpful attitude of "this person is stupid and beyond help" to "this person has a different frame of belief, and they can be encouraged to think more deeply about the issue."

Because that is the big discovery of those Californian campaigners and the neuroscientists behind them: simply shouting facts at disbelievers doesn't change their minds, rather it entrenches their belief -- as anyone who has tackled a tricky dinner table conversation will know.

Instead, to change minds, you have to not change minds at all. You have to let people come to their own conclusions -- though, of course, you can help them get there by posing the right questions.

Makes sense. 

When I got remarried in 1990, my second wife, Laurel, didn't share my belief at the time that the guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) was God in Human Form. Though she made no attempt to dissuade me from belonging to this India-based religious organization, Laurel would ask good questions.

Such as, how can you be sure the guru is God in Human Form? I'd basically reiterate the RSSB teachings, which came down to an unconvincing "I have faith that this is true and by following the instructions I was given at initiation by the guru, hopefully one day I'll know for sure." 

If Laurel had been been confrontational, I would have become more defensive than I already was, hardening my religious conviction rather than softening it. 

Her questions, though, slowly seeped into my mind, along with other ways that gradually brought me to doubt that what I wanted to be true, actually was. So in the end I came to my own conclusion that I needed to distance myself from the organization that I'd been a devoted member of for 35 years.

That conclusion, though, was the result of all kinds of influences.

My meditation experiences. Books I'd read. Discussions with other RSSB members. Learning more about the guru. Giving talks on behalf of RSSB that required me to ponder which parts of the RSSB teachings seemed reasonable, and which were difficult to believe.

I think it's easier to help someone with changing their mind when you have a genuine relationship with them. This is why counseling can be effective at resolving a personal problem, while reading a book generally isn't. 

On this blog, as is the case with social media in general, most people only know each other as existing in cyberspace, not physical space. This makes it more difficult, though not impossible, to pose questions that will help the other person see things differently, and not be even more determined to look upon those things in the same way.

Appreciative Reader, a frequent commenter on this blog, is quite skilled at this. He's adept at questioning assumptions of other commenters without being excessively confrontational.

For example, recently someone claimed that consciousness has to exist after we die, because nothing existent can be destroyed. Sure, that's a tenet of matter/energy. It changes form, yet still exists. But Appreciative Reader pointed out the obvious.

Since consciousness almost certainly is a product of the brain, then when the brain and body die, changing form into the constituent atoms, consciousness, like life itself, no longer exists -- just atoms do, which become new entities. 

A few cogent questions and observations revealed the hollowness of a belief that consciousness is eternal. I'm not sure if any minds were changed, but they might have been.

Comments

[Ron E.]

I am amazed at how Trump still has a huge number of supporters. It would be a tragedy for the world, especially for the environment if he gets elected again. It looks like the only way he will lose favour is as McRaney says in regard to changing the minds of the religious hate group in America; - “The answer, he finds, isn't willing people to come around to your point of view, but letting them realise the folly of their ways.” He also points out that: - “... simply shouting facts at disbelievers doesn't change their minds, rather it entrenches their belief -- as anyone who has tackled a tricky dinner table conversation will know.”

That last statement seems to hold true seeing as though following the latest on the January 6th committee, Trump’s support is still strong. They apparently see the committees’ findings as from a ‘Kangaroo Court’. Regrettably, it looks as though the committees’ facts are just entrenching beliefs in and support for Trump. Dear oh dear, does this mean that his supporters’ will not change their minds until they experience his anti-science and anti-environment catastrophes in their own back yards?

[Cassiodorus]

The spirit of this post really resonated with me . But in my case , after much questioning and reflection , my views moved slowly towards spirituality / religiosity with regards to worldview and conservatism with regards to political philosophy.

Having grown up in the Northeast , I absorbed secularism and leftism without giving it much thought . It was a given ; not something that could be questioned without a sense of transgression . To do so would mean that one was either intellectually or morally deficient . It was only when I began to think that I was able to consider that what I was indoctrinated in could possibly be false .

[271 Days]

Brain,
“Since consciousness almost certainly is a product of the brain...”

I guess just a different use of words, since many beings are conscious without brains. A plant for example is conscious without a brain. Conscious meaning awareness/existence/aliveness. It is a well accepted part of Eastern viewpoints that you can be re-born as a tree, plant or sea urchin and they certainly don’t have brains.

https://a-z-animals.com/blog/12-animals-that-dont-have-a-brain-and-how-the-heck-they-survive/

The most fundamental component of the Universe is not the atom as you seem to imply. Quantum physics founder Max Planck said the most fundamental component is consciousness. By consciousness I think is meant “existence/being/awareness/knowing/ aliveness” .

Thus we have to understand what is fundamental and what is derivative. Existence is not derived from nonexistence. Why not? Because you don’t have an atom without existence first. To say you “have” anything is the same as saying existence is there. So to write it out the long way, you are saying an existence appears in the form of an atom. We can’t say, there is an atom that doesn’t exist.

[Dungeness]

@ 271 Days [ Brain,
“Since consciousness almost certainly is a product of the brain...” ]

I agree with your counter to Brian's naming the brain as the "prime suspect"
in this whodunit. The proximate cause in complicated cases often turns out
to be the wrong "perp".

P.S.
Brian (alias "Brain") is modest but might appreciate the slip.

[Ron E.]

Both the terms mind and consciousness are difficult to explain. But generally, in psychology, if you are conscious of something, you notice it or realize that it is happening. In this sense it means to be sentient - the ability to experience feelings and be conscious of them. Trees and flowers do not fit into this category. They obviously respond to conditions such as wind, rain, soil, insects, birds etc. (even minerals grow into crystals under certain conditions) but they do not have feelings or emotions about their conditions. Responding to conditions could be viewed as awareness though in terms of being non-sentient, such ‘awareness’ is a chemical response, a reaction involving changes to atoms or molecules.

It is my understanding, that for consciousness to arise there needs to be an observer and an object, whether that object is out there or generated internally as memory or thought. Where a brain is impaired, the connections are compromised resulting in no conscious experience. Research proves these theories to be correct; what is not yet proved is what scientists and philosophers call ‘the neural correlates of consciousness’ – how the brain does this is the unknown factor. But just because it’s unknown, making consciousness into something magical is unnecessary.

As mentioned in a previous comment, Paul Singh points out in his book 'The Great Illusion', by taking the term conscious and making it into an abstract noun by adding 'ness' to it, it immediately becomes a thing to be studied rather than a process that anyone can observe.

It is tempting to allocate consciousness as an inherent quality of the entire universe (panpsychism) and that our brains are a conduit for consciousness. I feel that the word consciousness is confusing. There could well be a principle of matter, of the universe that is the basis of everything – perhaps the term Tao is preferable in that, it defies description and humbles us.

[Dungeness]

@ Ron E. [ Where a brain is impaired, the connections are compromised resulting in no conscious experience. Research proves these theories to be correct; what is not yet proved is what scientists and philosophers call ‘the neural correlates of consciousness’ – how the brain does this is the unknown factor. But just because it’s unknown, making consciousness into something magical is unnecessary. ]

Yet, anecdotally at least, there are cases where medicine has pronounced
a patient "brain dead" who ostensibly responded to the touch or voice of
family/friends and subsequently made full recoveries. In fact, IMO enough
incidents to doubt that consciousness happens only via the conduit of the
brain. I agree with your theory of a non-magical Tao though and its power,
which, among other things, "defies description and humbles us".

[Appreciative Reader]

Read your post with interest, Brian, and I agree, absolutely, about the POV here on how best to change someone else’s mind.

Haha, I was surprised --- and delighted, to be honest! --- to find my name pop up there at the end of it, as an example of how this whole thing might play out. Thank you, Brian, for those kind words!

I have to say, though, that how I engage with folks, here or elsewhere, isn’t really a deliberate strategy to get them to change their mind. Just, I guess I’m not a confrontational type of person at all, IRL --- at least not unless provoked. And I loathe the asshattery one often comes across online, and try to avoid the
ultra-rude persona that online commenting/interactions sometimes end up engendering. That’s about it, I guess, as far as the non-confrontational part.

And also, in general I tend to engage as honestly and openly as I can, whether online or IRL. I mean, waste of time and energy otherwise, is how I look at it. That is, the idea isn’t, in general, to convert anyone to any kind of thinking; but only to explore, and primarily for my own benefit, why someone thinks the way they do, and whether that thinking of theirs seems justified or not. I come in prepared to change my own mind, certainly as far as individual issues discussed, and potentially even when it comes to more fundamental beliefs. At least I try to do that, to be open to the possibility of being wrong that is to say.

If in the process I can end up getting someone to leave behind unreasonable superstitions, and to embrace a more reasonable POV, well then, while doing that isn’t my primary intent when engaging, at least not in general, but I guess I’ll be very glad if I might end up actually doing that, absolutely!

----------

Although, as far as this:

“A few cogent questions and observations revealed the hollowness of a belief that consciousness is eternal. I'm not sure if any minds were changed, but they might have been.”

..........Apparently not, as far as the latter! *rueful smile*

[UM]

@ AR
>> have to say, though, that how I engage with folks, here or elsewhere, isn’t really a deliberate strategy to get them to change their mind.<<

That is how it feels ... :-)

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, 271 Days.

Rather than commenting on both threads, I’ll respond to both your comments --- your earlier one, addressed to me, in the other thread, and your comment here addressed to Brian, to the extent the latter touches on our discussion on that thread --- all in one single comment.

