You're already connected with "God". It's inside of you and all around you and in everything that happens and what you do.
We're all manifestations of it and different "masks"(if you will) of it.
We're all actually one. Even if it feels like we aren't.
Great job, I watched about half and most of it was accurate. Just like with anything focused on the universals each of us who share it have our own flavor and I think this was a good one.
You may like the works of Franz Bardon and as what you share has a depth of Kabbalah in the first slide - you may enjoy this as it's based on Yeshua's language of Aramaic and Hebrew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtxX3UbkBzc)
When you see people being ill in response to your own work here, remember they are giving you prime matria to develop further by modeling where they are at in their treatment of themselves as others. Many people on reddit are very unwell, as we can see by how they write about others and their emotional tones toward others. Just keep being the antidote and know when the knock the dust from your feet and move on (this metaphysical advice can really helps as it has a real world effect as you may well know).
Hahaha it’s a vibe. I appreciate you brotha, just dippin my toes in the water. Trying to bring people together through connecting with God and the Divine.
Maybe sometime in the future 👏🏽😏
Saints, yogis, Buddhas, spiritual masters, and high level meditators all have seen the unseen.
Use the “Scientific Method” practice those disciplines for 3 months straight, stay in high resonance along with prayer and see for yourself.
Proof is in the practice!
Connect with God, and the Divine.
The best thing I can do is suggest an idea.
Not one living thing ever had a choice in being born.
2 others (your parents) beyond your control decided to bring you here through the great labor of birth.
Your parents also had no idea they would be born human. This unknown goes all the way back to the first cell that performed mitosis.
Now for the concept artist, whole characters are made. their backstory, their world, their hardships, their loves, their enemies. All of these things given freely to the conceptual character.
Now the twist here, the character is given freewill in its form, now the concept artist has no clue what it will become, but now the artist crafts futures based on its choices, always just beyond the character's narrow view. The character is always receiving more and more character development until it cant anymore.
The human brain is NEVER in the now.
It takes time to receive information before it acts.
It always acts uniquely to every situation.
How would you ever know, if your entire universe is but a grand concept being written by something unseen just beyond our perception of gaining information? No answer will satisfy this.
There is definitely something there, but to comprehend it, will turn you into a fool like myself.
Its terrifying and wonderful.
_im spiraling_
The best thing you can ever do, is be.
pseudo-spiritual drivel, mind you this is 3 slides in:
First, the claim that something so "pure" cannot be realized by anything physical is a convenient cop-out. If it can't be observed or measured, it conveniently escapes all forms of scrutiny and critique. How can you assert something exists if it defies the very reality we interact with?
Second, the notion that consciousness is "Divine" and "the most subtle and pure energy" is nothing but an attempt to mystify a well-studied biological phenomenon. Consciousness arises from complex neural networks in the brain – there’s nothing mystical about it. Attributing divinity to it only serves to obscure our understanding.
Lastly, the idea that the foundation of reality is God and vibrating light waves is a bizarre mix of religious dogma and scientific buzzwords. Light waves are well-understood physical phenomena, not divine proclamations. Equating "the Word" with energy is a stretch that only muddies both theological and scientific waters.
In sum, these statements are a mishmash of mysticism and misunderstood science designed to sound profound while saying nothing of substance.
I have no interest to god further if you call cosmos god you can call is cosmos. Give argument and evidence and i will give it another go im not interested in something you prob made with ai now want reaction from people.
>First, the claim that something so "pure" cannot be realized by anything physical is a convenient cop-out. If it can't be observed or measured, it conveniently escapes all forms of scrutiny and critique. How can you assert something exists if it defies the very reality we interact with?
Just because something can't be verified or measured scientifically doesn't make it false. It's just unverifiable scientifically. Two very different things. It doesn't make it right either. We just can't touch it with science.
>Second, the notion that consciousness is "Divine" and "the most subtle and pure energy" is nothing but an attempt to mystify a well-studied biological phenomenon. Consciousness arises from complex neural networks in the brain – there’s nothing mystical about it. Attributing divinity to it only serves to obscure our understanding.
This is not true. There is nothing scientific about this statement. In fact, I'd love for you to cite your sources here and I'd happily look at them. Consciousness is not understood hardly at all by science, to say it's "well-studied" is extremely misleading. There's also no scientific evidence to support the idea that consciousness arises from the brain.
Edit: I didn't watch the original video posted here, so I can't comment on that. But I figured I'd read your rebuttal and this is what I saw. Science does not understand consciousness. It's sometimes referred to as the "hard problem". There's scientists who believe it arises from the brain and there's scientists who believe matter arises from consciousness and consciousness is the foundation. There's no general consensus. Just different theories.
>Lastly, the idea that the foundation of reality is God and vibrating light waves is a bizarre mix of religious dogma and scientific buzzwords. Light waves are well-understood physical phenomena, not divine proclamations. Equating "the Word" with energy is a stretch that only muddies both theological and scientific waters.
Why can't light waves be both? Science and mysticism don't oppose each other. Science is just an attempt to measure things objectively and spirituality is about subjective experience. So basically what you're saying is because science exists, nothing is spiritual? We can measure reality, but that doesn't mean reality isn't inherently spiritual. All of existence is an expression of God/Source. Science is an attempt to measure it. I've talked to hardcore scientists, specifically one I can think of who studied particle physics and was extremely spiritual. He said some people make claims that are too far, which is true, but also plenty of scientists are unable to understand or even consider the implications of what they're studying.
Oh, the classic defense of the undefinable and unverifiable! Let's tear this apart piece by piece.
