The VirtueScience PhilosophyVirtueScience is a unique way of life and philosophy based on a revolutionary understanding of the character and the virtues.
Why The Virtues?The many problems in the world can be likened to branches. If we try and tackle the branches but ignore their root they will keep coming back in one form or another.
The main root of all the problems is in the character of individuals. For example greed, hatred, laziness and so on.
Also, in general, when people debate: the character flaws such as too much pride/arrogance, dishonesty and unhealthy loyalty to long held beliefs etc act as a kind of resistance to objective truth. Furthermore the virtues/positive qualities are respected by both atheists and all the varying theist belief systems. They are like a kind of underlying unifying bridge between all the various belief systems. Their cultivation helps protect people from false beliefs/errors and helps atune them to whatever the Truth may be. It makes people into 'good soil' and so receptive to the highest truths.
It is logical then to study character and the virtues very deeply. If some advances in understanding are made they can have a very positive effect on the root cause of the world problems and thus help uplift humanity.
Are you willing to dedicate your life to the study of the virtues?
What is the Opposite of a Virtue?Everyone contains all the positive qualities such as bravery, determination, patience and kindness within. These and other archetypes can become repressed and fall into darkness/semi-consciousness. We should not shun or further repress the archetypes within but should embrace them and bring them back into our awareness.
In my personal study of character I found that the opposite of a virtue is actually another virtue.
For example: most people say that the opposite of bravery is cowardice. However the opposite of one extreme is another extreme.
Cowardice is an extreme and its opposite is another extreme: recklessness.
Cowardice is actually a lack of bravery rather than its opposite.
The midpoint between the 2 extremes of cowardice and recklessness is dual: bravery/caution.
Each person has bravery/caution within but if the bravery becomes repressed then they fall into cowardice. If the caution is repressed then they fall into recklessness.
Imagine a pool table with only the white ball which is placed behind the line. The idea of the game is to hit the white ball so that it rests on the far cushion.
If a lack of force is used (weakness) then it will not reach the cushion.
If an excess of force is used (roughness) then the ball will reach the far cushion but bounce back.
If just the right amount of force is used then the ball will come to rest on the far cushion. As there was not a lack of force it can be called strength. At the same time: as there was not an excess of force we can call it Gentleness. So gentleness and strength are 'opposite' partner virtues.
Mathematical Truths are TranscendentalBeliefs are somewhat hierarchical in that slight errors in very abstract concepts can be the crooked foundation for more concrete everyday beliefs. Although most people like to think they are rational there are often personal blind spots and inner biases. It can be hard to convince people of certain truths when those truths seem to be contradicting more abstract semi-conscious beliefs. So to help align people towards truth I put an initial focus on the transcendental nature of mathematical truths. Once understood this then becomes a sound foundation for later stages.
The infinite number of mathematical truths was not created by any god, big bang or human mind. Such truths simply cannot be any other way and are intrinsic to Reality. Some people confuse our mathematical conceptual language 'maps' with the pre-existing mathematical 'territory'. Mathematical and geometric truths such as that there can only be 5 platonic solids etc determine how atoms can be arranged in space for example and was clearly true before humans. Mathematical truths have no substance so we cannot simply say they exist. On the other hand they can be discovered and order reality and so we cannot simply say they do not exist. The mathematical truths transcend the categories of both existence and non-existence.
They were not created and have always been true and always will be. They are true at all times and are changeless. Thus they transcend time. They are true everywhere and nowhere. Thus they transcend space.
Some people believe god must have created the beautiful mathematical facts. That is not possible as the facts are not created objects. Other people confuse our man-made conceptual mathematical maps with the eternal territory that they describe.
Mathematical facts have no substance, no location, are not a process, are not *things*, cannot themselves be directly seen or heard etc. From this it can be said that they do not exist. On the other hand they can be discovered and in fact order reality.
For example that there can only be 5 platonic solids was a fact before humans discovered, described and labeled them. Such geometric truths govern the possible arrangement of atoms in space and so clearly were true before humans.
