Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[simpleas]

From Simpleas:

Bit off topic…

Good Morning Simpleas: I agree. It seems to me at least at an intuitive level that life is a continuation. Now, I am very sure that Gary Sheldrake will die and that there will never be another me. I think I will return to the earth and my physical elements will be part of the process like they are now. Every cell in my body except some in my brain change out completely every few years, and these are transmuted from elements borrowed from the world around me. A temporary form that is never static in its nature. I am not a thing, but an event really. As for my memories and sense of self, well, I think the latter is an illusion. This is why I think the greatest imperative is to get in touch with that which we really are, which is not what we take ourselves to be.

Reincarnation is certainly a possibility. As for being transformed into a new body, well, I think that had a simpler meaning really. All I think he was saying is that you don’t really die because you are part of the whole, and the whole does in fact keep making new things from old things, doesn’t it? This is why I think we have to die to the idea of having our own “selves” in order to find eternity. If we hold on to a sense of “self” the only outcome is death. Maybe the way to live forever is to let that go.

I suppose that’s a possibility. I have run into some very “far out there” experiences in my travels through life. I don’t discount the possibility of anything. Now, this thing about going to other galaxies for instance. We know there are other galaxies out there, because we can see them with telescopes. I happen to believe (at this point at least) that wherever there is anything, we are there as well. Only we can only experience it one thing at a time, because we are simply apertures through which the universe experiences itself, and that means that at the core of our being, we are in fact the universe or God if you would. Right now I am experiencing it through the aperture of a middle aged human on Earth, and the problem is that rather than seeing Gary Sheldrake as an instrument through which I am experiencing a given saga, I have made the all too common mistake of identifying with Gary Sheldrake as if Gary Sheldrake had some existence of his own.

Just some thoughts.

All the best.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[grannymh]

Yes God is complete with out humans parts, but we are not complete without God.
If I am not a part of God, I have no idea what I am a part of…

When you say that we are not complete without God – you are actually referring to God’s upholding your existence.

You are a wonderful complete human being. You are a part of humankind which God so loved that He sent His Son to us. (John 3: 16-17) At your conception, God directly created your Spiritual Soul. At your Baptism, you became a part of God’s “adopted” sons and daughters.

God not only gives you being and existence, He continues to give you existence. God enables you to act and to freely choose your actions. God personally invites you to share, by knowledge and love, in His own life which is our State of Sanctifying Grace. The information sources answer your questions far better than I can.
(Information source. CCC 301; CCC 356; CCC 1730-32)

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

So you believe in epiphenomalism?

Good Evening Bahman: Actually, what I believe (again I state this is what I believe) is pretty much the reverse. The physical world has no explanation for the emergence of consciousness. I think that consciousness is primary over matter, and that consciousness is causal. Specifically, I think that there are infinite potential realities, and consciousness simply chooses the ones it wants to collapse into temporal existence. For instance, you and I are sharing a common reality, because this is the story line our bodies are tuned to. We are tuned into the 21st century human story. If we were some other sort of creatures with a different metabolism and perhaps in another place, we would be tuned into a different story.

The objective, and insofar as I can tell, the absolute only reason for our existence is to participate as fully as possible and to experience as much as possible. So, right now, on this thread, we are all doing our best to make this an interesting dialog and a fulfilling experience. It’s just what we do, because that’s what we’re supposed to do. The problem is that we don’t do many of the things we want to do as fully as we should, or at least this has been my experience.

Oh, and thank you for the videos. I enjoyed them.

youtube.com/watch?v=GDiAR8kZmHE

All the best,
Gary

 

[grannymh]

Regarding any and every view of human consciousness, Adam being human – what is his “consciousness”?

Please consider that the author of the first three chapters of Genesis does have consciousness because he is capable of expressing ideas related to himself and others. In fact, considering the depth of his observations, the author would today be recognized as a superior extraordinary thinking genius.

Another question for down the road. Regarding any and every view of human consciousness, what are the best goals (plural intended) for members of the human species?

