The Great Illusion

[Atlas]

Thanks Iacchus,

I'm not sure I understood all that.

It's good to know that spiritual diversity is a principle of the Absolute and insects will get their place at the table.

What kind of relationship building exercises do you do so that your afterlife won't be pestered by them? You see, I've done a lot of squashing in my time and now you've got me thinking.

Oh, and if Spirits have form, faculties, and heightened senses, who do we look like? Specifically, will the ugly chicks get a break in the next life? I think we all want that.

 

[Mercutio]

Let me just put it this way, if there is more to life than just this temporal existence, then it must be an illusion, and we, must under the delusion that this is all there is.

So, if there is not more to life than this temporal existence, it is not an illusion? Perhaps we agree after all. As long as you keep using that word "if", and recognise that your qualifier makes all the difference in the world.

Yup, that's all there is. Nope, it's not an illusion. And the burden of proof is on you to show that your "if" is anything at all. And so far...it's still just an "if".

 

[Dancing David]

The illusion is that there is a you that is anything more than a bunch of chemical processes that exist in a single moment.

The body that you mistake for you changes every minute and second. Is the water moelcule that you urinate still you after it leaves 'your' body. The continuity of your body is an illusion, it is a different body in every discreet moment. Are you really the same as you were when you were two years old?

There is no you to live on when your body dies. There is the body , there are thoughts , there are perceptions , there are feelings and there are habits . That is all there is , and each of those is just a set of discrete objects that have no real continuity, .

So where is the you ? Where is the self that would live on after death. That is the illusion .

 

[Iacchus]

What kind of relationship building exercises do you do so that your afterlife won't be pestered by them? You see, I've done a lot of squashing in my time and now you've got me thinking.

Don't bug them unless they bug me.

Oh, and if Spirits have form, faculties, and heightened senses, who do we look like? Specifically, will the ugly chicks get a break in the next life? I think we all want that.

It has more to do with what goes on on the inside which, is what the spiritual side of ourselves represent. So in that sense I understand conceit can be pretty hideous looking, albeit it depends a lot on who's looking at it. To the conceitful everything would appear as if it were normal.

 

[Iacchus]

So, if there is not more to life than this temporal existence, it is not an illusion? Perhaps we agree after all. As long as you keep using that word "if", and recognise that your qualifier makes all the difference in the world.

I'm not sure about that either, because when you're dead, how would you even know your life was real? Hence the illusion.

Yup, that's all there is. Nope, it's not an illusion. And the burden of proof is on you to show that your "if" is anything at all. And so far...it's still just an "if".

You mean puny little ol' me? Who has nothing but his wit and charm at his disposal? That's an awfully big "if."

 

[Iacchus]

It so happens that I feel it makes a difference how people remember me. And, I have some people who are going to remember me.

Hans

There's no need in getting sentimental about it is there? Does non-existence cling to anything?

 

[tdn]

What does this have to do with God? What does the label on a can of soup have to do with the soup inside?

Huh? How did we get on to the subject of soup?

Let me attempt to explain again: People, in general, fear death. They feel themselves to be so important that they cannot conceive of themselves ceasing to be. To that end, they will make up the wonkiest stories to support some sort of afterlife. And deny any evidence to the contrary. Let me give you an example (though it's not about afterlife per se):

On another message board I asked a fundie what would be so bad if it turned out that evolution is fact. Her response was "That would mean that God doesn't love me." Other posters were quick to point out that that was a logical fallacy, that evolution in no way disproves God. But they all seemed to miss the point -- she just wanted to be loved. She wanted some assurance that she was wanted and needed and important.

OK, fine. We all want that. But she was willing to deny hundreds of years of evidence, why? Because she had better evidence? No. Because of emotional insecurity. Her wishful thinking trumped all logic.

And that's just one example. Name one religion where its adherants are not the chosen people. You'll quickly see that everyone wishes that they are the ones to receive all the benefits of that religion, even if all others are damned. Take the 9/11 hijackers -- do you think they slammed into the towers so that someone else could get into heaven?

I guarantee you, if you start looking for this pattern of thinking, you'll be shocked at how all pervasive it is.