------------

“AR: I like your example that everything can be broken down into its component parts.”

……….Yep, it’s a great analogy, I agree. Haha, not mine though, at all. That’s a very old analogy, and it was the big guy under the Bo tree that thought it up, I think, or maybe one of those guys that developed his ideas further a few centuries after.

“What is the barest component part beyond which you don’t have anything?”

……….Depends, I guess? Although it isn’t a question merely of breaking things into their components, in this case. More like pointing towards emergent phenomena, I should think.

“Obviously "consciousness/existence/being/ knowing" or whatever word you want to use for it.”

……….Pardon the all-caps, but I wanted to highlight this portion, as what appears to me central to your POV on this. I’M NOT SURE HOW AND WHY YOU TREAT CONSCIOUSNESS AND EXISTENCE (OR BEING AND KNOWING) AS SOMEHOW SYNONYMOUS, OR AT ANY RATE EQUIVALENT.

The flame isn’t synonymous with, or equivalent to, the chemicals that partake in the combustion that gives rise to it: it is simply an emergent property/phenomenon, arising as a result of the process of combustion. Likewise consciousness, is kind of the idea here, as far as that analogy.

“To have anything you have to have existence as a precondition. Or in other words for the existence of anything you have to have the existence part. (…) We can’t say “there are” quarks for example, without the “there are” in place. To posit anything presupposes existence. (…) To say, “There is ... xyz,” without "consciousness/existence/being/knowing" is to say “There is that which isn’t.” (…) To say, “There is that which isn’t,” refers to an impossibility. .. like sunny darkness or timed timelessness. (…) Perhaps you are saying you have a more basic component than existence? What would that be? (…) To say nonexistence is a possibility is similar to saying water can be dry. Possibilities are limited to what exists. “Possible,” means something that can happen. To say nonexistence is possible and may happen to me, is to mis-define words.”

……….I’m afraid this is more of question begging. You’re simply assuming, for no good reason, that what exists must necessarily always exist. I’m afraid it is your definition, which lays the ground for your implied premise, that is unwarranted; and that is what leads you to the paradox you describe here.

When it comes to emergent phenomena, this is demonstrably not true. A flame that exists now will demonstrably cease to exist when the process of combustion ends, even though the components that went into the process of combustion continue on in other forms. That’s demonstrably true.

That apart, and even in general --- even beyond emergent phenomena --- I’m not sure how you can *define* existence as eternal. Even when it comes to matter (not consciousness, not the flame; but more generally the stuff that makes up this world) you cannot directly *assume* that what exists will necessarily always exist. If you’ll recall our discussion in the other thread, that’s a matter for empirical observation, not logic, and most emphatically not for ad hoc assumption/definition. (But in any case, this last, this entire paragraph I mean to say, is probably a digression, and an unnecessary nitpick, since what we’re discussing here is consciousness, not matter in general or existence in general.)

----------

“A plant for example is conscious without a brain.”

……….I don’t see how you can jump to that conclusion. We don’t know that plants are conscious. It would be reasonable to assume they aren’t, pending evidence to the contrary. And no, your link (https://a-z-animals.com/blog/12-animals-that-dont-have-a-brain-and-how-the-heck-they-survive) does NOT support what you’re saying. If anything the exact opposite, I should think. (Here’s what your link actually says: “Creatures without brains tend to be extremely simple animals. They use rudimentary biological characteristics to survive. Many are immobile, using sensory nerves to “find” food and avoid danger. … Curiously, this is similar to technology. Many of our devices [such as computers and smart phones] do not have brains but use sensors to detect light, movement, chemicals, and more. Brainless animals operate in the same manner, allowing them to do the things they need to survive.”)

“Conscious meaning awareness/existence/aliveness.”

……….Once again, that looks like a fallacious (if perhaps inadvertent) conflation of existence with being alive, and further with being conscious.

“ It is a well accepted part of Eastern viewpoints that you can be re-born as a tree, plant or sea urchin and they certainly don’t have brains.”

……….Metempsychosis/reincarnation, and indeed the existence of a soul, while it’s true they are, as you say, a central part of traditional Eastern/Indian thinking, but …how do I put it, they do not, as far as we can see, have any existence outside of people’s thinking!

“Quantum physics founder Max Planck said the most fundamental component is consciousness. By consciousness I think is meant “existence/being/awareness/knowing/ aliveness”

……….What I was saying in the other thread. We need, firstly, to be sure that this is not quoting Planck out of context, maybe even erroneously, as people tend to do with Einstein, for instance, and even Hawking. And secondly, and more importantly, the private individual religious beliefs and/or philosophical cogitations of individual scientists are not, are emphatically NOT, part of the science they’ve contributed towards building up. I’m no expert on QM, and so am open to correction, but I’m pretty sure that quantum physics does NOT hold consciousness to be a fundamental component of anything.

I tried to emphasize this point in the other thread. Even if it is the case that Planck actually believed that, even if it is the case that that isn’t quoting him out of context, even then: the fact that the man was instrumental in developing QM, and the fact that his personal philosophical/religious ideas led him to think that, those two do NOT translate into QM itself saying anything of the kind.

“Thus we have to understand what is fundamental and what is derivative. Existence is not derived from nonexistence. Why not? Because you don’t have an atom without existence first. To say you “have” anything is the same as saying existence is there. So to write it out the long way, you are saying an existence appears in the form of an atom. We can’t say, there is an atom that doesn’t exist.”

……….Sorry, word salad. In any case, existence can, in some cases at least, indeed be shown to follow non-existence, and non-existence follow existence: witness the flame of the candle.

[Appreciative Reader]

@ AR
>> have to say, though, that how I engage with folks, here or elsewhere, isn’t really a deliberate strategy to get them to change their mind.<<

That is how it feels ... :-)

----------

That's cryptic!

At least I hope it is!! :--)

[UM]

@AR

Have more coffee Ar, so that you can understand simple things in a simple way ... hahaha

Conversing wig you has been a pleasure due to to the intentions you attribute to yourself in interacting with others.

Why for heavens sake would one desire to change another persons mind unasked for ..... ??

Given my background that would be against the attitude of "freedom of mind"
Meaning one is free to put on the table whatever one deems fit but not more than that. It is upon others whether they want to turn towards it and do something with it and take it away from the table.

The painter has only to paint ....

Propaganda, is meant to change the mind of others.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Why for heavens sake would one desire to change another persons mind unasked for ..... ??"

..........Do you realize what an utterly self-centered POV that is, UM?

God bless you, I concur wholeheartedly. Because I empathize unreservedly.

----------

And yet. I cannot but help look on at the changing political countours all around with horror: and, while I tend, in general, not to worry overly much about what others think, except as it might impact on how I myself might: but of late, with the world seemingly changing into a narrower, more brutish place, I find myself dwelling more and more, or at least more than I would in the past, about why *other* people think the way they do, and what one might do to wean people off of superstitions on the one hand, and of the clutches of charlatans on the other (of the likes of Trump, wherever in the world they might be, and God knows there are more than ever of them infesting the world in recent times). More and more I find myself thinking that strictly private reflection, while it is always important, but to limit oneself to such is probably a luxury we can no longer afford.

Just thinking aloud, here, basis this recent exchange of ours, that's all! Like I said, I don't actually do anything along those lines, at least not so far. But as time goes by, "activism" seems far less the bizarre and utterly foreign concept that it had once seemed, and more of an inevitablity. Only at a conceptual level, though, at least so far.

[UM]

@ AR

Self centerd POV ... ??

I don't know AR. Like words as Love, God etc words like self-centeredness etc never arise in my mind.

If i hear what another person says, just as expressing his POV, there is no need for me to become personally emotionally involved and are in a position to listen and digest what is said.

The very fact that I do not like what is going on, is not enough to become active. Only if I would have an answer to the problem and the means to manifest it, I would consider doing it.

It seems to some people that they are living in an "makable world" and that for that reason they have to take action, if only to prevent the actions of others to come to fruitation. That is not my POV.

Although I certainly have to reap the consequences of my actions, I also realize I do act in an world that is totally beyond my control so that also the outcome of my actions are beyond my controll.

To express my opinions about say Trump is according my own thinking "pissing" against the wind. ... it is useless and I am the only one to suffer the consequences of my thoughtless and emotions..

Trump, is just a visible part, like the top of an iceberg, of an problem that is huge and not created by him

As long as the masses that are taken advantage of by the Establishment, religious, cultural, social, political, economical, do not go that far as to break the hope of the masses that their will come a better day for them, they will accept being taken advantage of.... if the distance between them and the establishment becomes to big, nature will take over and revolution will be born.

The evil of wealth .. is not only what I wrote about it but also the realisation of the masses that their is no decent furure left for them and their offspring.

See with what the mind of the masses is fed with daily .... the content and how that content reflects, lesser and lesser what their circumstances of like are .., than it will be clear AR.

Just coffee and TV ... that is all that is neeeded ... hahaha

[Appreciative Reader]

Just to be clear, UM, I both understand your POV, and agree fully with it. That is to say, I suppose at the end of day it is a matter of temperament, and personally i'm inclined neither towards gravitating towards any belief on any grounds other than its truth value, that is not out of any tribal, nationalistic, or any such sentiment; and nor am I at all inclined towards having others converted to my POV.

Like you I'm happiest with coffee, and some books, and my thoughts. Okay, TV, friends, all of that, but at bottom it is those first first three that's fundamental (with the first of the three no more than a joke really).