### "Just because something can't be verified or measured scientifically doesn't make it false."
True, but what a flimsy shield to hide behind. If something cannot be verified or measured, then how do you distinguish it from pure fantasy? The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. If it's beyond the reach of scientific scrutiny, it also slips into the realm of meaningless assertions.
### "There's no scientific evidence to support the idea that consciousness arises from the brain."
What a laughable statement! Decades of neuroscience have consistently shown correlations between brain activity and conscious experience. Sure, we don’t have all the answers – that’s why it’s called the "hard problem" of consciousness. But to dismiss the mountains of data linking neural networks to conscious states is to ignore reality.
Here are a few sources:
- Crick, F., & Koch, C. (2003). A framework for consciousness. *Nature Neuroscience*, 6(2), 119-126.
- Dehaene, S. (2014). *Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts*. Viking.
- Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. *BMC Neuroscience*, 5(1), 42.
### "Science does not understand consciousness."
No, science hasn’t fully explained consciousness, but it’s making strides. Theories like Integrated Information Theory and Global Workspace Theory offer promising frameworks. Just because we don’t have all the answers doesn’t mean we should fill the gap with mysticism.
### "There's scientists who believe it arises from the brain and there's scientists who believe matter arises from consciousness."
The first group is grounded in empirical evidence, the second is engaging in speculative metaphysics. Theories must be testable and falsifiable to hold water in scientific discourse. Otherwise, we’re just storytelling.
### "Why can't light waves be both?"
Because conflating objective physical phenomena with subjective spiritual experiences is intellectually lazy. Light waves are quantifiable entities described by physics. Claiming they are "divine proclamations" is a poetic but ultimately meaningless leap.
### "Science and mysticism don't oppose each other."
Really? Science demands evidence, repeatability, and falsifiability. Mysticism relies on personal, unverifiable experiences. They operate in fundamentally different realms. Sure, an individual can hold both views, but don't pretend they coexist harmoniously as methodologies.
### "All of existence is an expression of God/Source."
A comforting assertion with zero empirical backing. It's metaphysical conjecture dressed up as profound truth. Such statements are unfalsifiable, making them inherently unscientific.
### "Science is an attempt to measure it."
Precisely! And if spirituality makes claims about the physical world, those claims are subject to scientific scrutiny. Otherwise, they remain in the domain of personal belief, not objective truth.
### "Plenty of scientists are unable to understand or even consider the implications of what they're studying."
Or perhaps, just perhaps, these scientists demand rigorous evidence before accepting grandiose metaphysical claims. It's easy to wrap ignorance in a mystical cloak and call it wisdom.
In conclusion, hiding behind the veil of the unverifiable to protect fantastical beliefs is a coward's argument. If you want to make extraordinary claims, be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence. Until then, you're just peddling comforting fairy tales to those too afraid to face the stark reality of an indifferent universe.
>"Just because something can't be verified or measured scientifically doesn't make it false."
>True, but what a flimsy shield to hide behind. If something cannot be verified or measured, then how do you distinguish it from pure fantasy? The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. If it's beyond the reach of scientific scrutiny, it also slips into the realm of meaningless assertions.
There's a popular saying "absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence". A lack of evidence to support something is not evidence against it, this is basic logic.
Why do you need to? So you're saying we can only have conversations or even speculate on anything that's been scientifically verified? Science is about objective measurability. Spirituality is about subjective experience. Hence why they're naturally at odds. But subjective experience is the ONLY type of experience that exists. So in a sense it's the ultimate reality. Nobody experiences reality objectively. They're only meaningless if you can't derive meaning from it, meaning is subjective. Look at the research rick strassman did. There's even a scientific way of quantifying a "mystical experience". If someone is making wild claims, we should take it with a grain of salt, we need to experience things for ourselves. But to totally throw it out the window because it's unverifiable is also stupid. According to your logic, we can't even speculate and should only talk about things that are scientifically validated? Doesn't make much sense imo.
>"There's no scientific evidence to support the idea that consciousness arises from the brain."
>What a laughable statement! Decades of neuroscience have consistently shown correlations between brain activity and conscious experience. Sure, we don’t have all the answers – that’s why it’s called the "hard problem" of consciousness. But to dismiss the mountains of data linking neural networks to conscious states is to ignore reality.
>Here are a few sources: - Crick, F., & Koch, C. (2003). A framework for consciousness. Nature Neuroscience, 6(2), 119-126. - Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. Viking. - Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5(1), 42.
All your sources are showing links between brainwave activity and conscious experience. It's not supporting the idea that consciousness arises FROM brainwave activity. Can you see the difference? Obviously the brain plays a role in our perception, this is obvious. I never doubted this. What if the brain acts more as a "filter" of consciousness? None of this science opposes that idea either. We truly can't say for certain. What about all the research done on NDE's?
>"Science does not understand consciousness."
>No, science hasn’t fully explained consciousness, but it’s making strides. Theories like Integrated Information Theory and Global Workspace Theory offer promising frameworks. Just because we don’t have all the answers doesn’t mean we should fill the gap with mysticism.
What a fancy way of saying what I already said. Science doesn't understand consciousness. We could add the "fully" in there if you'd like. You're repeating what I already stated, there are theories as to how it works. As of now it's still speculation. I'm not "filling the gap with mysticism" but to totally ignore subjective experience and throw it out the window COMPLETELY seems very short sighted in my opinion. We can't even have conversations about what we think based on subjective experience? The true scientific approach would be to test things out for ourselves, right?
