Meditation as a secular path to spiritual enlightenment is perhaps unequaled, and ought to be mastered by all. It does have beneficial effects on health and self-understanding. But the most common path to godless spirituality is through an appreciation of science: by truly taking in the awe of nature and her complexity, many a scientist has had a spiritual awakening that had nothing to do with God, but everything to do with profound reverence and amazement in the face of tremendous beauty, fearsome power, and the unimaginable depth and complexity of space and time. It sparks the realization of how tiny and insignificant we are, yet how wonderful we are despite this.
Is this a common sentiment among /his/?
>>471861
Sagan is based
>>471861
Spiritual atheism...
"I have a spiritual experience but there is no God"
Yet everyone has spiritual experiences which implies the source for all spirituality comes from somewhere.
Not the Earth's creation or the development of mankind as much as the Source of the Spiritual existence...
The only person in all history to be a bigger faggot than Carl Sagan is Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
>>471934
>Yet everyone has spiritual experiences which implies the source for all spirituality comes from somewhere
Your brain.
>>471934
>which implies the source for all spirituality comes from somewhere.
No it doesn't
Spiritually is a vague notion beneath contempt.
>>471939
This.
>>471937
cool
>>471953
>>471964
Can't see images lol
>>471861
What is "spiritual enlightenment" ?
>>471964
Deus Vult though tbhfam.
There is an order to the universe, certain universal laws. The most well known ones are the scientific ones. But there are also philosophical laws, for instance the Will to Power. Because these universal laws are the source of all manner of creation, destruction, and sustaining you can think of it as a "God" or divine thing.
Ancient cultures have always known there was some sort of order or rules but they anthropomorphized them, expressing them as humans or animals. According to Jung's theory these anthropomorphized entities and their adventures are infact highly sophisticated and contain complex symbology meant to communicate certain truths, at a psychological level.
I don't see why you can't be an atheist and come to marvel at these natural laws or "divine things" you are simply doing it without the symbol or anthropomorphication.
>>471861
>godless spirituality
Kek. What you're looking for is mysticism m8. Waxing poetic about nebulae and thinking its "scientific spirituality" is like finding nature beautiful and calling it "ecological spirituality". It's all the same reality, it's all the same spirituality
Though most people assume being “spiritual” entails being “religious,” this isn’t a necessary connection. When people talk about a spiritual life, they point to someone who has his mind on higher things, who is not obsessed with property or gain, and who is passionately devoted to a belief about the meaning of life and the path to happiness. But this describes any devoted philosopher. When people talk about a spiritual “experience” they point to the combined sensation of awe, inner peace, and enlightenment, which culminates in a reverence for life and nature, and a sincere self-reflection about these things and oneself. And yet that, too, is the experience of any true philosopher. I live a spiritual life, because I live a self-examined life of the mind, I care deeply about my beliefs, I care more about my ideals and human happiness than about material things, and I experience awe, inner peace, and enlightenment when I fathom human minds and the natural world.
>>472018
We must recognize that experiences we classify as spiritual or religious exist as a subset of ordinary psychological experiences, and not as something separate and different from them. This is not because we are obliged to assume there is nothing supernatural or special that corresponds to spiritual experiences. Rather, it is because before we can reach any such conclusion at all we are obliged to see there is no inherent way to distinguish ordinary psychological events from spiritual events. Because they originate within the same domain (our mental life), the possibility always remains that they are merely different aspects of the same thing. They might not correspond to anything outside of our own, private mental existence.
>>472020
Congrats m8 you also described what true religiosity is. When will fedoras learn the only thing they've been railing against is the contemporary phenomenon of fat American fundies, and not those who are too busy actually living the religious life to debate creationism on the internet
>>471934
I think the evidence is clearly in favor of the natural, internal cause, and not of any transcendent, supernatural cause. Religious claims often seem to be believed in more for their personal worth in answering the human need for an ultimate meaning to life than for their logical or empirical merit. While there are many contradictory yet equally ‘real’ spiritual traditions, one thing that appears common to every spiritual experience is whether it is (or can be) interpreted in some way that bears on an “ultimate meaning to life.” And if an experience, however interpreted, accomplishes well the goal of answering our need for meaning, then this will matter more to someone than whether that belief is consistent, justified, or true.