Just, talking over this with you, got me to thinking about how the times are changing, as is the political landscape, and how one is tempted, sorely tempted, to go right out of one's comfort zone and jump right in the midst of it all, sometimes.

..........WTF, don't know why I got to thinking these entirely tangential thoughts! Whatever will be will be, I guess.

[271 Days]

AR,

You said, "Once again, that looks like a fallacious (if perhaps inadvertent) conflation of existence with being alive, and further with being conscious."

And that is our problem. We don’t agree on the defintions of these words.

Various dictionaries and encyclopedias point out that “consciousness” does not have a universally agreed on definition. Since consciouosness, aliveness, existence are intangible, no word can really suffice. We don’t know when a plant dies. We cannot observe it or measure it.

Since we don’t agree on word definitions further discussion is pointless and meaningless. It doesn’t mean you are wrong or I am wrong, only our use of words fail to communicate.

By the way, Max Planck did say that his determination that consciousness was the fundamental aspect of the Universe was something he came to after years of cold sober scientific research and not some personal belief extraneous to his scientific work.

[Ron E.]

As indicated in my previous comment (July 24) consciousness does not exist in reality. It is merely a word that expresses a mental phenomenon. Yes, one can be conscious but there is not an article, a particular thing called conscious‘ness’ – it is a state, a mental condition that simply emanates from the brain via the senses in order to make the organism aware of its environment (and in the case of humans, also aware of thoughts, of the mental processes).

The same goes for the mind. We like to think that it is something special (in the sense of being special from other species) yet the reality is, the mind is a complex of information derived from experiences. All brain endowed creatures gather information similarly in order to survive and navigate their environment.

The day we realise experientially that our mental processes (memory, emotion, perception, imagination, thinking etc.) are natural and emanate from the total brain/body organism, then we might begin to understand what and who we are, and furthermore, begin to see we are not individual autonomous beings but part of a larger whole – not only of our immediate environment, but of the universe.

Once the above is realised, it doesn’t matter in the least what words or terms are used as the ‘mystery’ of our cognitive states and of our existence becomes clear – but we do love our mysteries!

Sorry to sound a bit preachy!

[Appreciative Reader]

“AR,

You said, "Once again, that looks like a fallacious (if perhaps inadvertent) conflation of existence with being alive, and further with being conscious."

And that is our problem. We don’t agree on the defintions of these words.

Various dictionaries and encyclopedias point out that “consciousness” does not have a universally agreed on definition. Since consciouosness, aliveness, existence are intangible, no word can really suffice. We don’t know when a plant dies. We cannot observe it or measure it.

Since we don’t agree on word definitions further discussion is pointless and meaningless. It doesn’t mean you are wrong or I am wrong, only our use of words fail to communicate.”

……….That’s a pretty much astonishing equivocation, 271 Days. While it is true that different sources may not offer exactly identical definitions for these words, or indeed any words, but I don’t think there’s any doubt at all that these are three very different things. You are clearly alive, for example, as am I; while my keyboard, that I’m typing on, as well as the coffee mug sitting by my side, these are clearly not alive. Do you mean to say your definitions, no matter what they might be, lead you to doubt if you or I alive, or to leave you unsure if your keyboard of your cup or mug of whatever beverage your favor is alive?

There’s always grays areas, to most things. That doesn’t mean that two things cannot be different. There is a gray area between life and death, a boundary area that keeps shifting (basis medical research), so sure, there’s always (or often) the possibility of doubt about cases that lie near the boundary between the two. But that does not make the difference between live and alive go away!

Haha, this is such an utterly weird confusion of ideas! Absolutely, there’s no cut-and-dried demarcation even between even night and day. At what point exactly in the AM do you say that night has ended, and the day has begun? And at what point at dusk do you say that the day has ended and night has begun? Indeed, in some places, around or near the poles, you have the sun, and sunlight, doing odd things, that makes clear demarcation between night and day difficult. Solar eclipses, those as well. But because there’s these gray areas, that does not mean that there’s no difference between day and night, and that for the most part there’s no ambiguity between what’s “clear as day” and “dark as night”; and nor does it mean that these are not distinct categories, or that the distinction is unimportant and/or so entirely subjective as to be objectively/intersubjectively incoherent.

Seriously, 271 Days: Are you actually in doubt that you are alive? Are you actually unsure about whether your cup of coffee or tea, or your mug of beer of water, is alive?

---------

“Since we don’t agree on word definitions further discussion is pointless and meaningless. It doesn’t mean you are wrong or I am wrong, only our use of words fail to communicate.”

……….Not unless your definitions are so very different from mine that you doubt that you yourself are alive, and that your wife or children or parents or siblings or friends or colleagues or whoever else is there in your house with you right now is alive! Not unless your definitions of life and existence, for instance, are so very different from what everyone else uses, that you do not agree that your cup of coffee is not alive (clearly existing, but clearly not alive).

Once again: that there might be a boundary where the one category bleeds into the other category, that there might be a boundary where we are unsure where one category ends and the other begins, that most certainly does not mean that you cannot meaningfully have these separate categories.

I’m afraid your equivocation between such obvious different categories/ideas/words as existence, and life, and consciousness, simply do not stand up to scrutiny, at all.

----------

“By the way, Max Planck did say that his determination that consciousness was the fundamental aspect of the Universe was something he came to after years of cold sober scientific research and not some personal belief extraneous to his scientific work.”

……….You’re claiming that quantum mechanics, as researched and developed by Max Planck, leads to the conclusion that consciousness is the fundamental aspect of the universe? You’re claiming that Planck said that, and what’s more said that as following from actual science, actual peer-reviewed published research (which is what science amounts to, peer reviewed published research, no matter the pedigree of the individual scientist)? Really? I’m afraid I’m going to need you to clearly back up that astonishing claim of yours with a citation.

[Appreciative Reader]

Thinking about (one part of) your comment, Ron, presents one with another approach to understanding the confusion in 271Days's mind. One of course is what I've just discussed, how he fixates on gray areas at the boundary of two states to claim that two states with such a gray boundary area are therefore not meaningfully distinct; but another would be this:

As you say, consciouenss, life, death, existence, indeed day and night, these are all mental constructs that we come up with. These are not things that exist in themselves; what they are are categories that we set up ourselves, in order facilitate personal understanding on the one hand, and communication with others on the other.

So if sometimes it so happens that two people, or two groups of people, find themselves disagreeing over what categories should answer to what "things in themselves"; that is, there is disagreement over the nomenclature part of it; in that case the obvious way out is to override the nomenclature itself, and to talk directly about the underlying reality that we're trying to discuss.

Say you and I are having a discussion around day and night, maybe in context of global heating, or crime rates, or whatever, anything at all really, where we find ourselves needing to distinguish between day and night. Suppose our vocabularies, for some reason, are so very different, that we cannot come to agreement at all about what to refer to as day, and what as night. Well then, that does not mean that we cannot therefore discuss this thing at all. It only means that we cannot use this particular shorthand, that the words "day" and "night" generally let us use, and that we must put in more effort and use more words to clearly explain what time of the day we're talking about.

It's astonishing how 271 Days uses (what in his mind is) ambiguity over the words "existence" and "life" and "consciousness", to claim that therefore these ideas cannot be coherently discussed at all! For one thing, that ambiguity he refers to pertains to only boundary points and fringe exceptions, and doesn't in fact invalidate the two categories themselves; but more fundamentally, even if we cannot arrive at agreement over how exacty to define these categories, that does not mean that we cannot therefore discuss what there is to be discussed about the underlying reality behind the words (by the simple expedient of not using those particular terms at all, and instead going to some pains to clearly explain what we'd otherwise have done more economically by verbal shorthand).

[Ron E]

AR. Just to say, we do not come up with things, or set things up for ourselves. They simply arise from our interactions with life - there is no-one
there, no entiy to do these things.

[271 Days]

Hi AR,
I use the word “consciousness,” as synonymous with “aliveness.” You don’t. I say a plant is alive, conscious. You say a plant does not have consciousness.

You use the word differently. I have no idea what you mean when you use the word consciousness, so how can I discuss it with you?

I also have no idea what you might mean by the word God, so I can’t discuss atheism with you either.

Whether atoms are alive or not I don’t think has been settled. Maybe “peer reviewed” science has settled it and the peer reviewers have given each awards over it. If so, I guess to you, that would make it settled, not to me.

Regardless of whether atoms are alive or not, the aliveness component is senior to the appearance component as Max Planck mentioned. It doesn’t matter to me if a million peer reviewers disagree, I still won’t see it differently. Perhaps the bigger question is, “can the aliveness component happen without the appearance component?”

(We know the appearance component cannot happen without the aliveness component through logic).

We cannot settle it easily because we cannot measure aliveness accurately, thus do not know the exact instant a plant or anything else dies. There have been numerous instances of people pronounced officially and medically dead who have woken up. We can’t measure aliveness so far. Things that can’t be measured or quantified are difficult to define, impossible really, thus impossible to discuss meaningfully.

I can say for sure I am alive. Even by denying it, I prove it. And that is the one thing I can say with absolute certainty. Whether you exist, or plants have consciousness I can’t be certain. I may be in a virtual world of only appearances and I would never know it. But I can say “I exist,” and I can say I will never “not exist” because non-existence cannot “happen.” “To happen” means “existence”. So sunlight cannot be dark, and nonexistence cannot “happen.” Thus all worries are over.

The flame in the candle is not appropriate as a demonstration of the possibility of nonexistence because the flame does not enter nonexistence, all of its components continue to exist just in different forms, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfer, etc.