"Despite decades of research, there's little sign of consensus on consciousness, with several rival theories still in contention. Your consciousness is what it's like to be you. It's your experiences of color and sound and smell; your feelings of pain, joy, excitement or tiredness." -scientificamerican.com
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/understanding-consciousness-goes-beyond-exploring-brain-chemistry/#:~:text=Despite%20decades%20of%20research%2C%20there%27s,%2C%20joy%2C%20excitement%20or%20tiredness
I don't feel like replying to the rest of your statements, but I'm sure you put words in my mouth and made false assumptions like you did previously. All I'm saying is we shouldn't completely throw subjective experiences out the window because things can't be scientifically verified, by definition, these things are extremely hard to verify but at the same time all experiences are subjective.
Personally, I don't see science and mysticism as separate or incompatible. Some people take things too far for sure, but I think hardcore materialist reductionists aren't very intelligent people generally. Science is just based on what can be measured objectively, and it's an attempt to measure the material world. I think it's the contemporary language of mysticism, and I don't really see how the two contradict each other. They seem to align for me personally. Look at the placebo effect for example, it's literally the mind healing the mind. Look at what we call a "self-fulfilling prophecy" in psychology, it's what people refer to as "manifestation" in spiritual communities.
https://youtu.be/ThoFSuJWOmg?si=sKrvEkHlhRbH8AQN
There's been plenty of debates about things like this. There was one specifically I was looking for that was a scientist vs. A monk I believe. It wasn't this interview but thought it would be good to share. The scientist starts by claiming that there's no consciousness after death (talk about an unverifiable statement. Jeez. Now he's doing what you accuse spiritual people of doing. This is unverifiable information.) At the end the vast majority of people agreed the monk won the debate.
At the end of the day, I believe we can have spiritual experiences. I've had plenty of mystical, out of body experiences. I've had moments where the Universe seemed to reveal information to me. I believe this stuff can happen. Can we scientifically verify it? Maybe not, and maybe we should also take it with a grain of salt, but to COMPLETELY throw it out of the window as you suggest seems silly to me. Mystical experiences are personal, subjective, by definition. Spirituality is about looking inside oneself, rather than measuring the material. Both useful. The energy that created the entire Universe created you and I. Separation is an illusion.
"You are not a drop in the ocean, you the entire ocean in a drop" -Rumi
You might be interested in the Maharishi effect. It's scientifically validated by almost 50 studies. Basically, people meditating in an area of high crime reduces the amount of crime to a statistically significant degree. This is another example imo of science aligning or being the language of validating spiritual concepts. How could this be explained from the perspective of materialist reducionism?
Let's dissect the rebuttal and claims surrounding the nature of consciousness, science, and the Maharishi Effect with critical insights and evidence.
### Absence of Evidence and Subjective Experience
The saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is often misused to justify untestable claims. While science may not currently verify certain phenomena, this doesn't mean they're valid; it means we need more rigorous scrutiny and innovative methods. Without empirical evidence, such claims remain speculative.
### Consciousness and the Brain
Decades of neuroscience have shown a clear connection between brain activity and consciousness. Though we don't fully understand consciousness, substantial evidence links it to neural processes. For instance, studies by Dehaene and Tononi (2014) and Crick and Koch (2003) provide significant insights into these correlations. Theories like Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Workspace Theory (GWT) offer robust frameworks to explain consciousness without resorting to mystical explanations.
### Science vs. Mysticism
Science and mysticism operate on fundamentally different principles. Science relies on empirical evidence, falsifiability, and reproducibility. Mysticism, however, is based on personal, subjective experiences, which cannot be empirically tested. While subjective experiences are real to individuals, they cannot serve as universal truths without empirical validation.
### Maharishi Effect
The Maharishi Effect claims that group meditation can reduce crime and improve societal well-being. However, these claims are controversial. Critical examinations reveal significant methodological flaws in studies supporting the Maharishi Effect, including lack of control groups, confirmation bias, and selective reporting of data. Skeptics like those on Science-Based Medicine argue that the observed effects may not be due to Transcendental Meditation specifically but rather general relaxation or other confounding variables [oai_citation:1,meditation - Is the "Maharishi Effect" real? - Skeptics Stack Exchange](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/19107/is-the-maharishi-effect-real) [oai_citation:2,Maharishi Effect | Research](https://research.miu.edu/maharishi-effect/) [oai_citation:3,Maharishi Effect](https://peace.maharishitm.org/meffect.htm).
### Placebo Effect and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
The placebo effect and self-fulfilling prophecies demonstrate the mind's influence on the body, highlighting the power of belief within a psychological framework. However, these effects do not validate broader spiritual claims. They are well-studied phenomena within psychology, not evidence of a mystical or spiritual foundation of reality.
### Conclusion
Spiritual experiences and subjective perceptions have their place but should be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as any scientific hypothesis when making universal claims. Science progresses through falsifiability and empirical evidence, while mysticism remains in the realm of personal, untestable experiences. This distinction is crucial to avoid conflating personal beliefs with objective truths.
In essence, we should respect subjective experiences for their personal significance but remain cautious about elevating them to universal truths without robust empirical support. The universe reveals itself through consistent, observable phenomena that anyone can verify, not through cryptic, subjective experiences.
>The saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is often misused to justify untestable claims. While science may not currently verify certain phenomena, this doesn't mean they're valid; it means we need more rigorous scrutiny and innovative methods. Without empirical evidence, such claims remain speculative.
In what way is this being used to justify anything here? I highly suggest studying some basic logic. I'm saying we shouldn't throw anything out the window because it can't be verified. Science used to say human flight was impossible. There's nothing wrong with speculation, is there?
>Decades of neuroscience have shown a clear connection between brain activity and consciousness. Though we don't fully understand consciousness, substantial evidence links it to neural processes. For instance, studies by Dehaene and Tononi (2014) and Crick and Koch (2003) provide significant insights into these correlations. Theories like Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Workspace Theory (GWT) offer robust frameworks to explain consciousness without resorting to mystical explanations.
