How does a higher state of consciousness help us to reproduce and care for our children?

By helping us survive.

state of consciousness arose not on purpose, but from the very fact of complex neuro-chemical reactions that humans had to undergo everyday, to the point that consciousness of oneself was a vital point of these reactions.

Example is such: The early satellites/probes sent by humans to space, sent out information back and forth and went according to the trajectory they had been given. Now all that has changed, we have probes like Spirit and Oppurtunity (designed by NASA), these have artificial intelligence in them, these machinese can decide were to go and how to get to the destination based on complex equations of going around obstacles (rocks, sand, holes). Spirit and Oppurtunity are obviously not yet AI, because they do not evolve, they have no such need (not yet) But imagine this, AI machines like Spirit and Opportunity evolving by following pre-set equations which allow change of variables and constants, limits.

Being conscious helped humans to stay alive, by having a purpose ... which they themselves defined as. Going over the limits of pain and instinct. By having curiosity drive them.

Simple, it doesn´t help you reproduce; because the world is overpopulated as it is, why would you want to bring children to an over-populated planet? now don´t be selfish.

Our brain capacity is being crippled by this low state of consciousness we are currently in; we only use 10% of the capacity. That higher state of consciousness is just a wider use of that capacity.

A higher state of consciousness is nothing but being aware of everything you do, say and think. It IS evolution, we humans haven´t evolved in thousands of years, not a bit; have you thought about why?
I think a higher state of consciousness IS the evolution of mankind.

We are born, then we create an ego, then we reach the same state of consciousness as when we were born, and then we die. That "second childhood" that senior adults experiment is the dying of the ego; but not all people experience it the same. Most people fall into a "childlike" state, on which they act very similar to children, they just don´t care. There is a minority of the people who reach the higher state of consciousness on the "second childhood"; it is the real meaning of the concept of "born again" most religions preach with lack of understanding. If you manage to be "born again" in the second childhood, you are blissed with tranquility, and you can teach others how to reach that tranquility we spend our whole life looking for.

Chapter 6 discusses the gene based "life-history theory" I have proposed to explain the racial pattern in brain size, intelligence, and other traits. Evolutionary biologists call it the r-K scale of reproductive strategies. At one end of this scale are r-strategies that rely on high reproductive rates. At the other end are K-strategies that rely on high levels of parental care. This scale is generally used to compare the life histories of different species of animals. I have used it to explain the smaller but real differences between the human races.

On this scale, Orientals are more K-selected than Whites, while Whites are more K-selected than Blacks. Highly K-selected women produce fewer eggs (and have bigger brains) than r-selected women. Highly K-selected men invest time and energy in their children rather than the pursuit of sexual thrills. They are "dads" rather than "cads."

Chapter 7 shows that the race differences in reproductive strategies make sense in terms of human

evolution. Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and non-Africans then split about 100,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites split about 40,000 years ago.

The more north the people went "Out of Africa," the harder it was to get food, gain shelter, make clothes, and raise children. So the groups that evolved into today's Whites and Orientals needed larger brains, more family stability, and a longer life. But building a bigger brain takes time and energy during a person's development. So, these changes were balanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity.

Why? Because Africa, Europe, and Asia had very different climates and geographies that called for different skills, resource usage, and lifestyles. Blacks evolved in a tropical climate hich contrasted with the cooler one of Europe in which Whites evolved and even more so with the cold Arctic lands where Orientals evolved.

Because intelligence increased the chances of survival in harsh winter environments, the groups that left Africa had to evolve greater intelligence and family stability. This called for larger brains, slower growth rates, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsivity. Advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity all increased in the non-Africans.

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

As some groups became more conscious of their harsh environments, that helped them to reproduce and care for there children.

I am not talking about consciousness. I am talking about higher consciousness, i.e. enlightenment. What's the evolutionary point of that? You don't need enlightenment to reproduce and raise children.

I am not talking about consciousness. I am talking about higher consciousness, i.e. enlightenment. What's the evolutionary point of that? You don't need enlightenment to reproduce and raise children.

It help you raise your children in the way nature intended, to fulfill their destiny as God intended. Not the way you were told by society to repress every single energy they manifest in the physical; by doing this, you create a false personality on your children, that they were not born with, you create the personality of your children according to your messed up perception of things.

I am not talking about consciousness. I am talking about higher consciousness, i.e. enlightenment. What's the evolutionary point of that? You don't need enlightenment to reproduce and raise children.

well, prolongs life for one thing.
Settles the mind of troubles...helps to focus.

In other word, it helps you raise conscious free children instead of society´s robots.

Wisdom Seeker. You are equating enlightment with a childlike state. If that is true, then I can see your point. However, wouldn't that mean then that all children are enlightened? If that were true, then wouldn't it be better to keep our children ignorant, so that they don't have to be reprogrammed later by teaching them Buddhism?

If the vast majority of people are not enlightened, then I see very little use to enlightenment in terms of reproduction and child rearing.

Wisdom Seeker. You are equating enlightment with a childlike state.

No no, enlighment is the counter-option of our second childlike state when we are older. In a child-like state there is no ego, just as in enlightment; the difference is consciousness, animals can reach the child-like state, in fact, they are in that state always. But other animals could never reach enlightment, because that is a conscient childlike state.

If that is true, then I can see your point. However, wouldn't that mean then that all children are enlightened? If that were true, then wouldn't it be better to keep our children ignorant, so that they don't have to be reprogrammed later by teaching them Buddhism?

Yes, all children are enlightened the moment they are born, but not when they grow up a little; because you have imposed certain behaviour patterns on them already.

If that were true, then wouldn't it be better to keep our children ignorant, so that they don't have to be reprogrammed later by teaching them Buddhism?

Well, it is not better to keep them ignorant, because you "reprogram" your children without knowing it; if you have an ego, you will impose that to your children, even unconsciously when you laught at some things and get mad at others. They need to create the ego in order to behave in society or in a family environment; what we can do is be conscient about it, and communicate that to them.
The thing is, if they were conscient that it is all in the ego, then they would be able to drop it more easily, and become what they were born to become.

If the vast majority of people are not enlightened, then I see very little use to enlightenment in terms of reproduction and child rearing.

If enlightenment would not exist, Moses, Jesus Christ, Gautam Baddha, Zarathustra, