Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Beyond Human Examining my beliefs: Evolution and Creationism

As I change and learn, I like to re-examine the things I believe in. I now believe that ideas can be true, partly true, false, or the answer is unknowable. One of my beliefs that I have re-eamined is my view on Evolution. I used to think that clearly evolution was true and the fossil record was proof of this fact. Then came intelligent design

wikipedia definition - Intelligent design

Which I initially dismissed as an idea pushed by people with an agenda, but then I looked deeper at their ideas. I also researched things like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields and the changes in wing color of the Peppered Moth in England as the amount of air pollution had changed in the last 70 years.

What if both sides of the debate are partially correct? What if a force occansionally stepped in to modify the traits of a population so it could surive, but sometimes this force did not act in time. Perhaps we could call this force Gaia or The Force. This force might appear to some to be a god, but it might possibly be more accurately described as the consciousness of this planet. This consciousness is aware and it thinks but in a way that is very alien to our way of thinking.

I don't really think it's important WHAT we believe but WHY we believe it.

Whether it's religion, philosophy, science or whatever- we are going to learn more about all these things everyday of our lives and what we "believe" is probably going to not so much change over time but expand continuously.

When we learn something or pick up a new viewpoint, what we learned isn't new, it was already there waiting to be discovered by you. The information didn't change, what was available didn't change but your awareness changed.

The word "changed" is really a poor word though. "Expanded" is a more accurate word. Have you ever met someone you haven't seen in a few years and you were surprised by how much they've "changed?" They didn't change at all. Aspects of them that you remember are now dormant and new characteristics that you don't recognize are now active. They expanded.

I think it's most important to know why you have a belief. What are you doing with it? Why even think about it? What's it's purpose? What does it serve? Where is it taking you?

I find it useful to deturmine if an idea can stand alone without my belief in it. Then I know I've found a truth. I can feel the wind, I can feel the suns rays, I can be still and know peace. But if I'm angry I need to look at things in a certain way in order to even be angry so it's not a truth, it's just a program. It's a set of ideas that all give rise to an idea. By itself it has no reality.

The problem with everything I've said here is that you can argue endlessly about the semantics or about "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" type statements. That's why I stick to usefull things. If it's useful, I use it. If not, I'm too busy using the useful to ponder or debate the unusefull.

Funny, I can no longer think of these theories as being in opposition to one another. They are all quite possibly in support of one another, if you chunk up to a frame big enouph.

I like what Bian Swimme, the mathematical cosmologist who wrote "The Universe is a Green Dragon" and other books. In it, he points out that physicists now know that all atoms are mede of the same stuff, all molecules are made of the same stuff, yet there is Carbon, Nitrogen, etc. Further, trees and people and cats and rocks are made of the same stuff too...he poses the questions "How does a tree know to pull this matter into the form of a tree?" or for that matter, a person or a cat or an elephant? This suggests a greater inteligence at work.

Interesting how physicists are sounding more like theologians lately...

vitaman

Debating belief systems is great. I'm all for it. In fact I do it a lot.
It's not science though and I think it's not a good idea to merge disciplines that are fundamentally different.
Intelligent design cannot be substantiated with objectively gathered evidence to support it. An omniscient omnipresent force cannot be observed from outside of itself. It is fundamentally a hypothesis without scientific foundation - ie an idea, a belief. In philosophy, theology etc., that's fine of course, but in science all theories are by their very essence substantiated. Science is not based on subjective belief systems, it's based on observable and recordable proof.

Yes of course there are unanswered questions about the origin of the universe - but just because science cannot or hasn't answered some of these yet doesn't mean that one or more religions automatically can. (and let's face it - the chicken and egg question is logically unanswerable even on the abstract conceptual level of philosophical debate without turning into a neverending circular argument - if the answer is that the only solution to the origin of the Universe is God or the existence of some intelligent "creator" then, the obvious question remains, what or who created the creator?) Another way of looking at it is this; at the end of the day we cannot prove scientifically that God exists - now of course we also cannot prove that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't really mean anything in scientific terms. It's an avenue not even worth going down as far as science is concerned.

I'm not contesting anyone's belief systems here, by the way - I of course have my own too. But they're not scientific.

The example often cited is of the giant teapot in space. Let's just say I believe a giant teapot exists in space and controls what happens on earth. Satellites cannot pick it up because it's out of range, but I believe it is there (perhaps lots of other people join me in this belief and before long lots of people believe in the teapot and do so for many centuries). At the end of the day you can challenge me by saying that I cannot prove that the Giant Teapot exists - I can respond by saying that you cannot disprove its existence. Now where does that leave us? You can perhaps understand in this context why scientists would be reticent to waste valuable time, money and resources trying to find the teapot in space just because myself and a large group of people have either learnt or decided to believe it exists? Where would they even begin their search? How could objective, observational methodology work in pursuit of an inferred belief?

Science and religion don't mix. Science is a methodology not a concept and we are in danger of thwarting the mysteries and adventures of true, unhampered scientific investigation and exploration if we begin burdening and restricting it with preconceived socio-cultural or religious ideas and concepts which happen to be popular or predominant at a given time in history.

Ingrid

PS: I'm not even a scientist by the way - I was really bad at it in school!
PPS: I am, no doubt like others on this forum, also very excited about the discoveries of quantum sub-atomic physics and how they have recently been linked with a melting pot of Eastern philosophies and ancient healing disciplines - I even enjoy a bit of Fritjof Capra and Deepak Chopra, but that still doesn't make any of this philosophical conceptualising scientific!

Dear Friends,

As a scientist and educator, I sincerely appreciate what Ingrid wrote in the last post. Well put! I also appreciate Coldrayne and vita-man's perspectives, which are most enlightened.

By its very nature, the scientific method is a tool by which we try to minimize subjectivity and maximize objectivity in evaluating the workings of the material universe, which is already abundant enough in its mysteries to keep us fully occupied for the foreseeable future. At the same time, scientists are human, too, and we are as fallible as anyone else. And, of course, our instruments are imperfect, too. We can only do our best, and we try as much as humanly possible to conduct experiments and interpret the results with as much intelligence, integrity, and honestly as possible. The method itself is self-correcting, and when mistakes happen (intentionally or accidentally), the truth eventually surfaces, because while researchers are fallible, the scientific method itself is robust.

In doing science, we try to minimize the number of assumptions we have to make, and if we assume something, it must be for a good reason. With regard to evolution vs. creationism, a possible approach is to assume a creator exists at the beginning, and then everything else follows according to the natural laws which that creator put in place. Okay ... but that's an awfully big assumption. So, we play a game ... let's not make the assumption of a creator ... is there enough evidence to support the theory of evolution. Oh, yes, there certainly is. But does that necessarily mean there is no creator? Not at all. Science does not try to prove or disprove the existence of God, god, or gods. It merely tries to construct a rational model of the universe based on the fewest assumptions, reproducible experiments, and verifiable observations. At the same time, a model is not the real thing, of course, and certainly not unique.

Why the line between physics and metaphysics seems to be growing more and more blurry is very interesting. Extra-dimensions, time-travel, and non-locality were not too long ago found only inside colorful sci-fi novels, but are now topics of serious research upon which the brightest minds today build entire careers. Some have popularized these ideas and extended them quite liberally beyond their original context. While they help to feed the imagination, it's a bit premature to become religiously attached to them. We are merely beginning as a community of conscious beings to discover the truth of it all. Paradigms come and go, and tomorrow may bring a completely new way of seeing things.

Until then, may your step and path be light,

HF

So may we all pick up our test tubes, beakers and bunsen burners and head down that path with a spring in our step!

(there's a scientist in me yet just waiting to get out...!)

Dear Coyote,

Regarding higher states of consciousness, well, there is still no rigorous
scientific model to explain even normal states of consciousness to begin
with, let alone higher ones. We're just barely scratching the surface
with our EEG scans, neurochemistry, and neuroanatomy, let alone the more
daring theories involving quantum gravity and consciousness (e.g. Roger
Penrose).