Tiny comment. The dictionary has an amazing variety of definitions for conscious and consciousness.

 

[simpleas]

When you say that we are not complete without God – you are actually referring to God’s upholding your existence.

You are a wonderful complete human being. You are a part of humankind which God so loved that He sent His Son to us. (John 3: 16-17) At your conception, God directly created your Spiritual Soul. At your Baptism, you became a part of God’s “adopted” sons and daughters.

God not only gives you being and existence, He continues to give you existence. God enables you to act and to freely choose your actions. God personally invites you to share, by knowledge and love, in His own life which is our State of Sanctifying Grace. The information sources answer your questions far better than I can.
(Information source. CCC 301; CCC 356; CCC 1730-32)

Thanks, I look at the CCC later.

Yes I believe in God upholding our existence, I don’t think we would exist unless something is holding us together, including creation.
The part of God which I’m thinking of is the soul/spirit. God gives us this soul/spirit from himself. God is spiritual being, we have the spirit dwelling within us. It does not make us God or Gods, but gives us strength.

So we are still a creature and God is the creator, but God gives us part of his spirit to enable us to become spiritual human beings, which sets us apart from the other creatures, or else we would just be doing seasonal activities and not build, create, learn, express, love etc.

We aren’t purely matter after all.

 

[Bahman]

Good Evening Bahman: Actually, what I believe (again I state this is what I believe) is pretty much the reverse. The physical world has no explanation for the emergence of consciousness. I think that consciousness is primary over matter, and that consciousness is causal.

Good up to here. In fact there is no such a thing as emergence of consciousness. Consciousness is primary as you said and rules over matter. Everything in nature including knowledge is the utility of consciousness hence a conscious being cannot be created by another conscious being, so called God as far as it is related to this thread.

Here we are left with a few options when we consider the fact that consciousness is primary: 1) The concept of Iness is a delusion, 2) The concept of Iness is real, 3) Epipheonmalism is correct, 4)

I think you believe in (1) but this is purposeless unless people realize the importance of global love and unity instead of self-love and being self-center. This however leaves a few question unanswered all of these questions arises around the idea that consciousness cannot be created: (A) Is there one Consciousness? (B) Does any person has its/her/his own consciousness? (C) Is there any layer structure in consciousness? To find an answer to (A) and (B) we have to notice that awareness happens in consciousness. We however have our own personal awareness from subject matter unless otherwise is state, as Jesus said that I am vine and you are branches and this is not possible unless (C) is right. That is all I can say now.

I personally believe in (2) and I think it is consistent. What I call persona is consciousness and what we call body is manifestation of its awareness from the idea of self. The persona is not subject to death but its body since consciousness is primary hence it is not subject to destruction.

Specifically, I think that there are infinite potential realities, and consciousness simply chooses the ones it wants to collapse into temporal existence. For instance, you and I are sharing a common reality, because this is the story line our bodies are tuned to. We are tuned into the 21st century human story. If we were some other sort of creatures with a different metabolism and perhaps in another place, we would be tuned into a different story.

This interpretation I like. But consciousness cannot choose unless it has a body hence what happen to my understanding is the necessity. This however is consistent with (1) and (2).

The objective, and insofar as I can tell, the absolute only reason for our existence is to participate as fully as possible and to experience as much as possible. So, right now, on this thread, we are all doing our best to make this an interesting dialog and a fulfilling experience. It’s just what we do, because that’s what we’re supposed to do. The problem is that we don’t do many of the things we want to do as fully as we should, or at least this has been my experience.

This I like which is consistent with (1) and (2).

Oh, and thank you for the videos. I enjoyed them.

youtube.com/watch?v=GDiAR8kZmHE

All the best,
Gary

Thanks for the video and I share this video with you.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

This interpretation I like. But consciousness cannot choose unless it has a body hence what happen to my understanding is the necessity. This however is consistent with (1) and (2).

Good Morning Bahman: Thank you for the video.

