If God Exists, Where is He to be Found?

[+Sherapy]

23 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Yes.  But I decided truth was more important than my beliefs and it became a freedom of a new kind.

That is a beautiful way to look at it. That is how I feel too, liberated by accepting reality as it is. 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, JMPD1 said:

I really don't give a flying fig 'where' god is, but I do have a question.

If the Jewish/Christian bible is true, how come only certain individuals merit a personal appearance of the Big Guy? Why does Saul/Paul merit a One-to-One, but the rest of us have to make do with 'faith'?

And please don't drag out the olde trope of 'free will', it doesn't exist in the bible. Examples include god 'hardening pharaohs heart' in exodus, Mary. alleged mother of Jesus (who apparently didn't have a choice about who was dumping seed in her womb), Abrahams requested sacrifice of his son,  Jonah, and the entire story of Job. And Saul/Paul's godly encounter itself.

Free will is evident  throughout the bible.  Adam and eve had free will . ( They were the only race of beings among all gods creations who chose the side of the rebelling angels)  Satan had free will.  Thus god did not, and could not, KNOW what the y would do although he might have made an educated guess  Some writers certainly seem to have perceived their god to be all knowing, all powerful, but this was not universal.  God made errors of judgement.  He thought Noah was a good man and thus saved him and his family but then Noah fell like Adam. In such a story it makes NO sense  as a mythological teaching tool if god KNEW all the time what would happen  That  version of god  did NOT know, or he would have simply used plan A to wipe humanity off the earth and start again 

Despite being one of those humans who god chose to manifest before i cant answer your question, although there are many logical possible reasons 

The classic one is that god is knocking on every heart, but cannot enter until you open that heart (and your mind) to his presence .Another is that god can only manifest to those who can accept his power and presence and will benefit from it 

IMO one of the reasons is that belief is a stronger motivating power for change than knowledge, and so it works better for god when people believe in him, and act from faith, than when the y actually know him.

Let's envisage god manifesting above the earth  and telling people how to behave  How many would behave as instructed?  IMO a lot LESS than the number who currently  behave because they BELIEVE completely in god and his laws 

Now when people disobey that physical manifestation,  what will god do about it and how will that affect his relationship with humanity?  

But basically humans must come to good/safe  behaviour from  our own hearts and choices. It is not genuine or lasting if it is forced upon us by a powerful god.

But if we believe then we will change ourselves into better people, wiser less materialistic, more spiritual and less animalistic.   

[Mr Walker]

20 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

It certainly isn't 'truer' at all.  Explain how God supposedly comes to those of no faith? There are many cases and so we can conclude, from the evidence, that if there is a God it is not bothered by which faith you follow.  In fact, do you not describe yourself as an atheist/humanist that was found by God? 

This logically leads us to the conclusion that a belief is not the deciding factor in who God chooses to make contact with.

Did you read the rest of my statement ? This is truer than your own statement but is not completely true. 

In general   god comes to people predisposed to belief, but in exceptional cases, and for his own reasons, he comes to non believers like saul or myself 

Yes that was my point  a specific religion is neither necessary or even beneficial in a relationship with a god. But some form of belief or faith is  Even with a physical manifestation of a powerful god, it needs the human to accept this and to act upon it  rather than deny or fight against it.

Because  god exists in your body and mind, he knows your psychological profile and can pick people who, even though they disbelieve are CAPABLE of accepting the existence of a god Those he can work with. 

I was a HUMANIST and already had strong positive ethics, moralities, and values God simply added another dimension, more power, more motivation, and some change in direction for me.

Despite caring about people, i doubt i would have given away over a million dollars during my life to people,around the globe, without gods intervention.

I realised that all humans are one, and connected by one consciousness, and so the least of humanity is as important as the greatest .

There are people who are truly god blind. They simply cant see god even when he is sitting next to them and yelling at them   There are people to whom god could physically manifest and the y would choose to believe the y were having a mental breakdown, rather th acknowledge the reality.  And there are people to whom god could manifest and the y would take no notice of his wishes   

[Mr Walker]

21 hours ago, danydandan said:

@Mr Walker, we are currently discussing the basic difference between the Copenhagen interpretation and the many world's interpretation of quantum mechanics. It led me to start thinking, like this thread, where God might actually be. If we take the many world's interpretation it would suggest that there might be an outside observer of our universe. But doesn't the many world's interpretation not allow interference from that observer, lets call the observer God.

So would that mean God is outside our universe and can't interference but is simply observing?

If one is a proponent of the Copenhagen interpretation it suggests that everything is random and chance, and that there probably isn't a Good.

It might but such a being would not meet MY criteria for god hood. A god to/ for humans must be capable of communicating with humans  and responding to human needs.