Yet that leap comes with the false assumption that no other answer is as satisfying, and ‘therefore’ no other answer should even be considered. This would explain why true believers not only resist attempts to challenge their beliefs, they are often impervious to them. This kind of behavior, which seems inexplicably irrational, appears at least explicable when we recognize that the religiously devout are often interested in things more important to them than the truth—such as an ultimate meaning to life. Since the personal, emotional benefits provided by spiritual beliefs do not depend on those beliefs being true, their truth becomes irrelevant in practice.
So, for example, while Buddhism and Christianity each provide a supernatural explanation for our ills, and an equally supernatural solution, within all this lies a purely practical belief system that not only provides an ultimate meaning to life, but attempts to produce a greater balance of peace and happiness by providing both a moral standard and a reason to live up to it. But none of this has been worked out scientifically, or tested empirically, and all of these benefits are gained merely by the claims being believed, and not by their actually being true.
>>472054
spirituality=/=religion
>>472037
Congrats, then neither can your piss warm "secular spirituality" or "scientific wonder" be said to actually correspond to anything real. Or love, or joy, or literally everything that has its origin in the mental life of human beings. You're actually going full solipsist scorched earth mode just because you don't want admit the possibility humans can experience some insinuation of the numinous.
>>472054
It seems clear that spiritual experiences (even secular) are at least potentially beneficial, contributing a useful and necessary quality to human life. No matter what religious spin they are given, they often produce emotional harmony and contentment, clarity of thought and perspective, joy and humility. And as this is an emotion, we can assess whether it is an accurate appraisal of its object. If its object is our self and our relation to the universe, its appraisal seems quite correct to me. And this benefit can be reliably gained from the experiences alone, without any conclusions of an objective nature being drawn from them. But when we add to the raw experience, when we use the inner emotion as a “proof” of something about the universe independently of us, the danger arises that we will mislead ourselves down a false path, a path that may be harmful or destructive to us or others, or that might distract us from even more important and wonderful things.
And we know this can happen. Many Islamists use their spiritual experiences to justify mass murder and the inhumane treatment of women, thus corrupting the very joy their spiritual life brings them, translating it into hatred rather than the love and contentment that they would have settled on otherwise. Likewise, many Christians use their experiences to justify slavish obedience to a human tradition or a book, which contains commandments not healthy for humans or their civilization, and lacks a great deal of crucial human wisdom—and what useful wisdom it does have is often buried and obscured in symbol and metaphor, or simply bad prose, and thus all too often missed or misunderstood. Though Buddhism and Taoism are more in touch with human nature and human needs, more easily channeling their spiritual experience into a genuine life of love and contentment, they still promote many false beliefs, such as reincarnation, or the evils of technology.
>>472069
Religion has its origins in spirituality and mysticism
>>472070
regularly contemplating them. And in a meditative state, your thought can sometimes be clearer than ever, and gain access to information inside you that was not being accessed before, or perceive patterns previously missed. But all such theories are no different than any others: they must still be tested logically and empirically before they can be assigned any knowledge value. We cannot declare the truth of a theory right out of the door, based on a purely subjective insight. That is a bad method, as we all know.
Second, it is vain to appeal to how a spiritual experience transforms someone’s life as a ‘proof’ that a religion is true. Life transformation results whenever anyone pays more attention to an ideal than they do to the details of life, it happens whenever anyone has a natural emotional experience like I describe above. It does not matter whether that ideal is real or not, or how that experience is interpreted—hence Kamikaze pilots, Islamic suicide bombers, Marxist fanatics, the Heaven’s Gate cult, Jonestown, stories of powerful personal changes through Scientology, all these involve experiencing the transformation of lives every bit as much as any other, such as Born Again Christians or Buddhists describe.
>>472072
Your feels trumps muh feels now because you call it secular and I call it mystical/religious? Oh please
>>472076
Whoops. Lost the first part of that in the stupid little window. It was...
First, even as a matter of principle, theories about the world outside our minds can arise from spiritual experience. For this is true of all states of consciousness. A mere random whim can produce a theory that could just happen to be right, and this is even more likely when the whim comes from a mind that is thoroughly steeped in the relevant facts and regularly contemplating them. And in a meditative state, your thought can sometimes be clearer than ever, and gain access to information inside you that was not being accessed before, or perceive patterns previously missed. But all such theories are no different than any others: they must still be tested logically and empirically before they can be assigned any knowledge value. We cannot declare the truth of a theory right out of the door, based on a purely subjective insight. That is a bad method, as we all know.