In fact theoretically even if there was no universe at all, just a void the infinite number of eternal truths are still 'there' in potential, unexpressed. Then if any universe came into being the same universal truths would apply. They are timeless and true everywhere thus we can say they transcend time and space.
many people believe in materialism ie that consciousness can be generated by matter due to indoctrination and lack of awareness of many facts and principles. Beliefs are somewhat hierarchical in that errors in very abstract beliefs can become the crooked foundation for more particular beliefs. That is why I recommend to study the transcendental nature of truth. Once that is understood we are in a better position to understand other subjects.
2+2=4 will be just as true in a billion years as it is today. It does not matter whether someone is aware of it or not or whether they believe differently. The truth itself is simply an unchanging fact. It is the same for the other transcendental truths. Quite simple really but it takes some time to adjust if we have believed along different channels for a long time. If you keep the ideas in mind and try and understand/refute them you will soon see they are self evident and obvious.
For example there can only be 5 platonic solids, number 36 is both a square number and a triangular number, 2+2=4 and so on. Do you agree that there are an infinite number of such facts and that they are eternal ie they cannot have been created by any god, big bang or human mind? Do you accept that our descriptions of mathematics are like an imperfect map of a pre-existing territory of mathematical facts? Have you heard of the hierarchy of the sciences?
If we can be patient and find common ground on the actual nature of truth then it is a solid platform for which to discuss the other 2 of what I claim are fundamentals/Primordials.
The difference between our mathematical *maps* and the pre-existing mathematical *territory* that those maps describe. It is an unchanging fact that there can only be 5 platonic solids. This fact was then discovered and the described/labeled by us humans. If theoretically after thousands of years the fact was completely forgotten and lost it would still be available to be discovered. Geometric facts such as the platonic solids must have existed prior to humans as they govern how atoms can arrange together for example. If you have several spheres of the same size the maximum that can touch a central sphere of the same size is 12.
Beliefs are somewhat hierarchical in nature in that errors regarding very abstract subjects can become the crooked foundation of more particular beliefs and attitudes. This confusion between our conceptual mathematical maps and tools and the eternal geometric patterns and mathematical relationships that they describe is an abstract error. Once you have resolved this other beliefs and attitudes will automatically begin to shift beneficially. As for arguing consciousness from maths we should at least get the right understanding of the actual nature of mathematical truths before saying what they cannot do. However the transcendental nature of mathematical truths is just the easiest to understand and so introduced first. Actually there are many other eternal truths which can help our understanding of the nature of consciousness.
Just to give an illustration that someone share a while back: imagine an unmanned probe sent out onto space where no man had ever been before. Do you think the usual geometric and mathematical facts would be different out there or not exist just because we are not there to describe them? Of course not.
I have already stated that these truths do not simply 'exist'. They are not things. This is why I say that they transcend the categories of both existence and non-existence. Bringing up 3D is another fruitful avenue. Yes the platonic solids are 3D objects. However for example consider the n-dimensional hypercubes. They are an infinite series, one for each dimension. Other mathematical truths also for example that quantity 8 can be partitioned into integers 22 ways are trans-dimensional. There are 2 kinds of truth: transient and transcendental.
The 2 Kinds of TruthTransient truths have not always been so, can be changed and eventually not be so. Transcendental truths have always been so, cannot be changed even by a theoretical otherwise omnipotent being or any physical or mental process and will always be so. There are an infinite number of these eternal transcendental truths. Very good that you bring up logic. It is not just mathematical truths but there is actually a universal unchanging language. Consider the logical operators. Just as there are eternal geometric patterns there are also eternal patterns of meaning and language.
as you mention 3D you are referring to pre-existing number.
The Heirarchy of the SciencesThe hierarchy of the sciences is that biology depends on chemistry but chemistry does not depend on biology. Chemistry depends on physics but physics does not depend on chemistry. Physics depends on mathematical fact but mathematical facts are not dependent on physics or anything thus mathematics is known as the queen of the sciences. You seem to agree with me that math facts pre-exist the human mind at least?