There maybe many such species  and there may be many species within the universe far more advanced than humans but unless the y deign to become gods to /for us They cannot BE god to for us We probably wouldn't even know the y existed  

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, Lilly said:

While I believe God is real, I do not believe God is a physical being. Were God a physical entity then we could prove existence by simply collecting physical evidence. Now, Christians believe God became physical (Jesus ) and for them this serves as proof. That said, since no one currently living was there to witness the resurrection then we are back at it being a matter of personal faith. You say you have personal experiences, but since said experiences were not (I assume) in front of large numbers of neutral people and documented then they would be subjective experiences (proof for you but not for everyone else). 

This raises many questions How can something be real but not physical?  How can anything non physical influence the physical world we live within? 

 Yes, of course, if something is real and physical we can prove its existence, given enough technology and knowledge, and i am certain that this is true about "god"  There were certainly many independent witnesses to some of the manifestations of my " god", but of course any connection between any two  beings also has its one on one side.

  However there are more than sufficient physical evidences for me to know this being is real and physical like my wife . And while this is not enough to demonstrate to YOU that this being is physical, it is more than enough to prove to a person who was present  

The real quseion is the applicability of the name.  Many  peole refuse to accept that gods can be real and physical They have to be something more, but eventually they become something whose existence cannot be proven and thus may as well not exist 

So, to be fair i would acknowledge that the being i know is not really a god and certainly not a god as you define it,  although it IS the same entity explored in most religions.

However here is the critical thing. Because this entity is real and physical,  it can do things  physically like save my life or alter the physical environment.  It can respond directly and physically to requests for help .

If your god cannot do those things, it might be a god, but what use is it?   if it is not useful, then in my mind, it cannot be a god .  

One day humans will prove my god to be true, but maybe not a god. Indeed, in proving its existence, this might disqualify it for some people's definition of god.

  However your god, if incapable of being proven  real and physical,  probably does not exist   because  all real things can (potentially) be proven to exist. 

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, danydandan said:

I actually think Mr Walker is kind of correct. There was a study done comparing people's brain activity when praying, meditating or contemplating God. Half the people described themselves as Ahteist and half described themselves as Theist. The study showed a clear difference in people's brain activity when they believe in what they are doing. In my opinion it leads on to you have to believe in your experience to believe in it, if that makes sense. Or you typically won't have an experience if you don't believe in having a Godly experience.

It holds true regardless if one has faith or not.

99 % of the time i think this is true. And even when a non believer encounters god they might be incapable of accepting what they just encountered AS a god.

  Humans do not connect directly to the physical world they connect via a mental perception and understanding of what the physical world is.

  Even pain is not a direct response  to physical trauma, but a mental construct of the brain/mind, to the perception of the trauma.

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

This raises many questions How can something be real but not physical?  How can anything non physical influence the physical world we live within? 

 Yes, of course, if something is real and physical we can prove its existence, given enough technology and knowledge, and i am certain that this is true about "god"  There were certainly many independent witnesses to some of the manifestations of my " god", but of course any connection between any two  beings also has its one on one side.

  However there are more than sufficient physical evidences for me to know this being is real and physical like my wife . And while this is not enough to demonstrate to YOU that this being is physical, it is more than enough to prove to a person who was present  

The real quseion is the applicability of the name.  Many  peole refuse to accept that gods can be real and physical They have to be something more, but eventually they become something whose existence cannot be proven and thus may as well not exist 

So, to be fair i would acknowledge that the being i know is not really a god and certainly not a god as you define it,  although it IS the same entity explored in most religions.

However here is the critical thing. Because this entity is real and physical,  it can do things  physically like save my life or alter the physical environment.  It can respond directly and physically to requests for help .

If your god cannot do those things, it might be a god, but what use is it?   if it is not useful, then in my mind, it cannot be a god .  

One day humans will prove my god to be true, but maybe not a god. Indeed, in proving its existence, this might disqualify it for some people's definition of god.

  However your god, if incapable of being proven  real and physical,  probably does not exist   because  all real things can (potentially) be proven to exist. 

Hi Walker

If we used your standard of proof then I see no reason that Santa and the Easter Bunny couldn't be validated.

jmccr8

[+Hammerclaw]

The only God most people can see is their reflection, the comfortably familiar bathed in an ethereal glow, masked and enhanced, a magnification of self and ego. Their God is desire, ambition, only a little more than that which they, themselves, are, a romantical fantasy projection of nothingness onto an empty stage whose backdrop is their own life, or their own life they wish it were so. Deity diminished, it is shrunken to fit preconceived notions of limited theosophical potential.