To have something enter nonexistence it would have to do so without leaving behind component parts.

[Dungeness]

@ 271 Days [To have something enter nonexistence it would have to do so without leaving behind component parts. ]

Grand Dissolution

P.S. God dissolves creation (per mystics)
https://spiritualdatabase.blogspot.com/2015/07/Dissolution.html

[Appreciative Reader]

“AR. Just to say, we do not come up with things, or set things up for ourselves. They simply arise from our interactions with life - there is no-one
there, no entiy to do these things.”

……….Hi, Ron.

I’m not sure I can agree. That is, maybe it’s how you’ve phrased this, and/or maybe how I happen to be parsing what you wrote; and maybe we don’t see this differently at all, and this is merely a matter of semantics; but on the other hand it’s also possible that we might disagree about something more fundamental than merely words, so that I thought it might be interesting and instructive to clearly suss this out.

I agree fully with the larger model of the mind, as artifact of largely the brain (and also, maybe, the nervous system and gut biome). That said, I can’t agree with the idea that “(there is) no entity” there. I’d agree if you’d said there’s no ABIDING entity. But absolutely, for the brief period of time during which our body enables the formation of a mind, and the mind develops a sense of self, for that brief duration of some years, this entity most certainly does exist. You, me, us, we do not exist abidingly, true; but for as long as we exist, for that space we do indeed exist. Or am I missing something here?

Again, perhaps that is exactly what you did mean to say, and either you expressed yourself somewhat differently than you meant, or maybe I ended up interpreting your words following my own mental script: but going literally by how your comment reads to me, I’d say that while it is clearly mistaken as well as dysfunctional to imagine the self is an abiding entity, but equally it is mistaken (albeit leaning over to the opposite side now) to imagine that there’s actually no self at all. At least that’s how it appears to me.

[Appreciative Reader]

“I have no idea what you mean when you use the word consciousness, so how can I discuss it with you? (…) I also have no idea what you might mean by the word God, so I can’t discuss atheism with you either.”

……….271 Days, I believe I’ve addressed the objections you raise here already, in my two comments preceding yours, one addressed to you and the other to Ron.

I’ll revisit both, in the context of this last comment of yours. The latter point first. Like I was saying to Ron, as a general point but also with incidental reference to the discussion between you and I: Words aren’t actually the things they describe, you know. So that a disagreement over what words we use to refer to things, need not necessarily stand in the way of mutual exploration of the things-in-themselves that those words refer to.

You refer to four things that we apparently have different definitions for: existence, and life, and consciousness, and God. And because you believe we have different definitions for these, therefore, you conclude, there is no way for us to discuss these ideas. I disagree squarely. Let’s take the last idea as example (since it’s kind of stand-alone, and can therefore be talked of more easily).

Let’s say you’re right in imagining that we have different definitions for God. Well, I could ask you to clearly state your particular definition for God, and you could explain that to me. And you could, likewise, ask me what definition I use, if any, for God, and I could explain that to you. After that, one of us could simply change our definitions; and in any case, even if we continue to stick to our own previous definitions generally, nevertheless, for the space of our discussion, you could consent to abide my definitions, or else I could agree to abide with yours, and we could then hold our discussion on that basis. Or else we could simply jettison the term “God”, and instead directly discuss the underlying ideas, the underlying things-in-themselves, that is to say both of our conceptions of God. There’s no reason why that should take anything away from the discussion; in fact it would, if anything, add clarity to our discussion; although yes, our task would then be a bit more laborious, a bit more time-consuming.

And that goes for those other terms as well: existence, and life, and consciousness. And in general for all terms that there are, and that people may disagree over. So no, that we might disagree over our definitions for those terms, is no reason at all why we shouldn’t be able to talk about them, and indeed examine how consonant with reason and reality each others’ views of and around these are.

----------

“Whether atoms are alive or not I don’t think has been settled. Maybe “peer reviewed” science has settled it and the peer reviewers have given each awards over it. If so, I guess to you, that would make it settled, not to me. (…) It doesn’t matter to me if a million peer reviewers disagree, I still won’t see it differently.”

……….Whether atoms are alive or not there is not the slightest doubt about, I can assure you. That is, there is always the possibility, in science, of something new coming to light in future, including that atoms might be alive, or that the universe is a simulation, or just about anything: but given what we know so far, there isn’t the slightest doubt that atoms do not possess life.

True, if you choose to use the term “life” differently than I use it, or than science generally uses it, then sure, we might arrive at different answers. But that wouldn’t be a matter of the science about it “(not being) settled”, but a function of the idiosyncratic definition you choose to use. And that latter can be resolved, like I’ve suggested twice now, by first clarifying our definitions to each others’ full understanding.

And finally, you suggest that what consensus formal, peer-reviewed science arrives at over something is something that you yourself don’t abide by. That’s a remarkable statement, 271 Days, and clearly exposes your irrational and unscientific outlook. And that leads me to ask you: What is the basis, then, on which you arrive at your beliefs on things? Since you do not see science and reason and evidence as compelling, what is it, then, that you personally find compelling, and what is it on which you base your beliefs? I think that’s a very interesting question! If you’d like to clearly explain yourself, then that in itself would make for an interesting discussion!

And I’m led to one more somewhat ironic observation: You keep on erroneously harping on Planck’s apparently irrational religio-philosophical ideas about consciousness, and indeed you’ve also claimed that those views are in accord with his science. Now I’m very sure that’s mistaken, but since you refuse to back up that claim and indeed further state that what science says does not matter to you, therefore I’m perfectly willing to let that matter slide. But I do wonder why it should be so important to you, then, to keep on about Planck the scientist’s religious ideas! Since science does not matter to you, why should you care what some scientist thinks, any more than what some ignorant unlettered man on the street thinks? Or is it, I wonder, that you’re happy to selectively abide by science and scientists when their views agree with your superstitions (and indeed selectively take support from the authority of science in those cases); and not when they don’t?

----------

“We cannot settle it easily because we cannot measure aliveness accurately, thus do not know the exact instant a plant or anything else dies.”

……….I’m repeating myself now --- and I’m doing that because despite my having clearly explained how your reasoning is fallacious, you continue to blithely persist with it --- but to say that is a clear example of what is generally known as the continuum fallacy. Absolutely, there is some ambiguity about the boundary points of life and death, when we aren’t sure whether there is life or not. For the most part, though, life, and being alive, is a clear enough category. (And again, your own idiosyncratic definition for “life” is a separate discussion, like I’ve clearly explained, that we may choose to enter into, or not, as you like.)

Most categories do have some areas, usually around their boundary points, where there is some ambiguity. To repeat my earlier example: take day and night. At dawn and at dusk, there is some doubt about what exactly is day and what is night: but for the most part, day and night are separate categories, and there is no reason at all why we shouldn’t be able to clearly talk about them and examine them if we like. You’re resorting to a very common logical fallacy here, 271 Days, I’m afraid, and a very transparent one.

----------

“The flame in the candle is not appropriate as a demonstration of the possibility of nonexistence because the flame does not enter nonexistence, all of its components continue to exist just in different forms, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfer, etc. (…) To have something enter nonexistence it would have to do so without leaving behind component parts.”

……….Absolutely not. By normal, everyday, commonly accepted usage of the term “existence”, nonexistence (of something) is not dependent on its component parts also having to disappear. (And if you wish to introduce your own idiosyncratic usage of and ideas about that term into the discussion, then that’s fine by me, but you’ll first have to make fully clear what exactly you mean by that term, and maybe embark on a longer discussion about both your own unusual usage, as well as your views on the thing-in-itself that common usage of the term “existence” refers to.)

---------

We’re kind of going around in circles now, 271 Days. And no, that isn’t because we happen to use terms differently. Like I’ve said, we could easily get around that obstacle by taking the time to first discuss clearly our respective usages of those terms, and expanding the scope of our discussion to include both groups of things-in-themselves that those refer to. It seems to me that we’re going around in circles because of your unwillingness to clearly shine the light of reason on your ideas; and I’m guessing that is because you don’t wish them to be clearly revealed (to yourself more than to anyone else) as the rank irrationalities and superstitions that I believe they are.

Be that as it may, I don’t wish to drag you into this discussion, and into an examination of your beliefs, against your wishes. Please feel free to exit this discussion at any time you like, absolutely no issues. There isn’t much sense in repeating ourselves again and again like this, and if that’s all we’re going to do then it’s best we stop right here. That said, if you’d like to clearly explain your own terms, and your ideas, and if you’re willing to take the effort to clearly defend your beliefs, then I’m happy to listen, and to continue the discussion.

[Tim Rimmer]

Ron E- ‘ [We] begin to see we are not individual autonomous beings but part of a larger whole …
Yes Ron I reckon you’re hitting the nail on the head. Your use of the word begin, points out the potential scale of recognition possible when we get into this stuff. Further I like how you ‘mention’ that this process shifts focus. That is, the so-called loss of this perceived isolated self (essentially a bunch of thoughts) is replaced by say …. An expanded/dynamic state where everything is interconnected/interdependent and essentially made of the same stuff?