Our mathematics describes eternal relations and properties of number. Number has no substance. These geometric and other patterns are proven to have been prior to our discovery of them. Is it not reasonable to call these patterns 'mathematical'. It is only the case of realizing that the word 'mathematical' can be used to refer to our mathematical maps *or* the unchanging non-physical patterns that they describe.
The mathematical facts can find expression in the human mind or within physical phenomenon. However the truths themselves are not mental or physical. Have you heard of the cannonball number:4900? Apparently among all the infinite series of integers it is the only number with property of being a square number and also a square pyramidal number. Humans discovered this but there were no 4900 cannonballs stacked up or laid out in a square. Before this property of 4900 was discovered it still had that property. The property of that number is completely unaffected by our human minds knowledge or ignorance of it. It is also completely unaffected by whether or not anywhere in the physical universe someone has the cannonballs stacked up or not. It is not affected by any physical expression or lack thereof. It is just needed for a slight change of perspective to see that no all properties of reality have to either exist or not exist.
Mathematical Facts are EternalIt is easily proven that mathematical facts are eternal. It is because no physical or other process can effect them or have formed them. That being the case they are not subject to time and therefore we can comfortably call them eternal.
It does not have to imply that they exist. They are neither in the category of existing things or in the category of the completely non-existing. What is the difference between the wings of an elephant and the non-physical pattern of the magic hexagon?
The wings of an elephant simply do not exist at all. They cannot be discovered and do not order anything. They have no substance whatsoever. The pattern of the magic hexagon also does not have complete existence, it has no substance whatsoever. However it can order phenomenon in that no other magic hexagon is logically possible. It can also be *discovered* here and now, millions of years ago on some theoretical alien planet or billions of years into the future. So you can see I am correct. The mathematical truths are not in the category of existing things *but* they are also not in the category of the completely non-existence otherwise like the wings of the elephant they would not be subject to discovery.
If you surround a sphere with spheres of the same size the maximum number of surrounding spheres is 12. This and other geometric facts determine how atoms may and may not be arranged together. In that case the facts themselves were clearly prior to our discovery of them and even prior to humans themselves. As a thought experiment imagine if all matter and energy, all humans and minds disappeared. In this hypothetical scenario there is no physical universe, only a void. Then any universe that then came into being would still have exactly the same mathematical properties. If sentient beings arose and started discovering and describing mathematical facts then they may call their conceptual structures 'mathematics'. They are then creating 'maps' and specified terminology to describe the pre-existing 'territory' of the eternal mathematical facts.
Imagine some professors examining some detailed maps of a mountain. Due to some strange amnesia or blindness they have forgotten about the actual mountain and think only of their maps. A stranger sees these strange professors actually standing on the mountain but denying its existence, claiming that only their maps are real and there is no actual mountain. The stranger would think the professors foolish or mad. It is similar with those thinking that our human mathematical maps and descriptions all there is to mathematics and forgetting that there is an actual territory of unchanging mathematical facts.
The meaning is that even in in a theoretical absolute void, in nowhere, in nothingness there is infinite truth. Of course in my earlier statement I am claiming that primordial matter and primordial consciousness are also co-eternal. Anyway in this theoretical absolute void the infinite number of mathematical truths would have no expression either in a mind or physically. That does not mean that they are not still just as true. As they are not existent things they are not affected by the lack of existent things.
>>"Our mathematics describes eternal relations and properties of number. "<<
Can you tell me where there is the infinite series of n-dimensional hypercubes? There is no evidence that they physically exist and yet they are described by mathematics. However the limitation of the map does not limit the territory. Any limitation in the descriptive power of our limited human conceptual mathematical maps does in no way imply a corresponding limitation in the actual infinite number of mathematical facts.
"These patterns do not exist eternally." They do not exist in the sense that things exist but the patterns themselves do transcend time and so are eternal. All evidence points to these patterns never changing and never having come into being. That which is changeless is also timeless with no beginning or ending of duration so 'eternal' is the correct word. Although I have used earlier the term 'pre-exist' it is only referring to the timeless nature of the facts, I am not really meaning that they exist in the usual sense as explained. Never in human history as a mathematical fact changed nor is there any possible process in which such facts can change.
