Unity and believing in God

[sweetheart]

Surely even an atheist would confess that their is one continuum, one
reality, being the one we exist in, however many universes, if we know
them, or even know that we don't "know" about them, then they are mapped
in "one" continuum, of which we ourselves are a conscious element.

Then it seems the problem then, is not the fact that we are all part
the same quantum continuum, but that the mind is unaware of it. Then
isn't the mind a duality, and the instant it says "me", the unity
awareness is obscured for a duality, a waking self that has no direct
awareness of being one with the universe.

But if we "are" one with the universe, then if we "know" that the universe
is intelligent, you might call that "faith". And faith might be realizing
that, despite the apppearances, there is nothing but unity, or to use a
charged word: "god"... and that "god" rather than being an actor or a
force, is simply the unity of us all. However that is not believing, it is
"knowing". And "knowing" is recognizing we have a choice in what kind
of universe we live in, on a deep subtle level, its all connected, and
the love you have in your heart, you WILL see in the world, for the very
spark of life itself is god realizing itself.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. What is a 'quantum continuum'?

The phrase mean absolutely nothing to me. And I don't see that if a mind is unaware of it, whatever it is, then that make the mind a duality. A rock is also unaware of this quantum continuum - does that make it a duality too? What about a chimpanzee?

How does anyone know the universe is intelligent? Yes, you might call the universe, or all the universes if you believe there are more than one, a 'continuum' - but that doesn't mean it's intelligent. Are you saying that any characteristic we have can be automatically projected on to the entire universe? This would also make the universe good, evil, stupid, rational, irrational, etc.

My normal reaction to pantheism is 'so what?' Unless there is some way in which this god/continuum reacts with us apart from simple existence, it seems meaningless to think of it as a separate entity, let alone a god.

[sweetheart]

4. Subjective reality

The only way you'll ever know is to "know".
Awakening to unity is certainly subjective, guided by the internal icons in ones mind.
Ultimately this entire thread, reduced to electrical impulses in your brain, and in
every breathing projected a world-view, the training of the brain's neural net.

This moment is filled with the unity of "nothing" until you put something in to it.

I highly recommend renting the DVD by some quantum physicists called: "what the bleep do we know?"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0009S4W5C/qid=1137154453/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-3322347-8368641
As it explains quite well Quantum continuum. They use much more precise language and communicate
how exactly quantum physics updates our newtonian cultural thinking about the universe.

When one "knows", there is no choice, the shock and awe of the totality so joyful,
so immense and so rich as not to fall in love. I understand how they call it "the kingdom of god".
Its a lovely metaphor. But without religiousity. The universe is as intelligent as you
allow it to be, as much as you realize you participate in it. Its also as cold and dead
and mechanical as you want it to be as well.

But all too often, people paint it cold and dead to not take a greater responsibility
for their impact in life. I'm really not advocating any religion or books. Silence does fine.
The willingness to put it all down, to do the direct opposite of what corporate humanity recommends
we do, to suspend consumption as an addiction, indeed to do absolutely nothing... to "not do",
or "nondoing" or "zazen" in japanese. Not doing realizes that fulfillment does not come from
doing. This awakening alone revolutionizes the world.

We need more religious awakening, not less. Its hard to write about, but people should try.
The question of the left not being persons of faith is an absurd construction that our goodwill
and "faith" overcome if we overcome the temerity to pen a faith, given the false illusion
that words are an ultimate store of knowledge.

I eschew the word god usually, as it implies too much sentience, causation and lots of extra things
human beings load on when they antropromophisze(sp!) give it human form, godhead. Maybe more
like "the force" in star wars, simply unity of which some persons are more plugged in to than
others... but so powerful that it moves the earth in ways sublime.

[trotsky]

10. "What the bleep" is a farce.

http://skepdic.com/ramtha.html#bleep

Just when you thought "Ramtha" was finally done with, she's baaaaack. I know that tacking "quantum" in front of past quackery is the latest way to recycle it into NEW and IMPROVED quackery, but this is terrible.

[Arianrhod]

12. Actually, Ramtha is a "he". :)

His channeler is a "she".

There is much quackery in "What the Bleep...", but there is also a kernal of truth. The Copenhagen School of Quantum Mechanics, upon which "Bleep" is based, held that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle applied to the macro world as much as it did to the micro. This is the view asserted by most of the founders of QM, and in particular Erwin Schroedinger. To dismiss the ideas simply because they have been adopted by a religious cult would be an error.

After all, even the Catholic Church has apologized to Galileo. :)

If perception consists of nothing more or less than a stream of time-lapsed conscious reconstructions of unconscious responses to environmental stimuli, bodily functions and genetics (Penrose, Edelman), then there really is no logical reason to dismiss the idea that those reconstructions could be manipulated in such a way as to create a different perception of the world. And Heisenberg's (Copenhagen-interpreted) theory states unequivocably that whatever we perceive unmitigatingly constitutes reality.

So do we perceive reality, or do our perceptions create reality?

That's the question posed in Bleep. I think this question is fundamental to human experience. Who poses it, IMO, is irrelevant.

[trotsky]

15. Well, yeah, I know.

Since they're the same person, I call them both "she." :)

The impression I got from Bleep was that of hucksters co-opting and mis-applying the lessons of quantum mechanics to try and make room for whatever new age mumbo-jumbo they felt like inserting. Just like they have traditionally abused science to try and justify their money-making schemes for years.

"Do our perceptions create reality" even has a totally different intended meaning than what these charlatans have twisted it into.

[Arianrhod]

16. I wonder.

I finally broke down and bought the DVD, because I wanted to watch it several times and see what they were saying. It seemed to me that they were pushing some sort of an agenda, but OTOH, they did have a lot of interviewees who were genuine academics. Not to rely on an argument from authority, but people who have actually built careers studying particular subjects are people I tend to listen to.

More than that, however, is the fact that the kernel of what they were saying agreed with many, many other sources I've studied over the past 30 years--and with my own personal experience as well. So I'm inclined not to dismiss them entirely as charlatans, even though the producers of the film may very well be misguided in their exuberance.