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

There is no doubt that belief in things like prayer, mantras or meditating etc produces different brain activity.  This is the very basis of the Placebo Effect and the reason we give sugar pills instead of nothing at all, it helps you to believe.  What this does not show, in any way, is that people who believe are more likely to encounter an actual God as opposed to some internalisation of what they think and believe God might be.  For example, it is no wonder that the majority of reincarnation cases occur in societies that believe in reincarnation.  Does it make it true? No, it just makes you more likely to fall into your confirmation bias because your culture dictates it.

Mr Walker means none of this however.  He means that you will not find the actual alien God that he believes exists unless you believe in that alien God.  He can't explain why it picked him and he can't explain why it came to him....however he was an atheist at the time of the visitation so go figure. Just another example of him making up stuff to fit his narrative at the time.

No that is not my point at all  You can encounter an elephant even if you  don't believe in elephants or have never heard  of one BUT the human mind is much more likely to accept the presence of things it already believes exist.

 Thus most people who encounter anything are those who believe in its existence  Absolute disbelief would set up a cognitive dissonance in the human mind which would be hard to reconcile

So a disbeliever might encounter a god but refuse to either accept the reality of that encounter OR to perceive it as something OTHER than an encounter with a  god 

The fact i cant explain makes my story more believable if i was just making it up i have the abilty to make p a very credible explanation a s well    i can, and do, make some logical guesses, based on the outcomes of my connection to god over the last 40 years. 

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

99 % of the time i think this is true. And even when a non believer encounters god they might be incapable of accepting what they just encountered AS a god.

  Humans do not connect directly to the physical world they connect via a mental perception and understanding of what the physical world is.

  Even pain is not a direct response  to physical trauma, but a mental construct of the brain/mind, to the perception of the trauma.

Is that 99% of the time your correct or my statement is correct. Lol.

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Is that 99% of the time your correct or my statement is correct. Lol.

 I think that, 99% of the time. your statement is true. I think it is a perceptive although fairly self evident truth which many people don't see.

However there are significant exceptions  

Edited April 21, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

If we used your standard of proof then I see no reason that Santa and the Easter Bunny couldn't be validated.

jmccr8

I use the same standards of proof and evidences  to prove anything in my life has real physical and independent existence,

I've been doing this since i was a preschooler and began working on the nature of mind to improve my  dreamworlds and give me control over every dream.  

How many people do you know who test every day to see if the y can walk through  a wall or fly?

i do.

it is called reality checking, and should be a part of everyone's daily life . .This is not so much to test the validity of my waking experience, although it also does this.

It is to ensure that, when i dream, and also do the reality checkers from  habit,  I become aware that i am dreaming, and from  there can take control of the shape, plot, etc of any dream

Of course the physical  existence of MANY Santas and Easter bunnies can be proven by their physical existence in department shops. You can sit on their lap or eat the eggs they give you.   

The question then becomes one of knowing the historical context of those characters.

This knowledge  differentiates a child from a  western adult . 

Ask yourself,  when you encounter something how  do you prove to yourself that it is not just in your mind but has its own  separate physical existence.?

That is exactly how i prove to myself that anything  that i encounter, is real (or unreal.) It really is not very difficult, unless a person is mentally unwell.  

I used a simple reverse one last night 

 In this dream we were in a new home by the beach and had just moved in There were lots of visitors  I figured it was a dream so applied a simple test 

In my dreams i usually cant remember my real address or where my real  home is    I tested this and couldn't remember so knew i was dreaming.

BUT more significantly i knew that, if i continued the test, and recalled my address i would push my mind into waking, in order to recall it.

Becsue i wanted to take control of the dream i decided in the dream that i wouldn't try and remember my address because this effort of conscious recall  would wake me up. Instead i took the dream off into a quite interesting adventure  involving some adventures on A PT boat just out from  pearl harbour on the day the Japanese attacked   

Edited April 21, 2018 by Mr Walker

[danydandan]

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

99% of the time your statement is true. I think it is a perceptive although fairly self evident truth which many people don't see.

However there are significant exceptions  

I was only joking, I knew you were talking about the statement. Imagine the barrage of crap you would have had to deal with if you meant you thought you were correct 99% of the time.

Yeah I think it's a self explanatory statement and is backed up by, all be it a small one, a good study.

I don't think people see things as anyone sees them. Myself for example, I started my education as an apprentice electrician, started a degree course on industrial automation while in my last year of that apprenticeship, once I got that done started working in industrial instrumentation engineering, did a two year bridging degree to get an electricsl engineering degree, then a PhD course that in compassed doing a masters degree too. I tend to imagine everything like an electrician and Boolean logic. As in I don't see grey areas in things it's either true or false.

[Mr Walker]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I was only joking, I knew you were talking about the statement. Imagine the barrage of crap you would have had to deal with if you meant you thought you were correct 99% of the time.