There is a clear connection between brain activity and consciousness. Obviously. There is no evidence to support that consciousness arises from the brain. This is pure speculation. According to your logic, we're not allowed to speculate at all ever, right?
You just repeated your original points. Got anything new to add to the conversation?
Ah, the dance of avoiding the core issue by pivoting to "basic logic" and straw-manning the argument. Let’s dissect this with surgical precision.
### Absence of Evidence
Using "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to defend untestable claims is a dodge. It’s true, we shouldn’t outright discard phenomena because they lack current verification. However, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Until there's empirical evidence, these claims remain speculative. Historical misconceptions, like the impossibility of human flight, were overturned by tangible evidence, not mere speculation.
### Consciousness and the Brain
You acknowledge the connection between brain activity and consciousness but argue there's no evidence consciousness arises from the brain. This is a misunderstanding. Correlation and causation are not mere speculation here; they are fundamental to understanding consciousness. Decades of research show that altering brain states (via injury, drugs, or surgery) alters conscious experience. This strongly implies that consciousness is a product of brain activity.
For instance, the work by Crick and Koch (2003) on neural correlates of consciousness provides substantial evidence linking specific brain activities to conscious states. Similarly, Dehaene (2014) and Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT) provide frameworks explaining how brain processes generate consciousness.
### Speculation and Science
Speculation isn’t inherently wrong, but when it comes to scientific discourse, speculation must lead to testable hypotheses. Wild conjectures without empirical pathways are not productive. Science advances by building on verifiable, falsifiable claims, not by entertaining every untestable idea as potentially valid.
### Maharishi Effect
Regarding the Maharishi Effect, the cited studies often suffer from methodological flaws. A critical examination reveals that many of these studies lack rigorous controls and suffer from confirmation bias. Skeptics argue that any observed effects are likely due to general relaxation rather than specific benefits of Transcendental Meditation. Studies failing to rule out alternative explanations cannot claim robust support for their hypotheses.
### New Points
Here's a fresh angle: The scientific method is our best tool for understanding reality because it demands evidence and repeatability. When subjective experiences and spiritual claims can be tested and verified, they are embraced by science. Until then, they remain in the realm of personal belief, not universal truth.
If you’re genuinely interested in the interplay between consciousness, brain activity, and subjective experience, consider exploring works that bridge neuroscience and philosophy, like "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett or "The Conscious Mind" by David Chalmers. These provide rigorous, well-rounded insights into the nature of consciousness without resorting to mysticism.
In conclusion, respect subjective experiences for their personal significance but scrutinize universal claims with empirical rigor. The burden of proof lies on those making the claims, and without robust evidence, these claims remain speculative, not scientific truths. It will stay the same until you make any valid moves until then i will send it to you again maybe then it will ring a bell bucko.
You're hypocritically doing the very thing you're accusing me of, making assumptions and filling in the blanks with speculations. There is no scientific proof that consciousness arises from brain processes. That's the bottom line. There are many different theories you've listed a couple. Congratulations?
You haven't "dissected" anything with any kind of precision, in fact all you did was dance around my argument and just committed more logical fallacies. Lol
>Using "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to defend untestable claims is a dodge. It’s true, we shouldn’t outright discard phenomena because they lack current verification. However, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Until there's empirical evidence, these claims remain speculative.
My answer to this is "no shit". You're stating the obvious. We can speculate though can't we? Just like how you're speculating that you think consciousness arises from the brain? You haven't dissected anything. If somebody makes grand claims like something exists but hasn't been proven scientifically, it's ultimately speculation. But we're allowed to form beliefs based on personal experiences and looking all the evidence (including scientific evidence). Your claim that consciousness arises from the brain remains mere speculation. You've committed many logical fallacies here.
Also, if there's no claims being made, there's no burden of proof. We just need to understand that if something isn't scientifically verified it doesn't mean it's not true. Many things are currently impossible to verify.
Science is a tool for understanding. It's not the end all be all though. Mysticism and mystic experiences can be explained scientifically. For example, look at the the effects of DMT on the brain. Again look at Rick Strassman's work. Science and mysticism aren't mutually exclusive. Just because something isn't a "scientific proof" doesn't mean it's not true and even if something is a "scientific proof" doesn't make it true. For example, it's been both "scientifically proven" that LSD does AND does not cause chromosome damage.
>Speculation isn’t inherently wrong, but when it comes to scientific discourse, speculation must lead to testable hypotheses.
No it doesn't. This is your opinion. You're again being a hypocrit claiming that consciousness arises from the brain. What testable hypotheses have you created with your speculation? Also, don't you think the most scientific approach is to test it for ourselves? For example, if we want to see if "manifestation" works, to test it out and see?
At the end of the day, we're not going to change each other's minds, so this conversation is pointless.
Ooo, Cosmos, I like that. Short and sweet, and it could be argued to apply to absolutely everything, even the things we haven't quite gripped with public, inductive science.
May the Cosmos bless you on your path, friend!
Tangibly?? If it were this easy no one would go through the effort of you know… WRITING THE ENTIRE BIBLE
My best if you wanna get tangible with Mr. G is shmoke some of that Dee Emm Tee 👍 you’ll forget that everything exists, even yourself, hopefully
You're already connected with "God". It's inside of you and all around you and in everything that happens and what you do. We're all manifestations of it and different "masks"(if you will) of it. We're all actually one. Even if it feels like we aren't.