271 - ‘I use the word “consciousness,” as synonymous with “aliveness.”’
Yes I’m on a similar page and like you, would throw in the term existence too. AR is correct to point out the issues with clarification and understanding around these terms. This is contested terrain. While he/she can take some time to politely provide their view, AR makes one think.
While it seems clear science is making progress in unravelling the nature of reality and the self, I still think for a more comprehensive insight into such things we need help from Masters and mystics. In support, I also like the input from scientists/neuroscientists who are also long-time meditators - Sam Harris, Evan Thompson, Marjorie Woollacott come to mind.
I remain a believer in what Dungeness often states to be the ‘totality of consciousness’ and equate this with life, aliveness and existence. This fits the bill for me. Maybe I’m a Panpsychist!
Further 271, I think you make a fundamental point central to many previous and ongoing discussions on this blog:
‘Perhaps the bigger question is, “can the aliveness component happen without the appearance component”?
Can/Do we exist as something ‘more’ that also facilitates that which we spend a lot of our time thinking ourselves to be? Is this a key message from the mystics?
I read this the other day:
‘Where you not present at your birth? Will you not be present at your death? Find him who is always present and your problem of spontaneous and perfect response will be solved’ (Nisargadatta in response to a question, I am That p. 51).
A wonderful WTF statement…. and useful pointer imo.

[Ron E.]

A.R. Briefly, 'no entiy' - an entiy is a thing with distinct and independent existence. The self, is totally dependent on the brain and it's processes and is not an independent, automonous entity.

[Appreciative Reader]

Not sure I can agree with that either, Ron. Why would you define an entity as something that is necessarily "independent"? And should you choose to use that definition, then you'd be hard put to find any entity at all, because all things that come to mind are somehow dependent. Stars, then, would have no entity, nor planets, nor galaxies, nor nothing at all. And no candle flame either! Insisting that only independent entities are entities would make entities an impossible concept.

Like I said, I'm fully on board with the idea that the self is not an independent entity, and nor, like I'd said, an abiding enduring entity. What I'm not in board with is therefore concluding that there is no entity at all, that there is no self at all.

[Appreciative Reader]

Tim, the common-sense, scientifically informed answer to the question, "Were you not present at your birth?", is probably a straightforward "No". Our sense of self is better understood today than either Ramana or Nisargadatta were aware of.

Sure, an enduring self, beyond life and death, is indeed a WTF idea. But it takes more than merely WTF to qualify something as true, else all SF writers would be prophets. (Haha, like the prophet of Xenu!)

Sure, this particular WTF idea can be investigated, as can any other, why not. Many of us do that, including yours truly. That doesn't make it a true idea, or even a likely idea.

[Appreciative Reader]

As for "Find that 'you' that existed at and before your birth, and at and after your death, and your problem of this that and the other will be solved", is like saying, " Find the philosopher's stone, and all your financial and medical problems will be over."

The test of the pudding's in the eating, and in the clearly demonstrating; and not merely in the claiming and hinting.

[271 Days]

AR,
Thanks for your comments. If I understand what you wrote, you believe that at the death of your human body you will enter nonexistence. Is that correct?

How do you feel about that?
Is that disappointing?
A wonderful thing?
No feelings whatsoever?

In your view what are the chances you will enter nonexistence? 100% sure? 50% sure? 10% sure?
How does this prospect affect your day to day life now? Makes you want to jump for joy? Doesn’t matter? Disappointing?

[UM]

@ AR

By incident he passed by .... the "coffee man"... Egart Tolle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUuFejgOg_4

Hahaha

[Ron E.]

A.R. Just to clarify my term ‘entity’ for us – a couple of examples: - Definition of entity from Websters’ and Free Dictionary.

1. Being, existence especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence.

1. (Philosophy) something having real or distinct existence; a thing, esp when considered as independent of other things

But not to get too hung up on definitions – as I’m sure there are other definitions to be found. And yes, I agree with you that nothing is actually independent, simply because us, nature, the whole universe interacts and is interdependent (see Brian’s latest blog. Selves only get in the way. That's why we are persons.)

The point is, the self is a mental construct, not a thing, an object, not an entity that you can point to, hold or physically handle like a brain or a cell. We can use the term that the self is an illusion, but in the sense that it is not what we (generally) think it is – as some see it as a separate, ethereal entity – some sort of agent or soul that runs the show and is totally independent of the body/brain and its mental activity.

[Roger]

"....... you will enter nonexistence. ......"

--- clarify what the "you" is.
--- then explain the process of entering.
--- finally, the mentioned "nonexistence" needs further clarification. Is this a heavenly location?

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, 271 Days. I like the way your thoughts seem to be moving now, basis the questions you ask me! I’ll try to answer them as best I can.

----------

“AR,
Thanks for your comments. If I understand what you wrote, you believe that at the death of your human body you will enter nonexistence. Is that correct?”

……….That’s correct, yes.

----------

“How do you feel about that?
Is that disappointing?
A wonderful thing?
No feelings whatsoever?”

……….Those are great questions. The answers to them will be nuanced, and to answer them sincerely and completely will involve a fair bit of introspection. I’m not avoiding those questions, 271 Days, and if you should ask me those questions one more time, then I will be happy to take the time to fully think through and answer them as completely as I am able to, you have my word, absolutely!

But I will not provide those answers right now, and I will not provide them unless for some reason you’re sure my personal answers are of interest to you, and unless you ask again. Because you know what, 271 Days: it doesn’t matter! My personal feelings about it don’t really matter at all! How we feel about something has absolutely no bearing on the truth value of some proposition.

That’s something of a truism, an entirely obvious observation; but I’m going to emphasize it by repeating it one more time, because very often people don’t, in practice, seem to fully realize this. At least that has been my experience. Is there a God? Is there an objective, heaven-mandated morality? Is there life after death? Is there a true Guru? Does meditation do any more for us than merely calm us and center us and provide us with some incidental mundane insights and some incidental mundane physical benefits? Very often we end up evaluating these questions basis how we FEEL about a “Yes” answer, or a “No” answer. But the fact is --- as I’m sure you realize, or if you don’t then I’m sure you will once you think about it --- how you or I or anyone else FEELS about it, whether it makes us utterly dejected or depressed, or whether it leaves us indifferent, or whether it leaves us feeling buoyant and optimistic and generally happy, makes absolutely no difference to the truth values of those questions, that is to say, to whether the answers to those questions are a “Yes” or “No”.

----------

“In your view what are the chances you will enter nonexistence? 100% sure? 50% sure? 10% sure?”

……….Short answer to your question: 90% sure that I will enter non-existence.

The longer, more detailed answer would be as follows:

That percentage, 90%, was simply plucked off thin air, and has zero actual statistical veracity; but yes, I guess it does represent my subjective personal answer to your question, absolutely. 90% is about right, I think.

Science is never 100% sure about anything at all, that’s kind of the beauty of it. It is always open to new possibilities, and new answers to questions already answered. That said, basis my understanding (my limited understanding, always open to correction), I’d say where we stand today, science, as in hard published peer-reviewed science, is 99% sure that, to put it in your words, we (our self) will enter nonexistence on death.

However, I put my personal subjective answer at 90%, and not 99%, because personally I am very drawn to this question. You could say in a very humble way I’m myself part of the experiment of figuring this out, in a very subjective sense, as are so many others: that is to say, I meditate regularly, and meditate not only for its mundane advantages of general centeredness and physical wellbeing, but also with an eye open to some, …I don’t know, transcendental, supra-normal subjective experiences. Of course, merely having such experiences is not, by any means, in iteself evidence of a larger supra-normal reality, at least not necessarily; but that is a bridge one can cross if and when one comes to it, for now that evaluation is moot, because while I’ve had some interesting experiences but none, so far, that can be described as transcendental, at least as far as I could make out.

Objectively I realize that the chances of life after death are very slim indeed, absolutely. But my interests draw me to explore the question, and to stay a bit more open to that possibility, and to explore that possibility.

(You know, like someone who’s actively researching a hypothesis necessarily has to remain strictly agnostic about its answer for the duration of the research/experiment; even as the objective scientific consensus necessarily seeps over and colors their personal evaluation.)

Sorry, that was all rather long-winded, but that’s the complete answer to your question about what I personally believe are the chances that I will enter nonexistence (at/after death).

----------

“How does this prospect affect your day to day life now? Makes you want to jump for joy? Doesn’t matter? Disappointing?”

……….See above, my answer to your asking me how I feel about that, is it disappointing, etc.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, UM.

Loved the Eckhart Tolle video!

I liked how very simply he described mindfulness as awareness of the “space”. (I was going to say “spaces”, plural; but then I realized, even as I was actually typing that word out here, that to say “spaces” is to define it basis things and events; and what we might, equally, do is think instead of the things and events as arising from and within space, and defined by the space --- “space”, singular --- that holds it all together.)

And that was both amusing, and insightful, how he defines most lives as “one damn thing after another”. I guess most of us, who are *into* these things for awhile now, have outgrown that, or at least, outgrown being snowed under by that. Still, it is a great reminder of the hell that we’ve left behind; the hell that, if we aren’t aware, might effortlessly swallow us whole all over again.

I’ve bookmarked the video, and intend to watch it one more time at least, afterwards, and maybe some of those other talks of his as well, that pop up in its wake, helpfully per YT algo, there at the side of it and at the end of it.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, Ron.

We seem to be on the same page here, as far as I can make out. Like you, I agree that the self is not an abiding entity, nor an independent one. Yes, as you point out now, it is not even a physical entity: agreed, that last is indeed a point of divergence from other entities.

Thing is, just because something isn’t abiding, or because something isn’t independent, is not to say it doesn’t exist, or isn’t an entity. The analogy of the candle flame came up in the course of the discussion between 271 Days and I: well, the candle flame isn’t abiding either, or independent. And what’s more, there’s absolutely no difference, in this respect, between a candle flame and a star or a galaxy, except of course in terms of the duration of time involved: a difference merely of degree, not of kind.