Yeah I think it's a self explanatory statement and is backed up by, all be it a small one, a good study.

I don't think people see things as anyone sees them. Myself for example, I started my education as an apprentice electrician, started a degree course on industrial automation while in my last year of that apprenticeship, once I got that done started working in industrial instrumentation engineering, did a two year bridging degree to get an electricsl engineering degree, then a PhD course that in compassed doing a masters degree too. I tend to imagine everything like an electrician and Boolean logic. As in I don't see grey areas in things it's either true or false.

Thanks for that background. it helps me a lot to understand  people's world views if i understand their lives 

I've been interested in the human mind since i was abut 3  when i first noticed my inner voice and my mother had to explain that it was nothing to be scared of  None the less i was a bit scared by it and its power, so i determined to control and master it  

While i appreciate the physical comforts of a modern life, i am increasingly convinced that only how we perceive and interpret our environment is important.  A human can gain almost total conscious control of their mind and thus their body, and that's been a life long exercise for me  I not only control everything within my control  in my waking life but i have  basically total conscious  control over my subconscious and my dreams Thus in physical terms there is only one truth and one falsity Ie one concrete physical reality,  but in perceptual terms, what is true to one can be false to another, and vice versa. 

Thus humans do not live or exist in one standard concrete reality/environment, but in millions/billions of diverse ones  

[I'mConvinced]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Did you read the rest of my statement ? This is truer than your own statement but is not completely true. 

In general   god comes to people predisposed to belief, but in exceptional cases, and for his own reasons, he comes to non believers like saul or myself 

Yes that was my point  a specific religion is neither necessary or even beneficial in a relationship with a god. But some form of belief or faith is  Even with a physical manifestation of a powerful god, it needs the human to accept this and to act upon it  rather than deny or fight against it.

Because  god exists in your body and mind, he knows your psychological profile and can pick people who, even though they disbelieve are CAPABLE of accepting the existence of a god Those he can work with. 

I was a HUMANIST and already had strong positive ethics, moralities, and values God simply added another dimension, more power, more motivation, and some change in direction for me.

Despite caring about people, i doubt i would have given away over a million dollars during my life to people,around the globe, without gods intervention.

I realised that all humans are one, and connected by one consciousness, and so the least of humanity is as important as the greatest .

There are people who are truly god blind. They simply cant see god even when he is sitting next to them and yelling at them   There are people to whom god could physically manifest and the y would choose to believe the y were having a mental breakdown, rather th acknowledge the reality.  And there are people to whom god could manifest and the y would take no notice of his wishes   

So he came to you as a non-believer and yet below you say you have to first open your mind to the presence of god in order to experience it? It makes no sense Mr Walker, none at all.

Quote

 

Another, truer, statement is this,  "You can only find god by first believing in it"   

It is not entirely true, in that god sometimes comes to non believers.  

Your other statements also have some truth. If god wants you to find him, he will make himself  manifest to you.  If he doesn't want you to find him, then you never will 

You are incorrect in your logic 

It does require certain efforts, certain discipline of mind, etc., to open your mind to the presence of god .  (and this is true for any faith because you are correct; god is god to all humans, not just one faith) 

Once you do this you find he was there alongside you all the time, but you could not see him. 

  Sometimes he just comes to people anyway and sometimes, despite their trying, he does not .

god meets our NEEDS, not our desires or wants. 

 

The statement is contradictory - You can't say 'this is truer' and then state that it isn't actually true at all before going on to say that it IS actually true 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

19 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

All this can be discussed forever I'll just say this:

I'm only asking the question, can we observe without comment?

In response to your question, (and not sure if this post is a response to my posts, or you're just posting your opinion in general) I think, (think) that we can. I have often done it. With a bit of work, of course I would try it doing that. But, I do think it's still a different experience and skill case by case. 

I also wonder, if there is a bit of a 'danger' to that, in that if doing this, something does happen and the individual isn't ready or skilled in handling it. I think of it, like generally good for everyone to exercise, but it depends on the body of the person, and whether they know what is good for what body type and how to do it. (and that it's something of a highly recommended thing to 'consult your doctor'.  ) 

I think the answer, even though I would think to say yes, it can happen, it's not always the same way for each person. 

Quote

If we can, what happens within our mind? It's sort of counter-intuitive in that we're not used to just looking simply and quietly, without some idea about what we are observing.

It's not being blank, it's an attentive awareness. Usually we're not very aware because of our busy minds. Usually, our attention is on our busy mind, on our content of consciousness. Can we ignore all the rubbish our mind has accumulated, and become attentively aware of this very moment? Or are we always to be distracted by our thoughts, opinions, etc.?