I will try with this thought experiment: Imagine that you and I are separate from but observing a void and then the appearance of a universe. We have a good knowledge of mathematical facts but your or my mind can have absolutely no effect on the universe, we are only observing.
In this hypothetical situation I predict that there can only be a maximum of 12 spheres surrounding another sphere all of the same size. I can also predict many other constraints with absolute certainty. I can make these predictions when there is only an absolute void and they will be shown to correct viar their physical expression once the universe has formed. Of course we knew they were facts before the universe formed so the formation of the universe had nothing to do with the creation of the facts. Now some mathematical facts such as the infinite number of n-dimensional hypercubes never actually gets a physical expression but it is still a mathematical fact. Later some of the inhabitants of the observed universe discover the infinite series of hypercubes via logical inference. They now have a rough idea about it in their minds and descriptions of it in their literature. Their discovery of this series (which has no physical expression in their universe) in no way makes the fact more true than it already was before they discovered and described it.
As knowledgable observers we can understand that the facts were true all along and did not *become* true just because they gained a transient physical expression or a transient mental expression.
"Logical absolutes, on the other hand, are tautologically true no matter what exists."....So they are *always* true. Does not 'always' imply eternal?
"you need to prove that nonexistence can have properties [e.g. mathematical properties such as 4900], something you surely are not going to win." 4900 is an abstract. It is a particular quantity, an integer. It has >>>no physical substance, no location, no creation, no destruction. That quantity does have properties, unique properties. It is the only number which is both square and square pyramidal. It is also divisible by 5 etc etc.
If mathematical facts only exist in our minds, books and computers then how do you explain that they are discovered? How do explain that the patterns ordered reality/nature before humans even came on the scene? Mathematical facts do not reside anywhere, they are simply abstract facts. These facts are unchanging.
The same logical truths apply to any possible universe
Look at it this way: the fact that quantity 64 (number 64) has the property of being a square number is true *now*. It can be said that only the 'now' actually exists; with the past and future being mental constructs/illusions in a way. If you take that position then the fact of quantity 64 having the property of being a square number is *ever so* just as the time is always now. In that position no ideas of past or future can change the eternal now which contains all transcendental truth in this very moment. On the other hand if your position is the reality of past and future then: starting from the agreement that 64 is a square number now can you tell me what possible event in the past or future can change this fact??
My position is quite simple: It is a fact that 64 is a square number *now* and there is no force or process that can change that fact in the future and no force or process which can have created that fact in the past. Therefore the square quality of 64 is not subject to time, not subject to change. Just found this which may explain better than I have done:
"Simply, eternal truth is an entity or a proposition that is true with no relation to time. That is, it is true, not only always, but always with absolute necessity. In classical (Greek) philosophy this is distinguished from “sempiternal” truth that could also sometimes be called eternal but is more properly “everlasting”. Sempiternal truth has always been true and will always be true, but is a contingency of this world. A properly eternal truth should be true for any world, there could not be a world for which it was not true. A sempiternal truth is perpetually true in this world from the beginning, but it would not have had to be true when the world came to exist. It just is. But no world could exist in which a truth that is eternal in the classical sense was not true."
"IF a winged-elephant came into existence, that winged-elephant would exist". That proposition, however, only exists in my thought. There is no eternal proposition of "IF a winged-elephant came into existence, that winged-elephant would exist" I will explain the mathematical/permutational nature of language and the fact that there is a universal language if you are interested. Lack of understanding in this area is causing some obscurification and frustrating communication
The infinite number of mathematical and other truths are inherent to Reality.
You may have believed for a long time That there is a kind of transcendental middle ground is a new idea to you and you are trying to argue from your old understanding. The properties of this middle category between existence and non-existence are somewhat different from simple existence as used in the usual sense.
there are an infinite number of unchanging truths which apply to any possible universe.