>>472076
The Buddha agreed we must submit even the most blissful meditation experience to analysis, or failing that, remain detached from it and not feed it with our emotions, life-narratives etc
Please understand rationalism and mysticism are allies, not enemies. It has been this way for a long time and it's only now with fedoras and creationists purposely muddying the waters with their cartoony caricatures about everything
>>471861
This is not an uncommon sentiment among scientists like Sagan, proving that spirituality is not exclusive to what we normally regard as “religious” life, nor does the term always entail something supernatural.
There's a lot of over-complication here.
>I think the evidence is clearly in favor of the natural, internal cause, and not of any transcendent, supernatural cause.
The entirety of a man's spirit and spirituality resides internally? His spirit reaches to nothing outside of himself, and is connected to naught but himself?
No one man is an island. He cannot feed himself from his own body, and the same is true of his spirit.
The very nature of spirituality implies an extrinsic connection. The notion of a "spirit" exists within some greater framework.
>>472120
Scientists can contemplate and make predictions about things billions of light years away or billions of years in the past or future. It all happens in our minds though
>>472158
It's dumb to say the evidence points to it being an internal cause because the evidence also points to all internal causes being contingent on other internal causes
>>472204
Well, obviously how we know those things about galaxies is from external stimuli
>muh universalism
If science can explain things like the origin of life...
Philosophy can answer what things "mean"..
And spirituality can exist without religion...
Do we still need religion for anything?
>>472076
You seem very attached to rationality.
>>472258
Not that I know of
>>472258
>Do we still need religion for anything?
Only inasmuch as people who don't have the time and/or wherewithal to seek out their own spiritual path will flock to someone who does most of the legwork for them. I wouldn't say it's exactly "necessary" but IMO it's inexorably tied at the hip with metaphysical thought due to human nature.
>>472258
Religion survives off of being a memetic virus
>>471937
Nah, you just butthurt because you either don't like science or don't like average joes learning about science... or you are an autist who can't grasp people getting excited about the universe and science.
>>472083
>muh semantics
If it ain't supernatural it's natural
>>472258
If
>>475789
Though we lack access to the facts we need in order to know just what happened on earth four billion years ago, it is more than reasonable to conclude that when all these common chemicals come together in the most favorable spots in a galaxy—such as earth—they will mix and produce random proteins, and after trillions and trillions of such random processes throughout all the star systems in all the galaxies, certainly at least one, if not many, somewhere, will inevitably turn up by chance a protein that can reproduce itself.
Once reproducing chains of amino acids exist, mutation inevitably takes hold. Whether from damage to these molecules from radiation and chemicals and other environmental hazards, or from mere errors in reproduction, we know mutation cannot be avoided, especially by a primitive replicator that lacks any mechanisms for limiting, preventing, or repairing it. So, in fact, not only is random mutation in reproduction inevitable for the first life, such life would experience a very rapid rate of mutation.
>>475795
No one cares about how life happened dude, it's why it emerges in complex electrochemical structures in the first place. It's like not knowing what a car is and you send me a 50 minute youtube video on how they make cars in factories.
>>475821
>why
A pointless question.
>>476116
Absolutely not, if there isn't a why then there is a how, as in how did these laws take the form that they do.
>>476170
In the realm of cosmology, the debate between theism and atheism is really only a quibble over details. Both sides agree there must be some ultimate entity, which is the eternal first cause and ground of all being, the end point of all explanations. They only disagree over what properties this “ultimate being” has. Theists think it has a whole plethora of amazing powers and attributes, including the most complex mind imaginable. But as atheists point out, there is no evidence for any of those tacked-on assumptions. There are only two properties we can be sure the ultimate being has: its nature is to exist, and it had a reasonable chance of producing our universe exactly as we see it. We can’t say anything more than that without sufficient evidence. And there is no actual evidence for any of the traditional divine attributes.
The multiverse explains everything that exists, and so even from the start it is just as good as “God did it.” It is even better than that, since the multiverse fits and follows from known scientific facts, and it makes the exact features of this universe highly probable—whereas there is no reason to believe this is the universe a god would probably make, nor is there any evidence that a god actually did any of the making. Of course one could ask why the multiverse exists at all, and why it has the exact properties it does. But something must exist without any explanation at all, so it may as well be the multiverse. For if a god can exist unexplained, with all his convenient attributes, then so can the multiverse. Both solutions leave the same questions unanswered. But we find the god hypothesis leaves far too many more questions unanswered. So we take the multiverse instead, as our ultimate “brute fact.”
