[MEGA] God

[LivingInTheMoment]

Why not just call it awareness? Or response to stimuli? Or in the case of humans, sentinence? I did some research on plant response to environmental stimuli, so why not call it ACHe mediated calcium ion influx mediated by extracellular H20 concentrations? %)

Thoughts on intelligence, exprience, awareness, and reality.

If you consider yourself more or less intelligent due to the type of thinking or knowledge or only sense of what is reality, then
think again!

We all have different forms of intelligence and differrent people are intelligent at different things, from which dominates and springs their intelligence and hence their experience and awareness.

You are only prevalent to your kind of intelligence, which may exclude the other forms. This means, you lack in understanding of the world view and experience of all the other types of intelligence.

You can agrue about something you believe as the only fact you know, but the fact remains, that others know better through other forms of intellect which you may lack and hence lack experience in! We do not possess all the answers of what full "reality" is. We are still trying to find other life in the Universe.

Just imagine centuries back would they know what is known today yet others already knew, through a certain type of intelligence that the masses did not posses, and hence thought of them as odd, witches, or even insane.

The single most important factor is not IQ, advanced degrees, or technical expertise, but the quality called “Emotional Intelligence".

Unlike IQ, which changes little after our teen years, emotional intelligence seems to be largely learned, and it continues
to develop through life and learn from our experiences.

The ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought, intuition and gut feeling

The capacity to sense messages from our internal store of emotional memory and over the eons – our own reservoir of wisdom and judgment.
This ability lies at the heart of self-awareness.

Lacking such sensitivity, people are-off-being emotionally tone deaf, whether from misconstruing
feelings or through a mechanical, out-of-tune bluntness or indifference that destroys rapport.

One form this lack of empathy can take is responding to other people as stereotypes rather than as the unique individuals that they are.
They have had experiences unlike our own and unlike what is proven or can't be proven by the methods or intruments we have developed today by science, it does not mean they do not exist, just simply not found the instrument of measure of those realities that may exist, where special individuals have experienced. Kerlian photography has shown patterned photons-light energy that could not be viewed before by anything else. It does not mean it was not there, just could not view it, yet the people said they could feel it. Perhaps emotional intelligence is what is needed to experience what is not experienced by the less sensitive others.

I hope that we are now starting to reconsider that false belief of knowing the facts of life our way only, which is a limited way or one view! Some individuals have extra sensory perception, and really experience what others cannot! By sensory, one needs to also be emotionally open and not simply think of life-but feel it with their heart fully open, ...and things happen then, that our minds can not conceive!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought I will post this url, I found it interesting, even if others may not, I found it worth the reading!

http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

http://www.personalityresearch.org/intelligence.html

 

[Enlitx]

Well this post wasn't very nice at all. If you can't open your mind to other peoples experiences without deeming them a burnt out hippie, that's fine. You are entitled to your views, but I am going to discontinue discussing this with you since you can't seem to express your views in a kind way.

Sorry, that kind of statement wasn't necessary. My point still stands though. Believing whatever you want because it feels good or because it is the first explanation or the most comforting explanation that pops into your head doesen't make it equally valid. We have such odd formailities when it comes to religion and spirituality. In every other issue, if there is no solid rational behind it, you are told you have naive beliefs. When it comes to spirituality, everyone's belief is equally valid because so many people want to believe, they are afraid what would happen if logic was applied to their own personal beliefs. So everyone gets a free pass. I think Richard Dawkins said this a few years back.

Yes, technically science cannot venture into the realms you are discussing, but you have to ask yourself is it possible that your brain, working under the laws of physics, has has made you think this stuff is real without any of it being real at all? To me, one of those options is way, way more likely, for a plethora of reasons.

 

[Enlitx]

Why is this the best way to define reality? I don't mean to come off as argumentative, but it seems like you're assuming that your idea of real is the "real" concept of reality, and the views of some others are just confused or naive.

I don't think that's the only notion of reality which allows one to distinguish between varying levels of reality.

It is the best concept because it can be universally applied and also provide utility for humans. People can spout off about Shakras and Energy of Chi and whatever else far out stuff you want, but don't expect me to believe it is real.

We have evidence for a brain that finds patterns and is capable of all kinds of abstraction and creation. So, when people come up with these far out, vague, feel good theories about how the universe works, which is more likely, that they actually have figured out what hard working scientists across the world and time haven't, or that they probably just made up some shit that sounded good and stuck with it?

You are all forgetting that scientists don't simply leave the question of different universes/realities to rest. Quantam physics talks about an infinite number of realities/universes, there is time travel in Einstein's physics, etc... In fact, I would be willing to bet some of the implications of quantam physics are much weirder than the philosophical theories here, but the key difference is that scientists have evidence for quantam physics. Believing in stuff purely on faith is what children do.

 

[Enlitx]

I believe you have been entranced by mechanistic science, "I define real as those things which can be measured and verified experimentally" how about all those new ideas outside the old scientific paradigm that were eventually considered "valid" but previous to proof were merely speculative... would you call those people insane because they didn't have your definition of proof? And no map or concept is inherently real... the map is not the territory.

Entranced? No. I have just found the best method to figure out the truth. There is a reason you expect your doctor to follow this method when your ass is on the line, because it comes up with actual, effectual results.

If people can show good, sound reasons why they think something may be true, I wouldn't call them insanse. For example, string theory is an awesome theory, but I wouldn't call it equally true and valid as quantam theory. It needs to be tested and verified before it can be called "real". Until now, it is just a nice idea.

Compare that with the idea that we live on after our death. All evidence points towards our brain representing who we are, our body needing to survive to fuel the brain, and no scientific mechanism that could explain the existence of a soul. So, if you believe in that, I would have to conclude that you are doing it for emotional reasons, not valid ones.

So map, which is made up of atoms, is not real? Only, the ground, which is also made up out of atoms? Or are you referring to the abstraction of the data on the map? These kind of semantic arguments can get pretty silly.

 

[Enlitx]

I've read that we only utilise about 10% of of brain power, what is the rest for ?

This is flat out wrong. It was perpetuated a long time ago and has long since been shown to be false.