BTW, I never said that such thinking disproves the existence of God and/or an afterlife. Just that there seems to be a lot of made up stuff to satisfy peoples' emotional needs, and this usually destroys any true objectivity.

You can't fault them for being who they were, given the time and circumstances.

Who, the ancients for believing in Zeus? No, I can't. What are the excuses in this day and age?

And when we abolish religion? What excuse would we need for starting a war then? Communism? ... Fascism? ...

You lost me here. I never said abolish religion. I never said we need an excuse to start a war, although I'm sure it's inevitable. But it seems to me like we are on the verge of a really big war, and the heart of it is going to be about who gets to go to heaven. Bush himself seems to be leading the Christian charge against the infidels. (Yes, a debatable point, and I truly hope I'm wrong.)

Ever here that the truth was stranger than fiction? How bizzare ...

Are you serious? You combine a fantasy movie with a platitude and conclude... er, what exactly?

 

[scribble]

And that's just one example. Name one religion where its adherants are not the chosen people.

Makes me think of that black kid who attended the KKK rallly recently. It was in the news. I'm amazed he lived - apparently it went as nicely as, "What are you doing here?" "I believe in white supremacy." "Okay, well, some people are obviously not going to appreciate you being here, better get lost now, kid." Really, I was impressed by the diplomacy shown there.

Anyhow, that's totally off the point. Good post.

 

[Iacchus]

Huh? How did we get on to the subject of soup?

You can identify with the label as much as you want, but what does it have to do with what's inside the can? In other words it's entirely possible to do something in God's name only which, in fact is quite prevalent. Meaning, there are so many who believe and yet don't understand.

Let me attempt to explain again: People, in general, fear death. They feel themselves to be so important that they cannot conceive of themselves ceasing to be. To that end, they will make up the wonkiest stories to support some sort of afterlife. And deny any evidence to the contrary. Let me give you an example (though it's not about afterlife per se):

Why should we fear that which is natural then, if in fact there wasn't something more supernatural about it?

On another message board I asked a fundie what would be so bad if it turned out that evolution is fact. Her response was "That would mean that God doesn't love me." Other posters were quick to point out that that was a logical fallacy, that evolution in no way disproves God. But they all seemed to miss the point -- she just wanted to be loved. She wanted some assurance that she was wanted and needed and important.

Actually I don't have any qualms with evolution per se', at least in terms of how the natural world came about.

OK, fine. We all want that. But she was willing to deny hundreds of years of evidence, why? Because she had better evidence? No. Because of emotional insecurity. Her wishful thinking trumped all logic.

Not necessarily.

And that's just one example. Name one religion where its adherants are not the chosen people. You'll quickly see that everyone wishes that they are the ones to receive all the benefits of that religion, even if all others are damned. Take the 9/11 hijackers -- do you think they slammed into the towers so that someone else could get into heaven?

Why do people idolize their favorite football players and think their team is the greatest? Why did the German people swell with national pride and join the Nazi Party?

I guarantee you, if you start looking for this pattern of thinking, you'll be shocked at how all pervasive it is.

BTW, I never said that such thinking disproves the existence of God and/or an afterlife. Just that there seems to be a lot of made up stuff to satisfy peoples' emotional needs, and this usually destroys any true objectivity.

Well if you mean there's a difference between truly believing in something and being swayed by other people, I would agree.

Who, the ancients for believing in Zeus? No, I can't. What are the excuses in this day and age?

As far as things like the world is flat, yes. However, the verdict is still not out (scientifically) that God doesn't exist.

You lost me here. I never said abolish religion. I never said we need an excuse to start a war, although I'm sure it's inevitable. But it seems to me like we are on the verge of a really big war, and the heart of it is going to be about who gets to go to heaven. Bush himself seems to be leading the Christian charge against the infidels. (Yes, a debatable point, and I truly hope I'm wrong.)

Do you realize that our 9-11 attackers were under the impression that they were attacking a secularist state? So, if we were a completely secular state would we have still counter-attacked?

Are you serious? You combine a fantasy movie with a platitude and conclude... er, what exactly?