>>476201
>something must exist without any explanation at all, so it might as well be my theory instead of yours lmao
>>476218
Chaotic Inflation theory is a reasonable inference from contemporary scientific observations and understanding, and predicts everything we observe. It holds that those properties of the universe that can be different than they are, like the mass of quarks, “froze” into place when the universe cooled, and due to chaotic or quantum indeterminism, different parts of the universe randomly ended up with different features—some with no quarks, some with quarks of a different mass, and so on. Yet the universe inflated so quickly, that once these properties froze in place in each tiny spot, that area grew to a size thousands of times larger than we could ever see. Thus, the universe we observe appears everywhere the same—but if we could see far enough, we would see different parts of the universe with completely different properties. It follows from the same theory that many regions of this multi-faceted universe will collapse and start the whole process over again, causing more multi-faceted universes to emerge from the original one. And so on. There is nothing we know that could stop this process, so it must go on forever—and may already have. So if inflation did occur, and it was chaotic, then nearly every possible universe would exist, including ours.
>>476249
>he thinks an internal cause can explain the existence of a closed system
>>476257
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
>>471937
>>473982
All memes are like viruses. The strongest memes survive. Most of the time they survive by strengthening the humans in which they inhabit. Other times less so.
>>472273
>let's reinvent the wheel
>still having faith in science since you know nothing about science
>>472058
>while Buddhism and Christianity each provide a supernatural explanation for our ills, and an equally supernatural solution
I disagree with that. While I don't know much about Christianity, I know enough to know about the basics of Buddhism to know this is an incorrect statement.
The Buddhists explain the ills as human conditioning or rather failure to retain a sense of permanence in something or failure to meet the expectations of your desire. Thats the mental aspects of it. On the physical ills, the buddhists say its purely a function of existence. All things change, including the human body. The body ills are due to parts changing through time and not always being in pristine/good condition. This is the nature of existence to the buddhist. You could deny that existence doesn't necessarily entail change, but thats a debate thats not rooted in supernatural understanding.
>>479078
Major religions have the attributes not of a memetically-propagated truth but of a memetic virus, this is itself a good reason to dismiss them. Now, the first and strongest clue that religions are viruses rather than healthy truths is in their selfishness, a selfishness that makes no reference to humble or objective standards or the pursuit of truth, but solely to their own preservation as beliefs, and the destruction or abandonment of all contrary beliefs.
Many cultures were won merely by converting their kings or chieftains, who, in return, required their subjects to adopt the new faith of their ruler. Still others mistook the numerical and technological superiority of their conquerors as evidence that they had the better god. Thus, the spread of Christianity was not due to its truth, God’s grace, or its unique attractiveness to foreign people. Simply imagine two competing religious points of view, one holding the idea that other religions are to be respected and that war is justified only in defense, the other holding that war is justified in converting infidels to the only true faith, and that this faith must by its very calling be spread across the world. Which religion will survive and grow, and which will be stamped out and forgotten? The answer is self-evident—and yet it has nothing to do with which religion is actually true.
>>472058
>So, for example, while Buddhism and Christianity each provide a supernatural explanation for our ills, and an equally supernatural solution, within all this lies a purely practical belief system that not only provides an ultimate meaning to life, but attempts to produce a greater balance of peace and happiness by providing both a moral standard and a reason to live up to it. But none of this has been worked out scientifically, or tested empirically, and all of these benefits are gained merely by the claims being believed, and not by their actually being true.
Hold up partner, you think the benefits of meditation haven't been proven empirically? And shit, not even that, you need a fucking a multi-national 10 year study to tell you "living in the present moment is good for your mental and physical wellbeing"? Or "being an objective observer of your thoughts and emotions prevents you from getting caught up in them"? Or "craving for sensuous experience and external validation will never lead to lasting fulfillment"?
Lol this is why STEMfags are a laughingstock. Your autism is showing.
>>480312
None of the supernatural claims made by Buddhism or Christianity have been shown to be scientifically true. But believing they are true can benefit you in prayer/meditation
>>480312
>Hold up partner, you think the benefits of meditation haven't been proven empirically?
