romansh

Back to the original question.

I don't recall, but someone suggested that atheism means without a belief in god - which is likely not bad shot at it. But it does somewhat depend on which interpretation of ism we take. For example baptism and plagiarism are states or conditions rather than beliefs. Dualism could be a state or a belief.

Anyway, whether an atheist can be a Christian, is purely a philosophical dilemma. We by and large have our logic in place. All we have to do is agree with our axioms (the hard part).

For example, apparently ancient Greeks and Romans considered Jews and Christians atheists, because the Abrahamist god was none existent, so by definition Jews and Christians did not believe in god - hence atheist. It's logical according to their axioms.

I must admit I like the Upanishads two bird poem.

Like the two golden birds perched in the same tree as friends, the ego and the Self exist in the same body. The former eats both the bad and good fruits of the tree of life while the latter does not discriminate.

 

Mundaka Upanishad

Any thoughts?

In the parable about the attacked wayfarer, I wonder if it mattered to Jesus what the Samaritan's faith was? Was this not the whole point of the parable?

Dutch

How else are we going to examine our consciousness? Now I don't meditate so can't comment on the process or the various different types. But as koans go asking Am I conscious now? is a good as The sound of one hand clapping?

I suspect she is in the now as much you or I am. I know of no other place, even when I daydream of the future, past and other nows.

Again I am not agreeing with her conclusion, though I experience something similar to what she writes. At the very least this experience tells me that consciousness is not what it seems.

Joseph

You say - being conscious is a state

Being unconscious is also a state. And what I think is conscious when I examine it carefully seems more unconscious in reality.

But to go back to the is the mind a result of evolution? - evolution is a result of the greater environment. But then again so are stream beds, rocks and bricks.

Neon

It seems to me that a non-supernatural theism would be just as incompatible with Jesus' worldview as an atheistic point of view would be incompatible.

It would depend on how we interpret John 10:30. If this is as true for me as it is christ then a lot can be interpreted atheistically.

As there are many authors and editors, so how can we be sure of Jesus's central message? From a purely pragmatic point of view it may be worthwhile looking at Jesus the historical charcter and Christ the myth. But both ultimately are one and both have their place.

Again:

Meister Eckhart

• You may call God love, you may call God goodness. But the best name for God is compassion
  

Here is someone I think "nails it" in the the thirteenth century.

thanks for the compliment.

Shakespeare

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

either all or nothing, eh? Actually I agree. that sort of insistence led me here. As for the Blackmore essay - it's missing something IMO. Perhaps she is careless with the word consciousness.

 

Dutch

Incomplete? Almost by definition. I suspect the years of meditation and introspection cannot be crammed into such a short essay.

But her central observation I find to be true for myself. And you Dutch?

I hope she has nor been careles with the word consciousness - in that she has written university entry level psychology textbooks on consciousness.

Joseph

Ego is fine with me Rom. I have no enemies. To call it a useful illusion is agreeable with me. To call it real is also agreeable with me.

Illusions are real - but they remain illusions.

In my mind there is no interpretation, it is an experience or state of being for lack of better words..

When we put our experiences (thoughts) into words, is this not an interpretation? If you see what I mean?

If one inheres in ones being where the ego is dead one loses all notions of oneself and the ego or of unity or duality for that matter.

Joseph

Egos are fine Joseph. They are just like colour - a useful illusion.

I think the distinction between "life" and inanimate is not a useful one. All entities in the universe are related.That is the unity. what is often missed is that there are external relations which are commonly the scientific observations and measurements and there are internal relations. There is a mental state, so to speak, of all atoms, molecules, cells which link all with each other. Rocks or chairs are not entities but aggregations and so are not seen as in their aggregate form as having relationships as rock or as chair. BUT the atoms and molecules and cells in those rocks and chairs do have relationship with all other entities.

 

When a human dies the cells and elements in the body change relationships both externally and internally with the rest of the universe. In this view the mind or self it might represent returns to the source or perhaps more accurately returns to the flow.

 

Dutch

Dutch

I find my perceptions agreeing with your point of view. (I think). Fools seldom differ?

The only thing I am unsure about is the "mental" states.

Either everything has a mental state (consciousness) to some degree. Or nothing does - hence the Blackmore essay.

The only energy associated with the brain-mind is the same energy used to fuel all life. Matter and energy are two states of the same thing. Mind and matter are two states of the same thing. I have learned that it is difficult for some to think this way, but the problem is not universal.

 

If matter and energy are interchageable according to strict physical laws. Who set the original limit? Finite mass = finite energy. Is there no infinity?

The question I think we need to ask ourselves is whether the energy and matter fuels life is somehow different from that fuels the inanimate.

Rom,

Eastern, western. ? Its an experience, not a belief.

Joseph I am still no closer to you explaining as to what you meant.

If you do not want to give a clarification that is OK, just let me know.

Thanks

rom

Just curious did anyone read Susan Blacmore's essay? If so, any thoughts?

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

I thought the essay was about paying attention. Attending is perhaps necessary for the will to be free as much as it can be. Attending is one of those activities of the mind that influence the functioning of the brain.

And her conclusion that she is not conscious?

Rom,

 

Perhaps it would be better if you asked a specific question so i would know exactly what you are looking for? If you are asking how i have come to these conclusions, i can only say by a number of subjective experiences.

Ok, when you say who I am in reality is never lost nor indeed can be. There are several ways of interpreting this. At one end we could have a traditional Christian soul and at the other more of an Eastern there never really a self in the first place. So in your own words what do you mean by this.

The second statement of the three i made in your quote is actually not in my experience a completely accurate statement but if i were to put the point questioned in the title into words as i have done, it seems to me to be more accurate in its expression than the other way around.