Still, it's a fascinating philosophy, regardless of what conclusions one draws from it. :)

[greyl]

42. Excellent critique there!

Of the dozen or so that have replied in this thread, how many really understand where the OP was "coming from"? (Almost two, I'd say)

[sweetheart]

51. interesting read... swiftboat

On reading this, its the same swiftboat thinking that hovers in all media
seeking to discredit anything new, sounding too much like the catholic
church vs. galileo.

The film says at the end, "think for yourself." The film is designed to
open persons to inquiring about what they think life is about. It does
a great open, and this article does not contribute anything.

Its just the same old claptrap from the medical-psychyiatry profession that
has diagnosed the human condition as psychosis and have a drug and a name for
every condition of spiritual growth. And each drug is designed to deaden
and kill inquiry. The review is just a big dog shit, not a probing inquiry
in to the actual hypothesis of the film.

I find the core hypothesis proven in the film, even after reading this
load of professional swiftboaters. Perhaps it comes down to, when you walk
in to the cinema, whether you believe the universe is divine, "god" or
that, and the film affirms this beautifly. Obviously the filmmakers are
deists at the very least. If you walk in the room with your swiftboat hat
on, determined to prove that all emerging theory is bunk, then you design
your own reality. Nothing is enough.

So the film hypothesis proves true in the reviewers, that they create a reality
of self serving distrust by attacking the character of the film's actors, rather
than substantially discussing what does seem, when reflected against my own life's
experiences, a very credible theory... and as with all emerging theory, much
like quantum physics in earlier days as well, few people are smart enough to
pave the ground of new thinking... and these are followed by a crew of swiftboaters
who would be just as well off working for the pope in a dark ages catholic church.

The psychiatry-drugs-medical establishment was formed in victorian england to
supress political opposition, and has been used like this for hundreds of years.
I have been reading an excellent book, "toxic psychiatry" recommended by jackpine radical,
and this book clearly debunks the profession that the primary swiftboater is using
to discredit the film, that from that low position, he clearly can't see much.

[trotsky]

53. Great counter-strategy.

Rather than address what may be valid criticism, just wrap it in a blanket condemnation as the equivalent of "swiftboating."

Good way to avoid thinking about things you don't want to.

[sweetheart]

56. They use psychobabble from a discredited profession

They don't really address the theory of "intentionality" as presented in the film,
nor how it has proven absolutely true in my own life, so gosh, i'm hardly to disagree
the film's veracity. You DO create your own neuro-electrical cloud, from which you
interpret life based on the chemistry of your neurochemical soup. - fact

The counter strategy is to demonstrate that there will always be a swiftboater,
ALWAYS. Ramtha is a good example. This swiftboater goes to great lengths to discredit
ramtha as an expert witness. But ramtha spoke pretty bland common sense in the film
as far as i was concerned. I disagreed with ramtha regarding human relationships.
I find the subtlety that stirs the pot wholly more complex. I thought ramtha looked trashed,
a lotta hard work being enlightened that, and she's got balls of steel to stand up for
the kind of derision i've read about her in that swiftboat. Knowing in advance, that
she would be swiftboated and mis-interpreted by everyone outside the context of her
lineage, she has balls of steel. Every time i see an aware person prepared to stand
up for their beliefs like that, i feel love, a person reaching out to a small few persons
who might be incarnate in this lifetime who belong to her lineage. The film is worth all
the hate, for ramtha, for the possibility of inspiring one heart. I respect Ramtha more than this
reviewer who did cut ramtha the slack of context. If Ramtha was danish, or russian, the
reviewer would be more polite. Soo, if his lead argument in discrediting this film,
is that Ramtha is a nutter from seattle, didn't he realize the film had a script?
If Ramtha was the pope, he would be wholly more respectful. In freedom of religion, i
grant each religion at least that deference, not theologically, but mystically.
The reviewer insults my intelligence by telling me what to think about
ramtha and loses it on down from there. I make my own judgements. I just spent a few minutes
of the film listening to ramtha, and i had no adverse reaction. I liked the person, and my
subjective judgement has proven me 100% on people i've seen speak like that in person. Heck,
i knew GWB was an asshole after 2 seconds, but this lady is wise, maybe not enlightened, but
wise at the very least, and gosh, what's with the character attack?

The other attacks are pretty pedestrian given the greather hypothesis of the film, that the mind
and its point of observation, "the observer", are intangible, and not governed by the laws of
newtonian physics. Obviously, the persons reviewing the film have not had a samadhi, or they'd
know better.

Intentionality is a fact in life. I intend things, then they happen, first as producer,
then director, and possibly as actor, or maybe not. Intending upstream is for the heavys and i'm
just a beginner. I see life as intentionality, yes. You are in control and responsible for every
single thing in your life, including every vibration of thougght or feeling that passes through your
mind. What you allow in your mind, is who you are. How could i not fucking believe that having written
on DU as a radical writer for most of the bush administration's tenure. I believe that by putting the
vision to pen, that it inspires a cosmic firing of the great cosmic mind of all humanity to fire like
a massive superbrain, a global network of enlightened minds. All the people who "care" about words, who
think this world is important, are not worth convincing anyways. Its the majority who is passive in
the medium of the review's thinking that eludes it. The film is the best 2 hour probing of what
life is about, and how human perception works, than any film i've seen. I'd recommend it to anyone,
even if they then go on to learn all the theory of refutation, it will inspire them to learn, to
study what knowledge is.

If you fill your life with love, and live for love, you will find a world of love. This is a fact,
ask anyone who has love around them. If you live your life for pissing on others, then your whole
world is about taking the piss, fact as well.

:-)

[Arianrhod]

60. You might also enjoy

the film Waking Life. It explores some of the same themes from a different direction.

[trotsky]

63. So that's all you have?

"If you filled your life with love, you'd agree with me."

:eyes:

Thanks. Glad to know we can have a rational discussion of the facts.

[greyl]

2. How can we use that

to find a cure for AIDS? Not discovering the desire to, but doing the required science.

Some of what you're saying may be useful to an individual while they are meditating away the repeating tapes of a stressful day, but we can't meditate our lives away. I think an undercurrent of what you're saying is a dangerous perpetuation that humans are born in an un-enlightened/un-saved state.

Scientists (not all) and systems thinkers are perfectly happy to acknowledge and honor the hidden connectedness that escapes the casual observer.
Why do you draw a distinction between "life" and inorganic matter as the final line of your essay on pervasive "mystical" unity?