It's a quite different way to live than what we are normally used to, with our mind so busy busy busy.

The mind has its own intelligence when we allow it to function without imposing upon it. Then the mind can respond spontaneously without our preconceptions interfering. It's not loosing control, it's being in control in an unexpected way, without all our psychological filters we use to manipulate what we observe..

Then we see clearly, and we're the boss. We're the boss in the sense that we're not responding to our learned psychological experiences, we're responding to what is, the truth of the moment.

I can probably see, that what you are describing here, can happen in a logical sense. I know, there are times I try to 'find something' of myself, when dismissing all thought. (I have learned about certain techniques in things, clearing all thought is the best way to concentrate) The mind has it's own intelligence, I can understand that, but what if there is even more, in some cases, than there is in other cases? Not all bodies are alike, so I wouldn't think each mind is alike as well. I think this should be considered. In my opinion, I think this is a yes and no answer,............ or situation. Yes, I think going mindfully naked could open the mind to do something. And no, because that would depend on the individual. 

Yeah, .............. I'm sorry...................... I still pipe in my thoughts of this being subjective again. 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

20 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

All this can be discussed forever I'll just say this:

I'm only asking the question, can we observe without comment?

If we can, what happens within our mind? It's sort of counter-intuitive in that we're not used to just looking simply and quietly, without some idea about what we are observing.

It's not being blank, it's an attentive awareness. Usually we're not very aware because of our busy minds. Usually, our attention is on our busy mind, on our content of consciousness. Can we ignore all the rubbish our mind has accumulated, and become attentively aware of this very moment? Or are we always to be distracted by our thoughts, opinions, etc.?

It's a quite different way to live than what we are normally used to, with our mind so busy busy busy.

The mind has its own intelligence when we allow it to function without imposing upon it. Then the mind can respond spontaneously without our preconceptions interfering. It's not loosing control, it's being in control in an unexpected way, without all our psychological filters we use to manipulate what we observe..

Then we see clearly, and we're the boss. We're the boss in the sense that we're not responding to our learned psychological experiences, we're responding to what is, the truth of the moment.

 

I have been meaning to ask this. I wonder, where did you come to your conclusions of the mind doing this? Just curious. Something you read or researched? 

 

9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The only God most people can see is their reflection, the comfortably familiar bathed in an ethereal glow, masked and enhanced, a magnification of self and ego. Their God is desire, ambition, only a little more than that which they, themselves, are, a romantical fantasy projection of nothingness onto an empty stage whose backdrop is their own life, or their own life they wish it were so. Deity diminished, it is shrunken to fit preconceived notions of limited theosophical potential.

 

9 hours ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

In nature, more than anywhere, I would say is where God is to be found.  Certainly not in some stuffy old church.  There are absolute miracles all around us, if people would only take the time to notice them.  The birth of a child, in itself, is proof enough of a miracle.  We are not just here for no reason. Nice topic, by the way - I did a paper on this once for a college class (I should go back and reread it if I can find it!) 

I question, or at least, get confused, when some insist of seeing God in nature and other things. Because, looking at it from my perspective, I don't see how, because how is it evidence that one can see God in nature and such?  (I do note the subjective point of view in these posts though, so I dig it. )I would probably think that is because they have 'God' from their rearing and such, as their reference point. I come to my conclusion on this, based on my rearing and such, on not being reared with being told about God and other faiths, so I don't see it I see nature, and my reference point is that it is only nature and such I am seeing.  

I ask, if one wasn't reared in a religious setting, would you still see God in nature or such? 

 

[Illyrius]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I realised that all humans are one, and connected by one consciousness, and so the least of humanity is as important as the greatest .

There are people who are truly god blind. They simply cant see god even when he is sitting next to them and yelling at them   There are people to whom god could physically manifest and the y would choose to believe the y were having a mental breakdown, rather th acknowledge the reality.  And there are people to whom god could manifest and the y would take no notice of his wishes   

May i only ask how can you be sure that you see god and that what you see is not only a hallucination?

[+Sherapy]

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Free will is evident  throughout the bible.  Adam and eve had free will . ( They were the only race of beings among all gods creations who chose the side of the rebelling angels)  Satan had free will.  Thus god did not, and could not, KNOW what the y would do although he might have made an educated guess  Some writers certainly seem to have perceived their god to be all knowing, all powerful, but this was not universal.  God made errors of judgement.  He thought Noah was a good man and thus saved him and his family but then Noah fell like Adam. In such a story it makes NO sense  as a mythological teaching tool if god KNEW all the time what would happen  That  version of god  did NOT know, or he would have simply used plan A to wipe humanity off the earth and start again 

Despite being one of those humans who god chose to manifest before i cant answer your question, although there are many logical possible reasons 

The classic one is that god is knocking on every heart, but cannot enter until you open that heart (and your mind) to his presence .Another is that god can only manifest to those who can accept his power and presence and will benefit from it 

IMO one of the reasons is that belief is a stronger motivating power for change than knowledge, and so it works better for god when people believe in him, and act from faith, than when the y actually know him.