This may be basic but can anybody prove that I am wrong ?

Prove me wrong that a flying spaghetti monster doesen't rule the universe with an iron fist.

 

[Enlitx]

It's like talking to a wall.



I think all sorts of everyday experiences are "psychic experiences." Every time we have a conversation with someone there is a mutual recognition of each others consciousness.

I would say it is like talking to a bunch of hippies, but I am sure a lot of you actually are hippies

Why change the definition for psychic now? I think the very common and accepted definition is that you can read other people's private thoughts verbatim. It does not mean that you could deduce what they are thinking from they body gestures, words, etc... This is just normal human interaction. You guys keep chaning the definition of words, it makes it very hard to have a meaningful conversation.

 

[Enlitx]

Thoughts on intelligence, exprience, awareness, and reality.

If you consider yourself more or less intelligent due to the type of thinking or knowledge or only sense of what is reality, then
think again!

We all have different forms of intelligence and differrent people are intelligent at different things, from which dominates and springs their intelligence and hence their experience and awareness.

You are only prevalent to your kind of intelligence, which may exclude the other forms. This means, you lack in understanding of the world view and experience of all the other types of intelligence.

So, I am not intelligent because I won't accept far out theories? Or because I don't have emotional intelligence? Wow, that must mean that nobel prize winners were complete dumb asses, which you might actually think judging from your post. Either way, the only two types of intelligence recognized that I know of are normal intelligence and emotional intelligence, but last time I checked we weren't talking about how well you can cuddle with your friends.

You can agrue about something you believe as the only fact you know, but the fact remains, that others know better through other forms of intellect which you may lack and hence lack experience in! We do not possess all the answers of what full "reality" is. We are still trying to find other life in the Universe.

Better how? Because they experienced it? Subjective, anecdotal experience has sure served us well in the past (think Zeus, Jesus, Allah, etc..).

Just imagine centuries back would they know what is known today yet others already knew, through a certain type of intelligence that the masses did not posses, and hence thought of them as odd, witches, or even insane.

Such as?

The single most important factor is not IQ, advanced degrees, or technical expertise, but the quality called “Emotional Intelligence".

Unlike IQ, which changes little after our teen years, emotional intelligence seems to be largely learned, and it continues
to develop through life and learn from our experiences.

The ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought, intuition and gut feeling

The capacity to sense messages from our internal store of emotional memory and over the eons – our own reservoir of wisdom and judgment.
This ability lies at the heart of self-awareness.

Lacking such sensitivity, people are-off-being emotionally tone deaf, whether from misconstruing
feelings or through a mechanical, out-of-tune bluntness or indifference that destroys rapport.

Ok, but being emotional has nothing to do with the questions being asked here about god and what not. In fact, it would be to your distinct disadvantage to be emotional about these issues. It makes you believe stuff because it feels good, not because it is likely real.

And I am sure a lot of people would like to jump to emotional intelligence and say they are just as intelligent as Einstein, because it doesen't involve the kind of work that science requires. There are no right and wrong answers, just how you interact and feel with other people.

One form this lack of empathy can take is responding to other people as stereotypes rather than as the unique individuals that they are.
They have had experiences unlike our own and unlike what is proven or can't be proven by the methods or intruments we have developed today by science, it does not mean they do not exist, just simply not found the instrument of measure of those realities that may exist, where special individuals have experienced. Kerlian photography has shown patterned photons-light energy that could not be viewed before by anything else. It does not mean it was not there, just could not view it, yet the people said they could feel it. Perhaps emotional intelligence is what is needed to experience what is not experienced by the less sensitive others.

I hope that we are now starting to reconsider that false belief of knowing the facts of life our way only, which is a limited way or one view! Some individuals have extra sensory perception, and really experience what others cannot! By sensory, one needs to also be emotionally open and not simply think of life-but feel it with their heart fully open, ...and things happen then, that our minds can not conceive!!

"Feeling" life will not give you more correct answers, it will probably give you fewer. I am not saying we know everything, far from it, what I am saying is that people should stick to what we do know, and if you have a new hypothesis, use sound reasoning to suggest that it is real.

 

[yougene]

Yes, me as well! You put it beautifully. To me everything is a psychic or spiritual experience, it just depends on to what degree. Obviously some experiences are more memorable or "out there" in whatever way than others, but you illustrated my point, that all people are capable of that sort of expanded consciousness, they just have to realize it.

Yes, just being around someone and not saying a word, you feel into their consciousness, into their emotional, and other states.
Sometimes even into the actual contents of their mind. Isn't that what observational humor is? A bringing forth of shared thoughts/feelings/states.


The experience of telepathy is when their is an internal acknowledgement that you are feeling into their consciousness and they are feeling into yours. But you are feeling into each others minds all the time anyways! Every time there is a mutual sharing of perspective there is "psychic" ability.

I'm not sure if you were referring to me or someone else, but if so I'm sorry if I come across like talking to a wall. I don't mean to. I honestly enjoy discussing these things, I just don't like that it can't be done without name calling (burnt out hippie IS name calling, IMO).

I was referring to Enlitx but I'm starting to think( hope ) he is just looking for reactions here. I feel a little bad for him if that's how he thinks and interacts with people on a daily basis.

I think that it is foolish to rely completely on the current evolved form of consciousness/logic as the definitive kind.

Even the current constructs( modernism, postmodernism ) acknowledge their own boundaries on a logical level. Some just choose to jump to the conclusion that nothing beyond those boundaries is real. I think it's an absurd claim on an empirical level but I can see how someone can get stuck in that kind of wishy-washy thinking. I know I was for a long time.

Namaste

 

[stonerfromohio]

Entranced? No. I have just found the best method to figure out the truth. There is a reason you expect your doctor to follow this method when your ass is on the line, because it comes up with actual, effectual results.

If people can show good, sound reasons why they think something may be true, I wouldn't call them insanse. For example, string theory is an awesome theory, but I wouldn't call it equally true and valid as quantam theory. It needs to be tested and verified before it can be called "real". Until now, it is just a nice idea.