[sweetheart]

3. Awakening

It depends on the person.
If someone has an awakening to unity, it is not a choice.
The unity inspires love, and a romantic embrace of our fellow creatures for a better world,
however totally insane that point of view is given history.

But as well, realizing that we control out own destiny today, allows us to rewrite
our constitution, to end the wars, to take responsibility for this morass and fix it.
The unity is our romantic obligation, our "abstract folly" borrowing the term of carlos castanada.

To approach life as it is currently described in quantum physics... theres a good film on this:
"what the bleep do we know?" with mary matleen? .. a deaf actress.

So what is western civilization but not the romantic abstract folly of voltaire, rousseau, newton,
einstein, keats, cummings, Adams, jefferson and john lenon. Those few who fall in love with
unity seem condemned to the folly of saints indeed, but would the earth without them?

[greyl]

43. But see, I'm a pre-history lover.

I feel kindred with the humans that lived 3 million years ago more than with the members of one particular culture.

From my perspective, what you've written here is pointed toward a thin sliver of our culture today, which is only 10,000 years old. It isn't relevant to humanity at large at all, nor do I think it acknowledges it. It's postscript to a shabbily written history, without regard to The Great Forgetting, and written from within its own prologue.

I don't see it as relevant to saving the world, as much as it is an attmept at saving one's self.

[sweetheart]

44. the feminine

Using the chinese allegory of yin yang, then yin is undefined, not known,
mysterious, supernatural and profound. I don't accept that there is anything
wise in our pre-history that is not discovered in the yin aspect of godhead.

The old forgotten, are the matriarchal prehistory worth recalling indeed, and to
do so, one must overthrow the patriarchy of the mind, that knows god, that knows
too many words about something that is far to intimate and personal.

If we go back in history over 2000 years, the only names we remember are those
of enlightened persons, persons who radically overcame the status quo and the
mental conditioning of their times, often given spiritual overtones, but perhaps
these jesus, rama, krisna, laotzu, zoroaster, buddha... persons were awake to
that feminine pre-history, part of what has given them the power to shape our
society today from thousands of years away.

That prehistory is in no book, and without profound communion exists only as
a fancy of thought. Perhaps the godhead is that prehistory, the need to know it,
all the wisdom from it, and silent perfection all at the same time.

You can't save the world if you are not saved yourself. I don't mean this
on a christian level, but spiritually, if you are not rooted in deep soil,
avoid strong winds, as they uproot persons in to heresy, when in silence, they
remain in communion. Our world of persons "fixing" things that arn't broken,
based on a mechanical secular view of our existance, does not recognize that
perhaps nothing is broken except our views of the world.

[greyl]

46. We are not born in need of salvation. nt

[sweetheart]

47. who said we were

We are born to discovery of knowledge, awakening and intentionality,
every day of our life. You could call "knowledge" salvation if you will,
if you want to make that sentence fit.

We are born immaculate, and then paved over with 15 years or so of
dark-ages education about what kind of beings we are, and what we are
capable of. If we need to be saved from anything, its that conditioning,
not our birth.

[greyl]

48. You did, sweetheart.

"You can't save the world if you are not saved yourself."

[sweetheart]

49. but its taken out of context

It then goes on to say what that meant, primarily to
de-charge the overhypped word "saved".

The semantics of allegory are charged indeed.

[greyl]

50. Ok.

Take care of your goodness. :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. What I like about this

is that it shows that what God may be and what concepts so many have of God are not the same thing. I smile when nonbelievers skoff at what they say is my "old man in the sky" and "playing harp in heaven" because those are their concepts, and not mine. My concepts of God are similar to yours.

As you say in your response post, achieving Unity is a gift-"can't be taught, can't be bought, but it can be caught" to quote Joe Miller, California mystic. I am always surprised when a mystical experience comes my way-it isn't planned or even foreseen. To walk the balance between Unity and duality is an interesting path-and to reach Unity is something that can't really be put into words.

[Strong Atheist]

6. I find this incoherent.

:shrug:

[SidDithers]

7. You and me both...nt

Sid

[Strong Atheist]

8. lol! nt.

[Zebedeo]

13. I don't get it, either.

:shrug:

I understand the arguments that atheists make. Though I don't agree with their premises or conclusions, I understand their arguments and know what they are saying.

The philosophy expressed by the OP, however, makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't even know what the OP is saying.

[Arianrhod]

14. My understanding of Ramtha's philosophy is this:

There is One Existence that we call the Universe. This Existence is interconnected so tightly that it is one thing; IOWs, what appears to be many separate physical bodies is actually simply the multiple expression of a single entity. Because everything is interconnected in this way, all these "separate" bodies share a common consciousness, a consciousness that actually constitutes the Universe itself, and are therefore able to create whatever conditions "they" care to, by simply agreeing that those conditions are "what is".

This philosophy is so ancient as to be unfathomable. It goes back a minimum of 10,000 years, perhaps as far as 100,000; and it is expressed in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Platonism, Pythagoreanism, Dionysism, Druidism, Alchemy, Gnosticism, Christianity, and Sufism; it was espoused and expounded by Rogers, Jung, Ram Dass, Watts, Leary, Schroedinger and Heisenberg. It is the oldest philosophy on Earth.

Whether it is true or not is up to the individual to decide. But then, that's exactly what it itself has to say. :)

[Strong Atheist]

17. Ah. Much more coherently put. Now I can understand,

and disagree completely. It has gone from being incoherent to being non sense.

[Arianrhod]

21. I have no problem with that. n/t

[Zebedeo]

24. Yes, I am with Strong Atheist on this

I now understand what it is, and disagree completely.

From my POV, the physical matter and energy in the universe is God's creation. It is not God.

[Strong Atheist]

25. Now see,

THIS makes sense. I disagree with the "God's creation" part, but I UNDERSTAND everything that was said, unlike the OP.

[Arianrhod]

30. Then it is encumbent upon you

to explain what "god" is, where it came from, and how it interacts with a Universe that is utterly other than it.

[Zebedeo]

33. Too easy!

Then it is encumbent upon you

No it ain't! That would be thread-hijacking.

This thread is about "one-ness" and so forth, not about my beliefs.

But my answers to your questions are very simple: 1. God is the Creator of the universe. 2. He didn't come from anywhere, because He is eternal, having no beginning and no end. 3. He interacts with the Universe as He sees fit.