I think that sentience needs a body, and while it is my opinion that sentience is an agent of consciousness, it is not consciousness. What consciousness needs a body for is sentient experience. I think that consciousness creates bodies and other things made of matter in order to live out its dreams. I think it also evolves through the bodies it creates in order to create new dimensions of experience. Through animals, it created sight, sounds taste, and so forth. Through higher primates such as ourselves, it created language and the ability to share thoughts, and then written communication and the internet and so forth. These are all incursions into dimensionality. Or so it seems to me. I am trying not to offer my ideas as truth or anything. Just expressing the way I see it.

All the best,
Gary

 

[grannymh]

Thanks, I look at the CCC later.

Yes I believe in God upholding our existence, I don’t think we would exist unless something is holding us together, including creation.
The part of God which I’m thinking of is the soul/spirit. God gives us this soul/spirit from himself. God is spiritual being, we have the spirit dwelling within us. It does not make us God or Gods, but gives us strength.

So we are still a creature and God is the creator, but God gives us part of his spirit to enable us to become spiritual human beings, which sets us apart from the other creatures, or else we would just be doing seasonal activities and not build, create, learn, express, love etc.

We aren’t purely matter after all.

Absolutely. We aren’t purely matter after all.
Thank you .

 

[Bahman]

Good Morning Bahman: Thank you for the video.

I think that sentience needs a body, and while it is my opinion that sentience is an agent of consciousness, it is not consciousness.

I understand your opinion but the agent in your picture is only a puppet since it is not the one who experiences and acts. At least within my framework, consciousness is an irreducible thing which experiences and affects metal states. Consciousness has to be irreducible otherwise it could be a simple construct of other things or even emerges from matter which leads to epiphenomalism which is wrong since we know that we are the whom that experience and act unless one says that introspection is not a very sure method. Hence, I think that we are consciousness.

What consciousness needs a body for is sentient experience.

That is correct but we are not the body hence we are consciousness.

I think that consciousness creates bodies and other things made of matter in order to live out its dreams. I think it also evolves through the bodies it creates in order to create new dimensions of experience.

That I agree.

Through animals, it created sight, sounds taste, and so forth. Through higher primates such as ourselves, it created language and the ability to share thoughts, and then written communication and the internet and so forth. These are all incursions into dimensionality. Or so it seems to me. I am trying not to offer my ideas as truth or anything. Just expressing the way I see it.

All the best,
Gary

Yes, I understand that.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Bahman:

I understand your opinion but the agent in your picture is only a puppet since it is not the one who experiences and acts. At least within my framework, consciousness is an irreducible thing which experiences and affects metal states. Consciousness has to be irreducible otherwise it could be a simple construct of other things or even emerges from matter which leads to epiphenomalism which is wrong since we know that we are the whom that experience and act unless one says that introspection is not a very sure method. Hence, I think that we are consciousness.

Good evening Bahman: I think you may have misunderstood what I said. I too think that we are consciousness. The difference is that I see the body as only a temporary manifestation of consciousness. It’s not that we’re puppets. Rather, it is that we are much more than what we are able to see, and we confuse ourselves into thinking that these passing forms we take on as being the sum of what we are. We may be infused with these bodies, yes, but it’s sort of like my finger getting the idea that it’s Gary. It’s just a part of Gary, and Gary is just a part of the larger conscious being.

That is correct but we are not the body hence we are consciousness.

I agree.

That I agree.

We agree that we agree.

 

[Bahman]

From Bahman:

Good evening Bahman: I think you may have misunderstood what I said. I too think that we are consciousness. The difference is that I see the body as only a temporary manifestation of consciousness. It’s not that we’re puppets. Rather, it is that we are much more than what we are able to see, and we confuse ourselves into thinking that these passing forms we take on as being the sum of what we are. We may be infused with these bodies, yes, but it’s sort of like my finger getting the idea that it’s Gary. It’s just a part of Gary, and Gary is just a part of the larger conscious being.

I agree.

We agree that we agree.

We cannot then die if we accept that we are consciousness, since consciousness is irreducible.