But I see we agree on this fully, because you do express agreement, in your comment, that nothing is actually independent. So that, and unlike what you'd suggested in your two previous comments, in respect of abiding-ness, as well as in respect of being independent/autonomous (your terms), there is nothing to set our self apart from other entities.

I agree, our sense of self lacks even corporeality, physicality. In that respect it is different than a candle flame, actually, because you can at least see and photograph and even feel a flame. To be honest I’m not sure how I’d process that last, that lack of physicality, that specific point of divergence from even the flame of a candle. Does not having physical presence mean there is no existence, no entity? I’m not sure what to make of that. I can’t think of any other example, actually, of something that lacks physicality, and is yet considered an entity.

(Sure, legal entities like corporations, and money, and such, but I don’t mean that. Those are clearly fictive, even if in a sense real. Is our sense of self no more than, say, a corporation, or the dollar? A corporation will cease to be a legal entity, and a dollar qua dollar will cease to exist, the moment everyone around it ceases to believe in them and acquiesce to their existence in that form. Not so our self, clearly; that is, our sense of self endures while our brain holds it up, regardless of whether others agree that this sense of self exists. So there’s clearly a difference there, a very clear point of divergence with out-and-out abstractions.)

----------

Thank you for raising a great issue, Ron. At least for me, it’s great food for thought.

Your earlier rejection of entity-hood for self in terms of abiding-ness, as well as independtent/autonomous existence, that clearly does not stand up to scrutiny, since nothing at all is either abiding or independent. But this lack of physical/corporeal existence, that you now introduce to this discussion, well, obvious though that point is when you think about it, does give me pause. Although not physical, it is yet not quite fiction, unlike characters from novels and movies. Although not physical, it is yet different than out and out abstractions like corporations and money, since its existence is not dependent on others' acquiescence. And yet, at this time I cannot think of any other example here, of something that is not physical, and that yet qualifies as an entity. And so, to be honest, I don’t, at this time, really know what to think about this: about whether lack of physicality is a deal-breaker for entity-hood, for existence (that is, “existence” in the particular context in which we were discussing this here).

[UM]

@ AR

>>And that was both amusing, and insightful, how he defines most lives as “one damn thing after another”. I guess most of us, who are *into* these things for awhile now, have outgrown that, or at least, outgrown being snowed under by that.

Still, it is a great reminder of the hell that we’ve left behind; the hell that, if we aren’t aware, might effortlessly swallow us whole all over again.<<

I do hope that in the near future the mist will disappear from ....

You see waking up from the movie, is one thing but that is not the end of it as sitting in the movie arounded by people that are lost in this or that narrative, tale, or movie, is by itself also a kind of trap.

So the question is: "is human life possible without being trapped in a tale, game, narrative or movie?

If one allows the mind to be de-cluttered, from its cultural conditioning, what remains??

I am aware that what I write is vague but for the moment the mist doesn't allow me to see more clearly.

What is related to the two questions is the realization that those that have had so called divine inspiration, in any culture, are very rare.
One can compare it with the knowledge of the great scientific minds of history, the Da Vinci's de Einsteins the Teslas. Their descriptive capacity of the universe is so unique that it can only be understood and shared with a limited group of people and also after they hjave come up with formulas that work as a pointer to the reality they understood without and before the development of the formula. Before Einstein developed that famous formula of his, he already KNEW. Being well trained at the university he was able to construct an mathematical equation with which he could give to his advanced colleagues as a pointer, to what he knew so that they too could know.

The same holds for mystics and what they know bassed upon their experiences..

So my point his, that however impressive these people are and their dedication to science and mystisim, it can never be "common good"

In a way I am a universalist ...and ... to put it bluntly ... knowledge that cannot be shared with all and everybody, irrespective education, social status and cultural conditioning is in fact no knowledge.

So, people like eckhard Tolle, just to pick one, should not go into the world and tell other people ...you CAN ... and you SHOULD do as I do. First of all they all "received" their inspiration for free without any effort on their part and second suggest that based upon their personal experiencing that is how real life is all about.

All these people, I would like to say without exception, lived and live a life aside the "normal life of other human beings the majority

We seem to be here to witness life as human beings as all other creatures do in their respective forms ... the crow ... hahaha

Why make the lifes of people miserable beyond what is there allready as hell, by suggesting their is a way out for them

Well there were these cobler saints as exception to the rule

[Ron E.]

A.R. l reckon Brian's latest blog has something to offer on this selves topic. Have a read.

[271 Days]

Hi AR,

Yes, I agree with you. How any of us feel about something has nothing to do with whether it is true.

I would find it interesting if you say how it makes you feel. I’m not asking this as a way to bolster my argument or something. Just curious.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, UM.

Wait, so is *that* what your movie-experience was about, then? We’d spoken about it a few times, but I’d never fully understood. Have you all this time been referring to the fact that, from that point on, you stopped the compulsive identification with and compulsive participation in the cultural more and expectations and so forth that we’re subjected to at all times, is that what it’s about?

If that’s the case, UM, if that’s what this is about, then I’m right there sitting next to you in the movie theater! Like I said in my earlier comment (the one about Eckhart Tolle’s video), I believe I no longer compulsively identify with or act per mandates of tribal/social/familial/professional expectations. I sometimes/often lapse back into the compulsiveness, but am usually able to catch myself sooner or later.

(And like I’d said, I do look back on my compulsive and total immersion in all of that, in times past, as hellish! It’s such a relief to be rid of that unnecessary baggage, absolutely!)

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, Ron.

No, I’d read that post of Brian’s. And I re-read it, just now, on reading your comment.

Absolutely, it’s a great post, interesting and all that. But I don’t see that it throws light on the specific point where we’re at here.

That thing about “persons” vs “self”? Frankly I didn’t grok that part. Sounds like potahtoes-potaytoes to me. That is, understanding the nature of the self, I don’t see why that should necessarily make for any greater “interdependence”; it might, on the contrary, actually make for greater self-absorption. I’d imagine which it will be, greater interdependence, or greater self-absorption, or maybe neither the one nor the other, would be a function both of one’s intrinsic temperament as well as the kind of practice one’s involved in. Don’t see why it should necessarily be the one and not the other. And in any case, I’m not sure how that throws any light on whether our self might, the lack of physicality notwithstanding, qualify as an entity.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hi, 271 Days.

Sure, happy to answer your question, like I’d said!

I’d like to ask you something first, though. Basically what I’d asked you already in an earlier comment. You’ve told me that you don’t find science compelling. And now you tell me that you do realize that one’s feelings don’t weigh in, at all, on the truth value of some proposition. Given these two, I’m very curious what exactly leads you, then, to believe in the things that you do. Your beliefs on things like plants having consciousness, and atoms being alive, or life after death, or God for that matter (although we haven’t actually discussed your God beliefs so far, but still) --- what is it that you base those beliefs on, ultimately?

No pressure, only if you want to get into all of that. No question of a quid pro quo here. I’m curious, is all; and invite you introspect on this and to discuss this, but only if you’d like to. Absolutely no issues if you’d rather not get into all of that.

----------

Okay, to answer what you’d asked me. How do I feel about having realized that there’s likely no life after death, and no God, and so forth.

Well, actually my feelings cover the entire spectrum, I guess. (I’m thinking my way through here, and trying to answer as sincerely as I can, as correctly reflective of what my actual feelings are and have been.) Mixed feelings, comprising the following, in no fixed order:

(1) A feeling of loss, as keen as grief at the passing of someone very, very close to one. That’s beyond merely disappointment, or dejection even. “Grief” kind of describes this best.

(2) But also, along with the above, a feeling of relief. Like a weight having been taken off of one.

(3) And also, a feeling of sheer joy, at the whole gamut of possibilities that are open right in this life.

(4) Also, in some sense, indifference, as far as the day-to-day. I mean, one doesn’t exactly go around thinking of this sort of thing all of the time, after all. By far the larger part of most days goes by without even thinking of any of this.

(5) There’s also a kind of joy in arriving at what looks to be the correct answer, or at least the most reasonable answer. I don’t know, like if you’re working on a complex issue, a rather difficult piece of analysis, of research; and then, after a great deal of work (either your own, or of your entire team) you suddenly see light at the end of tunnel, and find a solution presenting itself. It doesn’t matter what the solution is, it doesn’t matter if the prognosis of what you’ve studied is good or bad or ugly, as far as the issue you’re analyzing. Merely the arriving at a cogent solution itself is sometimes a matter of sheer joy. (I don’t know if this makes sense! I guess you’ll recognize the feeling if you’ve ever felt it yourself! Most academics, most people who’re in research, will have felt this closely; although of course I’m sure the feeling isn’t by any means limited to academia.)

(6) The above four (#2, #3, #4 and #5) are not a matter of negation of #1, not a negation of that loss I spoke of there. I guess it is #1 that is partly responsible for my continuing to search, and my continuing to hope --- while yet resolutely guarding against taking the easy way out by going in for fallacious wish-fulfillment beliefs and ideas and conclusions.

Yeah, that’s about it. I’ve tried to introspect as honestly as I could, in order to answer your question. Mixed bag, as you see. In sum I guess it’s a good feeling; but it isn’t unilaterally that, and it does come accompanied with a sense of loss as well.

[UM]

@ AR

Yes.. but maybe there is more to it.

After waking up one is still alive and one has to live with those that are still caught up in this or that movie. One is very much alone in that process figuring out what it is all about and what to do with it.

