--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > And universal consciousness may be more than just an > > > idea; it may be the experiential realization of > > > some people. > > > > I guess the question there is whether you can trust > > the experience to be what it appears to be or whether > > it is just a consequence of jiggering around with our > > heads via drugs or meditation or even mental illness > > and concluding that because we have no boundaries that > > must be how it is. Surely people in these states > > would be able to come up with some sort of testable > > statement even if it only compares theoretically, > > but I haven't seen any evidence for that, even king > > Tony's "cognizance" only stems so far as a book he > > read appearing in human physiology, whatever that > > means (and I've read it - utterly surreal that any > > scientist could be so uncritical) > > > > The universe we perceive in our heads is a picture > > based on info from our senses, change the way bits > > of our brain relate to create that picture and you > > have the unbounded sense that we all know and love, > > is how I see it. > > > > > Of course. And, as you say, perhaps there is no real difference between the > insight from enlightenment (TM-style), drugs or pharmaceuticals. > > Of course, in the modern western sense of "validity," if the insight is > "real," then we should expect to find practical applications that can be > measured using scientific means.
And as that has yet to happen.....which is where we came in. L. >