Compare that with the idea that we live on after our death. All evidence points towards our brain representing who we are, our body needing to survive to fuel the brain, and no scientific mechanism that could explain the existence of a soul. So, if you believe in that, I would have to conclude that you are doing it for emotional reasons, not valid ones.

So map, which is made up of atoms, is not real? Only, the ground, which is also made up out of atoms? Or are you referring to the abstraction of the data on the map? These kind of semantic arguments can get pretty silly.

illusion of self-existence of entities. As we take our thoughts to perfectly correspond to an objective

reality and/or we confuse them with the sense data they interpret, we come to experience a

plethora of phenomena as though they were self-existent, as though they inherently

possessed such and such qualities, etc. However, this is a gross delusion, for phenomena in

general, whether of the type we call “mental” or of the type that we designate as “material,”

whether subjects or objects,33 lack the self-existence that individuals possessed by the

delusion called avidya or marigpa perceive them as having, and no map in terms of

thoughts can correspond exactly to the territory of the given, for nothing that can be

asserted concerning any region of reality or entity whatsoever can exactly correspond to it

or exhaust it. Even space and time lack the objective existence we experience them as

having. All of this is what the Madhyamikas had in mind when they used the term

emptiness or voidness

And I am not referring to an abstract concept such as "ground which is also made up of atoms" Buddhist thought does not consider voidness to actually represent anything its merely a signpost to realization. Another example:

"What is the color of the number three?" and "How can you hang a thief who doesn't exist?" These questions are calculated to produce a sort of "shock" effect on our thinking, and they are used to bring us to see that questions like "What is the meaning of a word?" also may be queer if we properly examine them in the light of the intricate variety of meanings evident in our ordinary use of language. The aim of the method is, by the use of intentional nonsense, to bring one to see the sense underlying the method.

And to clarify a more precisely:

Zen is characteristically anti-intellectual and a-systematic in its approach to life and the world. To understand this approach, it is essential to consider reality in terms of ineffability. Error, confusion, pain, suffering, anxiety, and perplexity stem from our effort to cut distinctions out of the ineffable reality. Per haps the best way to describe this effort is with reference to the Hindu term "maya." Maya "the illusion superimposed upon reality as an effect of ignorance."(1) And, in one case, the whole visible cosmos is described as maya, constituting nothing more than an "illusion superimposed upon true being by mans deceitful senses and unilluminated mind."(2) The rational dis- tinctions we make represent a net we cast over the ineffable in our effort to get at the truth. But the truth is that concepts are not things, and all such distinctions are false. The more we try to get at reality by multiplying out concepts, the more we become entangled in our own net.

The greatest error comes, however, when we begin to consider our concepts as being real in themselves, or when we assume that for every concept there is a thing which corresponds to it. Such a view leads to a false dualism, of which the ultimate expression is the subject-object split we make between ourselves and the world about us. This form of dualism also finds expression in conventional dualistic notions, such as body-soul, idea-thing, mind-matter; etc. These conventional dichotomies, enjoying the force of convention, over-shadow our will to discover the truth. D. T. Suzuki indicates the predicament of dualism in the following way:

We believe in dualism chiefly because of our traditional training. Whether ideas really correspond to facts is another matter requiring a special investigation. Ordinarily we do not inquire into the matter, we just accept what is instilled into our minds; for to accept is more convenient and practical, and life is to a certain extent though not in reality, made thereby easier.(3)

If ideas and concepts, or, for that matter, any aspect of the intellect, are by their very nature false and erroneous, then any effort to convey ultimate truth about the world or ultimate reality by means of concepts is obviously bound to fail. If we are to get at the truth, we must employ a technique not bound to the intellect, and one which is able to go beyond the inherent limitation of the whole conceptual scheme. The method, whatever form takes, must be a radical departure from any conventional mode of thought.


"Is," "is." "is" — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

"The Tao that can be explained with words is not the Tao."

"Those who know do not speak, those who speak, do not know"

The fallacy is that one can judge the part in isolation from the whole is "the Lie that all men believe."

I do not concern myself with gods and spirits either good or evil nor do I serve any.
Lao Tzu

At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want.
Lao Tzu

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.
Lao Tzu

By letting it go it all gets done. The world is won by those who let it go. But when you try and try. The world is beyond the winning.
Lao Tzu

He who conquers others is strong; He who conquers himself is mighty.
Lao Tzu

He who knows himself is enlightened.
Lao Tzu

Health is the greatest possession. Contentment is the greatest treasure. Confidence is the greatest friend. Non-being is the greatest joy.
Lao Tzu

I just don't believe all the sages of the eons or academia's Karl Popper, or Alfred Korzybskie would at all agree with calling semantics "silly". " No. I have just found the best method to figure out the truth" Seems to be an arrogant statement.

 

[Enlitx]

I was referring to Enlitx but I'm starting to think( hope ) he is just looking for reactions here. I feel a little bad for him if that's how he thinks and interacts with people on a daily basis.

First of all, I do apologize for some of my remarks that characterized people as hippies. That was out of line.

I will not apologize for being critical of ideas though. It is very counter productive to give all beliefs equal credence simply because someone holds that belief. There are good beliefs, and there are bad beliefs. Believing in something simply because it is so far removed from scientific scrutiny it couldn't be challenged does not mean that it is a good belief. Like I have stated, I could believe that a spaghetti monster rules the universe, that we are all products of his noodles, and we all derive our consciousness from his meatballs. He has explicit control of our thoughts as well.

Now, no one could disprove my theory. It is just as good as a lot of the stuff being posted here, but where exactly would it get us as a people to believe in any wild assertion?

I am just hoping that people use critical thinking when determing their worldviews. Emotional reasoning is what led to the religions of the world and all the problems that entailed. Just because some people repackage their ideas into Eastern Philosophy and New Age Mysticism doesen't mean that they are suddenly OK.