I think it is not the time and the place here to expand that

[Appreciative Reader]

I'm interested in listening, if you'd like to talk about it, UM.

If you're worried about derailing the thread, which is a valid enough concern, then perhaps we could take this to the nearest Open Thread.

Or, if you'd rather not speak of it at this time, that's fine too, of course.

[UM]

@ AR

Both AR, ...

[271 Days]

Hi AR,
Thanks for your reply.
Would you like to try to upload your consciousness to a computer as members of the WEF want to do? Or do you think that is impossible?

You have mis-characterised my view.

1. I DO find science compelling. I happen to agree with Nobel prize winning physicist and founder of Quantum Mechanics Max Planck on it, along with a host of other great scientists such as Edwin Schroedinger, Adam Lanza, and Donald Hoffman. Although Max discovered through cold sober science that “consciousness is fundamental,” fundamentally it is not a science question anyway, it is a logic question and a philosophy question, since science is largely limited to what can be measured and consciousness cannot be measured.

2. I didn’t say I believe atoms are alive. I doubt they are. It is not impossible though.

3. Do plants have consciousness? Here we simply disagree on the word consciousness. Plants are alive. They are conscious of their environment. To me, what is conscious could be termed to have consciousness.

What is the logic I base my view that nonexistence cannot happen?
1. Nonexistence cannot experience nonexistence, to do so it would have to exist.
2. Existence cannot experience nonexistence. Its own “existence” prevents it.

Thus the “experience” of nonexistence will never happen, and has never happened and canot happen. I don’t have to worry about what has never happened and can never happen.

You believe matter was first, and consciousness/existence emerged from it. I believe consciousness/existence was first and matter emerged from it. These are philosophical views. I’ve adopted mine because I don’t believe you can correctly say “there was matter first,” since without “consciousness/existence” there is no “there” there. I see it as a matter of logic.

I would view “God” as consciousness without an object.

Thanks for saying how you feel about your view. My entire family and almost everyone I know views the world as you have described. Most of them are seriously depressed and three fourths of them are on anti-depressants. They regard me as an imbecile and a nut. They find nothing positive about their long term prospects. You on the other hand have found something positive about it so that is noteworthy. They desperately want science to figure out how to upload their consciousness to the cloud so that they will not experience nonexistence at death and many of them are in declining health.

[UM]

@ AR

Like all others, I spend most of my time in the streets of the world where there was more light. I was convinced that, if there was knowledge to be had, it was to be found there.
After all that was "told" by those in the street, parents, teachers etc.
It is all out there and beyond ttaking knowledge from it, one had also to form a notion, pro or contra.

That is the outcome of the denaturation process where one has to learn the language, the rules of society and the accumulated knowledge of the culture.

Humans were born as tabula rasa, to be written on. What was iomportant that others could understand you, that you could communicate with them, discuss with them etc.

In that proces the natiural human being is covered up by the garment of culture.

Nothing wrong ... in order to play the individual song and music each human is born with, one certainly has to learn the medium by which to share that song and music with others.

Unfortunately in the run of that proces of "learning" that easily takes some 25 years one forgets that it was all just a means to an end ... most people die without ever having had the opportunity to sing their own unique song.

When confronted with spirituality, in the streets of the world, I preferred just to read what the original thinkers, teachers etc had written themselves and I would only read commentaries that were related to translations.

These days, and that is what I wanted to share with you, I have also lost the drive to know what other human beings have experienced, described etc etc and it doesn't matter who they are and how high they are ranking.

That is the process if turning home, leaving the street for what it is ... trying to become like the crow, the animal that is born with everything he needs to live as a crow and does not stand in need to go to a crow-school and be dressed up in crow culture.

Even being in the house, de decluttering mentally from what I took with me from the street is not so simple

Well this is a lengthy attempt to describe what in fact is simple.

Do not stumble over the words, the bad phrasing, the miserable english ...read in between the words what I am pointing at

Live a natural in a natural way .... being cultural conditioned and in a cultural environment with other human beings.

Be not taught to be human and do not teach others to be human as we are all born that way

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, 271 Days. Sorry, hadn’t logged in here over the weekend.

----------

“Would you like to try to upload your consciousness to a computer as members of the WEF want to do? Or do you think that is impossible?”

……….Do I think that’s impossible? In theory, no; in theory I do believe it might be possible. In practice, though, it’s such a complex business, that I’m not sure we’ll ever reach there: that is, we might, one day, but then again, maybe not.

In short, then, as far as whether I believe it is possible: Theoretically possible, I should think; but in practice, may or may not ever work out, I couldn’t really say.

Would I like to do that, if it were possible to do this within my lifetime? I don’t know! First, it seems reasonable to believe that my personal consciousness and my personal self will cease at death; so that any uploading of my consciousness anywhere else might, arguably, be seen not as “my” consciousness and self, but a different, separate consciousness and self. So in so far as continuity of my present self after death, I’d say no, I’m not interested --- at least, I think not. Besides, even if such a thing became possible, I’m sure in the initial days at least there will be lots of issues about this humongously complex business: and I’d be loath to make my consciousness a guinea pig for experimentation, that might well end up the basis for creating a Frankenstein’s monster. So on that account also, it’s a “Thanks, but no!” On the other hand, should all of these practical and technical wrinkles be ironed out, and if this technology became widely and *reliably* available within my lifetime, and if what’s more I found myself able to afford the cost of it, why then who knows, I might actually opt for it after all.

So, short answer to whether I’d want to do it if it were possible to do it: Not sure: probably not, in fact chances are I'll decline; but maybe yes, depending.

----------

“You have mis-characterised my view. (…) 1. I DO find science compelling.”

……….Sorry, what?! This is what you told me in an earlier comment, 271 Days, and I quote you verbatim: “Maybe ‘peer reviewed’ science has settled it and the peer reviewers have given each awards over it. If so, I guess to you, that would make it settled, not to me.” Your words, 271 Days.

You’re clearly saying here that something being “settled” per “peer reviewed science” would not “make it settled” for you. That’s exactly the same as you saying that you do not find science compelling, like *exactly*! Your words admit of no other interpretation, I’m afraid. There isn’t the slightest shadow of a doubt about what you’d said, and there’s no way in hell you can spin your way out of that one.

By all means, feel free to change your mind from what you’d stated earlier, absolutely. I’ll be very happy if we can get you see how irrational are your beliefs, and if, as a result of these discussions, you start to think rationally and scientifically, absolutely! But please don’t misrepresent your own words like this, your words that after all we can all very easily go back and look up; and please don’t falsely charge me with “mischaracterizing” your comments!

----------

“Max discovered through cold sober science that ‘consciousness is fundamental’ …”

……….Nope, Planck did no such thing. Repeating a falsehood fifty times, mantra-like, will not magically make it true. You seem confused about what science actually amounts to. Not everything a scientist thinks or says or writes is science, please understand that! Published, peer-reviewed research is the only kind of science there is! (With cutting edge research it is possible that actual science might be in the process of being done, and that ongoing science has not found its way to being peer reviewed and published yet. You might perhaps try to argue that that kind of thing qualifies as science --- although not even quite that, not really, because such ongoing research might not actually turn out right, so that that is not actual science per se, not yet, and perhaps never will be; but still, a kinda sorta argument might perhaps be made along those lines, I’ll grant you that much, should you want to argue along those lines. But with someone long dead and buried like Max Planck there’s no question of even that kind of a half-assed argument being made about any of his actual work, his actual science!)

The private religious beliefs and/or philosophical cogitations and conclusions of a scientist do NOT tantamount to science. As has been explained to you clearly more than once. So that, if you’re going to claim that Max Planck had shown, basis *science*, that consciousness is fundamental to existence, or whatever the hell you keep repeating here again and again and again, then you should be prepared to present citations to peer reviewed published research that validates that extraordinary claim of yours. Where is that citation, where is that validation?

----------

“2. I didn’t say I believe atoms are alive. I doubt they are. It is not impossible though.”

……….Here’s what you’d originally said, 271 Days: “Whether atoms are alive or not I don’t think has been settled. Maybe “peer reviewed” science has settled it and the peer reviewers have given each awards over it. If so, I guess to you, that would make it settled, not to me.”

Nothing’s impossible in science, in the sense that science is open to just about anything being shown to be true going forward. It isn’t impossible that the moon is made of cheese, or that universe is a simulation, or that the earth is flat and the whole buttload of evidence about its spheroidality is merely some kind of mass hallucination. Anything’s possible, and nothing’s “impossible”, nothing at all; not even that gravity will not suddenly, from tomorrow, start repelling instead of attracting, or that the universe suddenly stops expanding and instead starts contracting back starting tomorrow. Nothing’s “impossible”. But no one who has the slightest idea about science can possibly imagine that there is any doubt, for any normal reasonable definition of “life”, and for any normal reasonable definition of “atoms”, and for any normal reasonable definition of “doubt”, that atoms might be alive, so far as we know at this time.

----------

“What is the logic I base my view that nonexistence cannot happen?
1. Nonexistence cannot experience nonexistence, to do so it would have to exist.
2. Existence cannot experience nonexistence. Its own “existence” prevents it.
Thus the “experience” of nonexistence will never happen, and has never happened and canot happen.”