Did you even read the first sentence of my OP?
>>480245
Congratulation, human institutions are prone to the human follies. Now are you going to actually say something about the true content of these religions or you gonna keep peddling this weak undergrad shit as if fighting a war in the name of x (could be democracy, could be whatever) immediately invalidates x itself?
>>480316
>science can't prove or disprove metaphysics, therefore... you should dismiss all metaphysics?
this board is like an eternal 101 class.
why would i give a shit about what has science has to say about something it simply is not equipped to say anything about? lmao
>>480322
Here, I'll just copy paste what I already wrote since your reading comprehension is so bad.
>Simply imagine two competing religious points of view, one holding the idea that other religions are to be respected and that war is justified only in defense, the other holding that war is justified in converting infidels to the only true faith, and that this faith must by its very calling be spread across the world. Which religion will survive and grow, and which will be stamped out and forgotten? The answer is self-evident—and yet it has nothing to do with which religion is actually true.
>>480316
>meditation is same as prayer
>both are placebo
Why do you not want to believe meditation has benefits? Why do you believe its only a placebo?
>>480334
Except your argument is completely invalidated by the success of pacifist religions like Buddhism and Taoism. Buddhism itself exploded in popularity after Ashoka renounced exactly the kind of warmongering and bloodlust you're railing against.
>>480341
Colonization of the world, more often than not by robbery and warfare, spread Christianity into the Americas and other corners of the earth, just as Islam was spread throughout Asia and Africa. It is not a coincidence that the two most widespread religions in the world today are the most warlike and intolerant religions in history.
>>480339
It doesn't have benefits, read OP
>>480353
*does
>>480333
Sorry, what? Do you have some proof that all the magical claims made by Buddhism and Christianity are true? I'd like to hear about that. I assume you're not using the scientific or historical method, so please state your method first and why it is a good method for determining the truth
>>480333
>>science can't prove or disprove metaphysics, therefore... you should dismiss all metaphysics?
You actually should, yes. In science, claims are false until proven otherwise
>>480383
Science can't prove I'm not a p-zombie, so my consciousness doesn't exist until some pointdexter can see it in a lab readout? Please.
>>480372
Intuitive knowledge of reality cultivated by meditation and prayer. If you think pure logic and math can tell me everything about the universe and the mysteries of life, boy have I got news for you
>>480383
>scientism
kek
Science can't prove you're not a retard.
>>480406
>Science can't prove I'm not a p-zombie
Nor does it need to, as you haven't even defined what a p-zombie is, or what method you use to demonstrate that something is a p-zombie
>>480406
>Intuitive knowledge of reality cultivated by meditation and prayer
>>480417
>arguing for the infallibility of science
>doesn't even know what a p-zombie is, expects me to sit here and explain why science will never be able to prove that my brain activity, no matter how many times you image it, is necessarily accompanied by the subjective component that is my consciousness
Back to reddit kid
Science is a religion
>>480406
>If you think pure logic and math can tell me everything about the universe and the mysteries of life, boy have I got news for you
Way to move goal posts
>>480437
>>arguing for the infallibility of science
That's actually the opposite of what I'm doing
>>expects me to sit here and explain
Well yeah, you made the claim, so own it, retard
>>480437
>science will never be able to prove that my brain activity, no matter how many times you image it, is necessarily accompanied by the subjective component that is my consciousness
Of course unfalsifiable statements will never be falsified, that's why science doesn't care about them
>>480431
>he thinks objectivity, analysis of experience, and detachment to results is something science invented
fucking kek
>>480448
you're not even familiar enough with the literature to know what a p-zombie is and you're here soapboxing about dismissing everything until science can prove its reality? Nah
>>480447
>implies that all non-scientific knowledge is suspect
>I make a counter-claim that abstracting the world into an interplay of quantities and mathematical structures and hoping everything can be explained that way is about as dumb and myopic as any fundie's belief that all the knowledge in the universe is contained in the bible and the bible alone
>I'm moving the goalposts
>>480458
Nah man, witchcraft and astrology is real. I know because it's intuitive and I prayed about it to Cthulu
>>480474
>implies that all non-scientific knowledge is suspect
Never implied that. I simply asked you to prove something and assumed you weren't using the scientific or historical method, so also asked that you show why this method is good for discovering the truth
>>480474
>I make a counter-claim that abstracting the world into an interplay of quantities and mathematical structures and hoping everything can be explained that way is about as dumb and myopic as any fundie's belief
Excuse me, do you even know what science is? Mathematical models aren't even used for most of it
>>480476
Please acquaint yourself with the literature you're trying to discredit before spouting off this reddit-tier shit. The post you quoted is saying that spiritual aspirants were just as objective and methodical in the study of their inner life as any scientist studying a bug or plant.
