Are You Spiritual?

[Navigator]

I have never understood why people never want to give the brain its due.

It is one thing to give the brain its due, along with all other aspects which altogether work for Consciousness.
It is another to believe you are that brain.

It is not even good science really.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9332996&postcount=598

 

[SusanB-M1]

I have never understood why people never want to give the brain its due.[/QB]

I know just what you mean! I'm always pointing this out on another forum, but those who know for certain that they have access to some 'higher plane', ''deeper levels of consciousness' etc etc just don't seem to be able to bear the thought that their brains are the source. Somehow, it seems, they feel this demeans their status/position/whatever they like to think it is. Such a pity. I'm always recommending reading The Magic of Reality' by RD. Yes, it's aimed at young people, but it is clear and scientific.

 

[Pup]

I really don't think 'emotion' is a good replacement for 'spiritual' on account that its effects are - rather than being neutral - often destructive elevators of stress and confusion...

That's my point. You want the word to be at least neutral if not positive. Yet being "spiritual" can be just as destructive as being "emotional," but believers have managed to make the connotation positive.

Have you read flaccon's thread here? Her life has been torn apart because she believed in spirits. There are any number of threads by people who, in my opinion, are leading confused, scared lives because they're "spiritual" or "emotional" and unable to look at mundane events clearly and objectively. The combination of overly deep emotions and tragedy is in fact what leads many people to grasp for any way to ease the feelings and thus turn to religion or spiritualism for simple answers, but such gullibility can be taken too far and cause its own problems.

"Emotional" can also be positive; you just chose a negative example. People criticize others for being unemotional, for acting like robots, for showing no empathy like psychopaths, for not caring.

I get that you want to keep the positive connotations already built up around "spiritual," but that's specifically what I don't like about it.

 

[zeggman]

We each have the unique ability to see things as we will.

That we do.

I think both woowoo and whopdedo are on their way to natural extinction.

I doubt it.

"Get out of the road if you cant lend a hand" springs to mind. The times indeed are a-changing.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same" springs to mind.

"Holistic consciousness" still sounds like something Deepak Chopra or Ram Dass would propose. Its connection to reality seems tenuous at best.

 

[tsig]

Being spiritual means you can spout complete BS and not be called on it.

That we do.


I doubt it.


"The more things change, the more they stay the same" springs to mind.

"Holistic consciousness" still sounds like something Deepak Chopra or Ram Dass would propose. Its connection to reality seems tenuous at best.

Yep.

Newage babble sounds the same as all the spiritual sewage that's gone before, lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[Arcade22]

You are confusing the brain to being some kind of mindful thing Arcade 22. It is not.

The brain is the only "mindful" thing in your head. You are anthropomorphizing "counciousness" to such a degree that it's just psychobabble.

If I see something that someone else doesn't see, is it then me who sees something that isn't there or he that doesn't see something that is there?

Countless illusions tell me that human vision is far from perfect, and that our perception of reality is not just incomplete but inaccurate as well. It's not great but good enough for survival and procreation. It's this gap between reality and our perception that holds the key to how our senses, and our brain, works.

Perhaps the schizophrenic individual who sees hallucinations is really seeing "reality" and it's everyone else who is delusional, but i find it more reasonable to think that it's the opposite way.

 

[Navigator]

That's my point. You want the word to be at least neutral if not positive. Yet being "spiritual" can be just as destructive as being "emotional," but believers have managed to make the connotation positive.

Have you read flaccon's thread here? Her life has been torn apart because she believed in spirits. There are any number of threads by people who, in my opinion, are leading confused, scared lives because they're "spiritual" or "emotional" and unable to look at mundane events clearly and objectively. The combination of overly deep emotions and tragedy is in fact what leads many people to grasp for any way to ease the feelings and thus turn to religion or spiritualism for simple answers, but such gullibility can be taken too far and cause its own problems.

"Emotional" can also be positive; you just chose a negative example. People criticize others for being unemotional, for acting like robots, for showing no empathy like psychopaths, for not caring.

