ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Is man even a spiritual being?

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Feral, Jul 24, 2011.

  1. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    My moment came as a flash. It seemed that which I had experienced was the Good News. It was an abrupt alchemical experience in the now. An extremely bright energy emblazened my space as if it were the true latent form of EVERYTHING.... pure creative potential in the RAW. It was Absolutely without suppression. It was Wholeness and Goodness and Benevolence.

    This Goodness aspect was a biggy... any notions of being deficient or polluted became a fallacy in that moment. :thumbsup:
  2. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    That happened to me on acid and ecstasy, with a little opium thrown in.
  3. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Nice posts above, Hats and Mystic :yes:

    The mind is a bitch :biggrin: Its creation by us was one of our greatest, biggest mistakes . . . well, let me rephrase that: the way in which we created it, the premise upon which it was created and the error of its content and composition relative to what we were trying to solve by its creation; and then our subsequent mis-use of it and abandonment of knowledge, control of and responsibility for it and our having created it, has been an error of colossal magnitude.


  4. BardoThodol

    BardoThodol Silver Meritorious Patron

    The chicken/egg conundrum serves up a big omelet of human logic: put a few ingredients together, cook them up and then wonder how it happened.

    Any time you close off a system to relevant data you get inconsistencies and mysteries. The chicken/egg conundrum assumes that nothing preceded either. You've got this cyclical logic of the chicken is born from eggs, but eggs are made by chickens, so how can a chicken be born unless another chicken produced the egg?

    Thing is, chickens are far down the evolutionary chain. Eggs came into existence long before chickens. Eggs proved to be a handy solution to propagating a complex species that needed time to develop in a protected environment.

    Current theory has birds evolving from dinosaurs. You had all sorts of species coming along and developing until chickens arrived.

    But...but...but... what about those creatures? Didn't they lay eggs? Don't you therefore arrive back to which came first the dinosaur or the egg?

    Nope, just evolution of a means of developing an organic line that eventually used eggs as a solution. Probably all sorts of trials and errors in trying to get it right, trying to make the solution succeed.

    Which moves back to perception, considerations and beliefs. Can we have the sophisticated beliefs we now hold without having evolved them? If our experience and perception is dependent on considerations, postulates and beliefs, doesn't that create the conundrum of which came first the perception or the belief?

    But, isn't that conundrum answered the same way that the chicken/egg problem resolves? By including all information.

    As a leap of faith (perhaps) or as a direct experience, I just accept that AWARENESS precedes life as we know it. This awareness is not life as we know it, though it is PARTIALLY immersed in life as we know it.

    This awareness is capable of all sorts of thought, logic, understanding, belief, creation, blah, blah, blah. We can talk about all these manifestation for literally thousands of years. And humans actually have been doing this for thousands of years. All to limited solution when the information/experience pool is confined to the chicken/egg breed of reasoning.

    Awareness of some type precedes life and creates life, and life begins to manifest as life forms.
  5. BardoThodol

    BardoThodol Silver Meritorious Patron

    Here's an idle thought.

    Kind of ironic.

    If we all come from the Oneness, and this Oneness has created us, then doesn't that imply we are created with purpose? Even if we are the result of multiple creators, then this too implies purpose and meaning in what is created.

    Then, instead of pursuing the intended purpose and meaning assigned by this higher awareness, we sit around trying to discover how to return to the Awareness or the Oneness, or the Awareness of the Creator or Creators.

    If that awareness were to be part of the package, wouldn't it have been created in our situation? Wouldn't we be created with that grand awareness in full bloom?

    Wouldn't it be ironic if going back to "native state" is moving in the wrong direction? What if our real purpose is moving forward and learning from all this to create an ever increasing base of understanding and experience from which further understanding and experience can be had?

    Just a thought.
  6. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    I think the goal (at least for me) is versatility. I should be able to return to "native state" at will, and return to my present identity, or any other identity I have mastered to use when I wish in any given situation, or to create a new identity, as needed or wanted. Being stuck in native state would be just as boring as being stuck as Kevin G. Brady for eternity.

    Here's another idle thought. If our physical lifespan continues to grow, and rejuvenation and genetic manipulation became nearly free and commonplace, simple, would you change your appearance and alter your identity? If not, why not, if so, why so?

    I'm very optimistic. I believe very strongly that we will see these an other almost magical sounding technologies even in the next twenty years. It will be interesting to see how many people wish to be someone else, how often, and what precipitates it.
  7. RolandRB

    RolandRB Rest in Peace

    It would be pretty stupid of this Oneness to create beings supposed to fulfil a purpose without making sure the beings know what that purpose is or at least have reliable and easy access to it. That would be an omission which would make me think that the Oneness was a bit of a dickhead.
  8. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

  9. RolandRB

    RolandRB Rest in Peace

    Since they are intelligent then I suppose parrots are Spiritual Beings as well and have a purpose to fulfil. This is Ruby, the African Grey. What is her purpose?

  10. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    I don't know, Roland. You'd have to ask her. Intelligence is not an either/or proposition.
  11. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron

    And a valid thought it is!

    We tend to create each other, or avoid being created by another, or attempt to be a standout among the crowd without being pulled back in.

    A return to love is a return to oneness and individuality.

    Mystic and others are correct: Instead of thinking about it, instead of observing from afar, just relax. Experience. Oh, I don't mean like a politician who sends the sons and daughters of other people off to war. I mean like a politician who resigns his public office, dons his war gear, and puts himself in the middle of the battle(s).

    Experience! It's not a spectator sport.