 

[grannymh]

Clarification for those interested in the Catholic position of our own human nature

Secular confusion about consciousness and human nature has been around for a long time. Some will say that this slipping away from reality followed Rene Descartes’s extreme dualism.

Adam, having lived before Descartes, had no trouble with his consciousness.

Perhaps, today’s society is in need of a real first true human simply in order to understand our own human nature. For example, Genesis 2: 7. “The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.” As we all know, this verse gives a further explanation of Genesis 1: 26-27 where it is clearly written that we are in the image of God. Note: because Genesis 2: 7 is an explanation of the mystery of real humankind, appropriate symbols and figurate language are used. On the other hand, Genesis 1: 26-27 is flat out reality and therefore, it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The author of the first three chapters of Genesis, like *both *a scientist and philosopher, saw the reality of human existence. Obviously, this author did not have the scientific advantage of the Human Genome Project. genome.gov/10001772 However, he followed the primary principle of the Scientific Method, which is to observe without prejudice. He observed that humankind is unique as described in Genesis 2: 20. “The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.” The author’s philosophical mind searched for an answer to the mystery of human nature.

Like many people in the centuries following the dawn of human history, the author looked at the marvels of the universe and deduced that there had to be a Creator Who was not the same as a creature. Catholic teachings describe the difference between Creator and creature as the difference between a Divine Pure Spirit and a human nature consisting of a decomposing anatomy and a spiritual rational soul.

In our own nature, we humans unite the spiritual world and the material world in an orderly fashion. Our spiritual principle and our material principle are not two separate natures (shades of Descartes). This unity of spiritual soul and mortal body forms an unique and peerless single nature.
(Information source. CCC 355-366; CCC 380-382; 1730-1732)

Fortunately, when it comes to our human nature, we do not have to “reinvent the wheel”. We are who we are because we descended from Adam and his spouse Eve. As a suggestion, all of us should study those ignored first three chapters of Genesis to find additional answers (via the Catholic Church) to the mystery of our human nature.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . . the author looked at the marvels of the universe and deduced that there had to be a Creator Who was not the same as a creature. . . .

I would phrase this differently.
The author looked at the universe and saw its marvels, through which our Creator reveals Himself.
Many people look out, searching for what benefits themselves, and see no marvels, just empty space. Their hearts are hardened.
The deduction would rest on the reality revealed to the author that he was a participant in, but significantly different from the rest of creation.

Scripture I understand to be a revelation of the Word to man in order to establish a dialogue between man and God, guiding us back to our eternal Home.

 

[simpleas]

From Bahman:

Good evening Bahman: I think you may have misunderstood what I said. I too think that we are consciousness. The difference is that I see the body as only a temporary manifestation of consciousness. It’s not that we’re puppets. Rather, it is that we are much more than what we are able to see, and we confuse ourselves into thinking that these passing forms we take on as being the sum of what we are. We may be infused with these bodies, yes, but it’s sort of like my finger getting the idea that it’s Gary. It’s just a part of Gary, and Gary is just a part of the larger conscious being.

I agree.

We agree that we agree.

I sort of get what you are saying here, but if we believe in a creator, we believe that the creator created us as human. All creation created too by the creator, but humans with an added part (soul).
We are taught that we were created to know and love God (and each other) and offer creation back to God.
So our human form would have a bigger purpose? than just drifting about…

 

[cfauster]

Scripture I understand to be a revelation of the Word to man in order to establish a dialogue between man and God, guiding us back to our eternal Home.

Amen!

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I sort of get what you are saying here, but if we believe in a creator, we believe that the creator created us as human. All creation created too by the creator, but humans with an added part (soul).