One thing that comes to mind regarding higher states of consciousness is
how easily it can be induced with chemical substances, the mind-altering
drugs which we are currently at war with. I can't speak from personal
experience, as I've never felt the need or desire to try these drugs, but
the effects are well documented in the literature. Indeed, when cocaine
was first popularized, Sigmund Freud experimented with it extensively on
himself and his patients, at one time declaring it to be the miracle drug
which was the answer to many psychoses and the cure for morphine
addiction. Of course, he quickly became a cocaine addict himself, but
after the health detriments of using cocaine were eventually demonstrated,
he was able to recover from his addiction quickly. Ironically, it was
cocaine which induced in him the wild, vivid dreams that later motivated
him to conduct his monumental work on dreams.

And it's well known that tribal rituals involving spiritual journeys
incorporate hallucinatory agents to induce the seeker into states of
higher consciousness, that is, drug-induced trances.

So there is clearly a physical route to what may be experienced as a
"higher state of consciousness." And I'm sure many a poet, artist,
musician, writer, philosopher, scientist, etc., benefited from such
experiences to inspire their works. I've always found it curious that
many great scientists, such as Feynman and Einstein, were chain smokers,
for instance. And the great mathematician Erdos openly declared that when
he did not take amphetamines, he could not come up with any new
mathematical ideas.

Many other experiences have also been tied in one way or another to higher
states of consciousness: meditation, prayer, near-death-experiences,
extreme mental/physical traumas, nootropics, being "in-the-zone",
enlightenment, hypnosis, back-to-nature type of experiences (such as your
walks in the canyon) come immediately to mind.

Well, I'm not sure whether my rambling addressed your original concern. I
look forward to our continued discussions and wish you many more states
in the higher realm,

HF

My partner had a similar experience once when a friend of ours lost her dog and he was able to tell us quite frankly exactly where the dog was by literally suddenly "being in its head" (it had found its way to one of the local Chinese restaurants and was rummaging through the bins!). My partner is a major skeptic mind, so he doesn't promote the fact that he has these "moments", but we joke about it sometimes and call it his "Jedi mind trick". Apparently it worked very well one time on a train journey in London when my partner had forgotten his pass and a ticket inspector was coming up the aisle - he totally didn't ask Mik for a ticket, even though Mik had just got on the train!
On a more serious note, a close friend of my Mum's was having triple by-pass surgery and it wasn't looking good. Mum woke up in the middle of the night and for some reason just "knew" that her friend wasn't going to die, even though by all accounts it was very much on the cards. She was so calmly confident that she in fact phoned his wife to reassure her. (we had him round for dinner last week!).
Notably my mother is also a skeptic (having taught Philosophy of Mind, of Religion and also Medical Ethics before she retired - she was also a nurse in her younger years). But she has lived all her life with Lupus and does feel drawn to a search for healing - which she believes can only be fundamentally found through the mind and through spiritual connection. (she's come a long way from being brought up in a very narrow-minded fear-inducing convent school in Vienna!) She constantly reminds me when we're in the process of talking about the Gnostic gospels, Mysticism, Joel Goldsmith, Krishnamurti, Alan Watts or whatever, how many of her former philosophy colleagues would be rolling about laughing at even the mention of metaphysics.
It still allows for good conversation and well, we're now both level III Reiki practitioners - I know the theoretical and conceptual explanation for how Reiki works but there is still always that element of mystery. It does definitely work in practice though and it is definitely not the placebo effect (I've treated extreme skeptics for migraines and it seems to have worked on them despite their indignation!)
I am understandably interested in how Reiki, Qigong and other forms of energetic healing have been performing in clinical tests in the West. I know that there are a number of initiatives in the UK's NHS to incorporate these practices particularly into hospice care (where it has apparently proven very popular). Maybe the proof will catch up with the pudding!
best wishes
Ingrid

Hi again ...

Michael Persinger's work also came to mind. He induced religious-type experiences in subjects by using magnetic field stimulation.

More about Persinger here (see "Spirituality and the brain" link at the bottom of the page):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

A "God Helmet"? Thanks for the link - very interesting will have to find out more about this man's work!
After a quick glance it reminds me of a time when we were out in the country near a lake and one night we could literally feel a wall of energy on the balcony of the cottage we were staying in. Apparently this was merely something to do with the magnetic field surrounding the water.
Will look into Persinger's work in more detail. Thanks for letting me know about him.
best wishes
Ingrid

You're most welcome, Ingrid ... and thanks for letting me know you found
Persinger interesting. Best, HF

Something/Someone that is orchestrating the Universe is more intelligent than man. There is a cleverness, a systematic genius, an orchestration, a fantastic order in control of the Universe. Could nothing put in process such a fantastic order of ochestration in nature, in the human body, in space(orbits for instance).

If the universe arose from nothing out of chaos then it came from something far less intelligent than a human, and a human hasn't a clue on how to get out of the bed on Monday morning and master their own bodies never mind make a model of the atom.

Awe makes Faith.

Dear Grant,

There is a scientific concept called "emergence," which describes how
complexity can arise from simplicity. You can learn more about it at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Succinctly, the idea is that a system which consists of simple ingredients
can give rise to new qualities which appear much more complicated than
the qualities of the original ingredients. The wiki link provides many colorful
examples (no pun intended!), so I encourage you to explore.

Best,

HF

As far as I know science has only studied the simplicity that is and the simplicity that is, is far, far more complex and ordered than the nothingness of Evolution theory.

Dear Grant,

We all have a long, long way to go on this journey of discovery. We know
a lot, and we don't know even more. I hope you will share in the
adventure as an instrument of peace and goodwill. Let us work toward the
common goals of mutual benefit and enlightenment.

Best,

HF

Far more complex than the nothingness of Evolution theory?

I don't know how, exactly, to interpret that.

I find the notion that forms arose from the actions of various elements within a rule-based system to be absolutely amazing. It's far from nothing. It's its own something.

The complexity of all life, I think, is sufficiently accounted for in Evolution, given the astoundingly large amounts of time involved in the process. It seems improbable from a perspective, almost impossible from others, but it isn't impossible... and so we must take the possibility into account.

The universe is composed of materials and is governed by rules that make it likely to produce life given the right circumstances.

Matter may be said to have the property of being inherently self-organizing. It seems to me that it is. Look at the activity of atoms. They seem to do very well in creating all kinds of complex structures all by themselves.

If we give responsibility for the organization of these elements to an intelligent designer, then we must ask, who designed the designer? For surely the designer of all this must be complex. If complexity demands design, then the designer must be designed. But by whom? And who created that being? And so on, ad absurdum.

Well, the designer perhaps just is.... but in that case why couldn't matter and the laws of physics themselves "just be."

It certainly looks in many cases that life must have some sort of intelligence behind it. But, if it is possible for life to form from "random" activity within a rule governed system, and the length of time we are talking about is very, very long, then isn't it probable that life as we know it would exist SOMEWHERE given the chance? And isn't it also likely that this somewhere is HERE?

Do what you may ask others to do regarding your system of belief. Try it on for size. If you really start acting as if Evolutionary Theory is true, and you produce more than a minimal effort at it, you'll see that the world is full in a different way, a wonderful way.

For me, the implications are that we really don't need a God. Perhaps God doesn't exist? Perhaps what we see is what we get? If you get past the apparent emptiness (and here you *really* have to conquer a void, which is what a lot of people give lip-service to in a lot of spiritual rhetoric), you find the world is full of meaning. Meaning that is mundane, but wonderful. Real and tender. Glorious and terrible.

It's just us here on this planet, using our own wits to figure things out and live life. It is in our hearts that justice and love find their creation and their homes. We do not need to rely on God. In fact, we become more responsible. This is it. No one is going to direct us or save us. We must rely on ourselves, on what our species has learned and passed on.

Knowledge can be seen for the fragile and precious thing that it is.... not some commodity that is delivered for obedience to or adherence to a set of instructions. Rather it comes from human curiosity and effort.

I don't know, I find all of that tremendously liberating and beautiful. I find a lot of personal responsibility in it. I see the meaning of my life in it, the importance of treating others in it. Redemption and damnation are in our hands, where they should be. It's all up to us.

The universe wasn't made for us by some caretaker who is going to fix it if we screw up. We aren't completely screwed or saved if we just believe in something. It is up to us to define our own standards and it is up to us to live up to them, for we are our own judges.

It is sad, at times, but sad in a poignant way. And it is glorious and wonderful, for look at what we are and all that we have achieved... and without God, Angels, or Devils.