[Arianrhod]

39. Which, of course, does not answer a single one of my questions.

Simple canned answers don't do anything for me--particularly tautological ones. Do you really think I'd never heard those before?

Thanks anyway.

[trotsky]

19. Step by step

There is One Existence that we call the Universe.

Seems reasonable. Though the terms "One Existence" (especially capitalized) raise questions of their own. But otherwise, this is merely stating a definition of the universe: all that exists.

This Existence is interconnected so tightly that it is one thing; IOWs, what appears to be many separate physical bodies is actually simply the multiple expression of a single entity.

This certainly has some truth to it, in that it echoes the Grand Unified Theory - one law or set of laws that can describe all particles and all energy in all situations. But again, the choice of words here - "entity" - is adding an anthropomorphic concept that just isn't suggested by the physics.

Because everything is interconnected in this way, all these "separate" bodies share a common consciousness

This seems to say that because every object in the universe is related (in that it's part of the universe), it shares a conscious bond with every OTHER object in the universe. OK, first off, why does consciousness only seem to exist in conjunction with a biological brain? We have never detected a conciousness apart from one. Now granted, what we know about the universe is a small fraction of what there is to know, but nothing we've discovered to date suggests that a "consciousness" is anything but essentially the way a functioning brain places itself in its environment.

Particle pairs in quantum mechanics can indeed be linked such that they can appear to "communicate" over vast distances, even faster than the speed of light. But it is an unwarranted and unsupported leap to compare this to, or even call it consciousness.

a consciousness that actually constitutes the Universe itself, and are therefore able to create whatever conditions "they" care to, by simply agreeing that those conditions are "what is".

And this is where it veers way off into the deep end. It's not science anymore, but philosophy or imagination. If there is a Grand Unified Theory (and there almost certainly is), it will describe how and why this universe works the way it does. And even though the math will be light-years beyond my limited understanding, I can guarantee you there will not be an exponent, a coefficient, or a quotient for "what consciousness WANTS things to be."

[Arianrhod]

20. I don't disagree with you.

> Though the terms "One Existence" (especially capitalized)

I always capitalize when I want to emphasize a point. Just a writer's quirk.

> the choice of words here - "entity"

There are a limited number of words to use. In the experiential realm in particular, we are restricted by the common understanding of particular expressions which weren't designed to describe or evoke certain experiences. This is the problem encountered by Zen.

> But it is an unwarranted and unsupported leap to compare this to, or even call it consciousness.

This was Einstein's term for it, and his reason for rejecting Quantum Mechanics.

At the end of his life, he regretted this decision.

> If there is a Grand Unified Theory (and there almost certainly is)

I don't believe there is. I subscribe wholeheartedly to Quantum Mechanics, but at the same time I also cling to Relativity, which describes gravity, not as a force, but as a characteristic of space. I do not accept the QM insistence that gravity is some kind of a particle whose interactions can be incorporated into GUT. Hence, I think the recent attempts to build an anti-gravity propulsion engine are destined to failure. Einstein described gravity as a warping of the fabric of space itself, and I intuitively feel that he was correct in this description. Hence, it is not a force, and "gravitons" will never be detected because they do not exist.

Of course, I could be wrong, and I take full responsibility for that.

> "what consciousness WANTS things to be."

I shudder at this myself. It seems so anthropomorphic, so medieval Roman Catholic. Yet the fact remains that Schroedinger's cat is still dead/not dead.

I currently have no way of reconciling this. I apologize.

[trotsky]

22. Whatever gravity is,

it propagates at roughly the speed of light. If it's merely a warping of space, the effects of gravity should be instantaneous. But they are not.

I cringe at any statement that says "We'll never figure <insert item here> out." Insert a whole bunch of things in that blank, (pretty much every one of them has been uttered at some point in human history), and every time the person saying it ended up being wrong.

[Arianrhod]

29. Well, some say so. Others say the Jupiter effect is not

a true measure of the speed of gravity. I don't know enough to decide.

I didn't mean to imply that we would never understand gravity. (Did I really say that? What an idiot I am.) I merely meant that I think gravity is not a particle, and therefore will not be able to be incorporated into a Quantum GUT. It must stand alone as a characteristic of space, rather than as a boson among other forces.

[Arianrhod]

23. I'm sorry; I forgot to address your primary question.

> OK, first off, why does consciousness only seem to exist in conjunction with a biological brain?

Human consciousness--which is overwhelmingly a reflexive process--apparently must exist only within limited spaces, as a product of organs of incomprehensible complexity. But as I talk about elsewhere in this Forum, why should we not consider an amoeba to have consciousness as well? It obviously responds to its environment, and can even discern "self" from "other". Yet it has no nerves, no brain, no spinal cord--in short, nothing that we would associate with human consciousness (and, by anthropomorphic inference, consciousness in general). How does it do this? One might suggest that it simply reacts chemically with its surroundings. Yet on a neuronal level, our brains do that exact same thing. So the question really becomes, "At what level are we different from an amoeba?"

But talking about levels really is begging the question. If the difference between us and an amoeba is truly nothing more than a degree (as Sagan might say), then how can we honestly consider ourselves to be more advanced? My contention is that we cannot. The Universe is a single entity (please note that I am avoiding the use of capital letters. hahaha). We share all of our experiences with everything else. The concept of "special creation" is arrogant at best, and must be discarded as a Dark Ages error. Yet even atheists wish to think of themselves as special, unique, superior to others (either to other organisms or to other humans, or both). This is error. This is dangerous. This is unacceptable on a moral level.

And that is what religion is ultimately all about: Morality. I cannot tell you how to live, but if we are both in contact with an Absolute Reality (I'm back to capitalization again!), then there is no need for me to tell you how to live. You and I will both behave in similar ways, because we will see that our behaviour has an affect on the Universe--which is really ourselves, because Everything is One Thing.

I know this sounds stupid to you. But it is how I view my life. I apologize for its nonsense.

[trotsky]

26. I wouldn't call it nonsense.

Just unsupported by evidence. It "sounds good" and that appears to be the basis of your belief.

At what level are we different from an amoeba? Gosh, just about every level. You are stretching the word "consciousness" beyond the point where it has meaning. I mean, a rock could be said to distinguish "self" from "other" because it never bangs into itself, only into others. Seriously, that's not stretching your definition of consciousness that much farther.