I get that you want to keep the positive connotations already built up around "spiritual," but that's specifically what I don't like about it.

Look at the thread title:

Are You Spiritual?

Look to the OP.

Are You Spiritual?
I don't get this word "spiritual". Is there something that someone else can feel but not me? Perhaps cavemen might have an inclination for mysticism but now we know better I think. I think people who claim to be spiritual are frauds. They like to believe they are on some higher plane that the rest of us can't get to. What a bunch of pretentious liars. Spirituality is not reality but a pretext for making the rest of us feel incomplete so if we pay up we can get it too. Whenever I hear the word I feel the urge to gag. There is no such thing. Maybe I am too sensitive because I had a very nice girl once who dumped me because I wasn't spiritual enough.

As the thread progresses it becomes apparent that many do not like the word but that also there are those who understand themselves as being more 'spiritual' than those calling themselves 'spiritual' and this is how the discussion moved towards defining what 'being spiritual' might be about, especially with the woo-woo removed.

Someone suggested 'to be filled with wonder' just about being alive, which does fit the bill and isn't wooish but not everyone agreed with that either.

You suggested 'emotion' and have now clarified that being "spiritual" can be just as destructive as being "emotional," but believers have managed to make the connotation positive.

So in this are you just saying that everybody is being 'spiritual'?

Personally I think that this world could do with far more individuals who are filled with wonder/awe at being alive rather than being woo-ishly and whop-de-do-ishly absent from that. Making a song and dance about it without the need to bring in gods/spirits/demons/unicorns/etc...just celebrate it for what it is, something worth celebrating.

So for me, I am not 'spiritual' but I am full of amazement and wonder that I am experiencing it and would encourage others to see it that way, or at the very least, not be discourage by those who don't see it that way and make efforts to get me to think and feel like they think and feel.

 

[Navigator]

"The more things change, the more they stay the same" springs to mind.

"Holistic consciousness" still sounds like something Deepak Chopra or Ram Dass would propose. Its connection to reality seems tenuous at best.

Ow yuck.

Okay so 'Holistic' is just a word that refers to 'the whole of it altogether' type thing...but for you it is a word which sounds wooish when linked with Consciousness, and you either cant or wont allow for the two to be related.

If you are able to view the whole process of what Human Consciousness is doing together, you should be able to better connect the dots to see what this Human Consciousness is doing with the materials at hand which verifies it is on a particular sensible path toward securing for itself now and into the future, ways of nurturing that self in order to move out into the Galaxy. That is fully connected to reality.

This is NOT a mindless process. It is a mindful one. By all means doubt it. It is still happening, and won't stop happening on account of your doubt or even the doubt, disinterest or alternate self interests of the majority.

 

[Pup]

You suggested 'emotion' and have now clarified that being "spiritual" can be just as destructive as being "emotional," but believers have managed to make the connotation positive.

So in this are you just saying that everybody is being 'spiritual'?

To clarify, I did not suggest "emotion," but agreed with another poster who did.

I have no idea how the second paragraph follows the first. But, no, there are people who are more "spiritual" (in the sense of being religious/emotional/superstitious) than others. It's a bell curve like any other thing having to do with human nature.

Personally I think that this world could do with far more individuals who are filled with wonder/awe at being alive rather than being woo-ishly and whop-de-do-ishly absent from that. Making a song and dance about it without the need to bring in gods/spirits/demons/unicorns/etc...just celebrate it for what it is, something worth celebrating.

So for me, I am not 'spiritual' but I am full of amazement and wonder that I am experiencing it and would encourage others to see it that way, or at the very least, not be discourage by those who don't see it that way and make efforts to get me to think and feel like they think and feel.

That's how it usually goes. When the topic comes up, "spiritual" people get all holier than thou, talking about how their spiritualism/wonder/etc. makes them better than other people, and other people ought to be more like them.

That's what I don't like about the word. It's used to make people feel inadequate if they don't identify as spiritual, which is why people try to stretch it to fit themselves.