*shrug*

I think it's wonderful, and far from empty or bleak. It makes expressions of love all that more meaningful and violence all the more terrible.

Dear Friends,

I found the following debate very interesting ...

====================================================================

Shermer vs. Dembski

Michael Shermer goes head to head with noted Intelligent Design theorist William Dembski, fellow of the Discovery Institute. The devout and the heretical alike will gain insight from this fascinating interview, brought to you from AudioMartini.

http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/audiomartini_7Dec05.mp3

====================================================================

Thanks for the great link. I've been on holiday for a couple of weeks so it's great to be back again!
Re. intelligent design - I didn't realise how there were branches of it which were actively seeking to distance themselves from Creationism. Ironically, however, it doesn't matter whether your "intelligent designer" is the God described in Genesis, a neo-buddhist idea of an "intrinsic intelligence" or a UFO - they are all still concepts at the end of the day and are equally unprovable in a scientific sense. But we've already debated that one exhaustively on another post haven't we?!
I love the way ID/Creationists always say that Darwinism is a theory and can therefore be disproved. What they don't realise, is that by definition in science all theories must be substantiated (as Darwinism has been). Which means that Intelligent Design isn't even a theory as it cannot be substantiated - it's merely an hypothesis.
Oh well. I'll carry on believing in my teapot in the sky because it makes me feel better!
best wishes
Ingrid :0)

Dear Ingrid,

Welcome back! Hope your break was nice.

What I also found interesting in the Shermer vs. Dembski debate was
Shermer's acknowledgment that the ID camp has a stronger argument from
physics/cosmology rather than biology, and he is right! Unfortunately,
the debate was centered around the biology argument, since biology is of
broader interest due to the recent lawsuits to bring ID into the U.S.
biology curriculum. However, the biology argument is perhaps the weakest
in the ID arsenal, because the evidence for evolution is simply
overwhelming. Notice how Dembski himself offered his own indirect support
for evolution by not being able to dismiss it when asked by the moderator.
The best thing an intellectually honest ID proponent is able to say about
evolution is that an external agent (God, Martians, Mind, the Great Teapot
in the Sky, etc ... ) somehow sparked and/or guided the natural
evolutionary process. Anyone who dismisses evolution outright only
betrays his ignorance of the evidence. Sure, he's free to invoke God at
every step, but doing so would be like saying God throws every lightening
bolt from the sky, hardly an intellectually honest worldview.

I thought Dembski's best point was to emphasize the difference between
"materialism" and "science." I think that's a distinction that most lay
people don't fully appreciate. "Materialism" is a worldview that the
material, physical universe is all that there is, and everything can be
naturally, consistently explained without having to invoke external,
supernatural agents. Materialism is a belief, and it requires as much
faith to believe in it as it does to believe in God (theism). In other
words, both materialism and theism are fundamentally matters of faith.
One is not inherently more "scientific" than the other, because there is
scientific evidence which is completely consistent with either worldview.
Not all scientists are materialists. And certainly not all of science
supports materialism.

At the beginning of the 20th century (before the quantum mechanics
revolution), the state of scientific evidence did lean toward materialism,
which is why it was so successful in overturning religious authority and
superstition during the Enlightenment Era. For example, when Ben Franklin
clearly demonstrated that lightening arose from purely natural, electrical
forces, and that it could be fairly easily controlled to save countless
lives, he overnight dethroned the millenia-long view that lightening arose
from a wrathful God or evil spirits. (At the time, ringing a bell tower
during a thunderstorm was believed to ward off the evil spirits causing
the storm, but oddly enough, those responsible for ringing the bells were
the ones who were being electrocuted by the lightening! Ben Franklin's
lightening rod solved the real problem once and for all.) Thus, one by
one, science was able to give natural explanations of the universe,
displacing the need to resort to the need for divine explanations.

However, during the 20th century, the discovery of quantum mechanics threw
a serious curve-ball at the materialists. Without needing to use the
hyped-up, New Agey views of quantum mechanics which recent
pseudo-scientific authors have been guilty of misrepresenting, quantum
mechanics simply showed that at its fundamental level, the universe was
probabilistic in nature, not deterministic. Materialists hate this,
because fundamental to the materialist worldview is determinism, that is,
A causes B causes C causes D, and if you knew the conditions of the
universe at any given time, you could with perfect precision predict its
state at any later time (and hence, you don't need to invoke a God in the
process). Quantum mechanics said, no, even if you knew the conditions
perfectly, there's an X percent chance that the universe will be in a
particular state in the future, and a Y percent chance it will be in
another state, etc. Thus, it opened a fundamental door for God (or Mind)
to influence the material process.

And many other discoveries were made during the 20th century which
challenged the materialistic mindset, for example: 1) There was Hubble's
discovery that the universe was expanding, which implied it had a
beginning, which fit the creationist view much more neatly. More
generally, materialists are unable to logically dismiss the need for a
"First Cause." 2) Then physicists began determining the physical
constants in nature (e.g. gravitational constant, Plank's constant, speed
of light, fine-structure constant, cosmological constant, coupling
constants of the nuclear forces, etc.) with great accuracy, and realizing
that if the constants differed only a little from their measured values,
the universe would be completely different and unable to support life as
we know it. 3) Then Godel came along and logically proved that it is
impossible to construct a completely formal, consistent, and
self-contained mathematical system, and Godel's Theorem was later used by
Lucas and Penrose to logically prove that the human mind can not be
adequately described as a computer program, thus effectively ruling out a
completely reductionist explanation of human consciousness based on
current science.

So, today, the "Matter vs. Mind" debate has revived with intelligent,
rational, scientific arguments on both sides (and great counter-arguments,
of course). Those who prefer purely "matter" would be wise to acknowledge
that their stance fundamentally requires as much faith as a theist's.
And those who prefer "mind" would be wise to acknowledge there is a
definite mechanistic component to the universe which cannot be flippantly
dismissed and re-attributed to the actions of gods, fairies, and demons.
A balance exists somewhere between these extremes, and Truth lies in that
balance.

Let the debate continue!

Best,

HF

Hi HF;

This post seems to deal with alot of duelism and for one, I think that getting pigeon holed into thinking in scientific terms or spiritual terms is very limiting.
It is best to have it all in your toolbox.

We as human beings are not Angels and we are not Demons. We can travel to Heaven or Hell and then go home at the end of the day.

Having been called out to make a repair to something broken and been treated like I was responsible for their problem and the Prince of Darkness all in one, I knew I was in Heaven. Who else would treat me like that except some misguided Angel.

Having helped someone broken down on the side of the road and being gushed all over with compliments and mushy stuff, who else but a demon would think I was such a Prince of Light.

I think what gets me the most on all this scientific debate is all the uncertainty that is put forward with it. "Well we really don't know",
"We're working on it", "What the bleep do we know".

We can't make a decision, we don't do anything except chatter like monkeys, please keep sending money! Support the national endowment fund for Educated Idiots.

JD

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance."

- Confucious

Confucious ol buddy; you are correct although very incomplete. It's not just knowing how stupid you may be at the moment. A wiseman then follows through and learns what he does not know.

Taking a complete inventory of ones ignorance will only produce you having the belief that you are truely ignorant. Look at all the proof!

Having said the above regarding Angels, Demons and chattering monkeys.

When you get the right mix of these human beings working together, under the right direction and nobody it taking things personally, you can produce some pretty beautiful music.

I think HT called it Emergence.

Dear Jeff,

I think the meta-message behind what Confucius said is that there are two
kinds of ignorance: 1) the ignorance which we are NOT aware of (unknown
ignorance), and 2) the ignorance which we ARE aware of (known ignorance).

Knowing what we do not know is the first step to real knowledge.

Best,

HF

Aloha HF;

There are volumes and volumes of knowledge we do not know, it makes great dust collectors. Not likely to be used until such a time it is rediscovered and needed for some practical use. The original documentation will probably not be used at all.

I try to be more pratical with the unknown. If it is useful practical knowledge then it falls into the realm of "living knowledge" unlike the volumes of books that sit in a graveyard waiting to be discovered once again. Maybe never because they had no value for the living.

