The answer we gotten before from some here is, "random brain activity".
________________________________ From: "waybac...@yahoo.com" <waybac...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 7:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Iranitea, I am really glad you wrote what you did, about the crown chakra experience perhaps modifying a person's atheism. It is an experience, not just an idea or an attempt to use words. Somehow it rings really true. --- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Hi Xeno, this triggered something some time ago, when I wasn't subscribed. You said: "Ever wonder what a neo-Darwinist atheist would experience in GC? (Assuming GC is a real state of experience)" I have been thinking about this, not really in the context of GC, which I don't really know, but rather in relation to another experience I have, namely that of the crown chakra, the Sahasradala. Speaking from that experience, having had this in a fairly clear and consistent way, I don't *believe* one could be a full-fledged atheist. Dawkins couldn't stay Dawkins with this experience. Now, I say *full-fledged* atheist, because it depends of course on your definition of the terms 'theist' and 'atheist'. I don't mean with that, that you have to believe in a very personalized concept of a creator God, or even any personal God, but you definitely experience a totally different dimension of Being, so I don't think you could deny a very clear and concrete sense of an Absolute, however inexpressible this may be. You could maybe be a Buddhist atheist, if that's how you would call it, but not in a sense, how Curtis or even Dawkins define it. That's just my 2 cents. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> >>> wrote: >> >>--snip-- >> >>While I do not have time to enter the fray here at the moment, I did notice >>this thread about 'Mind and Cosmos' which I have *not* read but which >>seemingly brings up once again the 'hard problem of consciousness'. >> >>I do not think hard problem will go away philosophically or experimentally. >>When the brain is deactivated, all observable appearances of conscious >>behaviour vanish. But as meditators of one sort or another, the experiences >>we have are something else. In particular for me, the gap I experienced >>during surgery was most interesting. Did I in fact experience it? Was it an >>experience? Was it pure being? Like TC, but lasts for hours but has no sense >>of time. >> >>Then there is the experience that everything has an equal value of >>consciousness, which in some way, seems redundant to say there is some value >>called consciousness that is somehow distinct from any kind of experience. To >>me consciousness = being, and this contradicts the idea that consciousness >>can be snuffed out by destroying the brain. But then when the brain is >>largely deactivated by anaesthesia there is nothing, or is there? Because >>that gap has a value, at least in retrospect in memory of its having been >>there. It is a paradox. At least intellectually it is a paradox, and perhaps >>leaving it as a mystery on the level of the mind can leave one settled. >> >>Ever wonder what a neo-Darwinist atheist would experience in GC? (Assuming GC >>is a real state of experience) >> >>I came across some web pages discussing Nagel's book: >> >>http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/ferguson-on-nagel.html >>http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-i.html >>http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-ii.html >>http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iii.html >>http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iv.html >>http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-v.html >>http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-vi.html >> >>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/pummeled_with_p068931.html >>http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/ >>
