H2H With Willam

[Inigo Montoya]

So... Hi everyone.

For reasons known only to William, he is insisting I make public the invitation to a head to head right here in General Discussion.

I've proposed one of his mantras, "God and consciousness are the same thing."

I haven't actually gotten any feedback apart from the insistence I put the format and topic negotiations here.

I don't get it. You don't get it. But consider it done.

What say you WillIAm?

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by Inigo Montoya]

Know that you declined without ever having a topic for a H2H, and that you seemed to just pick the most recent exchange as the intended engagement.

The evidence is there for the reader to see Inigo. It was you who decided you wanted to go h2h and this was definitely prompted by your reaction to my post#54 , as can be seen in your subsequent comments in that thread. If your comment re that post is anything to go by, plus these subsequent comments you have made here, my understanding that going h2h with you would be a waste of my time, is justified.

You claim that you have often 'invited me more than once to defend some of my notions' and if that were the case then I would have done so. Plainly my Members Notes have pages of my ideas on what I think is going on and why. I am not shy of stating so here on this forum, and none of those ideas have yet been debunked by atheists or theists, in all the time I have contributed to this forum.

I am going to continue as I have - to post my comments in threads I chose to and you are free to debate and attempt to debunk anything I post. But if you think that all you are required to do in that is simply throw a few derogatives into the mix and *bingo* your job is done, you are deluded. It doesn't work that way Inigo. You want sensible interaction? Then be sensible about it.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 10 by Inigo Montoya]

Know that you declined without ever having a topic for a H2H, and that you seemed to just pick the most recent exchange as the intended engagement.

The evidence is there for the reader to see Inigo. It was you who decided you wanted to go h2h and this was definitely prompted by your reaction to my post#54 , as can be seen in your subsequent comments in that thread. If your comment re that post is anything to go by, plus these subsequent comments you have made here, my understanding that going h2h with you would be a waste of my time, is justified.

You claim that you have often 'invited me more than once to defend some of my notions' and if that were the case then I would have done so. Plainly my Members Notes have pages of my ideas on what I think is going on and why. I am not shy of stating so here on this forum, and none of those ideas have yet been debunked by atheists or theists, in all the time I have contributed to this forum.

I am going to continue as I have - to post my comments in threads I chose to and you are free to debate and attempt to debunk anything I post. But if you think that all you are required to do in that is simply throw a few derogatives into the mix and *bingo* your job is done, you are deluded. It doesn't work that way Inigo. You want sensible interaction? Then be sensible about it.

See it however you like, William.

Point is you're saying nothing of yours has been debunked at the same time you're declining a H2H with me. That says plenty.

As for this thread, it's surely a bore to all that might be reading and was a waste of time.

You've chosen wisely, defending a non existent proposition to make sure you didn't need to commit to a one on one on the grounds you're being misrepresented. I've invited you several times now, and all can see I not only offered a topic but invited you to offer your own.

If you get brave enough to defend sentient planets and equating gods with consciousness, look me up. I don't know how much more clear I can be on that. The notion you think I honed in on your post 54 or whatever is misguided. There's a wealth of your writing I take issue with.

Hell, pick the very first of your member notes and we can go through them one at a time. Anyhow, you've made this needlessly complicated.

I challenged, you declined. Enough said.

[Swami]

So... Hi everyone.

For reasons known only to William, he is insisting I make public the invitation to a head to head right here in General Discussion.

I've proposed one of his mantras, "God and consciousness are the same thing."

I haven't actually gotten any feedback apart from the insistence I put the format and topic negotiations here.

I don't get it. You don't get it. But consider it done.

What say you WillIAm?

I believe that God and consciousness are the same thing based on my experiences. My experiences have involved a gradual realization that everything in existence is conscious (a manifestation of it) stemming from universal/unifying consciousness - call it God. Everyone can confirm this for themselves which gets into my next point.

I am very reluctant to "debate" this view because I believe it is easier to confirm and understand when you experience it for yourself. When I find that someone is unwilling to experience then that shows me they aren't really looking for answers.



I find too many who are closed to the issue. In other words, they are not really interested in answers when



I would not recommend you debate this issue but rather you should "experience" it.

[Swami]

So... Hi everyone.

For reasons known only to William, he is insisting I make public the invitation to a head to head right here in General Discussion.

I've proposed one of his mantras, "God and consciousness are the same thing."

I haven't actually gotten any feedback apart from the insistence I put the format and topic negotiations here.

I don't get it. You don't get it. But consider it done.

What say you WillIAm?