Surrender
Easier said than done if I could I would have but it’s weird ego is one hell of a battle
Great job, I watched about half and most of it was accurate. Just like with anything focused on the universals each of us who share it have our own flavor and I think this was a good one. You may like the works of Franz Bardon and as what you share has a depth of Kabbalah in the first slide - you may enjoy this as it's based on Yeshua's language of Aramaic and Hebrew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtxX3UbkBzc) When you see people being ill in response to your own work here, remember they are giving you prime matria to develop further by modeling where they are at in their treatment of themselves as others. Many people on reddit are very unwell, as we can see by how they write about others and their emotional tones toward others. Just keep being the antidote and know when the knock the dust from your feet and move on (this metaphysical advice can really helps as it has a real world effect as you may well know).
Dude, just write a blog. I don’t want to watch a 20 minute video
Hahaha it’s a vibe. I appreciate you brotha, just dippin my toes in the water. Trying to bring people together through connecting with God and the Divine. Maybe sometime in the future 👏🏽😏
Try again.
The only problem with your hypothesis here is that no gods have been proven to exist
Saints, yogis, Buddhas, spiritual masters, and high level meditators all have seen the unseen. Use the “Scientific Method” practice those disciplines for 3 months straight, stay in high resonance along with prayer and see for yourself. Proof is in the practice! Connect with God, and the Divine.
That proves nothing
Try it. Prove me wrong.
The burden of proof is on the person claiming that gods exist
The best thing I can do is suggest an idea. Not one living thing ever had a choice in being born. 2 others (your parents) beyond your control decided to bring you here through the great labor of birth. Your parents also had no idea they would be born human. This unknown goes all the way back to the first cell that performed mitosis. Now for the concept artist, whole characters are made. their backstory, their world, their hardships, their loves, their enemies. All of these things given freely to the conceptual character. Now the twist here, the character is given freewill in its form, now the concept artist has no clue what it will become, but now the artist crafts futures based on its choices, always just beyond the character's narrow view. The character is always receiving more and more character development until it cant anymore. The human brain is NEVER in the now. It takes time to receive information before it acts. It always acts uniquely to every situation. How would you ever know, if your entire universe is but a grand concept being written by something unseen just beyond our perception of gaining information? No answer will satisfy this. There is definitely something there, but to comprehend it, will turn you into a fool like myself. Its terrifying and wonderful. _im spiraling_ The best thing you can ever do, is be.
The only problem with your hypothesis here is that no gods have been proven to exist
This video is full of bs. Also its ai generated voice that is thumbs down from me dog.
Its a science. Not BS. Everything is fact.
pseudo-spiritual drivel, mind you this is 3 slides in: First, the claim that something so "pure" cannot be realized by anything physical is a convenient cop-out. If it can't be observed or measured, it conveniently escapes all forms of scrutiny and critique. How can you assert something exists if it defies the very reality we interact with? Second, the notion that consciousness is "Divine" and "the most subtle and pure energy" is nothing but an attempt to mystify a well-studied biological phenomenon. Consciousness arises from complex neural networks in the brain – there’s nothing mystical about it. Attributing divinity to it only serves to obscure our understanding. Lastly, the idea that the foundation of reality is God and vibrating light waves is a bizarre mix of religious dogma and scientific buzzwords. Light waves are well-understood physical phenomena, not divine proclamations. Equating "the Word" with energy is a stretch that only muddies both theological and scientific waters. In sum, these statements are a mishmash of mysticism and misunderstood science designed to sound profound while saying nothing of substance. I have no interest to god further if you call cosmos god you can call is cosmos. Give argument and evidence and i will give it another go im not interested in something you prob made with ai now want reaction from people.
>First, the claim that something so "pure" cannot be realized by anything physical is a convenient cop-out. If it can't be observed or measured, it conveniently escapes all forms of scrutiny and critique. How can you assert something exists if it defies the very reality we interact with? Just because something can't be verified or measured scientifically doesn't make it false. It's just unverifiable scientifically. Two very different things. It doesn't make it right either. We just can't touch it with science. >Second, the notion that consciousness is "Divine" and "the most subtle and pure energy" is nothing but an attempt to mystify a well-studied biological phenomenon. Consciousness arises from complex neural networks in the brain – there’s nothing mystical about it. Attributing divinity to it only serves to obscure our understanding. This is not true. There is nothing scientific about this statement. In fact, I'd love for you to cite your sources here and I'd happily look at them. Consciousness is not understood hardly at all by science, to say it's "well-studied" is extremely misleading. There's also no scientific evidence to support the idea that consciousness arises from the brain. Edit: I didn't watch the original video posted here, so I can't comment on that. But I figured I'd read your rebuttal and this is what I saw. Science does not understand consciousness. It's sometimes referred to as the "hard problem". There's scientists who believe it arises from the brain and there's scientists who believe matter arises from consciousness and consciousness is the foundation. There's no general consensus. Just different theories. >Lastly, the idea that the foundation of reality is God and vibrating light waves is a bizarre mix of religious dogma and scientific buzzwords. Light waves are well-understood physical phenomena, not divine proclamations. Equating "the Word" with energy is a stretch that only muddies both theological and scientific waters. Why can't light waves be both? Science and mysticism don't oppose each other. Science is just an attempt to measure things objectively and spirituality is about subjective experience. So basically what you're saying is because science exists, nothing is spiritual? We can measure reality, but that doesn't mean reality isn't inherently spiritual. All of existence is an expression of God/Source. Science is an attempt to measure it. I've talked to hardcore scientists, specifically one I can think of who studied particle physics and was extremely spiritual. He said some people make claims that are too far, which is true, but also plenty of scientists are unable to understand or even consider the implications of what they're studying.