Good Evening Simpleas: I understand that most people believe in a creator, because that’s what we’re taught to believe. It’s a personal choice, but I have decided to go with my own direct experience and observation with regard to the world around me, and for me, a world created seems like a rather mechanical process, when what I see is organic. For me, God makes incursions into the temporal world and grows into it. This is why I talk about the vine and the branches words that Christ spoke of.The whole thing is Him rather than being His creation. I use the word Him as a matter of expediency, as what I perceive is that God is neither male or female, yet both male and female. He/She has billions of arms and legs, billions of eyes, billions or ears and so on. That’s what we are. God is the script writer, the director, the players and the set, and is constantly playing out vignettes with Himself. Now, I am simply sharing this view because this is my experience of God, however, I understand that many people see it differently. However, I will say that I do think that many people see it differently because they are not seeing for themselves. There is a certain level of fear and uncertainty in choosing to see for yourself. I know what fear and uncertainty are like, so who am I to say?

We are taught that we were created to know and love God (and each other) and offer creation back to God. So our human form would have a bigger purpose? than just drifting about…

I’m not sure what purpose there is in purpose if you can follow that line of thought. I think it’s all simply about experience. and you mentioned loving God. Loving God is an experience, and there are many more to be had. As forwho it is we love, well, knowing that I think God is in all things, a good place to start is with each other and the other creatures we encounter.

All the best,
Gary

 

[simpleas]

Good Evening Simpleas: I understand that most people believe in a creator, because that’s what we’re taught to believe. It’s a personal choice, but I have decided to go with my own direct experience and observation with regard to the world around me, and for me, a world created seems like a rather mechanical process, when what I see is organic. For me, God makes incursions into the temporal world and grows into it. This is why I talk about the vine and the branches words that Christ spoke of.The whole thing is Him rather than being His creation. I use the word Him as a matter of expediency, as what I perceive is that God is neither male or female, yet both male and female. He/She has billions of arms and legs, billions of eyes, billions or ears and so on. That’s what we are. God is the script writer, the director, the players and the set, and is constantly playing out vignettes with Himself. Now, I am simply sharing this view because this is my experience of God, however, I understand that many people see it differently. However, I will say that I do think that many people see it differently because they are not seeing for themselves. There is a certain level of fear and uncertainty in choosing to see for yourself. I know what fear and uncertainty are like, so who am I to say?

I’m not sure what purpose there is in purpose if you can follow that line of thought. I think it’s all simply about experience. and you mentioned loving God. Loving God is an experience, and there are many more to be had. As forwho it is we love, well, knowing that I think God is in all things, a good place to start is with each other and the other creatures we encounter.

All the best,
Gary

There is a certain level of fear and uncertainty in choosing to see for yourself.

That is true, I think that our faith is the best at guiding us, but we still fear tredding the water by ourself, we forget easily that God will hold us together.

I like what you have written above.

Thank you

 

[grannymh]

It is time to revive a thread where Catholic doctrines can be loved and appreciated for their truth.

While Adam did commit the horrid Original Sin, he is still the sign that God not only saw creation as good, He gave a particular species His own goodness. God’s own goodness is eternal joy. Catholics know this as being in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

God’s logic of love made sure that each human being could be confident that she or he individually was called to joy eternal. He did this by having all individual humans, good, bad, or somewhere in between, descend from the same human parents lovingly known as the biblical Adam and Eve.

Information source. Genesis 1: 26-28; John 14: 1-4; CCC Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867; CCC 356; CCC 1730

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

It is time to revive a thread where Catholic doctrines can be loved and appreciated for their truth.

While Adam did commit the horrid Original Sin, he is still the sign that God not only saw creation as good, He gave a particular species His own goodness. God’s own goodness is eternal joy. Catholics know this as being in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

Good Morning Granny - I hope you are well today. This brings back the initial question (at least in my thinking) with regard to what the actual sin was that Adam committed. I have never seen a formal Catholic teaching beyond speculation on what that sin was.

All the best,
Gary

 

[davidv]

Good Morning Granny - I hope you are well today. This brings back the initial question (at least in my thinking) with regard to what the actual sin was that Adam committed. I have never seen a formal Catholic teaching beyond speculation on what that sin was.

All the best,
Gary

I don’t understand why this is a mystery. Genesis is quite clear that God gave Adam a command to obey. Adam disobeyed. This is the original sin. Any speculations involve his motives for disobeying.