I agree with William that God and consciousness are the same thing. Under my view, there is a universal consciousness that pervades everything. It contains awareness so everything is aware.

If you are seeking a debate using only current Western science then I'll be the first to admit that the materialist side would fare better. But it would not be because you've proven your case (scientists have not figured out consciousness afterall) but rather it would because my side is not "scientifically" supported and therefore we can't claim that it's factual. However, I've remedied this problem by not simply asserting the details of my worldview but also a reliable method for discovering the details for yourself. It is a method that anyone can practice, it is one that is already part of Eastern science, and it is one that many Western scientists are trying to study to eventually integrate into your culture's thinking.

Interestingly, I've come across many who don't want to practice this method and they can offer no valid reason other than their close-mindedness. These types (e.g. DrNoGods, Brumnb, and others) are not really open to the truth. The way I look at it, it's one thing to not accept the details of my worldview, but it's another thing to be unwilling to practice (meditation).

I devoted an entire thread to this that's called, Using Field Research to Discover Consciousness. I've since given up on it because too many skeptics there are hard line materialists.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 13 by Razorsedge]

 

I agree with William that God and consciousness are the same thing. Under my view, there is a universal consciousness that pervades everything. It contains awareness so everything is aware.

 

That's neat. But your agreement, and your views, aren't worth much in a debate forum. I appreciate you guys have decided to just call god "consciousness," but it doesn't advance the idea they're the same thing in the slightest.

This has been one of my many complaints with William from the beginning. Think what you like when you like. But the moment you present it as having some basis in reality, there's no amount of attacking the limits of science or appeals to your gut and intuition that supercede actual data in debate. I don't care if it's Western science or Martian science or stories from time travelers, the burden remains the same.

The subforums that these ideas often find themselves in have "Christianity" right in their title. That's problem one, and it's a big one, to just go lobbing woo at the walls and hoping it sticks.

Don't really care too much about that either, though. . If anyone, anyone at all, wants to propose planets are conscious, and that the gods are consciousness under a different name, or that there exists a first source consciousness, they'll have to do more than just say so and write essays and lament on the shortcomings of what we presently know. That isn't how claims are defended.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 13 by Razorsedge]

 

I agree with William that God and consciousness are the same thing. Under my view, there is a universal consciousness that pervades everything. It contains awareness so everything is aware.

 

That's neat. But your agreement, and your views, aren't worth much in a debate forum. I appreciate you guys have decided to just call god "consciousness," but it doesn't advance the idea they're the same thing in the slightest.

This has been one of my many complaints with William from the beginning. Think what you like when you like. But the moment you present it as having some basis in reality, there's no amount of attacking the limits of science or appeals to your gut and intuition that supercede actual data in debate. I don't care if it's Western science or Martian science or stories from time travelers, the burden remains the same.

The subforums that these ideas often find themselves in have "Christianity" right in their title. That's problem one, and it's a big one, to just go lobbing woo at the walls and hoping it sticks.

Don't really care too much about that either, though. . If anyone, anyone at all, wants to propose planets are conscious, and that the gods are consciousness under a different name, or that there exists a first source consciousness, they'll have to do more than just say so and write essays and lament on the shortcomings of what we presently know. That isn't how claims are defended.

I can't speak for William but I myself am not interested in a "debate". I'm only interested in sharing my experience and in the process I can explain how you can experience for yourself. I question why someone would prefer debate over experience unless for some reason you don't want to do the 'field research' that it takes to access pure consciousness.

As for God, my view is along the lines of the Hindu/yogic thought.

For Hindus, Brahman is the divine force underlying all reality or, in some interpretations, the equivalent of reality itself. In contrast to the personal creator God of the Abrahamic faiths, Brahman is conceived as an all-pervasive universal consciousness. As such, Brahman is infinite, unchanging, and eternal.

Source: https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/brahman

Mitchell was experiencing a spontaneous glimpse of what the sages of the yoga tradition call higher consciousness—a direct, intuitive experience of the infinite field of awareness that underlies and pervades the entire universe. When this experience is fully expanded, different traditions give it different names—samadhi, nirvana, enlightenment, turiya, shunyata, Brahman, Christ Consciousness, Absolute Truth, Atman, God, the Self, Supreme Consciousness—but whatever they call it, spiritual masters tell us that this experience of an all-pervasive consciousness reveals the truth about ourselves and the world we inhabit: it is all One. There is no division, no multiplicity, no separation. Everything—the astonishing variety of living beings; nature’s myriad shapes, textures, and forms; the sun, the stars, the clouds, and the wind in the trees—all of it is a manifestation of an indivisible field of Consciousness. The goal of human life, the sages tell us, is to meet that Consciousness within ourselves and to know ourselves as That.

