philosophy of mind

Mike Dubbeld miike at erols.com
Fri Dec 28 04:43:10 EST 2001


On this self-deceptive thing of religion. I am extremely fortunate to know
from direct

personal experience that religion is not self-deceptive.  When you find that
you do have

an immortal soul and there is a such thing as God there is a great new joy
in your life.

Magic is restored in the sense that you come to view the world with a new

because you know there is more to it than the simple information conveyed by
the senses

and your thoughts. You know who you are and by default who you are not.
Freedom from

death arises and is witnessed by such things as the impossibility of having
a nightmare.

It is an intrinsic survival characteristic of all incarnated beings with
physical bodies as a

carryoverfrom the animal characteristics of physical bodies to have both a
fear of death and

a fearof the unknown. A person that has experienced Self-Realization (not

which one interpret as the ego realizing something or realization of some
sort of personality)

knows that they are immortal and indestructible/can not die. Simultaneously
by knowing who

one Is, a person knows who one is NOT. This is very comforting. The entire
perspective of the

person changes toward everything. There is a detached awareness toward all
things because

all things lose their importance. The importance of everything in nature is
greatly diminished.

This can appear as you say to be a self-deceiving sort of thing and
escapism. It is escapism.

Escapism from the ego and mind and emotions and the physical body. Because
the Christian

religion is based on faith I could not accept it. They would have me believe
the world is less

than 10,000 years old and that there was only one God. All the other
religions were wrong.

Only what the Bible said was true and if you did not believe this you would
go to hell.

For many reasons I realized that I could never accept this. As far as I am
concerned faith

is the sort of thing you walk around with until you get the facts. Then I
found Yoga and

as opposed to religion it required no faith except in the beginning. It
takes faith in the

beginning to test the hypothesis of the initial statements it proposed. By
performing the

actions required certain consequences/experiences come about. In fact the

method of teaching is such that a Guru (Gu = darkness ru = dispeller) only
tells a beginning

student what they need to achieve progress toward Self-Realization. Since
everyone is at

a different level of spiritual evolution (as opposed to physical body
evolution) - each student

would receive custom tailored instructions from the Guru. No further
instructions are given

by the Guru until the student achieves the instructions they are given. The
reason being that

further instructions can not help the practitioner. The whole point here is
that there is

a big difference between yoga and religion. Yoga requires no faith. Religion
requires it.

This same method of proposal of a theory and then experimentation to confirm
or deny

the truth of the theory/proposition is the method of science also. It is not
rational for a

person to discard the truth or falseness of a theory or proposition until
they themselves

test it/it comes alive in their own experience either way. In yoga it is not
good enough

for another person to test the theories because it is the experience itself
that is sought

after. One does not come to know how scary a roller coaster ride is from the

of others.  Nor what an orange tastes like if they never tasted an orange.
Words are nothing

more than models that represent actual experiences. No models of words can

actual experiences. ('you had to have been there'/'a picture tells a 1000
words'). Because

words as models do not allow one to understand experiences beyond a certain

There is nothing in any language anywhere that can convey the experience of
the color purple

to a blind man. The whole point is that since words (and the mind) can not
do this for perceptions

that arrive to us from the external world through our senses - what chance
could there

possibly be of conveying the experience of God - an infinite abstract idea -
by means of words

and the mind? There is no chance of this. God can not be perceived by the
mind and the senses.

Both mind and senses have to be transcended.  Neither philosopher nor
scientist therefore

with mind and senses as limited instruments of perception can arrive at the
notion of the

experience of God. Raja Yoga proposes the way to transcend these is through

and meditation. Quieting the mind and senses to allow the soul to manifest
itself.  When it does

you quite dramatically recognize the mind as distinct object that separate
from You.

Saint Thomas Aquinas was enlisted by the Catholic Church to map the
Christian religion to

logic and reason as established by Aristotle. Aquinas was the first I
believe to 'prove'

the existence of God using logic and reason. He drew the line however on

God because that took revelation - intuition. (The reason the Church
enlisted his help is

because the Church was battling heresies coming out of science left and
right. By conveying

the idea 'You come to know the maker by His works' he vindicated science and
indeed helped

the Church save face. The point being that religion has already mapped to
logic and reason.

Islam did a better job and were way ahead of the Christians on ancient
Greece. In fact

it was only due to translation of some of Aristotle's works from Islam into
Latin that the

West was able to get them at all.)

It is easy to be skeptical about religion - who is to say which one is
right? Why are there

so many? If I was born in China and everyone I knew for hundreds of miles
around were

Buddhists - would I then be a Buddhist like everyone else? Does this mean
that if I am

a religious Buddhist all my life and the Christians are right then I will
fry in Hell?? Just

throw up our hands and say I am sticking to science/empiricism/what my
senses convey

and I can measure and objectively speak about.

Yet there must be something other than the physical universe we perceive
with our senses.

Why do all these people all over the world believe in one sort of a religion
or another?