I think you are correct in the process of discovering what we do not know but this has to have some application to life or it is of little use and will be forgotten.

Then there is the follow through to figure out how to use this new knowledge and assimilating it into ones life. Then boiling it down to some principle that has many applications in many places.

To discover things we do not know just for that purpose is similiar to the martial arts phrase "movement for the sake of movement" is a waste of time.

Confucious opens a door but does not take you to the other side.

Jeff

Dear Jeff,

To separate knowledge into "useful" vs. "un-useful" appears to fall into
the habit of dichotomizing things, which arises from a spirit of duality,
which you apparently objected to in a previous posting. Of course,
there's nothing wrong with dichotomization per se ... it is a
categorizational skill which helps us to organize our thoughts. It only
becomes dangerous when we start to place values upon one category vs. the
other, that is, when we start to judge.

Many "useful" things have been serendipitously gained from the study of
what many would consider "un-useful" fields of knowledge. I can name
dozens of examples, not the least of which are the origins of the laser,
Velcro, penicillin, super-glue, and indeed, even the very Internet with
which we hold our valuable communication owes its origin in an extremely
"un-useful" field of science. But practicality is not the reason why we
study. We study because we are alive and curious about the universe, just
as a child draws a picture for her own delight. That is reason enough.

Yes, I agree there are certainly many volumes collecting dust on
bookshelves, but I would also suggest that what are contained in those
volumes are all precious and useful in their own right, for they are all
part of our experience and universe. Who am I to judge whether a movement
is a waste of time? The universe has graciously offered us an abundance
of time and space to move as much as we want, and it rejoices as all of
its glorious details is unveiled in wonderment. Perhaps a bit of
hard-gained knowledge fades away and has to be rediscovered an infinite
number of times, just as endless generations of children draw their little
stick-figures with crayons and are never appreciated in museum displays.
But the momentary delight which the discoverer of that knowledge
experiences is no less than the momentary delight of the young artist when
she creates her personal masterpiece, and such delight is enough for both.
And the universe agrees. And that is enough.

Perhaps the beginning of wisdom is realizing that there is as much joy and
pleasure in an "un-useful" bit of knowledge as there is in a "useful" one.

Best,

HF

Aloha HF:

Please enjoy your bliss. Which you need no knowledge, useful or unuseful, to do.

It seems you take a neutral position now to accept everything as it is, yet before you were wearing the hat of a Scientific Researcher.

When you "wear a hat" then you should wear it to the best of your ability, in my humble opinion. Although there are no hard and fast rules.

Personally I have a great time filling the trash can with unuseful information and parts that have been labeled "used but good". I believe that I am passing to another man a treasure that is trash to me and making room for more beneficial energy to enter the space I occupy (a Feng Shui thing).

I wish you well but your line of reasoning does not work for me.

Jeff

Dear Jeff,

Hmm ... I'm a bit confused ... it would help if you would explain why you
think I'm not wearing my "Scientific Researcher" hat well.

The scientific endeavor can be broadly categorized into two branches:
1) Basic research, and 2) Applied research.

It appeared that your previous posts were attacking Basic research as
"un-useful," because this kind of research is conducted for the sake of
research alone, with no practical objective besides gaining knowledge in
mind. I was defending the value of Basic research in my last post along
two fronts:

1) I tried to explain that sometimes, very useful things arise from Basic
research, even though there was no explicit practical intention during the
pursuit of this knowledge. In addition to the examples of very useful
things which arose from Basic research which I gave above, I should also
mention electricity. In the early years of electricity, it was a subject
of purely Basic research. Electricity was just a curiosity, and
scientists wanted to study it only for the sake of studying it.

Indeed, when Chancellor Gladstone asked Michael Faraday, "But, after all,
what use is it?", Faraday replied, "I do not know, Sir, but you will
probably tax it someday."

And when Prime Minister Peel asked of a discovery concerning electrical
effects, "What good is it?", Faraday replied, "What good is a new-born baby?"

2) My other point was that even if no practical application comes out of
Basic research, your original attitude that pursuing knowledge for the
sake of knowledge is a waste of time is highly judgmental. Who is to
judge something is useful or not? Is a work of art or music useful? Is a
sunset or a meteor useful? Is someone dying of cancer or suffering
from Down's Syndrome useful? History is filled with those who have used
this kind of attitude to justify horrendous actions.

The universe is abundantly rich in all its forms, and it does not care
whether something is useful or not. The scientist who conducts Basic
research studies the universe just because it is there, not because she
wants to convert it into something that will serve her. There's nothing
wrong with the utilitarian approach of the Applied researcher, but there's
certainly nothing wasteful about the efforts of the Basic researcher.
Indeed, an objective consideration of the universe quickly convinces you
that if researchers were proportioned according to the kinds of phenomena
in the universe, then there would be vastly more Basic researchers than
Applied ones.

So, you said you rejected this line of reasoning, that it did not work for
you. It would be nice to know why, so that I may try to clarify.

Best,

HF

Morning HF;

My observation is that you are introducing the attitude or feeling towards what the Universe has to offer rather than useful or unuseful knowledge.

You can be Happy towards everything in life, it sometimes takes a little work getting there but can be attained.

Regarding knowledge and research. I tend to believe that the mind will also follow the rules of thermodynamics in processing information, where as a machine runs it is also breaking down and at some point will have to be rebuilt or replaced. Not the mind but the system it uses.

When you are researching you come across much info, that when verified is found not to work or apply to the research at hand. Maybe you make a note of it for further work later or toss it out all together. If you try to hold to all of this and not "let go" it's like the sewage lines backing up.

I like the toss out method better because if it had any value, it will surely resurface again. If you have a good memory this isn't much of a problem or loss.

It was said that Tesla could build a machine in his mind, start it up, then return in a couple of weeks and see how things were running.

Don't get me wrong. I do love to get lost in a large library filled with dusty old books and see where the spirit takes me and stay there for days. It is a great treasure to have access to.

To go to the book store here and see all these books from all religions, mystics, scientists, self help, etc, etc, etc. and feel a connection to all these authors in the same place. What a great thing. But this is as a person just relaxing with a coffee in one hand and the greatest story ever told in the other.

To leave and wear ones hat to me is also training. It is getting focused, yet relaxed. It has been said to me that the symbol of the sword is what represents the intellect or knowledge in the subconscious, and so I find training with the sword applicable to what I am doing in life. I am no great swordsman but it teaches me much.

To add some scientific uncertainty here. Maybe your scientific research is not about what is "out there" but what is internal.

I hope that gives you some clarity.

Jeff

Just wanted to say that this seems to have been a really interesting thread. I have never found science so fascinating! Particularly the complexity of cause/effect models - from more rigidly determinist on the one hand to probabilistic on the other. Does this imply intelligent design or merely the existence of some other causal variable currently unknown? Does this imply order or chaos?
Does this mean life has a purpose or is completely random?
It's interesting too how the debate here has moved from concepts of reality to ways of approaching/exploring that reality. Do I wear a hat of specific purpose or do I take the hat off and explore with no fixed direction or objective? Do I acquire knowledge or develop awareness? Is knowledge about substance or relationships?
Very interesting questions...
best wishes
Ingrid

AHHHHHHHHH! My favorite type of discussion! I want to tell you how much I have enjoyed this entire thread! And I cannot help but put in my most un-scientific, most un-religeous 2 cents. Pardon me, I am new, and I have stumbled upon JOYOUS discussion of my favorite subjects!

RE-EVALUATION of BELIEFS! From a scientific aspect, one must first define the word "Belief". Then, one must understand the functions of a belief and how a belief works to perform that function. ( I am a layman so I do not have all the fancy words). A belief is a tool, designed by the observer of matter, in order to create the world-view of that observer. The material world cannot be observed, either by science or by spiritual/religeous platforms, unless there is a belief in operation.

What one observer believes about anything at all, is what that observer experiences, no matter if it is of a scientific nature, mundane nature, chaos, spritual, death..etc.

Belief functions as the "glue" that gives one person a reality, and many people, a co-created reality. Our present scientists are just now finding that out. Even they cannot do an experiment without BELIEF affecting the results on basic levels.

Joint Reality is based on common belief of all entities (people) concerned with that world-view reality. A story is told to others and sworn to be true, whether or not it is, and a contageon takes place. BELIEFS can be spread like a dis-ease.