 

[Enlitx]

illusion of self-existence of entities. As we take our thoughts to perfectly correspond to an objective

reality and/or we confuse them with the sense data they interpret, we come to experience a

plethora of phenomena as though they were self-existent, as though they inherently

possessed such and such qualities, etc. However, this is a gross delusion, for phenomena in

general, whether of the type we call “mental” or of the type that we designate as “material,”

whether subjects or objects,33 lack the self-existence that individuals possessed by the

delusion called avidya or marigpa perceive them as having, and no map in terms of

thoughts can correspond exactly to the territory of the given, for nothing that can be

asserted concerning any region of reality or entity whatsoever can exactly correspond to it

or exhaust it. Even space and time lack the objective existence we experience them as

having. All of this is what the Madhyamikas had in mind when they used the term

emptiness or voidness

Yep, it is called the incompleteness theory in mathematics. It is also evident in quantam theory that we are only perceiving one possible collapsed wave function out of the many probabilities. I have no problem acknowledging that.

And I am not referring to an abstract concept such as "ground which is also made up of atoms" Buddhist thought does not consider voidness to actually represent anything its merely a signpost to realization. Another example:

Don't really know where voidness came into the picture, although I agree it is just a concept in reference to something that actually exist.

"What is the color of the number three?" and "How can you hang a thief who doesn't exist?" These questions are calculated to produce a sort of "shock" effect on our thinking, and they are used to bring us to see that questions like "What is the meaning of a word?" also may be queer if we properly examine them in the light of the intricate variety of meanings evident in our ordinary use of language. The aim of the method is, by the use of intentional nonsense, to bring one to see the sense underlying the method.

And to clarify a more precisely:

Zen is characteristically anti-intellectual and a-systematic in its approach to life and the world. To understand this approach, it is essential to consider reality in terms of ineffability. Error, confusion, pain, suffering, anxiety, and perplexity stem from our effort to cut distinctions out of the ineffable reality. Per haps the best way to describe this effort is with reference to the Hindu term "maya." Maya "the illusion superimposed upon reality as an effect of ignorance."(1) And, in one case, the whole visible cosmos is described as maya, constituting nothing more than an "illusion superimposed upon true being by mans deceitful senses and unilluminated mind."(2) The rational dis- tinctions we make represent a net we cast over the ineffable in our effort to get at the truth. But the truth is that concepts are not things, and all such distinctions are false. The more we try to get at reality by multiplying out concepts, the more we become entangled in our own net.

The greatest error comes, however, when we begin to consider our concepts as being real in themselves, or when we assume that for every concept there is a thing which corresponds to it. Such a view leads to a false dualism, of which the ultimate expression is the subject-object split we make between ourselves and the world about us. This form of dualism also finds expression in conventional dualistic notions, such as body-soul, idea-thing, mind-matter; etc. These conventional dichotomies, enjoying the force of convention, over-shadow our will to discover the truth. D. T. Suzuki indicates the predicament of dualism in the following way:

We believe in dualism chiefly because of our traditional training. Whether ideas really correspond to facts is another matter requiring a special investigation. Ordinarily we do not inquire into the matter, we just accept what is instilled into our minds; for to accept is more convenient and practical, and life is to a certain extent though not in reality, made thereby easier.(3)

If ideas and concepts, or, for that matter, any aspect of the intellect, are by their very nature false and erroneous, then any effort to convey ultimate truth about the world or ultimate reality by means of concepts is obviously bound to fail. If we are to get at the truth, we must employ a technique not bound to the intellect, and one which is able to go beyond the inherent limitation of the whole conceptual scheme. The method, whatever form takes, must be a radical departure from any conventional mode of thought.


"Is," "is." "is" — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

"The Tao that can be explained with words is not the Tao."

"Those who know do not speak, those who speak, do not know"

The fallacy is that one can judge the part in isolation from the whole is "the Lie that all men believe."

I do not concern myself with gods and spirits either good or evil nor do I serve any.
Lao Tzu

At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want.
Lao Tzu

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.
Lao Tzu

By letting it go it all gets done. The world is won by those who let it go. But when you try and try. The world is beyond the winning.
Lao Tzu

He who conquers others is strong; He who conquers himself is mighty.
Lao Tzu

He who knows himself is enlightened.
Lao Tzu

Health is the greatest possession. Contentment is the greatest treasure. Confidence is the greatest friend. Non-being is the greatest joy.
Lao Tzu

I just don't believe all the sages of the eons or academia's Karl Popper, or Alfred Korzybskie would at all agree with calling semantics "silly". " No. I have just found the best method to figure out the truth" Seems to be an arrogant statement.

I mean "silly" in the sense that there is no objective truth or understanding ever, so you could always question any statement. It is also the reason philosophers are the butt of many jokes, things like I can't have lunch because I don't know if I am real.

I am not trying to degrade philosophy, it has asked many great questions of the universe and many great thinkers have been far from "silly". What I am saying is that if you want to propose a model for how the universe actually works, beyond grandiose abstractions that you can come up with, you need to use the scientific method.

Anything else is just the musings of the mind, and like I have stated, any wild assertion could be considered equally valid. What we should be doing as people is trying to find, for our own subjective purposes, what corresponds for all people on this planet. That means one experiement in the US will hold up in Germany. That is about the most objective we can get, and it has served us so much better in day to day life than any other discipline.

 

[stonerfromohio]

Don't really know where voidness came into the picture, although I agree it is just a concept in reference to something that actually exist.

This was clarifying the passage which started illusion of self-existence of entities and I was just making it clear that the voidness in which they speak is not in essence real but merely a signpost for realization. Im not so sure you can ever calculate how the unvierse "actually works". I understand that you can understand neurology, neurotransmitters, we know a lot about genetics, quantuam physics but they are all theories, models, maps they are not how the universe "actually works". Some of the theories may get the physiological processes and/or mechanisms down but they are still cutting processes down to isolated processes away from the whole and using a concept that is agreed upon in consensus reality and all the theories and maps are subject to change. To me this is not understanding "how things work" its a mental model to help clarify but its no substitute for the real thing. Everyone is concerned with What is being instead of just being, thats the whole zen philosophy instead of asking what everything is you just bask in the isness asking questions or delving into metaphysics ends up with theories of suffering. Im not saying the sciences dont have physical correlation to improvement in our life they do, but they also have dramatic detrimental affects. And I think if people are familiar with the buddhist meta-narritives it can be great signposts to realization, science is a meta-narritive that doesnt acknowledge its a meta-narritive whereas buddhism knows its a meta-narritive and merely a signpost pointing the way.