If all there is is the material universe it should motivate all people to be
hedonists. Hedonists

have the objective of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. There would
be no reason to

be to help anyone or ever be nice unless there was something in it for you.
Every man for

himself. Law of the jungle. Only the strong survive. It is true that a large
part of the world

is exactly like this. Nature is like this.  But that does not help explain
why innate characteristics

of people selflessly wanting to help people exist.  No one wants to be the

bad guy. Everyone wants to be loved for something.  Everyone strives to be

perfect at something even if it is 'bad'. People in general believe there is
something greater

than themselves even if they can not put a finger on what it is. Proof of
this is the statistics

in any almanac. Few will admit being atheist even if they are.  There are

of churches and temples all over the world. Further there is tons of
evidence of ESP/miracles etc.

(parapsychology has statistics on this)

When we turn our attention to philosophy we find this that or another.
Somebody seems to

say something profound and then someone comes along and blows away what they
say later.

'The Early Bird Gets the Worm' (or does the 'Early Worm Get the Bird').
There seems to be

no end result here. Just some sort of anthology or collection of ideas that
seem to have been

haphazardly slapped together and in the end really lead nowhere. A major
problem in the

West is Ivory Tower philosophy. Philosophers concoct all sorts of ideas. But
they do not

attempt to live by the things they say. David Hume who is a famous English

once put forth a philosophy and later when questioned he said that he could

peoples doubts about his philosophy because in his real life he was just
like everyone else.

Thomas Reid a Christian remarked of this that Hume was like a man with a
'hobby horse'

at home that he could ride to his hearts content. But if he ever took it out
in public

he might be arrested as insane. Unlike philosophers who think the study of
reality is

some sort of intellectual game - religious people attempt to live what they
say. One should

not publish a book on 100 ways to cook fish - without first having cooked a
lot of fish.

It is not good enough to intellectualize and construct theories.

Science  is constrained to the study of HOW and is an empirical endeavor
based on

information received from the senses and the mind. As such science does not

investigations that deal with transcendental experiences (at least the
western scientist does not).

What is outside of us is unknown and unknowable. The only thing we can do is

the information that comes to us from our senses in our minds. The image of
a tree forms

on the retina of my eye. That image is transmitted to the vision center in
the brain

by the optic nerve. The image is a representation of the tree - it I not the
tree being

directly perceived.

When John Stuart Mill says 'Matter is the permanent possibility of
sensations' - he is

referring to this fact. And so 'Sensation is the permanent possibility of
matter' would not

make sense. In fact no matter is permanent at all. All matter in the
universe is in a constant

state of change.  To investigate the possibility of God the Greeks inferred
that a

characteristic of the divine is changelessness because how can something be
immortal if

it changes they reasoned. This notion is still assumed today by most major
religions. So

the task at hand for the ancient Greeks was determining those things that do
not change.

Among the earliest of them was Pythagoras. Same one that discovered the

Theorem in Geometry. This law is that if A2 + B2 = C2  for a right triangle.
This relationship

is true for all right triangles regardless of size. More important it is
true if the physical

universe winked out of existence in an instant. Since this is the case the
ancient held this

and all mathematics and numbers as qualities of the divine because they did
not change.

Physical triangles drawn by humans were imperfect and subject to
decay/change but not

theoretical triangles. This idea can be extended to include ALL abstract
ideas. Red or

redness is an abstract idea. So is infinity. So is thoughts. So is mind. But
all these abstract

ideas are not the same. Through out history no one has ever really gotten
anywhere with

this idea - except of course science worships changeless things such as the
speed of light

in a vacuum and so forth. To me this is sciences idea of God. Close as it
will ever get. And

I am sure someone has already proved this either directly or indirectly but
I have not

yet found it.

I don't need to dwell on historical accounts and logical directions. These
are limitations

to me. There is a saying in yoga 'Mystical teachings are caught. Not taught.
'  From direct

intuitive perception I have come to understand many many things that can not
be objectified

in the material world.  The underlying depth of profoundness found in the
inner teachings

of yoga far transcend anything that is known in the West in the area of
philosophy and

religion. Not only is God real - magic/angels/demons and a whole litany of
other occult

subjects have basis. But I earn my real money so to speak tying together
things like

the purpose of existence/karma/spiritual evolution/angels/devil/hell. They
are fairly easily

explainable phenomena. Having said that most magic for money is fake and
when it is not

it is simply done by hypnosis as the easiest means available. That does not
mean for a

moment that all magic is fake or hypnosis.

 My ability to attain Samadhi has given me certain abilities.  (This by no
means means that

I am Enlightened - a common mistake/assumption) Of the sort that relate

to the physical world I can control the flow of my cerebro-spinal

pineal gland and thyroid and heart.  I came to bionet.neuroscience to look
for help on how

I can measure neurotransmitters and hormones. How difficult is this and also
what sort of

diseases could be helped by teaching others how to do this?

Any suggestions where I might look are appreciated. I have an extensive
library and live

within 15 miles of the National Institutes of Health in Washington DC


Mike Dubbeld

There's a lot of humor and irony in the reality game. How could there not

I got the Iliad and the Odyssey for Xmas. Bloody lot those ancient Greeks.