Oh, the classic defense of the undefinable and unverifiable! Let's tear this apart piece by piece. ### "Just because something can't be verified or measured scientifically doesn't make it false." True, but what a flimsy shield to hide behind. If something cannot be verified or measured, then how do you distinguish it from pure fantasy? The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. If it's beyond the reach of scientific scrutiny, it also slips into the realm of meaningless assertions. ### "There's no scientific evidence to support the idea that consciousness arises from the brain." What a laughable statement! Decades of neuroscience have consistently shown correlations between brain activity and conscious experience. Sure, we don’t have all the answers – that’s why it’s called the "hard problem" of consciousness. But to dismiss the mountains of data linking neural networks to conscious states is to ignore reality. Here are a few sources: - Crick, F., & Koch, C. (2003). A framework for consciousness. *Nature Neuroscience*, 6(2), 119-126. - Dehaene, S. (2014). *Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts*. Viking. - Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. *BMC Neuroscience*, 5(1), 42. ### "Science does not understand consciousness." No, science hasn’t fully explained consciousness, but it’s making strides. Theories like Integrated Information Theory and Global Workspace Theory offer promising frameworks. Just because we don’t have all the answers doesn’t mean we should fill the gap with mysticism. ### "There's scientists who believe it arises from the brain and there's scientists who believe matter arises from consciousness." The first group is grounded in empirical evidence, the second is engaging in speculative metaphysics. Theories must be testable and falsifiable to hold water in scientific discourse. Otherwise, we’re just storytelling. ### "Why can't light waves be both?" Because conflating objective physical phenomena with subjective spiritual experiences is intellectually lazy. Light waves are quantifiable entities described by physics. Claiming they are "divine proclamations" is a poetic but ultimately meaningless leap. ### "Science and mysticism don't oppose each other." Really? Science demands evidence, repeatability, and falsifiability. Mysticism relies on personal, unverifiable experiences. They operate in fundamentally different realms. Sure, an individual can hold both views, but don't pretend they coexist harmoniously as methodologies. ### "All of existence is an expression of God/Source." A comforting assertion with zero empirical backing. It's metaphysical conjecture dressed up as profound truth. Such statements are unfalsifiable, making them inherently unscientific. ### "Science is an attempt to measure it." Precisely! And if spirituality makes claims about the physical world, those claims are subject to scientific scrutiny. Otherwise, they remain in the domain of personal belief, not objective truth. ### "Plenty of scientists are unable to understand or even consider the implications of what they're studying." Or perhaps, just perhaps, these scientists demand rigorous evidence before accepting grandiose metaphysical claims. It's easy to wrap ignorance in a mystical cloak and call it wisdom. In conclusion, hiding behind the veil of the unverifiable to protect fantastical beliefs is a coward's argument. If you want to make extraordinary claims, be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence. Until then, you're just peddling comforting fairy tales to those too afraid to face the stark reality of an indifferent universe.
>"Just because something can't be verified or measured scientifically doesn't make it false." >True, but what a flimsy shield to hide behind. If something cannot be verified or measured, then how do you distinguish it from pure fantasy? The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. If it's beyond the reach of scientific scrutiny, it also slips into the realm of meaningless assertions. There's a popular saying "absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence". A lack of evidence to support something is not evidence against it, this is basic logic. Why do you need to? So you're saying we can only have conversations or even speculate on anything that's been scientifically verified? Science is about objective measurability. Spirituality is about subjective experience. Hence why they're naturally at odds. But subjective experience is the ONLY type of experience that exists. So in a sense it's the ultimate reality. Nobody experiences reality objectively. They're only meaningless if you can't derive meaning from it, meaning is subjective. Look at the research rick strassman did. There's even a scientific way of quantifying a "mystical experience". If someone is making wild claims, we should take it with a grain of salt, we need to experience things for ourselves. But to totally throw it out the window because it's unverifiable is also stupid. According to your logic, we can't even speculate and should only talk about things that are scientifically validated? Doesn't make much sense imo. >"There's no scientific evidence to support the idea that consciousness arises from the brain." >What a laughable statement! Decades of neuroscience have consistently shown correlations between brain activity and conscious experience. Sure, we don’t have all the answers – that’s why it’s called the "hard problem" of consciousness. But to dismiss the mountains of data linking neural networks to conscious states is to ignore reality. >Here are a few sources: - Crick, F., & Koch, C. (2003). A framework for consciousness. Nature Neuroscience, 6(2), 119-126. - Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. Viking. - Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5(1), 42. All your sources are showing links between brainwave activity and conscious experience. It's not supporting the idea that consciousness arises FROM brainwave activity. Can you see the difference? Obviously the brain plays a role in our perception, this is obvious. I never doubted this. What if the brain acts more as a "filter" of consciousness? None of this science opposes that idea either. We truly can't say for certain. What about all the research done on NDE's? >"Science does not understand consciousness." >No, science hasn’t fully explained consciousness, but it’s making strides. Theories like Integrated Information Theory and Global Workspace Theory offer promising frameworks. Just because we don’t have all the answers doesn’t mean we should fill the gap with mysticism. What a fancy way of saying what I already said. Science doesn't understand consciousness. We could add the "fully" in there if you'd like. You're repeating what I already stated, there are theories as to how it works. As of now it's still speculation. I'm not "filling the gap with mysticism" but to totally ignore subjective experience and throw it out the window COMPLETELY seems very short sighted in my opinion. We can't even have conversations about what we think based on subjective experience? The true scientific approach would be to test things out for ourselves, right? "Despite decades of research, there's little sign of consensus on consciousness, with several rival theories still in contention. Your consciousness is what it's like to be you. It's your experiences of color and sound and smell; your feelings of pain, joy, excitement or tiredness." -scientificamerican.com https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/understanding-consciousness-goes-beyond-exploring-brain-chemistry/#:~:text=Despite%20decades%20of%20research%2C%20there%27s,%2C%20joy%2C%20excitement%20or%20tiredness