Let's envisage god manifesting above the earth  and telling people how to behave  How many would behave as instructed?  IMO a lot LESS than the number who currently  behave because they BELIEVE completely in god and his laws 

Now when people disobey that physical manifestation,  what will god do about it and how will that affect his relationship with humanity?  

But basically humans must come to good/safe  behaviour from  our own hearts and choices. It is not genuine or lasting if it is forced upon us by a powerful god.

But if we believe then we will change ourselves into better people, wiser less materialistic, more spiritual and less animalistic.   

How "religious" of you to conclude that goodness is donating money. Lol 

MW, even sociopaths do good works, only for very different reasons.

 

[StarMountainKid]

2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I also wonder, if there is a bit of a 'danger' to that, in that if doing this, something does happen and the individual isn't ready or skilled in handling it. I think of it, like generally good for everyone to exercise, but it depends on the body of the person, and whether they know what is good for what body type and how to do it. (and that it's something of a highly recommended thing to 'consult your doctor'.  ) 

Yes, a healthy mind is a plus!   Some people have all sorts of demons wriggling around inside their minds, psychological problems, which need to be overcome, of course. We read this here in this forum. Letting go of vigorous mental control can be scary for some, it seems. Those who are completely dependent on thought as their identity. 

 

2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Yes, I think going mindfully naked could open the mind to do something. And no, because that would depend on the individual. 

For me, mindfully naked would mean being honest.

Well, one may get to the place where others are not able to push our buttons anymore. I think then we all would react in a more logical way to circumstances that confront us. There may be different ways to contend with circumstances depending on the individual, I would agree. But a calm, insightful response without being intimidated I would consider the same kind of mental state for everyone.  A sort of basic objective mental place to start from, a clear seeing of the situation without the individual's programmed psychological response interfering. 

This avoids a lot of useless arguing!   If we just sit quietly and watch someone arguing or contending with us, what happens? It's very frustrating for the other person. After a while maybe things calm down and we can have a beneficial  conversation about the problem. 

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I have been meaning to ask this. I wonder, where did you come to your conclusions of the mind doing this? Just curious. Something you read or researched?

I've studied Zen for many years and read Jiddu Krishnamurti's books, for instance, and listened to others who try to cut through all the BS that we all have within us, all the psychological burdens we all carry around, preconceptions of what should be instead of what is. All this doesn't make me something special or wise in any way, I've just learned a little insight into human behavior from my betters, including my own shortcomings, which of course still exist. I mean, I'm just some guy spouting off around here like everybody else.

It's interesting, someone asked Jiddu Krishnamurti, with all his talks over the years, if any one understood his message. He said, "No, I don't think so." Then he was asked, then why do you continue? He answered, "Because it's the right thing to do."

So I think if we try to do the right thing, that's enough.

 

 

[Illyrius]

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Humans do not connect directly to the physical world they connect via a mental perception and understanding of what the physical world is.

This reminds me of a following puzzling thingie about a nature of a link between mind and perception;

 

Ships not seen

In science, ships not seen is a phrase, similar to not seeing the "trees among the forest" or "forest amid the trees" (see: forest blind), referring to conceptions, theories, ideas, or view points in front of ones eyes, but not perceived in the mind (and is related to the glass walls phenomenon). The following quote captures the term well:
 

“Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.”

— Arthur Schopenhauer (IQ=185), German philosopher

Schopenhauer, here, would likely here be referring to German polymath Johann Goethe, who was his direct mentor, who came to his house as a youth, and who he later discussed his chemical affinity based "will to power" theory with (see: Goethe timeline), and in particular the envisioning of the future science of "human chemistry", or "human chemical thermodynamics" as Goethe would have conceived things presently, a target that he hit during a period (1796), when no one else even knew there was such a target and one that two-hundred years later, still the majority of the world, give or take a few handful, are not net aware exists.

Another classic example is German-born American physicist Albert Einstein's famous running along side a beam of light thought experiment. Certainly, it can be said that no one before him, in likely probability, would have ever conceived of such a target, the result of which, he hit a target no one else had seen or could see; resultantly, because of the collisional impact of hitting the target, a revolution in thought has emerged, in the form of relativity and mass-energy equivalence among other precipitates.