So, would you say that the meaning we ascribe to our lives is an illusion?

 

[Dancing David]

Sure would all human values are merely imposed on the natural realm they are totaly illusiory.

 

[Iacchus]

Something from Nothing

So, if non-existence is non-existence, how can something come from nothing? For this is exactly the dilemma we seem to have with consciousness. How can being come about from non-being?

 

[Dancing David]

Because what are you calling existance and/or being?
Molecules exist as do atoms and other energy manifestations. the universe came from [i[something[/i] it did npt come from nothing.

There is no dilema with consiousness, it is a set of biochemical reaction , generaly involving external or internal stimuli. take away the biochemical process and there is most likely nothing else.

You do not have an existance, there is a body, there are thoughts, there are sensations, there are emotions, there are habits. these are all dicrete things that are transitory in nature, the illusion is in the perception of the continuity of self. It exists discretely in each moment but does not survive any given moment.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Re: Something from Nothing

So, if non-existence is non-existence, how can something come from nothing? For this is exactly the dilemma we seem to have with consciousness. How can being come about from non-being?

You're misunderstanding of even basic physical processes leads you to this ill-conceived question. That's the answer.

You assume that something comes from nothing (in a non-quantum sense) especially related to the consciousness. But this is misleading. Where do babies come from? (Not being facetious either). Babies come from the sexual interaction of a human male and female in one form or other (accepting other fertilization processes). A sperm and egg, each carrying a portion of their respective donors DNA, unite and a chemical process begins. This chemical process and the gestation process that follows for about nine months require resources - food, air, and water. These are supplied by the mother via the umbilical connection to the fetus.

During that time, the raw materials are used in the 'construction' of the infant by the RNA and mytosis (and whatever other processes may have been missed). The point is that the facility for gaining conciousness, human conciousness might I add, whether you agree or not, is built into the system. I say 'human consciousness' because you (and others like you) seem to forget that other animals are conscious as well, just not in our way of being conscious. Dogs have nearly as much ability to 'think' and 'observe' as we do. They are not so far removed. Chimpanzees, our closest biological relative, are so close, the distinctions are minute (yet still a quantum leap behind).

In other words, after billions of years of evolution, our brains are primed to learn, think, and eventually attain that 'I-stance' during our growth phase of life. And the infrastructure of society is what aids in the fulfillment of this tendency. It is possible that an infant left alone somewhere that somehow survived to mature may not attain the usual level of consciousness. I could be wrong too in this respect. The brain may not only be primed, but able to pull the trigger to manifest the processes towards consciousness.

So, your conclusion that consciousness comes from nothing is incorrect. Raw materials go into constructing the being that will attain it. Evolution played a critical role in the development of our species to be the way that it is (and that was a very long process). Our physiology is designed after this evolution to arrive at this state through long gestations, long growth and learning, and at a high energy cost.

Consciousness in humans just doesn't appear. We just don't wake up one day and say "I am me" and our consciouness complete. It has been shown experimentally to go through phases during early childhood, each with different levels of understanding our relationship with the external world. That's why I asked what type of 'eternal' consciousness a still-birth infant would have. The consciousness then is not the same as it would've been a year later, two years, five years, and maybe even ten or more.

Kuroyume

 

[Iacchus]

Molecules exist as do atoms and other energy manifestations. The universe came from something it did not come from nothing.

Yes, and wouldn't it be much more plausible to say that God existed before the Big Bang if, in fact that's what occurred? In which case it might help dispel the absurd idea that something came out of nothing. Indeed, it might even give rise to this immaterial notion of what we call a soul.

 

[Iacchus]

You're misunderstanding of even basic physical processes leads you to this ill-conceived question. That's the answer.

So, do you believe that there's any purpose in life? How so, compared against the backdrop of non-existence?

You assume that something comes from nothing (in a non-quantum sense) especially related to the consciousness. But this is misleading. Where do babies come from? (Not being facetious either). Babies come from the sexual interaction of a human male and female in one form or other (accepting other fertilization processes). A sperm and egg, each carrying a portion of their respective donors DNA, unite and a chemical process begins. This chemical process and the gestation process that follows for about nine months require resources - food, air, and water. These are supplied by the mother via the umbilical connection to the fetus.