The Universal LanguageJust as there are mathematical and logical facts there are also patterns of meaning. How many words are there in the English dictionary? Countless and yet they are all formed from an alphabet of a few letters. Roughly speaking: how many substances are there? Countless and yet they are all based on combinations of a periodic table of relatively few chemical elements. A large number of complex phenomenon come from combinations/permutations/compounds of a smaller number of elemental phenomenon. There are countless concepts but they are all arising from a kind of 'periodic table' of more elemental concepts. Whatever you think of the platonic solids etc these basic elemental conceptual patterns have the same properties, they apply to any possible universe.
All earthly languages are like a kind of shifting imperfect froth which all have their common foundation in the unchanging universal concepts. These concepts can be stratified into levels of complexity eg the simple elemental concepts, the 2 element compounds, the 3 element compounds and so on. Our flying elephant is a vastly complex cloud of compound concepts which actually will be different for both of us. Still any particular vastly complex pattern is still unchanging in itself and sharing properties of the other truths. It is more useful to study the simple elemetal universal concepts. Think of the logical operators, yes and no, gain and loss and so on. Also the virtues such as bravery, generosity and patience etc. Each virtue has an opposite partner virtue. Without proper explanation it may be difficult to appreciate the connection between the 2 diagrams. Still they are now both in the thread to be studied if anyone is interested.
Do you agree that mathematical facts have no material substance and yet can be discovered and are known to never change?
The reality is that there are an infinite number of eternal truths which transcend both the categories of existence and nonexistence. Not just mathematical facts but also an unchanging universal language of meaning from which all our earthly languages are but an imperfect froth." All phenomenon, even infinitely complex phenomenon, must be within the 'possibility space' of the infinite number of eternal truths. Every possible configuration is actually an eternal pattern. You may have heard of the infinite library idea?
Primordial MatterPrimordial matter and primordial consciousness are co-eternal. Primordial matter is the finest most broken down, homogeneous matter/energy possible.All other physical phenomenon are built up from it and therefore it cannot have been created and can never be destroyed. It is a fundamental aspect of reality. It does not just include the matter/energy currently detectable by mainstream science it also manifests in much more subtle forms. However even the most subtle material phenomenon is still insentient. Primordial consciousness is an unchanging center of Awareness/being. It cannot have been created and nor can it be destroyed. Your true nature is a pure center of consciousness and every being including animals also has such a center. Co-eternal means that neither can have created the other or preceded the other. They are eternal opposites, fundamental aspects of reality.
Skepticism Towards Materialism
The 2 Main Scenarios: Generation or InterfaceThere are 2 main scenarios: either the chemical elements of the brain somehow generate consciousness or the chemical elements of the brain somehow interface with a center of consciousness. The materialists ignore one of these 2 scenarios not due to any evidence but because of philosophical bias. Actually there is more evidence for the interface scenario.. Each of the 2 main scenarios are making a claim. Materialism makes the fantastic claim that the insentient chemical elements can be made to Experience. What evidence they think they have is actually just as valid for the interface scenario.
The Three Ways Towards TruthThere are three main ways towards truth: direct perception, logical inference and valid testimonies.
Now, by definition those accepting the materialist position can have no direct perceptions say of 'no afterlife' and following on from that there can also be no valid testimonies of there being 'no afterlife'. So all the materialists have is the potential of logical inference to support their position.
On the other hand, at least theoretically, those who accept the interface model have the possibility of direct perceptions of out of body states, past lives and an afterlife state etc as well valid testimonials from others along similar lines. They also have the potential of using logical inference. So just just on the surface the materialist position is weaker. They have to dismiss all the vast number of testimonials that support the interface model. They have to disempower the value of valid testimonies and direct perceptions because whilst there are countless that support the interface model there can be none which support the generation model. Just as in a court of law there are different grades of witness, different grades of testimony. Some will be of low value because of past proven lies, ulterior motives bad character and mental infirmity etc. Other witnesses will be of more value as sharp and reliable witnesses of sound mind and fine character.