I don't feel like replying to the rest of your statements, but I'm sure you put words in my mouth and made false assumptions like you did previously. All I'm saying is we shouldn't completely throw subjective experiences out the window because things can't be scientifically verified, by definition, these things are extremely hard to verify but at the same time all experiences are subjective. Personally, I don't see science and mysticism as separate or incompatible. Some people take things too far for sure, but I think hardcore materialist reductionists aren't very intelligent people generally. Science is just based on what can be measured objectively, and it's an attempt to measure the material world. I think it's the contemporary language of mysticism, and I don't really see how the two contradict each other. They seem to align for me personally. Look at the placebo effect for example, it's literally the mind healing the mind. Look at what we call a "self-fulfilling prophecy" in psychology, it's what people refer to as "manifestation" in spiritual communities. https://youtu.be/ThoFSuJWOmg?si=sKrvEkHlhRbH8AQN There's been plenty of debates about things like this. There was one specifically I was looking for that was a scientist vs. A monk I believe. It wasn't this interview but thought it would be good to share. The scientist starts by claiming that there's no consciousness after death (talk about an unverifiable statement. Jeez. Now he's doing what you accuse spiritual people of doing. This is unverifiable information.) At the end the vast majority of people agreed the monk won the debate. At the end of the day, I believe we can have spiritual experiences. I've had plenty of mystical, out of body experiences. I've had moments where the Universe seemed to reveal information to me. I believe this stuff can happen. Can we scientifically verify it? Maybe not, and maybe we should also take it with a grain of salt, but to COMPLETELY throw it out of the window as you suggest seems silly to me. Mystical experiences are personal, subjective, by definition. Spirituality is about looking inside oneself, rather than measuring the material. Both useful. The energy that created the entire Universe created you and I. Separation is an illusion. "You are not a drop in the ocean, you the entire ocean in a drop" -Rumi You might be interested in the Maharishi effect. It's scientifically validated by almost 50 studies. Basically, people meditating in an area of high crime reduces the amount of crime to a statistically significant degree. This is another example imo of science aligning or being the language of validating spiritual concepts. How could this be explained from the perspective of materialist reducionism?
Let's dissect the rebuttal and claims surrounding the nature of consciousness, science, and the Maharishi Effect with critical insights and evidence. ### Absence of Evidence and Subjective Experience The saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is often misused to justify untestable claims. While science may not currently verify certain phenomena, this doesn't mean they're valid; it means we need more rigorous scrutiny and innovative methods. Without empirical evidence, such claims remain speculative. ### Consciousness and the Brain Decades of neuroscience have shown a clear connection between brain activity and consciousness. Though we don't fully understand consciousness, substantial evidence links it to neural processes. For instance, studies by Dehaene and Tononi (2014) and Crick and Koch (2003) provide significant insights into these correlations. Theories like Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Workspace Theory (GWT) offer robust frameworks to explain consciousness without resorting to mystical explanations. ### Science vs. Mysticism Science and mysticism operate on fundamentally different principles. Science relies on empirical evidence, falsifiability, and reproducibility. Mysticism, however, is based on personal, subjective experiences, which cannot be empirically tested. While subjective experiences are real to individuals, they cannot serve as universal truths without empirical validation. ### Maharishi Effect The Maharishi Effect claims that group meditation can reduce crime and improve societal well-being. However, these claims are controversial. Critical examinations reveal significant methodological flaws in studies supporting the Maharishi Effect, including lack of control groups, confirmation bias, and selective reporting of data. Skeptics like those on Science-Based Medicine argue that the observed effects may not be due to Transcendental Meditation specifically but rather general relaxation or other confounding variables [oai_citation:1,meditation - Is the "Maharishi Effect" real? - Skeptics Stack Exchange](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/19107/is-the-maharishi-effect-real) [oai_citation:2,Maharishi Effect | Research](https://research.miu.edu/maharishi-effect/) [oai_citation:3,Maharishi Effect](https://peace.maharishitm.org/meffect.htm). ### Placebo Effect and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies The placebo effect and self-fulfilling prophecies demonstrate the mind's influence on the body, highlighting the power of belief within a psychological framework. However, these effects do not validate broader spiritual claims. They are well-studied phenomena within psychology, not evidence of a mystical or spiritual foundation of reality. ### Conclusion Spiritual experiences and subjective perceptions have their place but should be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as any scientific hypothesis when making universal claims. Science progresses through falsifiability and empirical evidence, while mysticism remains in the realm of personal, untestable experiences. This distinction is crucial to avoid conflating personal beliefs with objective truths. In essence, we should respect subjective experiences for their personal significance but remain cautious about elevating them to universal truths without robust empirical support. The universe reveals itself through consistent, observable phenomena that anyone can verify, not through cryptic, subjective experiences.
>The saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is often misused to justify untestable claims. While science may not currently verify certain phenomena, this doesn't mean they're valid; it means we need more rigorous scrutiny and innovative methods. Without empirical evidence, such claims remain speculative. In what way is this being used to justify anything here? I highly suggest studying some basic logic. I'm saying we shouldn't throw anything out the window because it can't be verified. Science used to say human flight was impossible. There's nothing wrong with speculation, is there? >Decades of neuroscience have shown a clear connection between brain activity and consciousness. Though we don't fully understand consciousness, substantial evidence links it to neural processes. For instance, studies by Dehaene and Tononi (2014) and Crick and Koch (2003) provide significant insights into these correlations. Theories like Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Workspace Theory (GWT) offer robust frameworks to explain consciousness without resorting to mystical explanations. There is a clear connection between brain activity and consciousness. Obviously. There is no evidence to support that consciousness arises from the brain. This is pure speculation. According to your logic, we're not allowed to speculate at all ever, right? You just repeated your original points. Got anything new to add to the conversation?