Yes, even this suggests that someting doesn't come from nothing which, I happen to agree with. However, it doesn't suggest anything about the awareness of one's existence.

During that time, the raw materials are used in the 'construction' of the infant by the RNA and mytosis (and whatever other processes may have been missed). The point is that the facility for gaining conciousness, human conciousness might I add, whether you agree or not, is built into the system. I say 'human consciousness' because you (and others like you) seem to forget that other animals are conscious as well, just not in our way of being conscious. Dogs have nearly as much ability to 'think' and 'observe' as we do. They are not so far removed. Chimpanzees, our closest biological relative, are so close, the distinctions are minute (yet still a quantum leap behind).

Actually I believe that consciousness begins at the cellular level, and occurs throughout the animal kingdom, even in plants. And yet why is it that consciousness is the first thing to go upon death? Why doesn't it lingere around like the rest of the body? Or for that matter, why do you no longer receive a signal once you shut the radio off?

In other words, after billions of years of evolution, our brains are primed to learn, think, and eventually attain that 'I-stance' during our growth phase of life. And the infrastructure of society is what aids in the fulfillment of this tendency. It is possible that an infant left alone somewhere that somehow survived to mature may not attain the usual level of consciousness. I could be wrong too in this respect. The brain may not only be primed, but able to pull the trigger to manifest the processes towards consciousness.

The brain is merely a mechanism. Consciousness is like the electricity which flows in a circuit.

So, your conclusion that consciousness comes from nothing is incorrect. Raw materials go into constructing the being that will attain it. Evolution played a critical role in the development of our species to be the way that it is (and that was a very long process). Our physiology is designed after this evolution to arrive at this state through long gestations, long growth and learning, and at a high energy cost.

So what is it about the awareness of one's existence which seems incompatible with non-existence which, is the total lack thereof?

Consciousness in humans just doesn't appear. We just don't wake up one day and say "I am me" and our consciouness complete. It has been shown experimentally to go through phases during early childhood, each with different levels of understanding our relationship with the external world. That's why I asked what type of 'eternal' consciousness a still-birth infant would have. The consciousness then is not the same as it would've been a year later, two years, five years, and maybe even ten or more.

Kuroyume

Did you know that those who die as little children go to heaven?

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, and wouldn't it be much more plausible to say that God existed before the Big Bang if, in fact that's what occurred? In which case it might help dispel the absurd idea that something came out of nothing. Indeed, it might even give rise to this immaterial notion of what we call a soul.

Sorry , I see no need to put god anywhere, but if it floats your boat, then so be it.
I don't believe that physics said that the Big band came from nothing, it might have come from a nothing similar to vacum energy.
It might have come from the Gentle Menagerie, the question is moot and unanswerable.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, do you believe that there's any purpose in life? How so, compared against the backdrop of non-existence?

Nope. None whatsoever. Life is the chance (not random) structure created by correct conditions under many failed 'experiments' that survives long enough to reach a state that we would label life.

Since non-existence doesn't really exist, there's no use discussing it. Consciousness is integrally tied into the fabric of the universe, but not in some metaphysical sense. In a real physical sense, the potential for life and conscious life is embedded into the structure of the universe. How could it be otherwise? If the universe did not have conditions that could support the existence of life or consciousness, then they would not exist and this discussion would never occur.

A star can be manifested into a concrete thing from an innumerable amount of matter and energy and then one day dissipate into 'nothing' (more correctly: into something different, shedding most of its mass as elementary particles, high energy radiation, gravitational waves, and other elements). The star no longer exists, but its constituents still do. In an analogous way, but non-corporeal, the consciousness dissipates when the brain dies. In this case, it is mainly energy dissipating.

Yes, even this suggests that someting doesn't come from nothing which, I happen to agree with. However, it doesn't suggest anything about the awareness of one's existence.

Awareness isn't a 'something' in a real sense. It is the culmination of processes and a manifestation of structure that causes it.