..........Heh, that’s as transparent a goalpost-shifting gambit as any I’ve seen! Here, let me show you how your “logic” is simply illogic, and your reasoning utterly nonsensical:

Sure, you need to exist in order to experience something. Agreed, non-existence (that is to say, non-existent things) cannot experience non-experience. Also agreed, existence (that is to say, things existent) cannot, while they exist, exist nonexistence. And therefore, nothing can experience non-existence, agreed. To re-state that in slightly different words: The experience of non-existence cannot happen. Sure, agreed. You’ve gone to great lengths to prove a truism, that you might have directly stated as your starting point, without anyone objecting to your doing that.

Your transparent goalpost-shifting consists in now speaking about experiencing non-existence, instead of non-existence itself. And your transparent illogic lies in conflating “experiencing” with “happening”. To say that the experience of non-existence cannot happen, is very different than saying that non-existence cannot happen! Let me repeat this out one more time, so that you can understand the full extent of your illogic: What cannot happen is the experience of non-existence; that says nothing whatsoever about whether non-existence itself (as distinct from the experience of it) can happen or not.

(Haha, are you now going to try to claim that you have your own particular and idiosyncratic definitions for “happening” and “experiencing” as well? This is fun! We’ve already done the equivalent of proving that pigs can fly, by the simple expedient of redefining pigs to mean choppers. Let’s now redefine gray to mean pink, and trumpeting to mean speaking in Latin, and enjoy the spectacle of pink elephants gamboling around and speaking to one another in Latin!)

----------

“You believe matter was first, and consciousness/existence emerged from it. I believe consciousness/existence was first and matter emerged from it. These are philosophical views.”

………And that is exactly what I’ve asked you. Why on earth is it that you believe that? Science does support the idea that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, off of our brain (and maybe to an extent our nervous system and gut biome). You needn’t go very far to look that up: just browse through the many articles that Brian’s written on this, right here on this blogsite, many of them referencing actual research. Why on earth do you believe this “philosophical” idea of yours, I ask again, on what basis? (Your logic is faulty, as I’ve clearly shown. And in any case, as I’d tried to explain in more detail in an earlier comment, random “philosophizing” is barren, in terms of arriving at the correct picture of reality; because logic is about internal consistency, and not external validity; and, as such, logic is necessary, but not sufficient, as means to inform one’s worldview about reality.)

----------

“Thanks for saying how you feel about your view. My entire family and almost everyone I know views the world as you have described. Most of them are seriously depressed and three fourths of them are on anti-depressants. They regard me as an imbecile and a nut. They find nothing positive about their long term prospects. You on the other hand have found something positive about it so that is noteworthy. They desperately want science to figure out how to upload their consciousness to the cloud so that they will not experience nonexistence at death and many of them are in declining health.”

……….I don’t know what to say to that. And I’m not even sure why you bring up the health issues of your near and dear ones here. But I do sympathize. (Is that simply a random factoid about your personal situation? Are are you suggesting that it is your family’s lack of religious belief that makes them prone to depression? I’m sorry, I know you don’t say that latter outright, but then it’s not very clear what you do mean by introducing this apparently unrelated personal factoid here!) In any case, 271 Days, like I said I do sympathize. I’m sorry your family and friends appear to be suffering from depression. It must be trying for you, to find yourself in such a situation, where almost everyone around you seems unwell. My good wishes for you and your family!

As far as their poor assessment of your IQ --- I mean their thinking that you’re an imbecile --- for what it is worth, and basis my limited interaction with you, I myself don’t share that view. While I disagree squarely with how you (mis-)use logic, and with your less than reasonable appreciation of science and a scientific worldview, and not to mention your idiosyncratic usage of common words (that you tend to spring on people unawares, without first warning them that when you say “pigs” you actually mean choppers, and not porkers!); but I don’t think any of that reflects on your intelligence per se. I’d guess, again basis my limited interactions with you here, that your intelligence is probably actually above average. I don’t know your family, and so I couldn’t say for sure, but chances are that you may actually be more intelligent than they are!

Easy way to settle that last, that “imbecile” business, objectively and without ambiguity. Now I realize there’s some doubts about some aspects of IQ tests, including their applicability in specific situations like job interviews and such; but by and large and leaving cultural outliers aside they do broadly correlate with intelligence. So you could simply take an IQ test or two, and share those results with your family. That’ll shut them up for good as far as their unkind comments about your “imbecility”, by presenting them objective results to the contrary that they can’t argue with!

[Appreciative Reader]

“These days, and that is what I wanted to share with you, I have also lost the drive to know what other human beings have experienced, described etc etc”

……….I understand, UM. It seems, then, that your movie theater insight has two components: first, a decoupling from conditioning so far taken as given; and second, an indifference to the wisdom that others have arrived at.

Personally I think I share the first trait with you. To a large extent I also do not identify with the cultural markers that used at one time to define me; and although I’m low key about this and don’t make a song and dance of it, but I most definitely do not, any more, live my life basis compulsive acquiescence with social and cultural and familial and professional and other similar mores, as at one time I used to.

The second trait, though, I guess I don’t quite share with you. That is, while I no longer compulsively go around seeking “wisdom” (since my plate isn’t exactly empty at this time, and most of my energy is taken up with attending to what I’ve already got there, as well as attending to the world in general), but I’m afraid I do think that there’s much I can still learn from others; so that I remain open to judiciously learning from others what might seem of value. I guess as far as that last we’re at different places. (But still, I kind of grok where you’re coming from, UM. After you’ve already absorbed a great deal of “wisdom”, it then might well become more a matter of processing what you’ve already absorbed, rather than necessarily looking for new things to absorb. I kind of get that, and to an extent agree with that attitude. Except I don’t think it necessarily need be the one or the other. One can focus on the “processing”, on the “practice”, while still remaining open to potentially useful new ideas --- not compulsively hankering after such, but keeping an eye open for anything really useful. But hey, whatever works for you. I get where you’re coming from, I’m saying, or at least I think I do.)

[um]

@ AR

You understand correctly, but seen through YOUR eyes.. Please do not read this in any negative way. From where you stand you cannot but see things in that way and if I would stand there too, i would see the same and report the same.

You write:

[1] indifference for the wisdom of OTHERS
[2] Learn from OTHERS
[3] What OTHERS have of value
[4] Absorbing and processioning the wisdom of OTHERS
[5] openness to and absorb possible new things of value of OTHERS

Who am I to comment on the value of the wisdom of others?!
I am not a scientist, neither mystic nor otherwise of value to society and have no knowledge to share

I am an consumer of life.

You could have understood from the example of eating in a restaurant that I used in the past how I handle knowledge..

I do not go to the restaurant for any other motive than my own. So I do not go to a restaurant because it is famous or any other reason related to the restaurant .. be it the location, the staf and the guests ... the only thing that matters is my hunger, my appetite and the one sitting with me at the table. If there is something that doesn't suit me, I just never go again.

What is that I want to convey?

That you are drawing the attention to all things related to the restaurant and that you are always on your way to find ever new restaurants to eat, enjoy new dishes, meet new chefs, surroundings etc etc ...there is no end to that

I was trained also in that way, as we are all trained to be that way .. and that is to focus on what OTHERS have to offer... to absorb that, to comment on that and in doing so become "better" as we are.

I do not know how to say it properly ...

BEFORE the restaurant there is the person that decides to go there
BEFORE asking for initiation there is a person that decides to go there
BEFORE going to the university there is a person that decides to go there

What makes a person decide is projected on the outside world, the restaurant, the guru, the university etc ... but ... in reality it has NOTHING absolutely NOTHING to do with the outside world.

The reason for these decisions are to be found "inside the house".

When I realized that I shifted my focus of attention, curiosity etc away from the outside world as i had done before and THAT has nothing to do with any criticism on anything or anybody outside in the street.

Socrates said ... know they self

Did he speak of the self of the cultural man?
or
Did he speak of the natural man?

Again:
Huzur said: "If you had not brought it before me, I would have not known anything about it"

I came to realize that most of what I have gathered in my mind would not have been there if I was not "forced" to take it in, in order to become a "normal" citizen.

Before I die I hope to have found out what it was that I brought with me the moment I was born, what was my intent. as a natural being, like the crow.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Before I die I hope to have found out what it was that I brought with me the moment I was born, what was my intent. as a natural being, like the crow."

..........Amen. May we all be able to do that, UM.

I may've said this before, or maybe I haven't, but this part of what you say reminds me of the Buddha's turning away from the austerities he'd learnt and was applying himself to, and toward his patented practice. I refer specifically to Thich Nhat Hanh's very evocative and poetic description of that event. The Buddha, having seen and understood and mastered most of what others at that place and time were out teaching, then suddenly harks back to his own innate experience of absoprtion, had as a child in his father's agricultural lands; and he gives up all else, and turns his entire attention back to reclaiming what was instrinscially his already. Which leads him, eventually, to ...well, what it did lead to.

Lots of ifs and buts there, obviously. But, I'm saying, this repeated motif of yours, of going back to what one already comes equipped with, to one's native inborn ...potential, that reminds me, in general, of that lovely episode from the Buddha's (alleged) life and times.

[UM]

@AR

Thank you for wording so clearly what Buddha decided before he became the Buddha.

And ... In case that something of that nature is going to happen , I will pass by on a flying carpet and have coffee with you .... hahahahaa.

[um]

@ AR

AND .. There is an difference between:

[1] The Prince Gautama deciding finally leaving behind things
and ....
[2] Others that want follow him in order to become him ...anOTHER and copy him

If I would have had knowledge of what you write before waking up, it would be an obstacle to me and now being informed by you it sounds like music.

It is impressive how much you know ... I hope it will serve you well