Einstein and the Cosmic Man

[Greta]

You forget that humanism is concerned for what we DO and the primary concern for the essence of religion is for what we ARE. Our difference is your belief that we can change what we are without help from above. IMO the Great Beast is too powerful to allow it.

Theoretically religion is concerned with what we are. Given your qualification "the essence of", we agree that religions are now thoroughly consumed with what we do and don't give a fig what we are. Then again, in investigating what we are, let's consider the tools:

- the scientific method - observing and testing relativities around us
- introspection - observing and testing internal relativities
- philosophy - trying to put the two together.

As an interesting side note: The problems with devising a satisfactory theory of mind - the link between neural activity and a sense of being - are similar to physicists seeking a theory of everything, being unable to find common rules by which both relativity and QM operate.

Getting back to it, I don't think it's a matter of whether humans can change, just a certainty that they will. They may change by adapting to an increasingly dynamic environment. If they don't then they will change by being dead rather than alive. One way or another, humans will change

I see the Great Beast as organisation. That's what the universe/life does - it takes chaos and organises it over time. Personally, I don't want to be organised into the kind of sterile, hyper-disciplined, sanctimonious, goody-two shoes, selfless drone that human society (aka your Great Beast) increasingly wants from us ... "don't you worry your little heads about anything, just trust us" said Fox to the hens. No thanks.

So what I see is change that doesn't suit me personally, but that does not make it bad per se. This is where I think we differ. You see it as inherently "bad". I see what's happening as nature taking its course and I have faith that it will work out for the good, given the extraordinary changes triggered by prior extinction events.

It is clear that 1) humans will not significantly reduce their numbers this century of their own accord - not many are volunteering to be the ones to make way and 2) fossil fuel companies will not surrender their infrastructure in time to slow climate change. So, at this point I see the space program as humanity's most significant work. The reason for such fatalism is this:

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old and life about 4 billion. Meanwhile, the Sun is near the end of its life and is heating up at a rate of about 10% per billion years. The upshot is that in a billion years' time the oceans will have boiled away. Presumably complex life as we know it on Earth will be impossible a long time before then. Let's split the difference and say that, sans the unexpected, complex life has about 500 million years left, and that's being generous.

That means the biosphere has only 12% of its life remaining, discounting 1) AGW and 2) possible technological fixes for simplicity's sake. Basically, the Earth is in its dotage. If humanity does not send emissaries into space and attempt to colonise with the stuff of Earth then that entire amazing story of life on the planet will be obliterated, its potentials gone. Humans, despite their faults, are the only ones who can continue this journey of growth beyond the planet's end.

Alas, you need damnable "Great Beasts" and their inherent inequality and suppression of individuality to create mega cooperative projects of extreme precision like space programs. Thus the argument then becomes about matters of degree, and is probably moot anyway, given the increasing control that large institutions have over the polity.

However, the GB (aka society) is intelligent enough to know that a population of blinkered drones provides no creativity. I suppose, in the future, there could be genetic lines of people born to fill creative roles and, as is the case now, they will probably be granted more social and legal leeway from the demands of conformity than most due to the nature of their occupation.

I see the above as the most probable scenario, although catastrophic events are obviously possible. So I don't see much choice about "cosmic men" outside of individual decisions. Research shows that people are more inclined towards conservatism when they are threatened, more inclined towards liberalism when they are safe. However, when grievously threatened they move towards extremism, especially if they feel they have nothing to lose.

Now consider how events will play out with an increase in ever more fascist-tending and paranoid nation states. War - the ultimate fascism - where a demand to be a free person rather than a conforming clone will have a person quickly killed for treason or desertion, and with the approval of "ordinary people".

It's peace that brings the kind of psychological freedom and tolerance that you seek. If you think societies are intolerant of difference now, just wait until war breaks out.

[seeds]

I respect the fact that you disagree, Greta.

And I also understand that no matter what I say, you will probably always disagree with me. And that’s because you simply (and understandably) do not accept the premise upon which I make my assertions.

The premise of course being that there exists a higher level of wakefulness above and outside of the universe (not unlike that which is suggested in Plato’s cave allegory).

Therefore, when I propose that humans are asleep, it is in comparison with that higher context of wakefulness, and has nothing to do with the narrowing or broadening of our focus within our present context.

I disagree because I don't much accept confident statements about the great questions that have perplexed the finest minds throughout history.