 

[Enlitx]

This was clarifying the passage which started illusion of self-existence of entities and I was just making it clear that the voidness in which they speak is not in essence real but merely a signpost for realization. Im not so sure you can ever calculate how the unvierse "actually works". I understand that you can understand neurology, neurotransmitters, we know a lot about genetics, quantuam physics but they are all theories, models, maps they are not how the universe "actually works". Some of the theories may get the physiological processes and/or mechanisms down but they are still cutting processes down to isolated processes away from the whole and using a concept that is agreed upon in consensus reality and all the theories and maps are subject to change. To me this is not understanding "how things work" its a mental model to help clarify but its no substitute for the real thing. Everyone is concerned with What is being instead of just being, thats the whole zen philosophy instead of asking what everything is you just bask in the isness asking questions or delving into metaphysics ends up with theories of suffering. Im not saying the sciences dont have physical correlation to improvement in our life they do, but they also have dramatic detrimental affects. And I think if people are familiar with the buddhist meta-narritives it can be great signposts to realization, science is a meta-narritive that doesnt acknowledge its a meta-narritive whereas buddhism knows its a meta-narritive and merely a signpost pointing the way.

I agree we will never know how the universe really works. We can know a lot about how we experience the universe though. Like a famous scientist said, "I don't know if an electron is actually real, but the concept of it is really useful". That is how I feel, we will never know if something is entirely real, but we just have to accept that and deem things as "real" as we can measure them to be.

I don't think buddhist philosophy has anything over science though. It is surely better than Christianity, but it is still a very vague and untestable way of describing things. To me, the best way will always be to follow the scientific method. I will never know the objective truth, but I can know what theories are valid and which are just nice ideas. I can also distinguish what theories are purely the product of wild speculation and emotional wishes. I tend to hate it when people suggest the latter are just as valid as well accepted scientific theory.

 

[Cheshire Kat]

It is the best concept because it can be universally applied and also provide utility for humans. People can spout off about Shakras and Energy of Chi and whatever else far out stuff you want, but don't expect me to believe it is real.

We have evidence for a brain that finds patterns and is capable of all kinds of abstraction and creation. So, when people come up with these far out, vague, feel good theories about how the universe works, which is more likely, that they actually have figured out what hard working scientists across the world and time haven't, or that they probably just made up some shit that sounded good and stuck with it?

You are all forgetting that scientists don't simply leave the question of different universes/realities to rest. Quantam physics talks about an infinite number of realities/universes, there is time travel in Einstein's physics, etc... In fact, I would be willing to bet some of the implications of quantam physics are much weirder than the philosophical theories here, but the key difference is that scientists have evidence for quantam physics. Believing in stuff purely on faith is what children do.

Applied universally? It seems like most concepts of reality can be applied universally, in some sense they have to in order to be a concept of reality, but I'm not entire sure what you mean by that term.

Believing stuff purely on faith? To me, that sounds like exactly what you're doing. You seem to have faith that what your senses show you is an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, what evidence do you have for your brain being the seat of your consciousness? The fact that a long series of percpetions linked by space and causality seems to show it is?

It seems like both of those concepts are just "feel good" concepts; or rather, ones your consciousness is bound by, and to assume that it is therefore an accurate reflection of reality is a "feel good" concept. I mean, how pleasant a concept is it to think reality really is the way we perceive it, and there's all sorts of nice rules and laws that explain it and bind it.

To deny their accuracy does not necessarily lead into some metaphysical anarchy of willy-nilly hippy talk where no one knows what anything is. I don't accept reality as you define it, and I get as much utility out of my concept as you or anyone else, and I don't have trouble interacting with the world in any practical sense. Nor do plenty of Hindus and Buddhists, or people like MynameisnotDeja (from what little I know of her). The concept of some sort of Metaphysical Utilitarianism strikes me as problematic on a number of levels, but it doesn't even seem to really support your conclusion.

Great post. I agree. Thank you for that. It's really cool and refreshing that other people see things sorta like I do. A lot of you guys describe what I see in a slightly different way than I see it, but you are basically saying the same thing as me. I appreciate and respect that a lot, it really helps broaden my perspective.

I'm glad you have such a healthy attitude! Here's a little bit more of my theory (the whole thing would take dozens of pages), if you would like to further broaden your perspective (or get a good laugh).

While that first short paragraph in my last post does seem understandable to many, this right now is the point where I tend to really lose people. I think that there is only one thing in existence (something like Parmenides' "it", he's influenced me greatly), but that thing consists of perceptions (illusions) of dualities. I'm a visual person, so I tend to metaphorically describe abstract concepts as physical forms, that's how I visualize and understand things in my head. So bear with me. I see the world as a spherical eye that sees in all directions at once, and that eye is encased in an inside-out disco ball with infinitely many mirrors. It is only one thing, but it can never look at itself as one thing, it sees only unlimited fragments of itself, overlapping, but separate, and sharing some common familiarity. The eye can never look itself in the eye. Every single thing in "existence" is just one of those infinitely many mirrors; only instead of being a square touching 4 other square mirrors, they each touch multitudes of other mirrors. Their borders (that which connects them) are our concepts of perception such as space and time and causation and duality and quality, (and perhaps consciousness itself? I'm still working on that part), etc. I think that for a mirror to have infinitely many borders, is something like the nirvana that Buddhists strive for, a total oneness with all of existence. Only then can the mirror reflect the whole eye, but even then the eye cannot see itself as there are still infinitely many mirrors; that is, a part of the eye (that part which is reflected in that one mirror) can see the whole eye (as that mirror with infinitely many borders would cover the entire inside of the disco-ball, and thus "see" all sides of the eye), but the whole eye cannot see the whole eye, as there are still infinitely many mirrors. I'm still not sure if this is attainable or not, I go back and forth.