"Peter F" <fell_spamtrap_in at dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:3c2ba84d$0$24103$afc38c87 at news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Mike Dubbeld" <miike at erols.com> wrote in message
> news:a0bav9$rrc$1 at bob.news.rcn.net...
> <snip>
> > I have no
> > idea what an 'Evolutionary Angel' is but I am well versed in the theory
> > evolution and
> > have no problem whatsoever with it.
> Perhaps I should have written "evolutionary perspective" instead of
> "....angle".
> > As I said earlier the discoveries made
> > fairly recently
> > by neruoscientists on things like how mood affects our behavior
> > and how our personality
> > is a function of neurotransmitter chemicals and hormones and so forth I
> > definitely
> > believe. But these are the physical outcomes/results/manifestations of
> > things that
> > transcend physical matter and spacetime in general.
> It seems your resoning implies the expression "Laws of
> Nature" and what it means.
> Whether these are "Laws of" Fundamental Physics and Cosmology or (very
> broadly) Biology - i.e., recognized and confirmed within the fields of
> Science
> respectively referrable to as such - they are well and justifiably
> describable/classifiable as "Nothing"#. [#Ref.: Physics-oriented
> philosophical statements/proposals identical or closely akin to
> came
> from nothing".]
> This "Nothing" is tolerably understood and interpreted (by me) in relation
> to how I understand and define "What Is", as: "The 'no thingness' (or,
> alernatively put, 'non thingy')
> aspect", as opposed to "The forms of energy and matter aspect", of "What
> Is". (IOW, "What Is 'in_ self-patterned _formation'", as
> opposed to,
> "What Is as an ultimate process - or potential - of endless extent that
> spawns *any kind* of Universe.)
> The expression "Laws of Nature" is the collective label we put on the
> reguliarites that we
> can consistently and more or less directly detect in respect of _how_ What
> Is" (or "What Is going on") is an **evolved/evolving** (and obviously
> 'self'-patterning) process. In addition, the meaning might be loosely held
> to include the as yet or
> for ever to be unknown self-patterning tendencies of Nature that we
> nevertheless by
> extrapolation vaguely _expect_ to be part of how Nature is.
> "What Is going on" can be _tenuously_ thought (if only by a "Tolerance
> Principled" attitude)
> to be thus IF the word "evolving" is meant (as it is by me) in an
> unconventionally general (even in an ultimately general) sense.
> This "sense" (or concept meaning) is given and explained by how I define
> what I like to call a
> (or The) "Evolutionary Pressure Totality" - a concept that I define and
> understand especially (but not only) in
> respect of "this (our) Universe" and the phylogeny of us humans.
> > I view them as the
> > physical causes.
> > As Saint Thomas Aquinas basically says 'You come to know the maker by
> > works.'
> You are being up-front! :-)
> >
> > "Matter is the permanent possibility of sensations." John Stuart Mill.
> As I see things, that sentence of yours would be altogether more true and
> relevant and
> meaningful if the words "matter" and "sensations" swopped places.
> > Do you believe believing in God is self-deceiving?
> Yes, I sort of do. But I also know it to be true because of what can be
> losely described as "Science (the process of science and philosophy as a
> whole) -Established (i.e., by Science produced and proven to be true, or
> so far 'best' - i.e. practically and/or intellectually most workable)
> Principles, Theories, Interpretations and Concepts"; and because I
> thoroughly and tightly merged these "SEPTIC" informational matters into a
> few conceptual "tools for thought" of my own making.
> [By the way: In the end of this only partly 'self-set' task -- of pursuing
> rational philosophical overview, one optimized for omniscientific scope
> a potent and revealing *philanthropically oriented* outlook -- my search
> suddenly got much more fun and rewarding when I saw that mankind's
> collectively contributed-to reservoir of serious informational matter
> factual and philosophical as per above) could be sampled (or as if
> 'selectively siphoned-off') and summed-up with the aid of "septic" humor.
> But of course, puerile "septic" humor happens to suit someone with my
> of tolerance and taste in humour, whereas to many or most other seriously
> philosophical individuals "septic humor" tends to be distracting by being
> perceived onerously, or as offensive penetration of their olfactories.]
> Returning to answering your question:
> I understand religiousness (amongst any other what I call
> preoccupations or pursuits) to be a kind and consequence of an, in every
> case 'quite naturally' environmentally
> necessitated, "selective self-regulatory
> unconsciousness", (so to speak).
> > If it can be said that
> > science studies
> > cause/effect relationships - What was the First Cause?
> As you might surmise, any *religiously conceived* such cause is, to me,
> thoroughly explainable as being 'real' primarily (and alonst only) as far
> it is a neuropsychophysiologically workable "cause for *comfort*" and for
> our species' relatively recent phylogenetic survival.
> > I am sorry to hear you lack of experience with
> > real angels.
> :-)
>  Don't know what an IMO is.
> An abbreviation of "in my opinion", often used in posts to News Groups
> (NGs)..
> Like you, I believe we should never never take "What Is going on" TOO
> seriously.
> >
> > Have a nice Christmas.
> > Mike Dubbeld
> Mike - have a nice one you too!!!
> Peter

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net