Does the fact that the finest minds throughout history have been perplexed by the great questions - preclude the possibility that some of the answers to those questions may finally be a little less pixelated (fuzzy) than they used to be?

Should I make an exception your unsubstantiated assertion over others?

Absolutely not, for I freely and openly admit that I could be wrong.

You probably won't accept my idea either, that God my well be us in distant future, a perceived potential rather than an existent entity as posited in the present.

I like that idea, Greta.

However, it's amazing that you cannot see the irony in your proposal in conjunction with your atheistic stance.

Can you not entertain the possibility (for purely speculative purposes) that sometime within the infinite depths of the eternity that preceded the creation of this universe, that something resembling “one of us” already achieved a God-like level of being...

(as in reached your often suggested “Omega Point,” in an ancestral universe)

...and now exists as the living foundation of this universe?
_______

[Greta]

However, it's amazing that you cannot see the irony in your proposal in conjunction with your atheistic stance.

That's because I am not an atheist, and have not been so for over a decade now. Was it God in my peak experiences or just brain chemicals, or is that essentially the same thing, or was it something else again? Maybe, as you mentioned, a previous Omega Point (or not)? I don't believe, I don't disbelieve. I simply don't know.

[Belinda]

Nick, how did you get to be enamoured of God? I think that you are an American, and it would be interesting if you were able to tell how God-belief , including your sort of God- belief, can happen in America.

God-belief does happen here in England, and I'd like to know how this happens too. I ask, because lack of God-belief is more attractive .

I do understand how people become attached to moral principles. I don't understand how the God-belief survives in this modern time when there is a better alternative.

Could you possibly answer me without quoting from any philosopher but only from your own personal life?

[seeds]

The premise of course being that there exists a higher level of wakefulness above and outside of the universe (not unlike that which is suggested in Plato’s cave allegory).

No evidence for such a thing .

Belinda, what evidence would you require that would convince you - beyond any question or doubt - that what I am suggesting is true?

In other words (and just as a thought experiment), what would you need as irrefutable proof that the core of your consciousness (your “soul,” for lack of a better term) will awaken into a higher form and context of reality following the death of your physical body?

Please be specific.
_______

[Belinda]

The premise of course being that there exists a higher level of wakefulness above and outside of the universe (not unlike that which is suggested in Plato’s cave allegory).

No evidence for such a thing .

Belinda, what evidence would you require that would convince you - beyond any question or doubt - that what I am suggesting is true?

In other words (and just as a thought experiment), what would you need as irrefutable proof that the core of your consciousness (your “soul,” for lack of a better term) will awaken into a higher form and context of reality following the death of your physical body?

Please be specific.
_______

It's not possible for there to be evidence of such a thing. Evidence is not applicable. This is because nothing is evident to us unless it's evidence of something that is evident to our senses. The "higher level of wakefulness above and outside of the universe" is by the definition you give supernatural and is not evident to our senses.

It's like you believe that a metaphysical substance exists and also that this substance is evident like the results of scientific experiments, or common sense, are evident.

If after I die I find that something of 'me' is still conscious I would not be any closer to finding evidence that this after-death consciousness is "a higher level of wakefulness above and outside of the universe ".

The god idea can be a lot of use as inspiration for making the world a better place, only if god is freed from metaphysical existence, and becomes what I said, an "inspiration". A sort of moving symbol.

[Nick_A]

Nick, how did you get to be enamoured of God? I think that you are an American, and it would be interesting if you were able to tell how God-belief , including your sort of God- belief, can happen in America.

God-belief does happen here in England, and I'd like to know how this happens too. I ask, because lack of God-belief is more attractive .

I do understand how people become attached to moral principles. I don't understand how the God-belief survives in this modern time when there is a better alternative.

Could you possibly answer me without quoting from any philosopher but only from your own personal life?

I’ve always had an interest in “meaning.” It never mattered if the subject were religion, philosophy, politics or whatever, all these pursuits offered partial truths. I was always good with finding the fly in the ointment and what saved me was my sense of humor which was never appreciated by the spirit killers.

As years went by my need for meaning became more intense and alcohol became a superb medication to dull the need for meaning. What is more natural for a working musician? Then one day I became aware of the third dimension of thought or the hidden third force which was able to reconcile the dualism I was trapped in. Rather than a belief in God, I experienced what Plato referred to as the reorientation of the soul and Christianity refers to as metanoia. Something in me turned towards the light and made me consciously aware of a higher conscious quality of reality not as the result of the senses but rather a conscious experience of above and below or levels of reality.