As long as someone is happy, why not accept them for who they are and where they fall on the bell curve for the emotion awe/wonder, rather than judging them to be lacking if they don't feel that emotion as much as you?

 

[Tricky]

If you are able to view the whole process of what Human Consciousness is doing together, you should be able to better connect the dots to see what this Human Consciousness is doing with the materials at hand which verifies it is on a particular sensible path toward securing for itself now and into the future, ways of nurturing that self in order to move out into the Galaxy. That is fully connected to reality.

What humans do is pretty insignificant in galactic terms. True, we might make major changes to one, or even a few planets, but in the big picture, Human Consciousness (why caps?) is overrated. It is a tiny artifact of evolution on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system. Trying to make ourselves more important than we really are is a very strong aspect of this consciousness. It explains why we create religions, but it is not really that important. If it gives you pleasure to ponder it, then by all means knock yourself out. Beware of extrapolating too much though.

This is NOT a mindless process. It is a mindful one. By all means doubt it. It is still happening, and won't stop happening on account of your doubt or even the doubt, disinterest or alternate self interests of the majority.

Anything you think of is "mindful". Doesn't make it correct, logical, or consistent with evidence.

 

[Navigator]

You are anthropomorphizing "counciousness"

Anthropomorphism is giving human characteristics to animals, inanimate objects or natural phenomena. Human Consciousness cannot be anthropomorphized.
Human Consciousness is the only thing I know of that can and does anthropomorphize objects such as stones and trees and weather but also in some cases it is quite apparent through observation that some animals display similar types of characteristics as humans and this is a telltale sign that they are conscious and operating Consciously.

Countless illusions tell me that human vision is far from perfect, and that our perception of reality is not just incomplete but inaccurate as well. It's not great but good enough for survival and procreation. It's this gap between reality and our perception that holds the key to how our senses, and our brain, works.

Survival and procreation are two important aspects, but there is more to the Human experience than these two things - much more. these are the starting place from where other things also come forth if the opportunities are present to do so.

Illusions are interesting. The illusionist who calls himself "Dynamo" often uses wooism to further capture the attention of those he is playing his tricks on. In this way magicians who use the same or similar method (like with Dynamo - when he pretends to be focusing and concentrating on reading the persons mind and adds to the illusion that he really is reading the persons mind) all entertainment of course but still not helpful in the overall support of eradicating wooism altogether - rather it simply encourages wooism to continue.
I guess the bottom line argument in that regard is that magicians have to eat too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW2sKrQBqzY

We can of course simply discard such tomfoolery as non relevent to reality and understand through it that we can easily be tricked - by our own emotions and inability to understand how the illusion works as it seemingly defies physics.
However, magic tricks used to inspire this kind of wooish awe is more sad than anything else.
There simply are more than enough things in reality which are actually real and can help inspire awe and healthy concern and personal contribution and an ability to help lift personalities out of the doldrums of whop-de-do attitudes.

The brain is one such thing, Consciousness another, the Earth another...etc...

 

[Navigator]

As long as someone is happy, why not accept them for who they are and where they fall on the bell curve for the emotion awe/wonder, rather than judging them to be lacking if they don't feel that emotion as much as you?

Are you suggesting then that I ignore someone who is trying to convert me into a whop-de-doism - or for that matter, someone who is trying to convert me to wooism?

Bearing in mind that I wouldn't even see them that way if they didn't explain their particular way of seeing their world and experience and make a point of trying to convince me that the way they see it is the way everyone should see it.

I would encourage anyone who says they are like this that they make choices to lift their game a bit. For all I know those who are whop-de-doish are those who are simply showing signs and symptoms of depression...I wonder at how much the world would have lost if such inspiring personalities like Einstein, or Sagan or Copernicus or Bohr or Darwin or Hubble or Rutherford or Hawking or von Braun etc had been lost to whop-de-do attitudes - and it fills me with gratitude that they were not. It fills me with gratitude that they found inspiration and awe in this reality. The Physical Universe. They were a mindful thing in an otherwise mindless thing.