    Not all experience is brutal. Some is extremely pleasant. Nothing like being there at the happening to make the heart beat pleasantly fast. :coolwink:
  12. By Design

    By Design Patron

    INNATE PHOBIAS: The question is how to best explain why phobias about things (like snakes) which were dangerous in the ancestral environment are relatively common while phobias about much more hazardous modern things (like guns, cars, electrical outlets) are pretty much unheard of? Even among people who do not explicitly have these phobias, snakes and spiders command attention much more powerfully than other stimuli (click). Further, a fear response is produced even when the images of snakes and spiders are masked from conscious awareness(click). This shouldn't be terribly surprising. Other primates also exhibit fearful behavior toward snakes, even when they'd never encountered them before. Snakes presented a very real danger in the environment of our evolution; any individuals with an innate tendency to avoid snake-like objects would have tended to leave more offspring than those who lacked this.

    INNATE LANGUAGE: Starting with Noam Chomsky, psychologists have been studying what appears to be our innate 'instincts' for acquiring a language. Two places I would point you to (which offer differing views on the matter) are:
    - Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct presents a cogent view of the topic from the viewpoint of classical (symbolic) computationalism.
    - A textbook called Rethinking Innateness presents an alternative view in light of the neural network paradigm (sub-symbolic computationalism).

    INNATE PHYSICS SENSES: I'll have to dig up the papers which have studied this. Basically, we've created various illusions for infants and observed them. One can also intuitively understand the claim if one considers the amount of physics knowledge required by eg a cheetah chasing a gazelle, or a caveman attempting to move a boulder by applying a component of force in a specified direction.

    INNATE MORAL SENSES: I also have to spend time digging up references for this. Essentially, we've created some social tests for infants. We've also done ape studies (google 'grape envy').
  13. By Design

    By Design Patron

    Thanks. Yes, it is informed by observation as opposed to armchair introspection. Given the historical impotency of introspection (most of the statements made by previous introspectors has turned out to be empirically false, going all the way back to speculation on earth, air, or fire as fundamental elements), I think this is the best way to proceed with an epistemic project.

    It's important to note that this is not my view. This was my attempt to state your view (as I saw it). You have now clarified this is not your view, and I accept your correction.

    Interesting. How do you avoid the problem of the (apparent) dependence of perception on the brain. If one alters the brain -- say, with toxins, or with localized damage, or just via normal old fashioned adjustment of synaptic connection strengths ('learning') -- one dramatically changes perceptual states. At the very least, it seems that empirical observations contradict the statement that all perception is happening at the 'spiritual' level, above and beyond the brain.

    If this is the case, then naturally it would be testable. There are computer programs which predict future states based solely on knowledge of current brain states. If someone such as yourself were hooked up to one of these machines it should be impossible to predict your future states (since, according to your hypothesis, your future states are determined by more than just your current brain state). Do you agree?

    I'm not familiar with these experiments. Is there a wide body of research here?

    Thanks. I'll spend a few days poking around that site.
  14. RolandRB

    RolandRB Rest in Peace

    If life had a purpose it would be clear what that purpose was. No creator of the universe who also creates or has rigged it so it creates the life to fulfil that purpose is going to be so stupid as to have a situation whereby the life he intended to create to fulfil a purpose does not actually know what that purpose is not can reliably find out what it is......

    So life does not have a purpose.

    Maybe the universe has a purpose but life, not knowing its purpose, must have never had a purpose. Maybe life is an inconsequential byproduct of the universe.

    Now if you want to believe in a Oneness who created life with a purpose then you will have to conclude that the Oneness did not want life to know its purpose. This means we should just get along with our lives and ignore this crap and not waste time thinking about it. But what could be that purpose, you wonder? Well maybe it is for all of us to be confused and reach out for something nebulous in different ways, each thinking they might have discovered the One True Path so we can set about killing and torturing those who disagree with us. Maybe the purpose of life is to create a bit of fun and entertainment for the Oneness as we torture each other and hack each other to pieces. In which case, if you are a True Believer of the Oneness, go out and kill someone with a different religious viewpoint to you.
  15. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Life does have a purpose, in terms of the large scale function life accomplishes regardless of the movements of individuals or races. It increases the order, fighting entropy, and finds meaning.

    Essentially, for the individual, life has whatever meaning or purpose he makes for it. That purpose, or meaning, is imposed order. That's what life is for, and what it does.

    BTW, I torture and kill even those who agree with me.
  16. RolandRB

    RolandRB Rest in Peace

    Have you heard of Boltzmann brains? If the aim of life is to create thought and intelligence then maybe there would be more of it without an ordered universe and lifeforms.
  17. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    No, I haven't heard of those. No, I don't think the aim of life is to create thought or intelligence, I think those are happy accidents of evolution that result in greater and greater order and heuristic value to the universe.
  18. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Well, it's demonstrated beyond question that the human spirit trapped with in or on a body is affected by the condition of the body and/or brain and various impacts on it. So what? That's merely the corollary to the observation that the spirit can afffect the brain and body :biggrin:

    There have been, however, occasions (not frequent nor under my full control) where affects on the body have had no effect on me. I've written on some of these here on ESMB.

    Yes, well . . . that's a computer program written from the perspective of that the brain's current or fixed state determines or predicts the future . . . I don't wear that proposition.

    The above is not a test or experiment I would ever contemplate.

    The other way of looking at it in terms of human behavior, it to observe that a person can determine what he wants to bring about and/or otherwise accomplish and do so . . . the only question you have to investigate or answer is: who or what is exercising the volition? Who or what is making the choice a) to act and, b) of what to create/produce.

    My observation is that brains don't do any of that. Though it is true the brain will register or show something is going on.

    Google this: buddhist monks meditation study
    Then take your pick . . . there a was a great two-thirds page write-up in the New York Time Science Section on it during the last year.

  19. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron

    Above in red is an assumption followed by a few more assumptions. Or perhaps a personal statement of reality. :omg:
  20. Mystic

    Mystic Crusader

    The real stuff isn't artificial.