I don’t believe in a personal god but rather the source of qualities of being. Since my experiences I’ve had to re-think what I thought I understood as philosophy and since then, for the first time, through my experiences of levels of reality, the sense and significance of universal existence became clear.

I was fortunate. I know that the modern influence of spirit killing furthered by expressions of secular intolerance diminishes these experiences in society as a whole by emotionally denying them or perverting them into escapist fantasy. I was a lucky one. I feel sorry for those not so lucky.

Morality is only a devolved expression of conscience. The cosmic man doesn’t need indoctrinated morality since he is open to objective conscience. The Great Beast needs morality. I hope I will become one who sufficiently open to live by objective conscience and its purpose not only in the world but of connecting levels of reality: receiving from above and giving to below.

I do understand how people become attached to moral principles. I don't understand how the God-belief survives in this modern time when there is a better alternative.

Living as expressions of dualism requires morality. What IYO is the better alternative for dualism that denies opening to the third dimension of thought?

[Dubious]

You have made the assertion that consciousness presumes an unwarranted overestimation (a “gross distortion”) of its own value.

To which I responded by asking you to name just one thing (one ontic phenomenon) in the entire universe that would have any reason (i.e., any “purpose”) for existing if life and consciousness did not exist?

Feel free to correct me if I misconstrue your question but its inference would suggest that any ontic phenomenon as an actual entity has no reason to exist unless life and consciousness validates its existence, that is, gives it purpose. As staged on this proscenium the universe is a morality play that requires consciousness to justify its existence. If the interpretation is inline with your meaning then I rest my case on consciousness making a total farce of itself far exceeding its mandate.

Of course you are free to suggest that the universe - as a whole - has purpose in that it (somehow) managed to become the womb of consciousness.

Purpose, as I keep saying, is OUR idea; who or what would supply said purpose causing the universe to consciously create consciousness? Isn’t it enough that the life which arose within a few of its precincts creates its own paradigms of purpose? Why warp these local manifestations of what amounts to only our presumptions into some kind of cosmic significance? What in the human brain compels this kind of amplification?

I can’t ever get that! It’s main effect is to inflate the human psyche beyond justifiable limits as a shareholder in some cosmic destiny and yet we aren't any further advanced! Ironically, those who envision such grand schemes are usually the first to short-circuit themselves. Mortality should compromise with its obvious limitations if it is to succeed in the long run. We can learn a few lessons from cockroaches and turtles!

However, even that would create the question of which has greater value - consciousness (the very arbiter of value itself), or that which made consciousness possible?

Again, that is our own personal “frame of reference” question to decide what constitutes value. The universe contains no intrinsic motive to decide anything beyond its own laws. We’re free to question however we like and conclude accordingly even if it amounts to only wishful thinking.

It would seem to be a tie, with both possessing value beyond measure.

It’s the unconditional indifference of the universe which causes all the differences within it. Nothing wrong in raising a toast to each.

But then there's that pesky idea in quantum theory that suggests that without the presence of life and consciousness, the universe (as we know it) would not take form.

Quantum theory or not, the idea is ludicrous beyond comprehension for that presupposes life and consciousness are its causing agents which puts the whole “To be or Not to Be” question on a vastly different level.

And with that being a possibility, do you still believe that the value of consciousness is overrated?

I believe “the value of consciousness” should be rated according to its limitations which necessitates self-reflection. This doesn’t prevent it from incrementally surpassing itself but only if we keep our consciousness in harness to current realities.

[seeds]

Belinda, what evidence would you require that would convince you - beyond any question or doubt - that what I am suggesting is true?

In other words (and just as a thought experiment), what would you need as irrefutable proof that the core of your consciousness (your “soul,” for lack of a better term) will awaken into a higher form and context of reality following the death of your physical body?

Please be specific.

It's not possible for there to be evidence of such a thing. Evidence is not applicable. This is because nothing is evident to us unless it's evidence of something that is evident to our senses.

My goodness, Belinda, you sure know how to sidestep a question.

So then (and strictly for speculative purposes), if God (presuming that such a Being exists) was to open the veil that separates our dimension of reality from his dimension of reality and allowed us to literally see our departed friends and loved ones, still alive in a higher context of existence, then that would not qualify as evidence to you? Really?