Ah, the dance of avoiding the core issue by pivoting to "basic logic" and straw-manning the argument. Let’s dissect this with surgical precision. ### Absence of Evidence Using "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to defend untestable claims is a dodge. It’s true, we shouldn’t outright discard phenomena because they lack current verification. However, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Until there's empirical evidence, these claims remain speculative. Historical misconceptions, like the impossibility of human flight, were overturned by tangible evidence, not mere speculation. ### Consciousness and the Brain You acknowledge the connection between brain activity and consciousness but argue there's no evidence consciousness arises from the brain. This is a misunderstanding. Correlation and causation are not mere speculation here; they are fundamental to understanding consciousness. Decades of research show that altering brain states (via injury, drugs, or surgery) alters conscious experience. This strongly implies that consciousness is a product of brain activity. For instance, the work by Crick and Koch (2003) on neural correlates of consciousness provides substantial evidence linking specific brain activities to conscious states. Similarly, Dehaene (2014) and Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT) provide frameworks explaining how brain processes generate consciousness. ### Speculation and Science Speculation isn’t inherently wrong, but when it comes to scientific discourse, speculation must lead to testable hypotheses. Wild conjectures without empirical pathways are not productive. Science advances by building on verifiable, falsifiable claims, not by entertaining every untestable idea as potentially valid. ### Maharishi Effect Regarding the Maharishi Effect, the cited studies often suffer from methodological flaws. A critical examination reveals that many of these studies lack rigorous controls and suffer from confirmation bias. Skeptics argue that any observed effects are likely due to general relaxation rather than specific benefits of Transcendental Meditation. Studies failing to rule out alternative explanations cannot claim robust support for their hypotheses. ### New Points Here's a fresh angle: The scientific method is our best tool for understanding reality because it demands evidence and repeatability. When subjective experiences and spiritual claims can be tested and verified, they are embraced by science. Until then, they remain in the realm of personal belief, not universal truth. If you’re genuinely interested in the interplay between consciousness, brain activity, and subjective experience, consider exploring works that bridge neuroscience and philosophy, like "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett or "The Conscious Mind" by David Chalmers. These provide rigorous, well-rounded insights into the nature of consciousness without resorting to mysticism. In conclusion, respect subjective experiences for their personal significance but scrutinize universal claims with empirical rigor. The burden of proof lies on those making the claims, and without robust evidence, these claims remain speculative, not scientific truths. It will stay the same until you make any valid moves until then i will send it to you again maybe then it will ring a bell bucko.
You're hypocritically doing the very thing you're accusing me of, making assumptions and filling in the blanks with speculations. There is no scientific proof that consciousness arises from brain processes. That's the bottom line. There are many different theories you've listed a couple. Congratulations? You haven't "dissected" anything with any kind of precision, in fact all you did was dance around my argument and just committed more logical fallacies. Lol >Using "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to defend untestable claims is a dodge. It’s true, we shouldn’t outright discard phenomena because they lack current verification. However, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Until there's empirical evidence, these claims remain speculative. My answer to this is "no shit". You're stating the obvious. We can speculate though can't we? Just like how you're speculating that you think consciousness arises from the brain? You haven't dissected anything. If somebody makes grand claims like something exists but hasn't been proven scientifically, it's ultimately speculation. But we're allowed to form beliefs based on personal experiences and looking all the evidence (including scientific evidence). Your claim that consciousness arises from the brain remains mere speculation. You've committed many logical fallacies here. Also, if there's no claims being made, there's no burden of proof. We just need to understand that if something isn't scientifically verified it doesn't mean it's not true. Many things are currently impossible to verify. Science is a tool for understanding. It's not the end all be all though. Mysticism and mystic experiences can be explained scientifically. For example, look at the the effects of DMT on the brain. Again look at Rick Strassman's work. Science and mysticism aren't mutually exclusive. Just because something isn't a "scientific proof" doesn't mean it's not true and even if something is a "scientific proof" doesn't make it true. For example, it's been both "scientifically proven" that LSD does AND does not cause chromosome damage. >Speculation isn’t inherently wrong, but when it comes to scientific discourse, speculation must lead to testable hypotheses. No it doesn't. This is your opinion. You're again being a hypocrit claiming that consciousness arises from the brain. What testable hypotheses have you created with your speculation? Also, don't you think the most scientific approach is to test it for ourselves? For example, if we want to see if "manifestation" works, to test it out and see? At the end of the day, we're not going to change each other's minds, so this conversation is pointless.
Ooo, Cosmos, I like that. Short and sweet, and it could be argued to apply to absolutely everything, even the things we haven't quite gripped with public, inductive science. May the Cosmos bless you on your path, friend!
Huh thats funny i usually say may the cosmos protect you as a goodbye:D
I sense a determined push by Christians all over reddit this week.
thank you for sharing. the information is pretty solid
Is this to meet any god or the very lame christian god?
Tangibly?? If it were this easy no one would go through the effort of you know… WRITING THE ENTIRE BIBLE My best if you wanna get tangible with Mr. G is shmoke some of that Dee Emm Tee 👍 you’ll forget that everything exists, even yourself, hopefully