Second article quotations come from here:
https://yogainternational.com/article/v ... sciousness

[Inigo Montoya]

What is "pure" consciousness? On the one hand, you'd criticize science's grasp on what the phenomenon actually is, yet you have the means to identify it in its pure state, hm?

I don't spend time on a debate forum to avoid debate. If I want lessons in meditation or tai chi or violin, I'll find them apart from a site dedicated to debate. Whatever state of consciousness I'm likely to achieve by practicing will still be completely useless in defending a topic such as this. Of what use is anecdotal first person experience in conveying real data to an audience?

[Swami]

What is "pure" consciousness? On the one hand, you'd criticize science's grasp on what the phenomenon actually is, yet you have the means to identify it in its pure state, hm?

Perhaps you only have the Western perspective to relate to where consciousness is often associated with brain processes, with thoughts, feelings, and mind overall. To the Eastern perspective, consciousness is not thought of as being limited to the body. Thoughts and mind are just distractions. Consciousness is formless and boundless. In it's most basic form (which is its true form) it is simply a state of awareness. Generally-speaking here's how many in the East reach this state:

Maharishi emphasizes that only by completely transcending mental activity, can the individual psyche experience the cosmic psyche at the source of all mental processes. Maharishi Vedic Psychology includes a technology—the Transcendental Meditation® technique[/i]


The Transcendental Meditation technique is an effortless procedure for allowing the excitations of the mind to gradually settle down until the least excited state of mind is reached. This is a state of inner wakefulness with no object of thought or perception, just pure consciousness aware of its own unbounded nature. It is wholeness, aware of itself, devoid of differences, beyond the division of subject and object‚ Transcendental Consciousness. (p. 123)

Source: Maharishi Vedic Psychology Brings Fulfillment to the Aspirations of Twentieth-Century Psychology
Charles Alexander, Frederick Travis, B. Mawiyah Clayborne, and Dori Rector
pdf: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... ajklalr5kb[/quote]

In the West? Scientists do not access pure consciousness. All they have are "correlates" of consciousness and it's because they don't understand the nature of consciousness. So for the Western thinker, not only is consciousness an empirical problem (as many think), it's also a conceptual problem. They define it as a physical process so they proceed on searching for it as such and it's to their own failure.

I don't spend time on a debate forum to avoid debate. If I want lessons in meditation or tai chi or violin, I'll find them apart from a site dedicated to debate. Whatever state of consciousness I'm likely to achieve by practicing will still be completely useless in defending a topic such as this. Of what use is anecdotal first person experience in conveying real data to an audience?

Do you deny that the details of your dreams, thoughts, and feelings just because no one else can see what's going on in your mind?

I don't debate for several reasons. What I propose is for people to experience it for themselves and in the process they'll have their proof. I find that many of those who don't want to experience are hardline materialists. Many in this camp clearly don't want to experience anything that goes against their worldview.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 17 by Razorsedge]



First of all, and this is important.... I. Don't. Care. Regarding the majority of what you and William think and post, I find it trivial and unimportant and unevidenced.

This is a debate site. If either of you can defend conscious planets and gods as BEING consciousness, then we have something to talk about. If you're here to just write and talk about the things you feel and like, do it in the appropriate subforums and be merry.

Are you here to learn about the great boxers from the 50's to present day? Would you like to hear me ramble on endlessly about the great fights in a Christianity forum? No? Is it because it has nothing to do with reanimated zombies and claims on your eternal soul? Very well, I'll stop bringing it up here then.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 18 by Inigo Montoya]

At this point, I think it's best that I address the audience since I have hard time taking you seriously. You admit that you don't really care to experience. Intolerance to Eastern ideas!!

To the readers,
I don't care about winning a debate. Very few change their minds from this and we see that it can turn into a distraction with endless excuses to keep one from changing their position. You don't need "others" to prove it to you if you can prove it to yourself via experience.

Do you know what separates a hard line materialist scientist from a reasonably open-minded one? Experience. I say this because scientists who actually 'experience' don't remain hard line materialists, and a recent example of this is neurosurgeon/Harvard professor Dr. Eben Alexander.

“The body sleeps, the heart sleeps, the mind sleeps -- but you remain alert because you are nothing else but alertness. Everything else is a false identification. Awareness is your nature. The body is your abode. The mind is your computer. Awareness is you, is your very being.�
- Osho