Remember, this is just a thought experiment, and no one is asking you believe any of it.

The "higher level of wakefulness above and outside of the universe" is by the definition you give supernatural and is not evident to our senses.

At this very moment, you are functioning in a context of existence that is “above and outside” of your mother’s womb, in which case, is it not evident to your senses that you are now profoundly “more awake” than you were as a fetus in that prior context?

If after I die I find that something of 'me' is still conscious I would not be any closer to finding evidence that this after-death consciousness is "a higher level of wakefulness above and outside of the universe ".

Of course this is all speculation...

...but if you discovered that your after-death level of consciousness was as profoundly “more awake” compared to your present level of consciousness - as is your present level of consciousness is profoundly “more awake” compared to your fetal level of consciousness, then I suggest that the contrast would be extremely evident to you...

...(not to mention that you will have emerged from the “chrysalis” of your present body, as strange as that may sound).

Do you not experience a sense of a “higher level of wakefulness” when you emerge from a vivid dream? If so, then imagine it being something similar to that.

The god idea can be a lot of use as inspiration for making the world a better place, only if god is freed from metaphysical existence, and becomes what I said, an "inspiration". A sort of moving symbol.

The “god idea” in my theology is a representation of the fully-fruitioned adult version of that which we are the “seeds” of, as is depicted in the following illustration...



(As always, for a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link and expand the image - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... %20God.jpg)

Again, Belinda, I’m not asking you to believe any of this, I am merely offering some speculative possibilities.

(By the way, I think that the illustration above kind of fits in with Greta's (make that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's) “Omega point” concept, as long as she is open to the idea of the existence of “ancestral” universes.)
_______

[Belinda]

Belinda, what evidence would you require that would convince you - beyond any question or doubt - that what I am suggesting is true?

In other words (and just as a thought experiment), what would you need as irrefutable proof that the core of your consciousness (your “soul,” for lack of a better term) will awaken into a higher form and context of reality following the death of your physical body?

Please be specific.

It's not possible for there to be evidence of such a thing. Evidence is not applicable. This is because nothing is evident to us unless it's evidence of something that is evident to our senses.

My goodness, Belinda, you sure know how to sidestep a question.

So then (and strictly for speculative purposes), if God (presuming that such a Being exists) was to open the veil that separates our dimension of reality from his dimension of reality and allowed us to literally see our departed friends and loved ones, still alive in a higher context of existence, then that would not qualify as evidence to you? Really?

Remember, this is just a thought experiment, and no one is asking you believe any of it.

The "higher level of wakefulness above and outside of the universe" is by the definition you give supernatural and is not evident to our senses.

At this very moment, you are functioning in a context of existence that is “above and outside” of your mother’s womb, in which case, is it not evident to your senses that you are now profoundly “more awake” than you were as a fetus in that prior context?

If after I die I find that something of 'me' is still conscious I would not be any closer to finding evidence that this after-death consciousness is "a higher level of wakefulness above and outside of the universe ".

Of course this is all speculation...

...but if you discovered that your after-death level of consciousness was as profoundly “more awake” compared to your present level of consciousness - as is your present level of consciousness is profoundly “more awake” compared to your fetal level of consciousness, then I suggest that the contrast would be extremely evident to you...

...(not to mention that you will have emerged from the “chrysalis” of your present body, as strange as that may sound).

Do you not experience a sense of a “higher level of wakefulness” when you emerge from a vivid dream? If so, then imagine it being something similar to that.

The god idea can be a lot of use as inspiration for making the world a better place, only if god is freed from metaphysical existence, and becomes what I said, an "inspiration". A sort of moving symbol.

The “god idea” in my theology is a representation of the fully-fruitioned adult version of that which we are the “seeds” of, as is depicted in the following illustration...



(As always, for a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link and expand the image - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... %20God.jpg)

Again, Belinda, I’m not asking you to believe any of this, I am merely offering some speculative possibilities.

(By the way, I think that the illustration above kind of fits in with Greta's (make that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's) “Omega point” concept, as long as she is open to the idea of the existence of “ancestral” universes.)
_______

I don't usually sidestep challenging questions but in the case of your question about evidence for God, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because the higher Being or being that you propose is by definition other than us that's to say it's supernatural. But what we take to be evidence depends upon natural senses. I am not denying that you or anybody else has had or might have paranormal experiences. I am disputing the status of those experiences.