Belief is the tool through which human beings view their material conditions and belief is the story they spread about those conditions, one to another, until those conditions seem to be set in stone, ie., TRUTH, Truth is what everyone agrees it is, according to the latest scientific or spiritual or religeous findings.

It is through belief that we, in joint endevor, hold the energy of the world in focus and call it earth, or a place. There is NO PLACE if we do not agree upon a belief in a place. There is no time at all, if we, in joint endevor, do not give it birth through our belief. In fact, it is our belief that provides us with the concepts of violence, death, Birth, pain, hunger, peace, war, science, extinction, etc....change any belief held by a great many people...and the entire cosmos will change to reflect that BELIEF.

Personally, I think we are a very young technology...and as I heard one very well respected SCIENTIST say on television a few years ago: "What if there existed a technology that was 1000 years ahead of us...or 10,000 years ahead of us in the universe??? Would they be even aware of us?"

The Key lies in knowing that everything you think, comes from a belief, first. And if you don't like that belief, thank the Giant Ignorant Force you would have the universe be, that it is changable.

Love to all and to all a good night...I really loved your thread! =o)

Dear shyspook,
Thanks for your enthusiastic post.

If we think the world into existence. Who thinks the thinker into existence in the first place?
Actually let's not bother answering that one or we'll be here all night again, won't we?!
Chicken and egg. Chicken and egg.... and on it goes...!

Your ideas actually remind me of a poem my mum once told me which relates to Bishop Berkely's philosophy of idealism (Bishop Berkely's idea apparently was that there is no such thing as physical matter, only souls and ideas). The query raised with this philosophy was, if things only exist through perception/observation do they still exist when there's no one there to perceive them?

The poem goes like this: (it's being spoken by someone sitting alone under a tree in a college quad)

I'm sorry to bother you, God,
But there's one thing I find rather odd
And that's how this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the quad.

Dear Sir, your astonishment's
I'm always about in the quad
And that's why the tree
Continues to be
Observed by, yours faithfully
God.

Apparently on this occasion, having a notion of God perceiving everything solves that particular problem. But of course we can ask who perceives God in the first place etc.etc...

Best wishes
Ingrid

Hi shyspook and Ingrid,

Thanks for your great posts and poem.

Personally, I believe there must be an underlying, objective reality which is entirely independent of human beliefs. For example, there was a time when the consensus was that the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Did that belief make it true? Likewise, there is a signficant portion of our current population who believe in Santa Claus and a certain red-nosed reindeer. Does that guarantee their existence? From these simple examples, one can roughly define "truth" as being that which is so despite what anyone believes about it. Of course, that doesn't mean that we are anywhere near to understanding the truth about our universe and existence today. For all we know, our current best grasp of objective reality may be as flimsy as a child's handle on Santa Claus. Nevertheless, in order for us to approach that truth, we have to first acknowledge it exists outside of ourselves, independent of us.

HF

I don't think beliefs are really all that designed. Even when we "choose" our beliefs, I think something is going on that is very much unlike design or creation.

I describe belief systems as living systems of information that live along with us. (Do we posses our beliefs? Do they possess us? Or is the relationship somewhat more nuanced than that?) We can interact with the system, and we influence it as it influences us, but sometimes trying to control it and think about your own mind is like trying to run from your own legs or see your own eyes without a reflection.

The human mind is complex. The interactions of beliefs in any belief system are not simple.

The more I muck around with my own beliefs, the more I see it as some kind of organic, self-organizing system with a life of its own. You can influence it, but the process isn't always linear, and what you see or expect isn't always what you get.

Honestly, I find many simplistic approaches to belief change pretty insulting. People just aren't that simple, and neither is life.

Sometimes you want to be as realistic as possible, sometimes you want to fight against what you think is true or see where your imagination can take you. Sometimes your are deluded, other times you're just afraid. Sometimes an unrealistic belief makes you achieve more than others think possible, sometimes it's debilitating.

The mind is not a singular entity, it is plural. We are of many minds and many ways at any given moment. Many systems act in parallel. One set usually obtains, but it obtains only for a time and its rule is colored by the many other activated sets that "lost" but still, most likely, affect the mind and body.

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance." Confucius.
This was the thought for the day on the EFT website today and I thought it might contribute well to this thread as this is clearly a thread of questers!

Ingrid ;0)

PS: Hartreefoch, your post reminds me of a yarn I had with a good friend in a pub one night. He is very much into his philosophies and we were having a "life the universe and everything" conversation. Near the end he turned to me and said "So what colour is the table in front of me then?" (it was brown) and I trying to sound clever after a few beers said "Purple!" to which he replied "Wrong! The answer is - what table?" Needless to say our conversation ended on the subject of The Matrix and spoons!)

Hartreefoch;

You mention that there is the belief in Santa Claus and yet in this phyiscal universe there is no fat man in a red suit flying around in a sleigh pulled by a red nosed reindeer at the prescibed time of year.

This is a valid point. It also points out that maybe a person is in denial. Maybe it is only hope or wishes. On the other hand it might be looked at as a challenge to someone to genetically engineer a flying reindeer and a sled that is composed of materials lighter than air. A pocket transporter to quietly deliver presents, doing good in secret, to all the children who have been good all year, that has been kept track of by the home security system.

One thing I believe and that you overlook is that you treat the external universe as a unfeeling thing. And in response it reacts like a child who has been ignored and won't talk to you. It has tried to communicate with you and you don't listen to the language it speaks. Therefore you don't get any desert.

I really think the Universe is just like a person. If you treat it like your friend and share some respect you will be treated in kind.

Learning to let go of your own beliefs is a big step to learning about anything.
I believe there are pockets of consciousness in everything we experience here and they all have their own personality. How you treat and interact with this Universe is still inside of you, just like developing good manners will help you in dealing with others. This is demonstratable. It works inside and outside.

Not directing this at you or anyone, but as an example if a persons energy level is low they are not much likely to make anything happen, their emotional level slips and they only see the negative side of things which seem to continually come true. Until they get this energy thing going the right way not much will change in their life.

When the energy is right , everything is possible, life is good. Everything is important but nothing really matters.

Jeff

Sorry I am so late in getting back to this. My computer or my isp. one or the other is sick and I don't know which.

That IS a good piece of poetry! And it seems to end all discussion. However, God is a man -made concept. We haven't run into other sentient beings who can dispute this issue, yet.

But man made god to explain to himself that great power that resides within himself. Essentially, the human body IS virtually the house of some greater awareness and intelligence than we CAN exhibit in our ordinary conscious awareness on an every day mundane level...reality as we percieve it.

And because the presence of all that power that is residing, seemingly within our own brains and bodies, is very uncomfortable for us to acknowledge as ours, we have projected that power outward in the form of GOD, so that we can live with it until such time that we evolve to a state where we can own the power we have been created to own.

Lilo and Stitch is my favorite creation story. It is probably the most accurate creation story, metaphorically speaking, every produced by our society, world wide. It is clearly an intuitive creation in itself and speaks vast volumes about the state of the whole creature called "human being". Individually, we are all a cell in this Concious Human creature. So, in asking what came first, the world, or the human....Well, perhaps, the mad scientist came first...and we are s/he!

Believe what you will. Belief has more to do with an individuals reality than is recognized. It also has more to do with a place called "earth" than is realized. Without the gestalt group called HUMAN creature...who hold the beliefs in place...there may well NOT be an earth at all. Or physical cohesion, either. on this level of existance.. =o)

Hi hartreefoch & Ingrid, as well!

I guess that if I am to respond with any sense at all, I will have to address the "world is flat" belief. Also, santa clause, which so broke my heart when I was 6 that I beat up the biggest boy on my road for telling me that so called truth. And I was a tiny little girl...he never lived that down!

There is a human consciousness guestalt who, collectively and with great awareness, holds a pool, or bank, if you wish, of beliefs that bring forth the earth and all its creatures. Because we are not yet able to own the huge amount of power and knowledge on an individual scale...we call that entity, GOD, and it seems to us to be made up of "souls" from which each of us springs into physical being through the birth process. So, yes...the world probably was still round because the laws of physics in this world reality says that gravity prevails....it is a belief held by joint cells of the gestalt called human. IN THIS WORLD VIEW. It is not so in all world views. Physics takes on different properties and behaviors in other plains/deminsions/realities or levels of existance. However, the past population was in a state of growth...and were allowed to grow in whatever way they needed to expand into what we are today. A learning process.