Another problem is that it might be attainable if the relationships between the mirrors are constantly changing, which it seems like they would have to, the way I have described them; but then that is looking at the mirrors and their relations in terms of time, and time is one of the things whose relations is being evaluated. That particular problem with my metaphor has been troubling me a lot, to the point where I've been trying to think of a new, better metaphor for existence. Reading this thread has been helpful in giving me food for thought.

So, I don't think my concept of reality is really that of a deity or God, although I guess you call it that in some way.

EDIT: typos up the yin yang

 

[Jackal]

Not at all.

And totally.

 

[Psychedelic Gleam]

It is the best concept because it can be universally applied and also provide utility for humans. People can spout off about Shakras and Energy of Chi and whatever else far out stuff you want, but don't expect me to believe it is real.

Frankly I think the concepts of Chi/Chakras/Energy fields are pretty cross cultural without cultural contact, ie. from South American Ayahuasca shamans to Yogi's in India, to the dreamtime artwork of Aboriginal Australia, to the Tree of Life in Kabbahlistic Judaism. I personally have witnessed energy nodes within myself and others during certain experiences. This experience is undeniably real, if this experience transcends cultures/space/time perhaps it has SOME reality to it, perhaps not in a physical sense, but rather these images are an integral part of human consciousness much as Archetypical beings such as Faeries/Angels/"little people"/Aliens have been seen in shamanistic art throughout the ages. I would find the argument that such things aren't "real" is absolutely false. They ARE real as they are cross culturally emergent without contact, BUT the real question comes down to HOW exactly are these real? What are they? Do they exist external to human consciousness? (I tend to say no) Do they exist inside of human consciousness? (I would say probably so). If these are manifestations of human consciousness than the real question is why exactly are these archetypical and common symbolic figures in our minds, how did they get their, etc etc.

Perception and experience has a grounding in some sort of reality, the real question is what is the nature of this reality from which these experiences emerge, thus the whole argument that they aren't "real" is absurd, limited, and antithetical to true skeptical inquiry. Such attitudes are providing a Black/White, Yes/No answer to a realm in which such attitudes are limiting and short sighted.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

Wow, this thread took off since I looked at it last night. Rock on for the good discussion.

Yes, technically science cannot venture into the realms you are discussing, but you have to ask yourself is it possible that your brain, working under the laws of physics, has has made you think this stuff is real without any of it being real at all? To me, one of those options is way, way more likely, for a plethora of reasons.

I wrote you back before I saw this. Thanks for the PM.
It seems my friend, we just have different criteria for what is "real" and what is not real. Is simply don't see reality the same way you do. To me, the things that happen in my brain ARE reality. Neither of us is right or wrong, we just have very, very different ways of looking at the universe, which is cool. Perhaps your science minded perspective could give me a more rounded out opinion on some of the things I've experienced *(that I mentioned in my pm)* such as kundalini, chi healing/energy work and martial artists who can do insanely badass things just by manipulating energy *and this is something I've experienced in real life*

It is the best concept because it can be universally applied and also provide utility for humans. People can spout off about Shakras and Energy of Chi and whatever else far out stuff you want, but don't expect me to believe it is real.

Damn, if only I could introduce you to some friends of mine.. they could send you flying across the room using nothing but energetic force. Then you might change your mind. Go spend some time with some serious, high level martial artists and they could show you some things that would definitely make you think twice about us being nothing but blood sacks filled with organs and goo and chemical reactions.

Quantam physics talks about an infinite number of realities/universes, there is time travel in Einstein's physics, etc... In fact, I would be willing to bet some of the implications of quantam physics are much weirder than the philosophical theories here, but the key difference is that scientists have evidence for quantam physics. Believing in stuff purely on faith is what children do.

Quantam physics is a part of my spirituality. Ever seen the movie What the Bleep do we know? I love that movie and it really made me interested in how science and spirit can go hand in hand.

Compare that with the idea that we live on after our death. All evidence points towards our brain representing who we are, our body needing to survive to fuel the brain, and no scientific mechanism that could explain the existence of a soul. So, if you believe in that, I would have to conclude that you are doing it for emotional reasons, not valid ones.

Hmm. That's a bit unfair. You are not accounting for vast amounts of perspectives which are very spiritual yet do not believe that "we" live on after death. I do not believe that ME, this girl that I currently am, will live on after death. That isn't my spirituality at all. Every single person that has a life is only that person once. Even if you believe in reincarnation, each life is still it's own life and it's own person. SO while there might be some people who believe a soul is born, becomes a person, lives dies and then walks around being that person in ghost form forever, understand that not all of us believe that. I absolutely believe in life after death but I don't see it that way at all.

Why change the definition for psychic now? I think the very common and accepted definition is that you can read other people's private thoughts verbatim.

That is a very limited definition of the word psychic. My own psychic experiences have mostly been pre-cog in nature, as well as being able to pick up on energetic disturbances or "see spirits" you could say. I think being a "mind reader" is a very silly and un-informed definition of psychic, the sort that is perpetuated by people who watch the psychic network commercials and think that is the reality. ALL sorts of people with all sorts of different abilities are considered psychic, from people who channel, to see the future, to read minds, to see into other realms, etc etc. I know, you don't believe in any of that stuff and I get that, I'm just saying, I don't think thats a fair definition of psychic.

"Feeling" life will not give you more correct answers, it will probably give you fewer.

Haha! Dude.. it's the ONLY thing that has ever given me correct answers.

There are good beliefs, and there are bad beliefs.

Hmm.. well I disagree strongly with that. A belief is a belief, it's an opinion. It's impossible for an opinion to be "good" or "bad" as that in itself is just another opinion.

Like I have stated, I could believe that a spaghetti monster rules the universe, that we are all products of his noodles, and we all derive our consciousness from his meatballs. He has explicit control of our thoughts as well.

A spaghetti monster absolutely COULD rule the universe! I agree with you there. ANything is possible. And that's the difference between you and me, lol. I WOULDN'T feel the urge to "disprove" that. If that's the way someone sees the universe, then it's correct. And the way I see the universe is correct as well. There is no one truth.

Believing stuff purely on faith? To me, that sounds like exactly what you're doing. You seem to have faith that what your senses show you is an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, what evidence do you have for your brain being the seat of your consciousness? The fact that a long series of percpetions linked by space and causality seems to show it is?