[Zebedeo]

27. How about a fire?

I mean, a rock could be said to distinguish "self" from "other" because it never bangs into itself, only into others. Seriously, that's not stretching your definition of consciousness that much farther.

What about a fire?

It eats, breathes, grows, makes waste, moves, propagates, etc. How can a fire be said not to be a living organism with a "consciousness"?









Just kidding . . . :)

[trotsky]

28. And a fire never burns itself, only other things!

Move over, amoeba!

[Arianrhod]

31. Wow, a follower of Heraclitus! :) n/t

[Arianrhod]

32. No, that's not true.

I don't believe anything that is not supported by evidence.

I'm a Cartesian at heart; I adhere strictly to the requirements set forth in A Discourse on Method.

"Sounding good" is no basis for understanding.

Besides, the Unity of the Universe and of All Things doesn't actually "sound good" to me. I hate the idea. Why should I believe that I am one in essence with a mass murderer? I shudder at the very thought.

As to the definition of "consciousness", if you do not include the ability to discern "self" from "other" in your definition, then what basis do you use for defining the concept?

[trotsky]

36. Much like one definition of "life" is "that which procreates"...

well, the first self-replicating molecules certainly fit that definition, at least as well as an amoeba discerns "self" from "other." So were those first molecules alive?

Consciousness includes many aspects - let's take a look at a sample definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consciousness
1. The state or condition of being conscious.
2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group: Love of freedom runs deep in the national consciousness.
3.
1. Special awareness or sensitivity: class consciousness; race consciousness.
2. Alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation: a movement aimed at raising the general public's consciousness of social injustice.
4. In psychoanalysis, the conscious.

1. and 4. aren't useful in this discussion. But 2, now there's a doozy. Does an amoeba have a sense of personal identity - beyond the ability to distinguish "self" from "other"? Does it have a sense of collective identity? Does an amoeba have attitudes or beliefs? Sensitivities in the sense of emotional feelings?

Discerning "self" from "other" is such a small part of consciousness - an amoeba having that ability, and claiming it therefore has a consciousness, is like noting that since an ant is brown, it must be a buffalo.

[Arianrhod]

40. I think you've gone way off here.

First of all, there is no comparison whatsoever between my saying that an amoeba demonstrates a particular attribute of consciousness in that it discerns its environment (which is an attribute of consciousness), and saying that an ant's color makes it an entirely different species. If you have to reach that far for an analogy, then I'm afraid your stance is on very weak ground indeed.

Secondly, if you really want to use definition #2 as your scientific basis for describing consciousness, then we're not even in the same boat here. My definition of consciousness flows from what the psychologists, neuroscientists, and anatomical surgeons have to say about it (which is why I constantly reference these people in my discussions here). Yours is almost a "pop" theory--a bit like saying Herbert Spencer is equivalent to Darwin. When I discuss consciousness, I'm including things like neurotransmitter reactions, neuron firing thresholds, tonal heuristics, visual processing, and distributed subsets--what consciousness is, how it arises and how it operates. How a person feels about his place in society is certainly an attribute of consciousness, but it is not the process of consciousness itself. Let's not confuse causes with effects here.

And it appears that you still want to use "consciousness" to mean everything a human being experiences, which I've already said is not what I mean when I say that an amoeba demonstrates an attribute of consciousness. So no, I don't think that amoebas sit around hoping someone will invite them to the Prom. :)

[trotsky]

55. I was just making an analogy, DESIGNED to show absurdity.

Being brown is one aspect of being a buffalo. Some ants are brown, so they share that characteristic with buffalo. It's really not that far off from your amoeba comparison. Amoebas have the ability to distinguish "self" from "other," which humans also do, so tell me again how badly I had to reach?

I just picked a definition of consciousness from a public source - if you wish to use a different version, by all means let's do so. But I think you'll find that the more detailed you get, the less and less your amoeba example holds.

[Arianrhod]

58. How like a buffalo is an ant,

compared to the likeness of an amoeba to a neuron? :)

I've made it very clear during this discussion that I am in no way attributing a high level of consciousness to anything in the Universe other than human beings. I've continued the argument largely to demonstrate that we really don't even know what consciousness is. As you pointed out with the definition of life, we can make such a definition as vague or as specific as we like--and still not come to an agreement on what we mean by it.

The famous double-slit experiment still has quantum physicists wondering whether they should assign some form of consciousness to photons. . . .

My primary point in all this is that there are neuroscientists writing today (the one I've quoted most often in this discussion, Gerald Edelman, is a Nobel Laureate) who are willing to assign consciousness to much broader levels of organization than they ever were before. Some of them, such as Penrose, even place consciousness somewhere outside of the brain (he describes the brain as more of a transceiver than a producer of consciousness). I can't say I subscribe to that idea, but the point is that these things are being said by men who are already eminent in their fields. That in itself doesn't make them right; but in an argument on any subject, I would tend to put my money on their thoughts rather than on, say, those of William Dembski.

[trotsky]

62. You've backtracked a bit.

First it was that amoeobas were conscious on some level. Now it's just that they have features in common with a neuron. Well, a liver cell also has features in common with a neuron. My liver cells even have the same DNA as my neurons! Whoa!

I'm curious as to what exactly you think Edelman is saying, because a quick check of Wikipedia (which I will grant is never a final authority) says this:

Edelman argues that the mind and consciousness are wholly material and purely biological phenomena, occurring as highly complex cellular processes within the brain, and that the development of consciousness and intelligence can be satisfactorily explained by Darwinian theory.

No funkiness about assigning consciousness to "much broader levels of organization" there.

Also, Penrose is a mathematician and while he has a brilliant mathematical mind, his theories on consciousness are within that framework. He is not a neuroscientist, nor does he have significant training in biology or especially microbiology. So you are good not to necessarily subscribe to his theories.

[Arianrhod]

66. My goodness, you must just skim through my posts.

I have not backtracked. I'm trying to point out to you that you are not using logic, no matter how much you may think you are. Your premises are completely wrong--invalidating any syllogism that may follow from them.