Etymology
The term "ships not seen", in the context of scientific discovery, is reference to the famous Christopher Columbus story of how, upon arrival to the new world, the native Indians, supposedly, could “not see the ships” in the harbor, even though they were in plain sight, supposedly, because they did not have the proper mental slots or receptors to process or accept such foreign or rather never before seen views—meaning that, often times, scientists and modern thinkers, closed into a certain way of seeing or thinking about things, will often not "see" what is directly in front of them; a term which has a cousin similarity to not seeing the forest amid the trees and or not seeing the trees amid the forest, depending on discussion; and is related to the glass walls phenomenon.

Overview
In social and psychological folklore is the old puzzling tale of invisible ships, plain or visible to the anatomy of the eye, but invisible or not recognizable to the perception of the mind. This tale is found in the various forms in journals and ships logs of early European explorers to the new worlds, particularly Christopher Columbus (1492), Ferdinand Magellan (1520), and James Cook (1770), each describing local natives not being able, perceptually, to ‘see’ the large ships, because, supposedly, ships are reasoned to be beyond their understanding or outside of their experience. In one account left by Joseph Banks, a botanist aboard Cook’s ship, to cite one example of this frequently mentioned phenomenon:
 

“The ship passed within a quarter of a mile of them and yet they scarce lifted their eyes from their employment; I was almost inclined to think that attentive to their business and deafened by the noise of the surf they neither saw nor heard her go past them. Not one was once observed to stop and look towards the ship; they pursued their way in all appearance entirely unmoved by the neighborhood of so remarkable an object as a ship must necessarily be to people who have never seen one.”

On the metaphor of this tale, herein we will postulate that there are many such ‘invisible ships’ in science, historically, presently, and some yet to sail. One such ship that metaphorically set sail long ago, as we will argue, is German scientist Johann Goethe’s 1809 novella Elective Affinities, which is structured on a human double displacement reaction.
 

“It is difficult to overestimate the value of Goethe’s work to humanity. The bequest which he left to the world in his writings, and in the whole intellectual result of his life, is not as yet appreciated at its full worth; because, intellectually, the world has not yet caught up to him. His influence today asserts itself in a hundred minute ways—even where no one suspects it. The century has received the stamp and impress of his mighty personality. The intellectual currents of the age, swelled and amplified by later tributaries, flow today in the directions which Goethe indicated.”

— Hjalmar Boyesen, “The Life of Goethe” (1885)

This novel sets forth the supposition that humans are large chemical species, no different than smaller reactants and products, and that all love affairs, marriages, divorces, friendships, social relations, etc., are each but different types of chemical reactions governed by the force of chemical affinity.

The comprehension of the depth of this theory requires nearly a decade of preliminary topic study before it can be acknowledged and recognized for its acumen as a treasure chest of modern human chemical science. In this context, we will argue that those not actively searching for the key or map to this treasure, will not see the treasure map even when in front of their face. More clearly, we argue that Goethe’s Elective Affinity is an invisible ship to all chemists, or those with a general knowledge of chemistry, and a nearly invisible ship to all physical chemists and chemical engineers, those with a more focused knowledge of chemical thermodynamics, wherein affinity goes by the name of ‘free energy’.

The natives we will use to make visible this large unseen ship of modern chemistry are the mindsets of Belgian chemical thermodynamicist Ilya Prigogine (1984), French chemist Jean-Marie Lehn (1995), American chemistry historian Mi Gyung Kim (2003), and Japanese chemical engineer Tominaga Keii (2004), all of whom give explicit reference to Goethe’s Elective Affinities in their respective works, but only as though it were an amusing metaphor, a theory having little or no significance to human existence. [1]

To begin with, Keii, the stimulus behind this paper, in his 2004 chemical physics series book Heterogeneous Kinetics, devotes an entire section to Goethe’s chemical affinity theory entitled “Chemical Affinity in 1806”, reprinting an entire page of Goethe’s famous chapter four, wherein the characters begin discussing the chemical concept of elective affinity.

 

http://www.eoht.info/page/Ships+not+seen

Edited April 21, 2018 by Illyrius

[StarMountainKid]

I see the ships not seen phenomenon all the time here in the forums! 

[I'mConvinced]

1 hour ago, StarMountainKid said:

I see the ships not seen phenomenon all the time here in the forums! 

You'll see it everywhere, including inside yourself.

It's because each individual is only party to a tiny bit of knowledge in the grand scheme of things. Your perspective, my perspective and everyone else's is coloured by a multitude of filters. These will be cultural, environment, social and philosophical in nature and they will vary in degree and type.

A good example of the problem at hand is the idea of a modern computer expert. A 'modern computer' is so mind bogglingly complicated that no one person is an expert in all areas of it. Despite this most people see someone who works in IT as an authority on all things computer. Meanwhile, the more the tech person learns about IT the more they realise that they know very little in the grand scheme of things, worse they are often baffled by the bizarre questions posed by people who don't seem to understand that you personally didn't solder every transistor in their machine...