As for the reality of Santa Claus, for children under 6, there IS a real santaclause in a state of being created. NO human person over the age of 6 is allowed to continue the belief in Santa Clause...so like creating a bank account of $100, 000.00 in your mind...and then saying, but it cannot happen to me..stops the creation cold in its tracks....we have no santa clause. NO Adult WILL believe in Santa Clause because it seems to be against the laws of getting something for nothing.

So...belief of the full grown and very limited adult mind wins out...in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary. =o)

can I post anything about this here? My original post is not allowed here. Sorry Babayada...I really cannot understand why not..

Hey babayada!

That is a wonderful point! Yes! I agree! My Me is Your ME. And just as one person can see throught the eyes of the coyote or the dog, We can ALL see through the eyes of everyone else in the world...we just don't know it yet. We are just beginning to practice it...I found my cat by seeing through it's eyes in a dream, too. I also checked on my son when he was small by becoming the nearest tree to see where he was! Everyone has their moments of great ability..and amazement. We did not seem to believe that we could do those things...and yet, we did do them.

Belief as we utilize it in the world on an individual level, comes to us, first, by our parents and grandparents as they teach us to live in the world. Your body, your brain, your organs and legs are all mirror images of what either you were taught to believe, or what your ancestors were taught to believe and passed on to you through your DNA. How well you see out of your eyes, began with a belief...if you lose your eyesight because you turn 40 years old..and it happens to everyone in the world who has been taught to believe it...it becomes known as true...and just gets amplified all out of shape. NO it is NOT simple...it is CONTAGEOUS. Changing a belief that everyone over 40 chooses to believe in, or that every one over 6 years old chooses to believe in simply because they were told it/think they saw it/ or grew up with it...is very difficult.


I'll try it this way.....TO BE CONTINUED! =O)

Part 2 continued here:

I personally don't think that belief is more than a shaping tool. Like any thing that is given power by thinking of it, or utilizing it, it does have a certain amount of conscious awareness in itself...anything that is energy has self-consciousness, even a miniscule thought. But when a physical body utilizes a thought (belief) to pull together physical matter and events into being it becomes a tool to shape things with. It must have human direction. If it were more than a tool, we would call it a god and worship its power in a church or something.

Fortunately, when I was about 35, I accidently found out through some reading that I could actually CHANGE a belief. and I found it to be one of the most time consuming and difficult things I have ever done in my life. I changed a belief from being a stupid accademic failure, to a college graduate. I changed my beliefs about myself...and my abilities...I became a Reiki Master, and I actually have a bachelors degree in metaphysics....I have been a photoreader for 8 years, too. These labels are the installation of what I would RATHER believe about myself over what I and all my family KNEW I was...just a stupid female upon whom a college education would be wasted. I was suppose to marry, have kids, and be looked after all my days...Beliefs change...and so does reality because of that change...I just did it on purpose. Beliefs are not set in stone, and they do not insist on living your life...for you...YOU choose what you want to believe within the area of the larger human creature entity that is set for the world reality that you have chosen to occupy. There IS no simplistic approach to belief systems..every little cell of your body, Is affected by YOUR beliefs...and also, your body is mine, as well...so your beliefs COULD have an effect upon my body as well...and yes they do. Love ya! =o)

Hi jeffdengr, =o)

Every time a child is born...the belief in santa claus is (in our culture) begun...then around 5 or 6 years of age...we stop that creation for our children by telling them the "Truth" That creation will someday gather enough collective energy to become a complete Santa Claus in person with a flying reindeer...but only if we stop beating up the dreams of our children before they can create them.

I believe those famous words: Believe and ye shall receive!

What if we told the world a "Truth" about that author that stated he did not exist?

But, then, Earth doesn't exist, either...does it? to some entities...hmm?

=o)

Hello everyone...

Re. Santa Claus, I thought he was created by Coca Cola sometime in the early to mid twentieth century for commercial reasons! (now was that before or after they took the cocaine out of it?!) He was actually based on an earlier Catholic Saint Nicholas I believe. Ever wondered why Santa wears red and white?

He is pretty much an American creation adopted by some other countries. In Austria and Germany, for example, he doesn't exist in the way he would in the States or here in Britain. In those countries it's supposedly a baby Jesus (Christkind) and angels who bring the presents on Christmas Eve (not Christmas day).

I thought I might add another angle to the discussions which have emerged about perception/creation of reality. I think "belief" is not necessarily always the same as "perception". Also, if children do "believe" in e.g. Santa Claus up until the age of 6, why does Santa not exist thanks to that shared belief? (there are a lot of under-six year-olds out there) Do things only "manifest" if believed by adults? Why, is the power of children's belief in Santa substandard to the power of a post-six year-old's NON belief in Santa Claus? If their belief is not substandard, then where are all the dragons and witches and ghouls? Generally in the case of such things as Santa Claus and fairy tales etc. I do actually think that there is room in the world for fiction and symbolism. Just because an idea exists, doesn't mean that it has therefore automatically manifested literally in "reality", or is even going to.

Returning back to the original topic of conversation - Evolution and Creation. Perhaps women weren't therefore literally created from the rib of a guy called Adam, just because someone wrote it down a long time ago?

Ingrid ;0)

Quote:

---

Also, if children do "believe" in e.g. Santa Claus up until the age of 6, why does Santa not exist thanks to that shared belief? (there are a lot of under-six year-olds out there) Do things only "manifest" if believed by adults? Why, is the power of children's belief in Santa substandard to the power of a post-six year-old's NON belief in Santa Claus? If their belief is not substandard, then where are all the dragons and witches and ghouls?

---

Well, actually they DO manifest Santa Claus, just not in the same way we adults would think of it as a manifestation. Surely you've been to a shopping mall at any point between the middle of November (or earlier in some places) and Christmas Eve, and there he is, in his castle or igloo, or what have you!!!

Just because the manifestation isn't clothed in the "reality" we students of manifestation would consider "proper", I think these kiddies do a bang-up job of getting the whiskered one to appear, and besides that, they've even trained their parents to make sure to help them "write" to the man in red. And in Canada, any child can address a note to Santa, stuff it in an envelope and simply put HOHOHO on the outside of the envelope, and it'll get delivered (and in some very special cases, answered personally) - all the requests are read by a very special group of Santa's "helpers" at our Canadian Postal Corporation. I'd say that's some pretty strong manifestation from the wee ones.

On a side note, I actually believed in Santa until almost eleven years old. Because I was already used to seeing things others didn't see, just because I couldn't see him, didn't mean he didn't exist - I just figured he had to be at the North Pole to supervise the elves and reindeer, and was truly disappointed, disillusioned and majorily ticked off when my mother hauled me out of bed that fateful Christmas to clue me into her "reality".

Regards the dragons, witches and ghouls - since the focus is only for a week or so before Hallowe'en (more if you live in a highly commercialized city), the manifestation of these, in the form of "trick-or-treater's" running through the streets is pretty real - and I well remember a few Hallowe'ens where some pretty spooky stuff happened. So who's to say that this isn't some sort of "manifestation" from the minds of the young? Just because it doesn't fit our "adult" parameters, again, doesn't mean that it "ain't so"!

Giggles and cheers!
Unis

Too right Unis!
Let's hear it for the kids! (and that of course includes the kids within all of us too!!)
:0) xo Ingrid

PS: I will now admit publicly that I believed that Falcor existed after watching the Neverending Story at the age of 10. Or at the very least I definitely wanted him to exist!

Dear Friends,

I am all for beliefs which are positive and which help us become better
people. I hope yours will help you toward this end.

With regard to Santa, let's keep in mind that in some sense, we adults
enslave our children with this jolly caricature. We use Santa as a
convenient way to get our kids to behave. "Naughty or nice?" Indeed, the
moment a child realizes the truth about Santa, she becomes enlightened and
forever freed from the trance. That moment is one to be celebrated, not
bemoaned.