Consciousness is not a simple, black-and-white phenomenon, but rather has been the subject of intense investigation by researchers in medicine, psychology, philosophy, and--yes--mathematics. (In The Emperor's New Mind, Penrose was specifically addressing the assertions of Artificial Intelligence advocates that the mind operates essentially like a computer algorithm. In this, he was well within his field. When he speculated on how his own mathematical thoughts impinged on the subject of consciousness, he explicitly stated that he was presenting his own opinions, not those of neuroscientists. It might help you in your opposing arguments if you actually were familiar with some of the works I'm talking about here.

Yet despite the growing interest in consciousness studies in the past 30 years, and despite the tricky, rather entangled definitions and concepts scientists are using in their attempts to understand it, you wish to dismiss my posts by simply bombarding me with pop psychology definitions and ludicrous analogies instead of discussing the hard science that I continually refer to. While that was amusing at first, I'd really rather discuss the topic in greater depth.

Meanwhile, let me respond to your last comment by reminding you that I have specifically stated to you that I do not subscribe to Penrose's beliefs in Idealism. I mention him merely as another bona fide scientist who is offering his ideas on what consciousness is, and how it works.

As to your other comment, in NONE of my posts do I even give a hint of saying that I think consciousness is somehow not biological or subject to evolution. I have no idea where you came up with that idea. Unless you're straining to make my little aside about the double-slit experiment the foundation of my entire belief system. In which case, the error is yours, not mine.

In a nutshell, Edelman's theory is that consciousness is not something that takes place in a specific location of the brain, but rather is the result of subgroups of neurons firing in patterns all over the entire brain. It doesn't matter which neurons are actually firing; in fact, different brains use different sets of neurons. What does matter is the process that's involved. Hence, my noting his suggestion that consciousness takes place on "much broader levels of organization".

Since Edelman is a Nobel Laureate neuroscientist, I find his arguments harder to dismiss than Penrose's--even though I think Penrose has some interesting ideas. In fact, Edelman's is the only theory I've read in the past 5 years that (for me, anyway) adequately explains such phenomena as the persistence of memory despite neuron death; the inherent inaccuracy of that memory; and the continuous stream-of-consciousness illusion we experience despite the fact that the brain operates on an analog-digital basis.

It's fascinating stuff. Much more interesting than watching the ants stampede across the plains of Montana. :)

[trotsky]

70. Talk about skimming!

I never claimed you shared Penrose's beliefs - I specifically said you were wise NOT to. LOL, that's funny, coming in a post where you attack ME for not reading yours.

But you've jumped around so much in this discussion I can't even tell WHAT you think any more. Your claims have definitely evolved, and at this point, I'd rather just let this exchange stand as it is rather than keep trying to hit your moving target.

[Arianrhod]

71. That is an unfair allegation.

On Edit: I mistakenly hit "send" instead of "preview", so this post is actually only a rough draft of what I wanted to say. I'll just leave it as is, though.

My stance has NOT "evolved". I can trace it clearly for you:

# 23 “Human consciousness--which is overwhelmingly a reflexive process--apparently must exist only within limited spaces, as a product of organs of incomprehensible complexity.”

Right off the bat, I disavow any assertion that human consciousness is some magical or mystical or supernatural phenomenon. I also separate the experience we have as human beings from that of other organisms.

“But as I talk about elsewhere in this Forum, why should we not consider an amoeba to have consciousness as well? It obviously responds to its environment, and can even discern ‘self’ from ‘other’.”

Here I make my only real proposition: That perhaps we should attribute consciousness to organisms that behave in accordance with some of its characteristics. A proposition that doesn't even go as far as some highly trained scientists would like to go.

Regardless, I never changed my story, as you’re contending I did:

# 40 “When I discuss consciousness, I'm including things like neurotransmitter reactions, neuron firing thresholds, tonal heuristics, visual processing, and distributed subsets--what consciousness is, how it arises and how it operates.”

I clearly outlined what I was considering: the processes that constitute consciousness, and which bring it into existence. Not some sense of "self" or "national identity", as you suggested should be the definition--phenomena which, btw, are results of consciousness, not the wellspring or defining factors of it.

And again, in # 58:

“I've made it very clear during this discussion that I am in no way attributing a high level of consciousness to anything in the Universe other than human beings.”

There simply is no moving target here. I’ve said the same thing over and over again. And in other threads in this Forum (some of which you have been a contributor to), I say those same things once again.

I’m not trying to win any arguments here, because frankly I don’t care about that. But I will defend the way I’ve presented my case from false allegations of deception. I debated in a straightforward manner throughout this entire discussion, and referenced bona fide sources as my reasons for holding to the propositions I did.

[trotsky]

72. Not so.

Earlier you state:

Because everything is interconnected in this way, all these "separate" bodies share a common consciousness

then you come back with

I've made it very clear during this discussion that I am in no way attributing a high level of consciousness to anything in the Universe other than human beings.

Does everything "share" a consciousness, or do only human beings? Please explain this apparent contradiction.

[Arianrhod]

73. The subject of that particular post was: "My understanding of

Ramtha's philosophy."

I was not describing my own.

There is no contradiction. There is no moving target.

[trotsky]

74. Ah.

Since you immediately jumped into a defense of "Ramtha's" philosophy, it seemed to me you shared it. There was very little distinction.

[Arianrhod]

75. Nope, was just making small talk. :) n/t

[Strong Atheist]

18. " I don't even know what the OP is saying." Lol! Agreed! nt.

[sweetheart]

34. We are stardust

The op is saying that we are one, by the evidence that our atoms
are all interchangeable, and nothing physical about yours or my
existance is "us", but rather a pile of carbon, oxygen, etc... or
rather a pile of subatomic probabilities that place any particle
anywhere, potentially. At any moment in time, a particle that is
inside my body right now, could be in your body by the time you read
this. This heisenburg hypothesis, underwriting our last decades of
theoretical physics, suggests as well, this fundamental interconnectivity.

We are all made of the same dust, in a space-time continuum, that
as much as the mentally brilliant can seek to deviate themselves out-of,
for fact, they eat food grown in that continuum, live there, and for all
their star trek library, die there.

So given this brutal fact of our essential sameness, the fact that our
bodies share matter. This our minds do not intellectually percieve.
Yet, our intuition and our greater self determination are based on our
sense of well being, our place of wisdom from which we make our life's
decisions. What if that self determination is much more profound, that
not only are we "separate" from a cold universe, but we participate in
a quantum universe where our very thoughts and feelings manifest in the
phenomena around uz.