 

Joseph

That's OK - I was not sure either, but then it was not that it important either (to me).

Just curious did anyone read Susan Blacmore's essay? If so, any thoughts?

Thinking of natural evil when I look at my garden..... I see so many beautiful flowers, yet the weeds always draw my attention.

Frankly trust there is no evil in your garden, natural or otherwise. That evil is simply a confluence of events that result in a way of thinking. Albeit very different from my way of thinking.

If you mean sense of "self" , my story of who i might think i am, i would agree. Yet the "Self", who I am in reality is never lost nor indeed can be.

 

Also I would say it may be more accurate to say that evolution is the result of Mind rather than Mind the result of evolution as you have questioned in the title this thread.

 

To me, Mind and No-Mind are one and the same. They can only be differentiated as long as one resides in "self" (the story).

 

Joseph

Can you clarify your path to this point Joseph. In some ways I agree completely with what you say but I would be interested in your context - so to speak.

I think the human mind is very much a product of the brain and its myriad neurological connections.

Yvonne

I think we can draw a boundary anywhere. For the purposes of your message you were conveying the boundary you were drawing was around the brain, which is fair enough. In reality the brain is a product of the nerve impulses, which in turn the impulses are products of our environment, earth, solar system, galaxy, universe. If you catch my drift. Of course we can also include our genetics, our experiences, the foods and chemicals we eat and imbibe. We can include a societal interactions.Our mind is a product of all these things and more.

Natural evil does not exist. The perception that there is natural evil is not an excuse for harming any other part of creation.

There are certain fungal infections while not evil per se in any reasonable sense of the word, I would have no problem harming them even if they are part of creation.

The mind has various nuances - for the purpose of my view I will treat them essentially as one.

Names the mind might have include:

consciousness

self

awareness

sentience

soul

spirit

This is ultimately hard. I think I know what my perception feels like. What does your perception feel like? I can only presume it is similar to mine. What is a brick's perception like? Either it is a nonsensical question or it is different to mine.

Here's a nice meditative essay that shows a different point of view. It is short and easy read.

I am not sure I agree with Susan's conclusions - but I do feel her "awakening", I think.

Was I conscious at conception, I don't think so? Will I be conscious after death? Am I conscious now?

Interesting question.

From PoM

“That is to say, put yourself back in the position of paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil. You don’t hear that much from the pulpits.”

To be fair, Campbell then goes on to say:

“Why was the knowledge of good and evil forbidden to Adam and Eve? Without that knowledge we would still be a bunch of babies in Eden, without any participation in life.”

Another Campbellian thought (the late Campbell must be rolling over in his grave today).

As a broad western generalization (and therefore not completely accurate):

Many atheists and theists have one thing in common - they interpret the Bible in a literal fashion to varying degrees.

I don't think most atheists would have a problem with the many wonderful metaphorical interpretations that we (ignoring balking psychologists ) have.

It is when we concretize our religious texts the problems start. I suppose the same could be said of our scientific texts. But our science texts are in a constant flux. No scientist wants the textbook to remain fixed.

Please note the source, I have most of Campbell's work in my library. His wiriting on the subject in Mythic Image does not seem to relate to your interpretation.

It is in PoM - page 2XX - unfortunately I have lent out my copy - it is towards the end.

Try here

Psychologists almost always balk at the word "we".

then we can ask that the said psychologists take reponsibility for their balking

As a student of C. G. Jung and his editor Joseph Campbell, this will take some explanation on your part.

Quite simple really, the original sin was thinking in terms of sin. Thinking in terms of separation.

... and with respect to separation this Campbell quote just about nails it for me:

... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

Campbell stated that to follow your bliss means "The experience of life as a self responsible individual."

Yep and we can be responsible without good and evil. In exactly the same way the sun is responsible for a good portion of our weather patterns on earth, life on Earth and melanomas.

We don't need morality to be responsible. We don't need the guilt trip. Another Cambell quote:

If all you think of are your sins then you are sinner.

Thanks minsocal

I'm not terribly familiar with these concepts and psychology in general.

But choosing Bowen at 'random':

Here is a description of particular aspect of Bowen therapy:

Bowen's multigenerational model goes beyond the view that the past influences the present, to the view that patterns of relating in the past continue in the present family system (Herz Brown, 1991). Hence the therapist uses questions to encourage clients to think about the connection between their present problem and the ways previous generations have dealt with similar relationship issues.

http://www.familysystemstraining.com/papers/bowen-illustration-and-critique.html

This to me reads as past patterns do affect the way individuals in families handle relationships. The therapist does get the individuals to be aware of past causes. Reads like reductionism to me.

Reductionism I think has been given a bad rap. It is a fundamental way of understanding how the universe ticks. There may be others - eg meditation. But if we ever want to communicate the logic of an idea, it has to be based in some form of reductionism.

Even your act of countering my position is a form of reductionism - I would argue.

Yours is a complex view, because this discussion seems to involve the question of whether the will is free (to choose). Is that correct?

Actually it is a very simplistic view Dutch. But you are right free will does come into it. Infact when we say free what exactly do we mean?

would a discussion of the mind highlight your thoughts on materialism and physicalism? Is the mind wholly and sufficiently caused by the biochemical events in the brain? what does it mean to say that the mind can influence the brain? What does the mind consider when it considers itself?

Yep sure, is there an appropriate thread open already? (It sort of fits into the free will thread).

But to answer one your questions:

Is the mind wholly and sufficiently caused by the biochemical events in the brain?

The short answer is no! But it it is not separate from the brain either.

Is mind a result of evolution? Can mind evolve from no-mind?

You are pointing to the Hard Question here Dutch. I don't have the answer(s), but I do have some questions.