Truly, how many of us willingly enjoy our trances? How many would dearly
hold onto Santa forever? When we fully awaken from our trances, perhaps
we will find even greater power and freedom in our new enlightenment than
we have ever known while still entranced. The Truth shall set you free.

I wish you all such enlightenment in the Truth.

HF

The childlike trance is a good thing. Our minds are fluidic when we are children. As we age, adults feel the need to change/control the way our minds operate, the kind of answers we allow ourselves to find. Adults say things like “Santa does not exist”, “your invisible friend does not exist” and “people are not surrounded by auras of light”. Adults define things for us, the higher vibrations in our child’s mind slows down and become crystallized. We become ensnared by the collective consciousness. This state is like a bubble that state holds us in place.

The human mind is capable of un-imaginable feats of genius when we enter a trance state or flow state. What sort of state of mind did Leonardo da Vinci enter when he created? Was his consciousness like a reed, free to move in the wind or was it like an aging tree that is brittle and can break in the wind? Most adults permanently live their lives in a state of sleep. They can only react to the outside stimuli; a sort of computer program with many thousands of reactions programmed in, but programmed reactions none the less. Now the computer runs very fast and it seems like we have awareness of the world around us, but do we really? Children do. Children's states of minds are closer to enlightment than adults, they just lack the experience of age.

We tell ourselves, “I think, therefore I am”. But how many of us have had truly original thoughts that did not already exist somewhere in the collective unconscious? How many of us can control our reactions? Can we dance when a doctor tells us we have cancer? Can we laugh when we see a rattlesnake? Can we see world events from the perspective of Moslems when the Pope attacks Mohammed?

You can say that this universe follows the law of physics but it will also follow the laws of beliefs and bureaucracy. Just as laws do not have to follow common sense and logic. They are law and become a reality because of the precedure on which they are based.

The legislated law has to be interpreted just as the law of physics also has to be interpreted
and figured out how to apply it.

Santa Claus is a popular belief and through the proceedure of legislation could be brought into reality. Santa Claus is now a Law. The law is real. This isn't my favorite way of doing things but illustrates a way to make it happen.

People from all over the world have underlying beliefs that are not so visible, like wanting to live a long healthy life, they want to have a prosperous life, they want to be happy and successful. We all share these values in common, consciously or unconsciously. How they interpret these values and bring them into reality is their own art work.

If you believe in Santa Claus then how you believe and make real St Nick is your own interpretation, enjoy it. Don't let a scientist or politician take away your happiness because they cannot see or fit it into their procedure. They need to stop being lazy and figure it out, not point fingers and pass the buck. If they want the answers then they can do the work.

Aloha

Jeff

Coyote, Jeff,

What bothers me about your romantic notions that the universe rewards you
when your relate to it in a sweetly harmonious manner is that it often
(usually?) simply does not. "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is
a cliche, as well as the title of a good book. Indeed, if one looks
objectively at nature (not from the standpoint of a stereotyped,
closed-minded scientist, but just from the standpoint of a objective,
rational realist), one sees that the normal order of things is filled with
unfeeling, unfriendly occurrences, often wiping out entire communities and
even civilizations. Are we to believe the universe is just expressing its
wrath upon those it deems unworthy to live? Look at all the natural
disasters - hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes,
asteroid strikes, supernovas. What about the countless innocents who have
died due to epidemics, hunger, and war? Where do these very real things
fit into your fuzzy-wuzzy view of the universe? (And why doesn't the
antelope hire a lawyer to sue the lion when it loses its loved one during
a Serengeti slaughter?)

And why bash scientists as being unsympathetic to all of this? Of all the
people in the world, scientists are at the forefront of sacrificing their
time, energy, and resources to help us cope with the realities of nature.
We see reality for what it is, not what we want it to be, and we act
accordingly. There's a certain humility in this. We know our limits, and
we try to do the best that we can to help as many of us survive in an
often unfriendly universe. Sure, it's not as romantic as your Santa Claus
world-view, but when all is said and done, we have helped our race
survive, and we have succeeded where eons of mystics have failed.

I'm not saying the current scientific enterprise is perfect ... by all
means, no. Like any human endeavor, it has weaknesses. But it is
self-correcting, and the central search for what is true drives it.
Before you trash it and raise mysticism above it, just consider the
historical evidence and all the mayhem which has resulted from mystic
ideologies. Sure, you're free to believe what you will, but that doesn't
mean what you believe is real (nor necessarily good).

I would rather believe in what is real, not what I insist to be real
contrary to the evidence. The latter is called "delusion."

HF

Hi HF;

I guess you would have to give us your definition of "reality" since this seems to be the pivot point of which the discussion has turned. Because of your view of Santa Claus I believe that the definition is limited and does not encompass all that it could.

Although chunking down and trying to isolate something does have it's place, when dealing with things like mythology, your definition does not fit. Although here is something that truely exists.

Some people like myself accept this reality and yet you seem to think we are deluded. The artist who sees something and creates a painting or a sound. Where was this before it hit your reality?

I still think of the Scientist who dissected the Goose who laid golden eggs to find out where they came from. Then they didn't really exist.

I would be inclined to believe that the Scientist who couldn't see Santa Claus is deluded.

Jeff

Jeff,

If a real scientist had his hands on a goose which laid golden eggs, she
would not dissect it ... rather, she would breed it! In so doing, she
would be able to isolate the golden gene responsible for this ability, and
thus have the means to end poverty once and for all. (You underestimate
scientists!)

Regarding "reality" ... please, by all means, define it however you
choose. Look it up in a dictionary, if that will help.

Also, notice I never accused anyone else of being delusional, and in fact,
I readily acknowledged that everyone has the right to believe whatever
they will. I said that if *** I *** insisted that something to be true
when all the evidence was to the contrary, *** I *** would be delusional.
I find it interesting that you generalized my statement. I intended it
only to describe myself. After all, human beings have an infinite
capacity for deceiving themselves, and I am as human as the next person.

However you interpret reality and my statements, I wish you every
happiness.

HF

Hi there,
Think I'm siding with Hartreefoch on this one. We keep going on about Santa Claus here, and at the end of the day you can actually look at "beliefs" in this context in a wider sense.
The way that's being promoted here, is how wonderful it is that children believe in Santa Claus and how horrible adults are to control their minds and destroy that belief by introducing them to "reality" after a certain age.
What's a bit one-sided about all of this, is that no one ever questions that a child's belief in Santa IS in fact an indoctrination by adults in the first place - ie. an imposition of fairy tale ideas on a child's mind. Why is this not equally destructive to a child's open-mindedness? Hartreefoch does highlight further on this point, that this kind of indoctrination can then basically be used as a means to control behaviour (be good and you'll get presents etc.) - in fact has this not been what religion has been doing so successfully to society for so long?
With regards the Golden Goose. If a goose exists which lays golden eggs - great. A religious person will be less interested in the goose or its laying of eggs - it will be more interested in the unobservable, undetectable and basically totally conceptual notion of an "intelligent designer" or some such notion who created the goose and what the spiritual meaning for it all is. Science, on the other hand (and I keep highlighting that I am not a scientist), would try and focus on understanding how the goose actually works, how best to nurture it and to breed it. It would look at the patterns of why and how the golden geese are in fact regularly slaughtered by foxes, and the field of social sciences would look at the (to me even more) interesting reasons why humans slaughter EACH OTHER in order to get hold of Golden Geese and claim the geese to be the property of their particular "intelligent designer". The fundamental difference is, religion deals with "out-there" concepts which impose value systems on people (and destroy children's open-mindedness pretty effectively too, it should be added) whilst sciences at least base their work on the world as it is currently functioning and operating in all its complexity.
Don't get me wrong - there's always room for a Eureka moment in science, for thinking out of the box, so to speak. But scientific method is required first as a premise for investigation (and not all science is dissecting and test tubes and Josef Mengele-type experiments funnily enough)
Just a thought from someone who actually thinks that ALL the thoughts and ideas of this world are what actually keep us deluded.
best wishes
Ingrid

but then of course, my thoughts are no doubt just deluding us all further.....!

Hi Ingrid,

Thanks for your nice summary of things.

I notice that there seems to be two broad categories of people
who have responded to this topic. For lack of better titles, I'll call them:

1. The Super-Naturalists

2. The Naturalists

I place no value judgment on either category, and I think all of us
exhibit a bit of both in our lives. I think that both in balance offers
more power than either alone.