Valid TestimoniesAs for testimonies which support some kind of afterlife scenario some will be deliberate deceptions, some will be delusions and mistakes. However some are genuine and worthy of study. Some have third party verifications.
Throughout human history there are many testimonials indicating that the interface model is a certain fact.
Testimony is considered the weakest of the three ways towards truth. As I have said all three ways should be used in conjunction. We live in a world where there are many deluded people and also many deceptive people in varying degrees. Great discernment is needed. I have a database on my site of over 400 possible enlightened people or people at least who have special insight. I have also studied many many more. Some I have corresponded with and mini-tested proving to me that they are definitely somewhat deluded or deceptive. Testimonies should be cross-referenced and studied deeply neither rejected blindly or accepted blindly. An understanding of the underlying principles with logical inference is needed as a check...
Direct PerceptionYour brain chemistry and mood may change and influence each other but What perceives those changes? here is a thought experiment: can you share with me any experience you have had where the inner witness changed? For example let's say you drink a few whiskeys. Your cognitive functioning and experience change, you feel different. That within you which perceives the difference in mental states between sobriety and drunkenness itself has not changed. It is more like a flawless mirror reflecting the passing mental phenomenon. Share an example of that Perceiver changing in your experience if you can..
So just from the arenas of direct perceptions and valid testimonies the overall evidence points towards the interface model. Now the other main way to truth is logical inference. I can show you that in this arena the evidence points to the interface model.
Reaction and Computation is not ConsciousnessConsider a security light. it reacts to motion but is 100% unconscious. A computer can calculate but it is no more conscious than a simple calculator, an abacus or a pile of rocks. Apart from sci -fi fantasy the graph of computer complexity and consciousness is zero at every point from an abacus all the way up to the most complex supercomputer. Insentient matter/energy then can be made to react and it can be made to calculate. However reaction/calculation are not consciousness. Thoughts, feelings and sensations come and go before an unchanging inner witness. Those perceived phenomenon are not the Perceiver itself. So can you show that the chemical elements can generate an Experiencer/a Perceiver/an Inner Witness? The material scientists cannot.
Data processing is not consciousness.
The Emergence Theory of Consciousness ChallengedTheir main theory for want of actual proof is that of 'emergence'. Emergence is a real phenomenon. However: every known case of emergence involves 100% unconscious phenomenon emerging from other 100% unconscious phenomenon To claim that 100% unconscious phenomenon such as matter/energy can generate the qualitatively different consciousness is a massive unproven leap.
It is also more logical and in accordance with occam's razor: "Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation." The balanced view that neither matter nor consciousness created the other requires the least speculation...
Please study the diagram. Many theists believe that matter was created by god (a consciousness). They have no evidence for that belief. The materialists believe that consciousness is generated by matter. There is no evidence for that either. If we look at these 2 positions we can see that they are like mirror image errors of each other, they are conceptual opposites. The balanced rational view is that neither created the other, they are qualitatively different. If neither created the other then they are each fundamental co-eternal aspects of reality: primordial consciousness and primordial matter. It takes time to study the diagram and ideally there is a background understanding of the nature of opposites etc.
Although we talk of different levels of consciousness or development of consciousness that is only one side of the coin. Although consciousness can be said to be changing and of various levels etc they are all really the contents of consciousness. The actual consciousness, the pure consciousness is the same in both humans and animals.
It is the Experiencer. Your cognitive faculties are obviously much greater than that of say a cat. However both you and a cat Experience. You both witness. The simple witness is not changing or developing whether throughout our lives or within different species. It is simply witnessing. It is a unique phenomenon, a fundamental. It is quite different from the various cognitive faculties that it illuminates. The mind/matter substance dualism is faulty and different from my philosophy which is matter/unchanging consciousness dualism. I have watched both of the original videos more than once. The creator of them seems to be completely ignorant of the kind of substance dualism which I am describing despite the fact that it is based in large part on the ancient pre-buddhist philosophy of Samkhya.. in other words has been around for thousands of years. The videos are arguing against false doctrines and making elemental errors in defining pure consciousness. I consider there to be a lot of 'smoke and mirror' psychological techniques in such videos designed to give the impression of rational unbiased science where as they are actually biased towards materialism. Did you read the wiki article on near death experiences? It shows that details of the surrounding events were accurately described and confirmed by medical staff completely ruling out mere halucination.