 

[Navigator]

What humans do is pretty insignificant in galactic terms. True, we might make major changes to one, or even a few planets, but in the big picture, Human Consciousness (why caps?) is overrated. It is a tiny artifact of evolution on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system. Trying to make ourselves more important than we really are is a very strong aspect of this consciousness. It explains why we create religions, but it is not really that important. If it gives you pleasure to ponder it, then by all means knock yourself out. Beware of extrapolating too much though.

In relation to Human Consciousness perhaps, but I speculate that through the Universe there are similar biological Species which are at varying stages of Conscious Evolution and that some of these succeeded while others might not have, perhaps due to a similar natural event which saw the demise of most of Earths dinosaurs, or perhaps self inflicted.

So that might be fair speculation, but what we do know is that Human Beings and Human Consciousness does indeed exist and I speculate that while there are indeed many harm inflicting things which Humans are doing to themselves and/or each other, there is an aspect of Human Consciousness which is focused upon retaining - nurturing - supporting its self - it has no need to go down the gurgler with those who cannot rise above or unshackle themselves from the identity of their cultural/political/religious/gender/race based prejudices.

Respect and appreciation prompt me to use caps.

Anyone who wishes to marginalize what has unfolded on this little dot of a planet is of course quite welcome to their particular world view but they cross the line just the same as the wooish when they start preaching it as THE way to view the world.

I am positive anyone who detests hypocrisy would agree with me on this.

 

[Navigator]

Anything you think of is "mindful". Doesn't make it correct, logical, or consistent with evidence.

Anything which is logical and consistent with evidence is ascertained so by the mindful process, not the mindless.
That is 'what I think of as mindful'.

 

[tsig]

In relation to Human Consciousness perhaps, but I speculate that through the Universe there are similar biological Species which are at varying stages of Conscious Evolution and that some of these succeeded while others might not have, perhaps due to a similar natural event which saw the demise of most of Earths dinosaurs, or perhaps self inflicted.

So that might be fair speculation, but what we do know is that Human Beings and Human Consciousness does indeed exist and I speculate that while there are indeed many harm inflicting things which Humans are doing to themselves and/or each other, there is an aspect of Human Consciousness which is focused upon retaining - nurturing - supporting its self - it has no need to go down the gurgler with those who cannot rise above or unshackle themselves from the identity of their cultural/political/religious/gender/race based prejudices.

Respect and appreciation prompt me to use caps.

Anyone who wishes to marginalize what has unfolded on this little dot of a planet is of course quite welcome to their particular world view but they cross the line just the same as the wooish when they start preaching it as THE way to view the world.

I am positive anyone who detests hypocrisy would agree with me on this.

IOW anyone who doesn't agree with you is a hypocrite.

 

[Navigator]

IOW anyone who doesn't agree with you is a hypocrite.

Not at all.

I said:

Anyone who wishes to marginalize what has unfolded on this little dot of a planet is of course quite welcome to their particular world view (They don't have to agree with me) but they cross the line just the same as the wooish when they start preaching it as THE way to view the world.

To clarify:

They are then being hypocritical IF they don't like the wooish and complain about and seek to eradicate such behavior in those they see as the wooish and yet are doing the same thing....trying to say that being whop-de-doish is THE way to view the world.



It is a way to view the world, rather than THE way to view the world.

 

[Pup]

Are you suggesting then that I ignore someone who is trying to convert me into a whop-de-doism - or for that matter, someone who is trying to convert me to wooism?

Bearing in mind that I wouldn't even see them that way if they didn't explain their particular way of seeing their world and experience and make a point of trying to convince me that the way they see it is the way everyone should see it.

Sure, ignoring works. Just like I'd ignore anyone who was trying to make people feel inadequate for not experiencing as much "awe" as they claim to.

I wonder if all such folks really do feel more awe, or if they just like talking about it more, and therefore assume that those who don't talk about it don't feel it? Short of some kind of objective neurological test, it would be hard to tell.