>>480482
And I said intuitive knowledge that can't be proven with language because it's beyond language. Or is experience subordinate to language in terms of its potential truth-value?
>>480494
The point is science abstracts the world to meaninglessness. What is meaningful in the lab is not necessarily meaningful in the real world, nor does it invalidate the meaning of anything that can't be studied in that lab.
>>480474
>you're not even familiar enough with the literature to know what a p-zombie is
Again, I don't need, because I'm not the one claiming anything. You are, therefore the responsibility of explaining it rests on you
>>480501
>The post you quoted is saying that spiritual aspirants were just as objective and methodical in the study of their inner life as any scientist studying a bug or plant
I know, and I'm in full agreement. My spirit guide, cthulu, has shown me that astrology and witchcraft are true and intuitive. Can't you read?
>>480501
>And I said intuitive knowledge that can't be proven with language because it's beyond language. Or is experience subordinate to language in terms of its potential truth-value?
Experience is subordinate to method
>>480522
>Nah, come back when you're over 18.
Nice ad hominem. Really shows what a brilliant thinker you are
>>478878
>William "Genocide the Canaanite" Craig
>>480531
You got called out on your dumb shit. "dismiss everything unless the big fatherly science man tells you it's okay to believe in" Kek, what a load. I get called out on my shit all the time. It's what happens. Learn your shit or don't say anything.
>>480529
>cultivated by meditation and prayer
How come this isn't a method? Because it deals with subjectivity and that's too icky for you STEM autist types?
>>480501
>And I said intuitive knowledge that can't be proven with language because it's beyond language
Here, let me put it into language. "When you pray to dead saints they hear you"
>>480552
>You got called out on your dumb shit
No, you made a claim, and when asked to demonstrate it, you countered with namecalling.
Both academics and practitioners probably wouldn't even waste their time on you. The only reason I'm doing right now is mostly out of the entertainment I get from woo-woo salesmen like you invariably saying the same stuff independently. You make a claim, people ask you to demonstrate it, you try to baffle them with bullshit and claim they're 'not qualified', it doesn't work, you call them names, it still doesn't work, you or they leave, you claim victory. It's quite funny
>>480556
That's cool bro, if you wanna talk sunday school-tier ideas of the divine with other portly individuals with a taste for certain headwear I got this great site for you
>>480578
Literally look up a p-zombie and tell me how you would prove I have an inner life and I'm not just a biological machine convincingly responding to stimuli you dipshit
>>480585
I already told you twice that you made the claim, and therefore the responsibility of explaining it as valid rests on you.
Are you blind or just extremely stupid?
>>480595
And if you were familiar with the literature on consciousness most scientists would concede you wouldn't be able to. Which is why I'm calling you out for making a ridiculous epistomological claims without even being aware of their ramifications.
>>480608
You don't even know enough about Buddhism to know reincarnation and karma as concepts aren't even supposed to enter your mind in the meditative state. You don't even know what meditation is supposed to be. What does Buddhist metaphysics have to do with stilling your mind?
>>480613
>And if you were familiar with the literature on consciousness most scientists would concede you wouldn't be able to.
And familiarity with literature is something learned people are told to never assume, as it can be used as a tool to just obscure a point.
In academics, you must always assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject. The fact that you don't do this tells me you know even less about this subject than I do and probably got all of your knowledge from Wikipedia
>>480626
Is this a class? Look, the original point was no scientist could conclusively prove there is an "I" here, inside me, when it's the most self-evident thing in the world to me. Constrictive, epistemic assumptions about the primacy of scientific knowledge lead to absurdities. Do you have anything to say to that or what here dude?
>>480645
>Is this a class?
Wait, I'm supposed to be 'familiar with the literature' one moment, and when I ask you whether you are, we suddenly get the 'school's out, nerd'-defense?
>>480656
Keep trying to duck the point with tone arguments.
>>471939
This.