It seems like both of those concepts are just "feel good" concepts; or rather, ones your consciousness is bound by, and to assume that it is therefore an accurate reflection of reality is a "feel good" concept. I mean, how pleasant a concept is it to think reality really is the way we perceive it, and there's all sorts of nice rules and laws that explain it and bind it.

Good post!

While that first short paragraph in my last post does seem understandable to many, this right now is the point where I tend to really lose people. I think that there is only one thing in existence (something like Parmenides' "it", he's influenced me greatly), but that thing consists of perceptions (illusions) of dualities. I'm a visual person, so I tend to metaphorically describe abstract concepts as physical forms, that's how I visualize and understand things in my head. So bear with me. I see the world as a spherical eye that sees in all directions at once, and that eye is encased in an inside-out disco ball with infinitely many mirrors. It is only one thing, but it can never look at itself as one thing, it sees only unlimited fragments of itself, overlapping, but separate, and sharing some common familiarity. The eye can never look itself in the eye. Every single thing in "existence" is just one of those infinitely many mirrors; only instead of being a square touching 4 other square mirrors, they each touch multitudes of other mirrors. Their borders (that which connects them) are our concepts of perception such as space and time and causation and duality and quality, (and perhaps consciousness itself? I'm still working on that part), etc. I think that for a mirror to have infinitely many borders, is something like the nirvana that Buddhists strive for, a total oneness with all of existence. Only then can the mirror reflect the whole eye, but even then the eye cannot see itself as there are still infinitely many mirrors; that is, a part of the eye (that part which is reflected in that one mirror) can see the whole eye (as that mirror with infinitely many borders would cover the entire inside of the disco-ball, and thus "see" all sides of the eye), but the whole eye cannot see the whole eye, as there are still infinitely many mirrors. I'm still not sure if this is attainable or not, I go back and forth.

Woah.... that just gave me a mental orgasm. That made a lot of sense to me and I see things in my mind in a very similar way. Beautiful! Damn you're awake. Rock on for you.

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

}It is the best concept because it can be universally applied and also provide utility for humans. People can spout off about Shakras and Energy of Chi and whatever else far out stuff you want, but don't expect me to believe it is real.


When you consider that the Chakras are the neural plexuses and the libidinal/emotive energy that flows through and rediate there, what you say dispays that you simply run from one side of your brain, or limiting your knowledge to only what you knowin the way that you have learned to describe it from the right brain!

You know you can train a donkey to do tricks, but you can't retrain a schience student after they form a pretty rigid view of knowledge about the world viewed from different perspectives. If you jump over to the right side of the brain, the view is so different yet talking about the same things but the view is so much more colourful!!

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I am not intelligent because I won't accept far out theories?

>(that was not said!! reread the post)..

Or because I don't have emotional intelligence? Wow, that must mean that nobel prize winners were complete dumb asses,

>I never called you unintelligent for that would be an error in judgement....just that people have other form of intellect advanced.

which you might actually think judging from your post.
Either way, the only two types of intelligence recognized that I know of are normal intelligence and emotional intelligence, ....

>(which you misinterpet the latter)!

but last time I checked we weren't talking about how well you can cuddle with your friends.

>Again, you misinterpret the latter!!


Better how? Because they experienced it? Subjective, anecdotal experience has sure served us well in the past (think Zeus, Jesus, Allah, etc..).

>( ?????????????????????are we talking about religion??
The link was placed for you to view the speach and different thought which comes from emotional intelligence but you misinterpreted that too, so I removed it! I don't think you can understand the meaning of my words unless you come OFF the cutting rational intelligence and get into the other side of your brain!
Just different language describing the same thing perhaps, but one needs to be in that part of their brain to take what is relevant to the issue on hand!! Art Apreciation, might assist to explain the type of language you will use.... perhaps?

Such as?*****************
>Alchemy was the activity people did until they invented chemistry!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Some of the most fortunate and intelligent people in the late 16th and early 17th centuries practiced alchemy which was a widely respected scientific practice during the 16th and 17th centuries.
The practical aspect of alchemy generated the basics of modern inorganic chemistry, namely concerning procedures, equipment and the identification and use of many current substances


Ok, but being emotional has nothing to do with the questions being asked here about god and what not.
In fact, it would be to your distinct disadvantage to be emotional about these issues. It makes you believe stuff because it feels good, not because it is likely real.


>Hmmm, spiritulity requires you to go through the right side of your brain, and I don't think you can get there if you are on the other side of it!...but I understand that you are not getting my drift, so lack of being on the same page!=misunderstandings!

>****there is a different language describing things, not emotional but a language of description that comes from the other side of the brain that cold left brain side academic intelligence explains things one way where as the artists operate from the other side.
You need to be on that side, to understand the intelligence that comes from their work, or their description of things. You are misinterpeting what I mean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I am sure a lot of people would like to jump to emotional intelligence and say they are just as intelligent as Einstein, because it doesen't involve the kind of work that science requires. (Don't indirectly put down people who have different intelligence to scientific intellect, they are different intellects)

>Eintein's work comes from one form of intelligence, and is for science-you can't measure everything with a scientific too. You appreciate Art or music, poetry or spirituality...etc. not with a scientific tool, but with the intelligence of the right side of your brain.

There are no right and wrong answers, just how you interact and feel with other people.

^******exactly, what I am trying to say in both of these posts. The ayes have it!! GREAT! We came to some understanding...at last!


"Feeling" life will not give you more correct answers, it will probably give you fewer. I am not saying we know everything, far from it, what I am saying is that people should stick to what we do know, and if you have a new hypothesis, use sound reasoning to suggest that it is real.

>Nothing to do with "feeling life" the emotive side of our brain does not just feel but has a deep intellect of its own and wisdom!!!!....but experience also accounts, the right side emotional brain has its own intelligence which is totally different to the left side, and today they do not use this dichotomy to classifications and descriptions of intelligence.
>I repeat, you misinterpreted! Fully!

You are "Interpreting/reading" my posts from the left side of your brain, shift over for a while!