But either way, I don't see the point of trying to make others feel inadequate for not experiencing more of an emotion that, honestly, has both positives and negatives. For example, too much awe over human consciousness can lead to the kind of self-congratulatory human-centered view of the universe that Tricky pointed out above, interfering with a more objective understanding. Overwhelming positive emotions can be delibitating in some phases of bipolar disorder also; feeling things more strongly is not always good.

I would encourage anyone who says they are like this that they make choices to lift their game a bit. For all I know those who are whop-de-doish are those who are simply showing signs and symptoms of depression.

Because everyone should be more like you. No thanks, I'd rather be like me, even though I'll have to cope with the fact that "spiritual" people, or people who are big into promoting "awe," think less of folks who aren't like them.

 

[tsig]

Not at all.

I said:

Anyone who wishes to marginalize what has unfolded on this little dot of a planet is of course quite welcome to their particular world view (They don't have to agree with me) but they cross the line just the same as the wooish when they start preaching it as THE way to view the world.

To clarify:

They are then being hypocritical IF they don't like the wooish and complain about and seek to eradicate such behavior in those they see as the wooish and yet are doing the same thing....trying to say that being whop-de-doish is THE way to view the world.



It is a way to view the world, rather than THE way to view the world.

If I pick a different world view can I fly are is there some constraints here? Since you seem to think that viewing the physical world is whop-de-doish I'm trying to probe the limits of that thought.

 

[JaysonR]

The evidence is everywhere human beings are.

You are still confusing what I am saying. Even though it is really quite clear that I have made sure to include that the individual aspects of Consciousness die, I in no way said they 'live on' somewhere else, nor should this be inferred in what I have said.


To be sure I will underline where in that statement this is evident.

Thus, we have narrowed it down to Human Consciousness in relation to the physical universe in relation to the Earth as an HOLISTIC ongoing ( and awesome) real thing which WILL continue on IN this physical universe AS a Conscious certainty even that the individual parts of it and what contributed to it have ceased to be, and even as more are born into and contributing toward that process.

To clarify then, Consciousness as an holistic certainty is going to continue way after you and I are long dead.

Yes, I did indeed misunderstand.

You are instead stating something that causes me more confusion.

I don't understand how noting that other consciousness' will still exist after an individual consciousness ceases alters the point that human self-aware consciousness arises from, and is dependent upon, biological constituents.

 

[Navigator]

What humans do is pretty insignificant in galactic terms. True, we might make major changes to one, or even a few planets, but in the big picture, Human Consciousness (why caps?) is overrated. It is a tiny artifact of evolution on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system. Trying to make ourselves more important than we really are is a very strong aspect of this consciousness. It explains why we create religions, but it is not really that important. If it gives you pleasure to ponder it, then by all means knock yourself out. Beware of extrapolating too much though.

Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

In this Carl is most definitely making similar commentary as you regarding position place and importance, however he is not at all suggesting it is not important, but what he is suggesting is that 'we' redefine our own understanding to better adjust our own behavior toward one another which
underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish our home - the only home we have ever known.

Now that might appear to be the language of wooism, but it is not.

Another thing worth considering is that argument made against those who believe in 'afterlife' that they do so because they cannot stand the thought of not existing, and possibly this belief gives reason to their otherwise pointless existence.
Could it be then, that using a similar argument, those who think that the history and happening on this 'pale blue dot' of a planet is of no importance adopt whop-de-doism as a way of saying 'if I am not important, then nothing else is either' ?

I have found that the best path to walk then, is between the two extremes. It is the most logical and requires no impulse from belief that I will somehow live forever, or that nothing is really important because I am not important.

What helps it along though is a healthy appreciation and sense of wonder at what has, is and will occur on this pale blue dot of a planet and that it is not about me, or you specifically but about all of us, or at least all of us who know this to be so and work in whatever way we can to help the whole - and my dying and being no more a part of that process or any other process does not matter to me. NOW I have the opportunity to wonder at being part of it, of which my significance in it is tiny but still I am experiencing it and loving it and appreciating it and WANTING it to continue of itself, even be that I will not be going along for the ride - to where it is heading.