One says, "I want to fly."

The other says, "I'll build you wings."

Together, they have the potential to turn our dreams into reality,
hopefully to the betterment of all.

Best,

HF

Thank you all for the wonderful discussion. One never truly understands what one believes until s/he tries to communicate it to another....Thank you for allowing me to "see" my beliefs about the world and beyond as you have responded to my words. Feedback is a wonderful thing. Ya'll have a wonderful life-experience. Good night and good bye. =o)

Shyspook,

I find your beliefs fascinating! And I also share a lot of them or would like to share ;-)

Generally, I would like to believe that all beliefs can be changed (not meant as a paradox). Also I strongly believe that beleifs change the world.

[He].2s2.2p4

Belief is greatly under-rated by most. In fact, what I have observed as I go about my daily interactions with people is that most are quite unaware of their own beliefs and how they operate to either uplift them, or hold them down. I am aware, but I also want to be part of the world. MY personal beliefs are as transparent to me as other peoples beliefs are. Every inkling of a thought is first couched in belief. Our beliefs are all colored and filtered through the particular world reality that we chose to be born into.

An individuals personal beliefs are programed from the moment of conception by the beliefs of its parents and the beliefs of its ancestors through dna and the beliefs of the culture as a whole to which it is about to be born into. How else could the kids be born today already knowing how to program the dvd or be computer literate by the time they reach about 18 months old? They don't experience culture shock as we older folks are prone to doing. They are already born with certain pre-knowledge...beliefs, if you will...that have been programed.

It is said, for instance, that Mars is a dead planet...a century ago... it had a different topigraphical appearance and there are pictures and drawings by some observers to prove it. Beliefs...like the world is flat, etc...also can extend into the universe or space around the world. WE have not learned how to observe the LIVING planets by shifting our awareness..which is focused through the color of our belief system...so until we can shift our overall channels of awareness...Mars will remain, to us, a dead planet. Belief affects WHAT, HOW, WHEN, WHERE AND WHO. we can see at any given time.

Thanks for the feedback, Oxygen... =o) All beliefs CAN be changed..if one has the courage and enough energy...but then...you can not live comfortably with the reality you have already built, here. Just KNOW what you believe and be aware that the world is as it appears to be because of belief. =o)

Hi HF;

I understand your point and apologize if I misinterpreted your view. Ones beliefs of reality, I think, are based on ones perceptions. I know of no other way of assimilating the physical universe.

Even though we can touch, see and taste something through our perceptions, how do I , without a doubt, know it's any more real than an idea I have.

All the data we have in our I/O brainbox is based on perceptions we have picked up over a lifetime.

Thanks for a lively discussion. All the best to you.

Jeff

Congratulations on your belief change.

If my beliefs affect you and yours affect mine, then I'll believe some good beliefs for ya.

This leads me to something that affected me recently with regard to belief and my sense of self.

There have been a lot of situations in which I guess I just abdicated responsibility for my thoughts and feelings. I've been in situations where I thought that other people were thinking things about me and then I'd have thoughts and feelings about that and generally feel like crap.

But, for some reason, I just started looking at all that and went, "You know, that's not what they think. That's what >I< think!" And even if it were, say, what they think, what really matters is my appraisal of that, what I think about what I think other people think.

And, so, whenever I was engaging in being self-conscious, I would look at what I was thinking and said, "Hmmm, so that's what I think, eh?" And even if what I was thinking was judgmental or negative, it wouldn't be so bad. Like, if something happened and I was embarrassed and thought that other people thought I looked like an idiot, I'd think, "Oh, so I am thinking that I look like an idiot." and, generally, it would make me laugh. Whatever I am thinking, I can deal with it.

Somehow, it was a notion that it was the thoughts of others (as if I could read their minds) that bothered me. Really, it was always my appraisals that bothered me. And what really bothered me is that somehow I thought I wasn't thinking these things (crazy, isn't it?), that others were thinking them, and that I had no control over it.

Well, even if others think that stuff, it's not the fact that they think it that bothers me or not, it's what I think about them thinking it that bothers me or not... and that is always up to me. I can certainly handle whatever I might think about myself. And, honestly, I am generally my own best friend. Even when I get down on myself, I do it in ways that are self-glorifying (it is my theory that, most of the time, this is true for everyone).

So, while others have an influence, I am, in some way, always at the helm, even when I think I am not.

Wonderful post, Babayada.......

That is just soooooo cool of a way of looking at things - thank you, because you've helped me a lot with those words. Light bulbs went off in my head!

Unis

Hi Jeff,

Thanks - and no problem ... I enjoy open discussion, too, but sometimes,
it begins to feel like the "movement-for-movement's-sake" which you
previously cautioned was wasteful.

Regarding your questions ...

> how do I , without a doubt, know it's any more real than an idea I have?

Perhaps an example will help. I remember you mentioning you have a
daughter, so let's pretend one day, she climbs on top of the roof of your
house with a cape draped over her shoulders. "I am Super-Girl!" she
exclaims, "And I can fly!"

OK ... what do you do as a father? Do you say, "Sweetie, you're
absolutely right! Even though my perceptions tell me you'll break your
neck if you jump off the roof, well, we both know that perceptions are
limiting, and that we can have more power in ideas. So, yes ... leap off
and fly, my dear, and prove once and for all that scientists have blinded
themselves with their limited view of reality!"

Now, as much as you come across as a true believer in human potential, I
highly doubt you would encourage your daughter to jump.

I'm not trying to say that we should not hope and dream extraordinary,
even super-natural things. All I'm saying is that there has to be
common-sense, REALISTIC limits. Granted, it is true that most people
don't live up to their potentials, because of self-limiting beliefs, and
I'm all for helping them overcome their limitations and succeeding in
their goals and dreams.

But we have to draw the line when someone takes this to an irrational
extreme and begins to suggest that we can summarily ignore all "natural
laws" just because they're a product of our perceptions and don't
represent anything fundamentally "real." Encouraging someone along that
route would be as irresponsible and hurtful as if you encouraged your
daughter to jump off your roof.

We need a balance: if you want to fly (based on super-natural desires),
then build a pair of wings (and conform to natural laws).

Limiting beliefs can hold back many from reaching their full potential.
But unrealistic beliefs don't serve them any better, and indeed, can even
result in broken necks.

Best,

HF

Hi HF;

You bring up a good point, my shortcut interpretation is that the realm of ideas has no set rules and the perceptible universe does.

If my Daughter did try such a stunt and I did not have the confidence in her ability to do such a thing I would drag her from the roof. Although I would not deny her this experience.

We would both get it figured out by using a kite, air bag or whatever and Supergirl would fly from the roof at some point in a safe and sane manner. Cape optional.

This goes with my belief that you can accomplish anything and that overcoming ignorance and fear are very worthwhile objectives in ones life. That would be the lesson I would want my daughter to learn and developing the confidence that it can be done.

Sometimes it is gaining the knowledge but most times it is doing the grunt work to see it through to a successful completion. This is just plain discipline and not letting yourself develope a bad habit by letting yourself fail if at all possible.

There is the ol "crash and burn" risk when you pursue anything although we learn from our mistakes and like a Phoenix arise from the ashes to play again. I do advise my Daughter's that I have pretty much done everything wrong at some point in my life and that if they would like to know, I can probably save them alot of time in the crash and burn department and even show them the most efficient way to get what they want.

I also belief that as you gain experiencial knowledge the Universe of the Mind/Spirit and the Rules of the Physical Universe will become One. They are not seperate. It is only ones level of awareness that makes it so.


Aloha

Jeff

Hehehe, you're welcome.

It hit me like a "EUREKA!" moment when I realized it. It felt really good, like I had a new toy. A new set of thoughts to work with and reinterpret my world by.

I think that when we bother ourselves with our thinking we do it by way of some kind of internal shell game. Which shell is the pea under? Here? There? Thing is, the pea is under every shell. It's just that we fool ourselves into thinking it isn't and thus give away our agency.

"It's not what I think... it's what THEY think... inside my head... as I imagine it... ummm... Oh, yeah, I guess I *am* thinking that, huh?"