Apologies if i haven't phrased that well. AS for ramtha, there is 1 character
amongst MANY in this film that speaks some very wise words, and i can think for
myself in that regard. All of what i'm talking about has no bearing on what
the ramtha character talks about frankly, and is based rather on the words of
some theoretical physicists and the photography of a water through a dark field
microscope after being expsed to different thought "symbols".

In this film, one sees an exhibit of photographs of water, after "love" and
after "thank you" and after a "buddhist blessing", and "i hate you and want to
kill you"... EAch photograph is simply of molecular water, after having a japanese
character meaning "xyz" on the bottle. The results in the photos are breathtaking.
It is the clearest evidence yet i've seen that projected though affects matter
profoundly. Given that the body is so many percent water, that one section of the film,
exposes a really excellent grammer for rethinking our relationship with an "inert world."

As well, the addiction of the mind to desire-peptides is very well illustrated, giving
a whole biochemistry to the concept of transcending spiritually, desire.

Even more so, it leads me to be joyful, that so many persons who see unity
can't help themselves but to make art. (what the bleep...)

[Zebedeo]

35. Thanks for that explanation.

I think anyone would admit that there is much about our material surroundings that we do not know. This philosophy, as you have now expressed it, is something that I can understand. I even agree with parts of what you say. For example, I agree that we are not just the molecules of which our bodies are composed. From my perspective, the body is a fragile shell in which we live out our mortal lives. My body is not "me." Neither is my brain. Human beings are spirits, temporarily inhabiting these vessels for the very short time that we are here.

However, I cannot agree with all of what you say. Even if all matter in the universe is composed of the same building blocks, that does not, to me, make it all "united" except in the sense that it is all part of God's creation.

I have not seen the film that you are referencing, but I have to say I am a skeptic about this stuff.

Ironic, ain't it, trotsky? Me, a skeptic?:wow:

[Arianrhod]

59. Oh, it gets even better than that.

> At any moment in time, a particle that is inside my body right now, could be in your body by the time you read this.

The particle might be in both of our bodies at the same time.

[Silent3]

38. Huh?

I understand the arguments that atheists make. Though I don't agree with their premises or conclusions, I understand their arguments and know what they are saying.

I've seen very little evidence for this claim. :evilgrin:

The philosophy expressed by the OP, however, makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't even know what the OP is saying.

At least your BS filter fires up now again. That's a hopeful sign. ;)

[Zebedeo]

41. One man's BS is another man's eternal truth

At least your BS filter fires up now again. That's a hopeful sign.

Oh, yeah. I have a BS meter. What, you weren't expecting that? ;-)

Everybody has their own POV, complete with preconceptions, prejudices and predispositions. Each of us is inclined to be skeptical toward beliefs different from our own -- or incompatible with our own. Yet that same skepticism is almost never directed toward our own beliefs.

One time in a bookstore, I saw a magazine in the rack titled something like "Skeptic." It had something on the cover about evolution, and I thought to myself -- "good, I'm glad that these skeptics are subjecting the theory of evolution to critical (and skeptical) analysis. Perhaps this article will be interesting. I wonder which of the major flaws they will expose.

I looked inside, and the article failed to direct any skepticism or analysis toward the theory of evolution. Instead, it was just another ID-bashing article. I was disappointed to see that, because it made me realize that these so-called skeptics at "Skeptics" magazine were only skeptical about beliefs incompatible with their own preconceptions. Perhaps without even realizing it, they neglected to subject their own position to critical analysis.

This phenomenon exhibits itself on this board in nearly every thread, IMHO. To you, my Christianity is nonsense. To me, your agnosticism is wrong-headed. To both of us, the OP in this thread is meaningless mumbo jumbo (my apologies, sweetheart - no offense intended). :) Yet, to sweetheart, both my Christianity and your agnosticism would likely be viewed as obvious error. It is always easier to see the flaws in other beliefs and philosophies than to critically examine one's own cherished POV.

[sweetheart]

54. Cherished indeed

In person, i don't talk about religion, as i find it divides, whereas just
speaking from the heart, person to person, or not speaking at all, better
carries the spirit of JC, or my buddhist-hindu version too. My cherished POV is unity. :-)

When they shut up, radical faiths can even share a room in unity.

Or, if we're talking in that room of unity, it is forgone, that words, and
the associated mindstates of "self" that the mind thinks, in order to read them,
are a folly, flawed by the mere attempt to make the spirit in to an idol.

:-) namaste :-)

[htuttle]

9. I don't characterize the universe as 'god' because I don't trust my senses

All of what I know about the universe is based on filtering raw sensory data through organs developed over millions of years of physical and 'mental' evolution. Even simple, near-platonic concepts like 'dark and light', 'order and chaos', 'something' versus 'nothing' spring from the ancient organic apparatus that delivers input to my brain (which is yet another ancient organic apparatus evolved to perform a few tasks well). Concepts such as 'dark versus light' are based on how my eyes work. 'Order versus chaos' is delineated by the level of complexity where my mind is unable to track the chain of cause and effect. 'Something versus nothing' is again based on my molecular composition and sensory abilities (to me, a colorless gas appears to be 'nothing', etc...).

Given the amount of uncertainty, or rather anthropocentric-ism, in how the very universe appears to me, I find all that I can trust is the hard data of science (which is itself biased by how we view the world through our senses, but seems less biased due to the requirements of the scientific method -- which is really the point of it).

I've found too often that when I think I 'know' something metaphysically as you describe, I am actually projecting my own organic-evolution-derived 'frames' upon the 'noumena' (there's a $10 word!) of the physical universe. There is simply no way to view the universe outside the symbols the process of evolution has given us to view and understand the universe.

That being said, I prefer to conjecture upon the significance of what science CAN tell me is 'true' (ie., if you 'do this', you will experience 'this', and it can be repeated reliably), rather than engage in so much self-reflective 'painting' of ideas on 'the whole universe' (a concept that I'm not even sure has any real meaning). What does it 'mean', for example, that life on earth has a common origin? If a cell divides, does "it" die, or does "it" now have two bodies? Are we all the same 'it' spread across billions of tiny bodies? Perhaps there's no 'it' after all? How can I feel like 'a person' when I'm actually a collective of millions of more or less cooperating cells, none of which is 'me'? These things alone keep me busy. When I finally understand the nature of my own existence, I'll perhaps be more ready to move on to spinning theories about the nature of the universe itself...