Actually I believe that consciousness begins at the cellular level, and occurs throughout the animal kingdom, even in plants. And yet why is it that consciousness is the first thing to go upon death? Why doesn't it lingere around like the rest of the body? Or for that matter, why do you no longer receive a signal once you shut the radio off?

Well, I don't. Consciousness begins with a set of sensory organs and an organ capable of analyzing them in any fundamental or nonfundamental way. Therefore, the universe is not 'conscious', nor are rocks, trees, water, or air, among other lifeforms. Consciousness requires a brain and that makes a simple statement about which embodies which. Until evidence is provided to show otherwise, this statement stands.

Consciousness is not the first to go upon death. All brain activity ceases quickly followed by any brain-controlled processes still functioning (such as fibrulation, respiration, and nerve impulses). After that, due to the lack of oxygen and nutrients, organs fail and the cells begin to die. Consciousness goes with the brain. That follows from everything said already.

The brain is merely a mechanism. Consciousness is like the electricity which flows in a circuit.

You treat the brain like it is a housing for something external rather than the actual engine of creating and sustaining that something.

Yes, consciousness is like electricity is some ways. Unplug the circuit and the electrical circuit no longer functions. The source of our conscious energy is the energy that feeds the brain and body. This is what allows the electrochemical messages and neuron linkages. And this is where consciousness arises.

You seem to regard consciousness too much like electricity in that there must be some external 'consciousness generator'. But there isn't. Consciousness is a manifestation of the brain's running on 'electricity', not the electricity itself. Would you consider a computer program to be 'electricity' and exist externally from the computer (as a running entity, that is). Computer programs require a computer and electricity (structure and energy) to 'exist' in the sense of performing their tasks.

So what is it about the awareness of one's existence which seems incompatible with non-existence which, is the total lack thereof?

I think that the awareness of one's existence as something that must be eternal is illusory. We are not born with a fully developed consciousness and it seems to reach a culmination that is hard (if not nearly impossible) to extend after a certain maturity of the body. Why is it then that consciousness seems to be tied so tightly to our physical maturity?

Did you know that those who die as little children go to heaven?

I don't think that heaven exists since there is not a shred of evidence to support its existence.

Kuroyume

 

[Iacchus]

Ruling Love

Excerpt from Emanuel Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell ...

479. Man after death is his own love or is own will.

This has been proved to me by manifold expereince. The entire heaven is divided into societies according to differences of good of love; and every spirit who is taken up into heaven and becomes an angel is taken to the society where his love is; and when he arrives there he is, as it were, at home, and in the house where he was born; this the angel perceives, and is affiliated with those there that are like himself. When he goes away to another place he feels constantly a kind of resistance, and a longing to return to his life, thus to his ruling love. Thus are affiliations brought about in heaven; and in a like manner in hell, where all are affiliated in accordance with loves that are the opposite of heavenly loves.

It has been shown above that both heaven and hell are composed of societies, and that they are all distinguished according to differences of love. That man after death is his own love might also be seen from the fact that whatever does not make one with his ruling love is then separated and as it were taken away from him. From one who is good every thing discordant or inharmonious is separated and as it were taken away, and he is thus let into his own love. It is the same with an evil spirit, with the difference that from the evil truths are taken away, and from the good falsities are taken away, and this goes on until each becomes his own love.

Please be advised that there are two translations here, the original which was translated from Latin in 1812, and reflects Swedenborg's mind as a scientist; and the newly revised edition which was translated recently, which has more of an inspirational appeal. I prefer the original translation myself, which is what I've quoted above.

 

[Iacchus]

I get where Iaccus is going with this. And it's pretty much nowhere.

Yesterday I wrote a novel on my computer, and saved it to the hard drive. Today I threw the computer off of a tall building. Where is my novel? Was it just an illusion? No, it was real. It was a function of my hard drive. Now that my hard drive is gone, my novel no longer exists. I still remember it fondly, but it went bye-bye. The fact that it is now gone is hardly proof of a great magic sky novelist, or an ultimate illusory novel.

Except that you're speaking from the standpoint of the observer which, ulitmately doesn't exist.