So it is simply wrong to suggest that there are no verifications from others. Furthermore of course some people can actually see floating bodies above the recently dead etc. It is another form of verification.
However my model is not "based on valid testimony" as you said above. I have already agreed that testimony is the weakest of the three ways towards truth. It is of some value though when used in conjunction with the other 2 ways. Occam's Razor is actually pointing towards my version of substance dualism: It is a self evident fact that you are consciousness. There is such a phenomenon as consciousness. There is also it's opposite ie insentient matter.
These 2 are facts. To say that one somehow created the other is an unnecessary complication. As the triangle diagram shows the belief that God (a consciousness) created matter has no evidence. The exact opposite belief ie that matter can create consciousness is also without evidence. They are like mirror image beliefs on the same level of error. I can explain this in more detail later on.
Animals can Experience, for example feel. A simulation of a worm brain is 100% unconscious ie cannot actually Experience. There is no center of Awareness. All animals and humans have an identical quality unchanging center of Awareness.
Consciousness in pure form cannot be simulated as it is unchanging. Being unchanging it is not subject to creation or destruction, it can be said to be timeless/eternal. The living bodies are only interfacing with it. Even that is not directly but via a series of subtle bodies which act as kind of bridge between them. The two scenarios: *generation* or *interface* are mutually exclusive. If one is proven wrong then the other must be right. Despite your blind assertion: "All evidence points..." towards the generation model actually that is not so at all. The so called evidence that I have seen is actually just as valid for the interface scenario. In fact the interface scenario has evidence which proves materialism wrong whereas the materialism side does not have any evidence that proves the interface model wrong. Please share your best evidence which supports the generation model over the interface model. I am confident that I can show that it is not the case after all.
"An animal is at its core a biological machine" Yes an animal body or human body is just a biological machine. It is a 100% unconscious/insentient gross physical vehicle for the interfacing consciousness. There are aspects of the human and animal microcosms which are currently beyond the detection of material science. No machine can experience.
The materialist claim that the insentient atoms of the brain can somehow be made to Experience is an extraordinary claim and has the burden of proof. Try and think in terms of opposites: consciousness/unconsciousness. All basically understood physical phenomenon are 100% unconsciousness. Consciousness in pure unchanging form ie actual consciousness is an absolutely unique phenomenon. It is completely different from data processing which we know can happen without consciousness and is not consciousness.
Consciousness is not mind but rather That which perceives mind. The thoughts come and go before an unchanging witness. That witness is you. You are not the changing contents of consciousness but the eternal center of consciousness.
"The materialist claim that the insentient atoms of the brain can somehow be made to Experience is an extraordinary claim and has the burden of proof."
there is a false 'I' ego and behind it a true 'I'. After studying hundreds of possible wise beings I have identified a handful who are truly liberated. One such is Sri Ramana whose main technique is self enquiry, the deep inner question: Who Am I?
What happens is that due to materialistic bias any neurological facts discovered are automatically interpreted/*assumed* to confirm the materialist belief system. Just take a step back and think about it... it is discovered that a certain part of the brain is connected with 'shutting off' consciousness. This is then paraded as a materialist confirmation when the same fact is actually just as applicable for the interface model. Please consider these illustrations:
If a TV is damaged it may affect the picture. If it is more damaged there may be no more picture. However that does not affect the Signal itself does it? It is not to say that Consciousness is a signal it is just giving a sketch of the interface model.
Here is a 2nd illustration: Imagine the reflection of the full moon in a bucket of water. If the bucket is kicked the reflection will be disturbed. If it is kicked over then there may be no more reflection. However the moon itself is unaffected.