******************************

}I will cover your post with these answers here, rather then chew them up, just try to understand the meaning in relation to my other post!

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multi...elligences.htm

http://www.personalityresearch.org/intelligence.html

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


Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria.

Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions and none commands universal assent.
Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple intelligences
Main article: Theory of multiple intelligences

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is based on studies not only on normal children and adults but also by studies of gifted individuals (including so-called "savants"), of persons who have suffered brain damage, of experts and virtuosos, and of individuals from diverse cultures.
This led Gardner to break intelligence down into at least eight different components: logical, linguistic, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, naturalist, intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences.

He argues that psychometric tests address only linguistic and logical plus some aspects of spatial intelligence; other forms have been entirely ignored. Moreover, the paper-and-pencil format of most tests rules out many kinds of intelligent performance that matter in everyday life, such as social intelligence

Most of theories of multiple intelligences are relatively recent in origin, though Louis Thurstone proposed a theory of multiple "primary abilities" in the early 20th Century.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/intelligence05/mtypes.html

The Seven Types of Intelligence
Neuroscience
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right Brain vs. Left Brain


This theory of the structure and functions of the mind suggests that the two different sides of the brain control two different “modes” of thinking.
It also suggests that each of us prefers one mode over the other.

Experimentation has shown that the two different sides, or hemispheres, of the brain are responsible for different manners of thinking. The following table illustrates the differences between left-brain and right-brain thinking:

Left Brain

Logical

Sequential

Rational

Analytical

Objective

Looks at parts
---------------------

Right Brain

Random

Intuitive

Holistic
Synthesizing

Subjective

Looks at wholes

The arts, creativity, and the skills of imagination and synthesis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emotional Intelligence
(Nothing to do with cuddles and hugs)

For decades, a lot of emphasis has been put on certain aspects of intelligence such as logical reasoning, math skills, spatial skills, understanding analogies, verbal skills etc.
Researchers were puzzled by the fact that while IQ could predict to a significant degree academic performance and, to some degree, professional and personal success, there was something missing in the equation. Some of those with fabulous IQ scores were doing poorly in life; one could say that they were wasting their potential by thinking, behaving and communicating in a way that hindered their chances to succeed.

One of the major missing parts in the success equation is emotional intelligence, a concept made popular by the groundbreaking book by Daniel Goleman, which is based on years of research by numerous scientists such as Peter Salovey, John Meyer, Howard Gardner, Robert Sternberg and Jack Block, just to name a few. For various reasons and thanks to a wide range of abilities, people with high emotional intelligence tend to be more successful in life than those with lower EIQ even if their classical IQ is average.

http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=1121

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Practical Intelligence.


Professor Robert Sternberg, an eminent psychologist at Yale University in the US and the world's leading expert on intelligence. His research reveals the existence of a totally new variety: practical intelligence.
Prof Sternberg's astonishing finding is that practical intelligence, which predicts success in real life, has an inverse relationship with academic intelligence. In other words, the more practically intelligent you are, the less likely you are to succeed at school or university. Similarly, the more paper qualifications you hold and the higher your grades, the less able you are to cope with problems of everyday life and the lower your score in practical intelligence.

http://www.caribvoice.org/Health/intelligence.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Enlitx]

Applied universally? It seems like most concepts of reality can be applied universally, in some sense they have to in order to be a concept of reality, but I'm not entire sure what you mean by that term.

I meant that concepts can be tested and found to be true across the board, for example, the speed of light is found to be the same in London and New York.

Believing stuff purely on faith? To me, that sounds like exactly what you're doing. You seem to have faith that what your senses show you is an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, what evidence do you have for your brain being the seat of your consciousness? The fact that a long series of percpetions linked by space and causality seems to show it is?

As I have already stated, there is no way to ever obtain a completely objective reality. The only thing we can work with is our human experience. It is not faith to admit that and then obtain objective (well, as much as it can be) experimental results. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It seems like both of those concepts are just "feel good" concepts; or rather, ones your consciousness is bound by, and to assume that it is therefore an accurate reflection of reality is a "feel good" concept. I mean, how pleasant a concept is it to think reality really is the way we perceive it, and there's all sorts of nice rules and laws that explain it and bind it.

It is not feel good to demonstrate a physical theory by constant experimental scrutiny. That is much different than a theory about positive energy and gods that was entirely the product of an imagination. Again, you keep trying to throw everything out because we are bound by a subjective experience. That is foolish. We can still get a good idea of how the universe works by employing the scientific method.

To deny their accuracy does not necessarily lead into some metaphysical anarchy of willy-nilly hippy talk where no one knows what anything is. I don't accept reality as you define it, and I get as much utility out of my concept as you or anyone else, and I don't have trouble interacting with the world in any practical sense. Nor do plenty of Hindus and Buddhists, or people like MynameisnotDeja (from what little I know of her). The concept of some sort of Metaphysical Utilitarianism strikes me as problematic on a number of levels, but it doesn't even seem to really support your conclusion.

Denying their accuracy based on your reasons leads exactly to willy-nilly hippy talk and anarchy. If there is no common and reliable method to determine truth, then everything is equally as valid. Like I said before, when you go to the doctors you will accept nothing less than the scientific method, and I am sure you won't be asking a brain surgeon to re-align your Shakra or Mental Energy if you had brain tumor would you?

Your idea about how the universe works (mirrors) is a perfect example of why the scientific method is best. I don't want to attack people here, but it honestly strikes me as laziness when people come up with half-baked theories and then try to say they are equally as valid as anyone else's. Something analagous to your idea might be the hypothesis of fractals being the driving building block in our universe. The difference between that theory and yours is that mathematicians must actually derive equations, test their predictions with the laws of physics, and generally be reviewed by many other scientists before they would even consider their idea any good. This requires a lot of hard work and intellectual growth. Where are you equations, pieces of evidence, derivations, and predictions? What are the laws of physics that correspond to your hypothesis, and exactly how (in mathematical form)? Most people would rather take the easier approach and just say their ideas are immune from criticism, since after all, it is their belief.

But people come on here and say their ideas are just as good as any others and people are intolerant or stubborn if they won't accept that. Ugh.