The more that you know, the closer you get to understanding that you know nothing at all. This is why I place a high value on logic, it can help you arrive at the correct answer without needing to know all of the question, so to speak. It's not perfect but it can at least be put to the test. 

Spock out.

[SHaYap]

Kinda like the Zen tale of catching the Moon in the bucket ...
 

Quote

 

~

Reflection of Moon in a Bucket (Zen story) | JINSEIIMI (人生の意味)

jinseiimi.blogspot.com/2016/03/moon-in-bucket-zen-story.html

Mar 20, 2016 - Reflection of Moon in a Bucket (Zen story). Disciple asked: “Why must I meditate in order to achieve enlightenment? ...” “I will show you,” said the teacher, taking a bucket of water into the garden under the full moon. “Now I stir the surface and what do you see?” “Ribbons of light,” answered the disciple.

 

~

No Water, No Moon | Ancient Forest Zen

https://ancientforestzen.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/no-water-no-moon/

Sep 1, 2012 - In the Genjo Koan, Dogen says that Enlightenment is like the moon reflected in the water. So in our story, the nun, Chiyono, carefully carries her enlightenment experience, her kensho, in an “old bamboo pail,” which describes the impermanence of our frail and vulnerable bodies. One can imagine the great ...

 

~

Reflections on Chiyono's "No Water, No Moon" - Lion's Roar

https://www.lionsroar.com/reflections-on-chiyonos-no-water-no-moon/

May 28, 2015 - Merle Kodo Boyd responds to Chiyono's "No Water, No Moon." ... Chiyono was a servant in a Zen convent who wanted to practice zazen. One day she approached an ... The bottom of her old bucket, held together by bamboo strips, suddenly gave way, and the reflection of the moon vanished with the water.

 

~

7 Zen Stories To Give You a Glimpse of Enlightenment | High Existence

highexistence.com/7-zen-stories-that-give-you-a-glimpse-of-enlightenment/

Zen stories are the ancient words and deeds of Zen masters, which have been passed through the ages, crossing the dynasties and cultures of forgotten peoples, originating with the Buddha himself. The insights that these ... “Fetch me the moon,” he said to his dog and pointed to the full moon. “Where is my dog looking?

~

 

 

[jmccr8]

16 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I use the same standards of proof and evidences  to prove anything in my life has real physical and independent existence,

I've been doing this since i was a preschooler and began working on the nature of mind to improve my  dreamworlds and give me control over every dream.  

How many people do you know who test every day to see if the y can walk through  a wall or fly?

i do.

it is called reality checking, and should be a part of everyone's daily life . .This is not so much to test the validity of my waking experience, although it also does this.

It is to ensure that, when i dream, and also do the reality checkers from  habit,  I become aware that i am dreaming, and from  there can take control of the shape, plot, etc of any dream

Of course the physical  existence of MANY Santas and Easter bunnies can be proven by their physical existence in department shops. You can sit on their lap or eat the eggs they give you.   

The question then becomes one of knowing the historical context of those characters.

This knowledge  differentiates a child from a  western adult . 

Ask yourself,  when you encounter something how  do you prove to yourself that it is not just in your mind but has its own  separate physical existence.?

That is exactly how i prove to myself that anything  that i encounter, is real (or unreal.) It really is not very difficult, unless a person is mentally unwell.  

I used a simple reverse one last night 

 In this dream we were in a new home by the beach and had just moved in There were lots of visitors  I figured it was a dream so applied a simple test 

In my dreams i usually cant remember my real address or where my real  home is    I tested this and couldn't remember so knew i was dreaming.

BUT more significantly i knew that, if i continued the test, and recalled my address i would push my mind into waking, in order to recall it.

Becsue i wanted to take control of the dream i decided in the dream that i wouldn't try and remember my address because this effort of conscious recall  would wake me up. Instead i took the dream off into a quite interesting adventure  involving some adventures on A PT boat just out from  pearl harbour on the day the Japanese attacked   

Hi Walker

You are the only person that I have encountered that has a need to test if they are dreaming or not.

Just how much time do you spend dreaming as from this post it would seem that you spend less time in the real world and it makes me wonder just how much of your personal claims exist in an altered state of reality, no not consciousness, reality.

This type of post just illustrates what I mean by your level of "proofs" and "evidence" which are hardly demonstrable in the real world. You know that place where scientific method exists and tangible beings not the imaginary ones dwell.

jmccr8

Edited April 22, 2018 by jmccr8
Fat fingers or the devil made me do it