I am sure that your ideas are adult in the sense of not childish ideas about God having a face and so on. Ideas about God as ultimate authority for how to live one's life, and what we believe exists, are childish in the sense that such believers cannot cut loose from a state of super-being that is 'better', 'higher', than human being. Such believers remind me of people in Britain who think that rule of law would crumple up and die if the monarch had to live in a council house.

And I am sure you agree that whereas Elizabeth II is an excellent queen, there have been some horrible kings and queens, emperors, and popes. Likewise, your super-being is not guaranteed to be good.

Like most others, I'd be delighted to experience reunion with dead loved ones, including my dogs. After my own death of course, as I'd not want any of them to be dragged back to this world of suffering! Improbable in any case.

Seeds, your point about waking consciousness as more like reality than other states of consciousness is a good one, and I accept. This is not evidence of God's metaphysical existence it's analogous to it.

[Belinda]

Nick_A thank you for taking the trouble to reply to my question, which you may have thought invaded your privacy.
What I took from your main reply was a good summary of your thesis. It was not what I hoped for as it was introspective not sociological.

Nick wrote:

(Belinda had written) I do understand how people become attached to moral principles. I don't understand how the God-belief survives in this modern time when there is a better alternative.
(Nick replied)Living as expressions of dualism requires morality. What IYO is the better alternative for dualism that denies opening to the third dimension of thought?

The better alternative to the method of credulousness is the method of skepticism. For instance by my intrusive question I was trying to nudge you to look at what influences had persuaded you to believe as you do.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

Nick wrote:
(Belinda had written) I do understand how people become attached to moral principles. I don't understand how the God-belief survives in this modern time when there is a better alternative.
(Nick replied)Living as expressions of dualism requires morality. What IYO is the better alternative for dualism that denies opening to the third dimension of thought?

The better alternative to the method of credulousness is the method of skepticism. For instance by my intrusive question I was trying to nudge you to look at what influences had persuaded you to believe as you do.

For seekers of truth, intellectual skepticism is necessary to avoid attachments to fantasy. At the same time, emotional skepticism cannot become the means for preventing direct experience of what is beyond sensory experience. I was just fortunate to have direct experience which there is nothing to be personally skeptical about.

[Belinda]

Nick, skepticism is not "emotional" it is cognitive.

Nick_A wrote:

I was just fortunate to have direct experience which there is nothing to be personally skeptical about.

Skepticism keeps you right whenever you think you had an unusual experience. There is self -deception which is sometimes called 'wishful thinking', and skepticism guards you against that too. I think that what happened to you is that you did in fact have an unusual conscious experience, and you have interpreted the euphoria as coming to you from outside of your body.


You may have noticed that some here are skeptical about your claims, and some are skeptical regarding what they read in the popular press. Skepticism can be applied to your own beliefs and ideas too.

[Nick_A]

Nick, skepticism is not "emotional" it is cognitive.

Nick_A wrote:

I was just fortunate to have direct experience which there is nothing to be personally skeptical about.

Skepticism keeps you right whenever you think you had an unusual experience. There is self -deception which is sometimes called 'wishful thinking', and skepticism guards you against that too. I think that what happened to you is that you did in fact have an unusual conscious experience, and you have interpreted the euphoria as coming to you from outside of your body.


You may have noticed that some here are skeptical about your claims, and some are skeptical regarding what they read in the popular press. Skepticism can be applied to your own beliefs and ideas too.

“The poison of skepticism becomes, like alcoholism, tuberculosis, and some other diseases, much more virulent in a hitherto virgin soil.” Simone Weil

Belinda there are two types of skepticism: emotional and intellectual. Simone is referring to emotional skepticism. It is an emotional attitude of denial and the basic cause of closing the mind. Intellectual doubt is beneficial for the mind while emotional denial poisons the mind.

Intellectual skepticism is essential for distinguishing truth from fantasy. It takes a long time to acquire since by definition it is free from emotional skepticism. Unfortunatly, most of what I read in real life and online are expressions of emotional skepticism

[seeds]

I do understand how people become attached to moral principles. I don't understand how the God-belief survives in this modern time when there is a better alternative.

Belinda, what exactly is the “better alternative”?
_______