[Zenlitened]

11. There is one reality... therefor reality is god... ?

Seems like a bit of a leap, to say the least. Lots of pretty rhetorical flourishes in your essay, but a fair amount of begging the question, too, it seems to me.

Having a sense of self means we are blind to everything else? Having a sense of what's going on in the universe immediately introduces some vague notion of god?

Bit of a leap, to say the least.

[ozone_man]

37. "one continuum, one reality"

I won't confess either actually. Just watch the Matrix and any illusions as to what reality is may be dispelled. :)

As far as a continuum, I think it could be said that one has a holistic "feeling" about the universe, which I think many people have, even atheists. But that's more like a feeling of awareness of our surroundings, of awe in the works of nature and the universe, and of human nature. It's from those feelings that most religions started. The ancient religions resorted to myths to explain these feelings of spirituality, and to shelter them from their fears of life and death.

"The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." - Einstein

[renter]

45. From a not-frequent progressive poster,

I consider myself, steel yourself, a Christian. If you can, please pardon my poor choice of words in the following. I do not often get the chance to browse, much less post here. From what I have seen, there are many on Democratic Underground who are gifted with the poetry of putting ideas and thoughts into words. I am not a poet. Physical movement, physical change is not life in itself. God created the universe, the earth, and us. When looking at his universe, earth, and us; I see living sculpture, living music. I see God's art, his creative hand. I just finished brewing coffee. The sound and movement of this, the transformation of brown coffee powder and well water into coffee is not life (well, first thing in morning it sure helps it along). When finished the coffee and filter will go into the compost pile. This will help my garden. I do not worship the coffee, it is for my use, created by God for me. At one time it was a plant, now it is harvested and brewed for my use by other people. My use of one of God's creations helps others to live,to support their families. The coffee plant does not have a "soul", even though I use it in a cycle of life. It was created for my use. It is up to me to use God's creations wisely, not to believe they are something they are not.

[sweetheart]

52. Beautifully put

Its so difficult to discuss feelings of god, as its personal by its very nature,
then subjective, and finally, pounded in to words, like a sculpture, not necessarily
the original feeling.

God is all. Allah is all. Unity. The ontology of enlightenment is that if it is
not postulated, it does not exist. That's my way of expressing the most joyful feeling in existance,
recognizing enlightenment, and being open to endless profundity. What if profound
is not what you "think" it is. What if "enlightenment" is not what you think it is.
What if "god" is not what you think it is.... What if its very simple, very loving,
present and truthfully effacing, and maybe that "is" knowledge. These semantic icons of culture distract,
sometimes make argument, where really there is none, as persons use different dictionarys
different neural net programmings to sing praise to abstract godhead.

Coffee, grinder, earth, mother, hands, sounds, sunlight, the joy of being alive today
embodied in a million moments of possibility and mystery, beauty so immediate, so
present, that one could live a lifetime in love and never speak of it.

[Zebedeo]

57. Hear, hear!

I like your post. :)

[greyl]

61. Coffee plants were created for human use?

Okayyy.

I think the view that the world was made for man is deplorable.

[renter]

64. Yes.

Per Genesis, man has dominion over the earth. We can see it today where we have failed and were have succeeded. Dominion in this case means a responsibility. We can see it today where we have not been responsible and when we have. So yes, plants and animals are for our wise use, and I am thankful every morning for God creating the coffee plant. After sometime working in the outdoors during the winter, I am also thankful for hot, slightly sweet Earl Grey tea.

[greyl]

65. That view is at the foundation of most evil on Earth.

(I don't believe in evil per se, I'm just using your language)

Our culture's view that the world was made for man and man was made to conquer and rule it, has left the world shattered under our feet.
Forgive me for not believing that's a good thing.

"We can see it today where we have not been responsible and when we have."

Can you direct me to any responsible, successful, sustainable human society on earth that lives life "per Genesis"?

[renter]

68. greyl,

Please pardon me for being slow, but would you explain "Can you direct me to any responsible, successful, sustainable human society on earth that lives life "per Genesis"? I think I know what you mean, but do not wish to put words in your mouth. Would you explain to me clearer or further. Thank you.

[greyl]

69. Thanks for asking for clarification.

Iow, can you point to any society on earth that behaves as though they have dominion over Earth's life and resources, that you would classify as responsible, successful, and sustainable?

Out of all the responsible cultures you can name or find out about, do any have the vision that they have dominion over the earth? How many 'believe' that they were divinely appointed/created to conquer and rule the world?

[renter]

76. hi greyl,

In order to awnser your question let's go backwards abit. Dominion over the earth does not mean environmental slash/burn. Not if you wish to maintain your resources that is. Dominion works when you use it as a synonym of responsibility. The earth is full of people who need to use the earth's resources. People make mistakes, we all do. The awnser is, do we learn from our mistakes? The awnser is yes in technologically advanced cultures especially. We have learned from our environmental mistakes via the culture of environmental groups. For example, in my post regarding coffee, I recycle the grounds and filter into my compost pile. I took my old apartment radiators to a scrap dealer so that the metal could be recycled. My neighbor is a farmer. He uses no-till planting, this saves topsoil. In the summer, our town has a farmer's market of organic products. Instead of you and I conversing via trees (paper) we are using a computer. These are all examples of wisely using dominion over the earth. I am sorry for being long-winded, but I am trying to explain the Biblical "dominion"-read responsibility-over the earth. To the consternation of some, we are the top of the food chain. It is up to us to use that responsibility and the resources God gave us as wisely as we can. Hope you had a good day and I hope this explains things.

[Inland]

78. The Hebrews.

Just saying.

[Arianrhod]

79. Oh, how circular. And wrong.

You do realize, of course, that all of the Prophets were written as a chastisement of the Hebrews for not living in accordance with Genesis?

[FM Arouet666]

67. Surely even an atheist?

Stop calling me Shirley! Confess to one continuum? Quantum continuum? Why am I reading this without smoking a pound of pot?

Is this a new age thing? This atheist would not confess to anything you posted, surely not while sober...........

[beam me up scottie]

77. Thank you.

I think that post actually broke my woo age translator.