A third illustration: imagine an old style movie projector. The scene maybe a happy scene or a sad scene, the scene is constantly changing. However it is all illuminated by an unchanging light. The light is not affected by any scene that is projected onto the screen. If the 100% unconscious bio-computer gross physical brain is damaged it will effect the cognitive functions, the content of Experience. If it is more damaged there maybe no more possibility of interface. However the consciousness itself is no more affected. Imagine a Google Glass or a VR headset or an Ironman Jarvis type AI. These systems may have their own memory and other faculties. If they are damaged it does not mean that the memory of the user is also lost.
In a similar way the human microcosm has more than one memory system. The physical brain is the most basic and unreliable memory system. It is a vehicle, it is a machine like a google glass. THe memory of the physical brain is guaranteed to face total destruction. There are also more subtle memory systems which survive physical death. This has been understood for thousands of years.
Remember that whatsoever experiences you have had from your earliest memory till now, whether a mundane experience or a spiritual type experience, the Experience, the primordial Awareness is present unchanging in all of them. It is self evident.
Real liberation such as that of Sri Ramana is permanent and final. This idea that some modern scientists talk about ie the 'I' as an illusion was actually known for thousands of years. For there to be an illusion though there must be an Observer of that illusion. There is a false I and also a true I. The true I is inherently happy as it is desireless.
Apart from the 2 primordials ie primordial matter and primordial consciousness there is also a third and possibly more easy to understand primordial: Primordial Truth. The infinite number of eternal mathematical facts cannot have been created by any god, big bang or human mind, they simply cannot be any other way and are intrinsic to reality. Some people believe god must have created the beautiful mathematical facts. That is not possible as the facts are not created objects. Other people confuse our man-made conceptual mathematical maps with the eternal territory that they describe.
ConsciousnessJust to consider one example: how many cartoons, films and other images have we and children seen of feeling conscious robots? Many many thousands of images and little morality tales in various forms of fiction. Of course it is just that as there is no such thing as a feeling/experiencing conscious robot. Yet people are being subliminally cultured to accept the idea as not only possible but inevitable.
Theistic belief systems which say there is only one physical life and then either eternal heaven or hell make people who believe the false doctrines easier to control. In a similar way materialistic beliefs which say we only have one physical life and then nothing also make people easier to control. For example many people will be more attracted to physical pleasures and consumerism making them easier to bribe and influence. Also death which they are told is their final end makes them easier to threaten. So whether or not we call it deliberate but subtle indoctrination or just how things have gone large populations believing in either one physical life theism or materialism are easier to control, not in every individual case but as a general rule.
Also both belief systems disparage the awesome dignity of each being as an eternal center of consciousness. Whether or not you agree with me on the last point nevertheless there is still indoctrination affecting us all via repetition, subliminals and various psychological effects harnessed by advertisers and social engineers.
The individual eternal center of consciousness (of which there are an infinite number and you are one of) is itself unchanging but causes a reflection in primordial matter. This reflection is a kind of ego which passes through many changes all of which must correspond to an eternal pattern. The eventual destiny of all such centers of consciousness is omniscience, unshakable peace and bliss without any suffering or chance of falling back into delusion.
Please share your evidence that consciousness changes. I have already explained that in your own experience your consciousness itself has never changed. Any perceived change cannot be the pure perceiver itself. Still a doubt remains: what about the apparent periods of unconsciousness such as in deep sleep? Surely that is an example of consciousness changing? Have you ever woken up and from your subjective view you had been unconscious all night? Then later in the day you remember a dream you had been experiencing: it means that you had been experiencing after all. This proves that a period of what seems like complete unconsciousness can actually just be a period where the memories are not accessible. So we should not confuse a period of no accessible memories with a period of unconsciousness. When the 100% unconscious bio-computer brain sleeps the consciousness retreats inwards to more subtle realms. The consciousness is still witnessing but the subtle memories do not leave much trace in the physical brain.
In deep dreamless sleep the experiences are even more subtle and the memories are not accessible to the everyday mind. However some spiritual masters claim to be conscious uninterruptedly through even deep sleep. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya
You are here: The VirtueScience Homepage