it seems easier to trace the origin of the physical world back to information and sensations than it is to do the reverse.
so why is there a consensus that matter causes consciousness and not the other way around?
Sounder » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:26 pm wrote:consciousness might not so much ‘arise’ from the brain, as much as the brain being part of an interface system that provides access to externally generated signals (vibrations).
Does consciousness arise within the world, or does the world arise within consciousness?
slimmouse » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:37 pm wrote:Hey folks, thanks for this thread.
Big thanks to Hol for this...Does consciousness arise within the world, or does the world arise within consciousness?
So there you have it folks.
The materialist might ask "The chicken or the egg ?"
The true spiritualist would most likely have a different interpretation
Hammer of Los » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:30 pm wrote:Saying all is matter, or all is mind, is tantamount to saying the same thing.
DrEvil wrote:If we create reality, why is it so damn incomprehensible, and if consciousness creates reality, who's to say it's our consciousness doing it? The universe is big, and saying that it's there just because of us sounds to me like human exceptionalism.
tazmic wrote:But I'm quite happy to say that everything is material as long as we agree we don't know what matter is
Which of course we do not.
tapitsbo wrote:I feel like saying that the troubling situation we're in now is a result of the Enlightenment is almost like saying all the crimes of Christian churches are to be blamed on Christ. This thread has made me wonder whether the reduction of the physical world to its smallest parts is almost like an outgrowth of the religious impulse to devalue the sensual aspect of the physical world which we encounter immediately. Sometimes it seems as though the human race is trapped in belief systems created by "initiates" who all died out, leaving everyone else in a state of self-imposed powerlessness.
I feel as though the "path of meditation and devotion" referenced by HoL was once seen in somewhat scientific terms - as a process to be tested subjectively by those who engaged in it. I feel as though this can go wrong all to easily as well (not referring to you HoL).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests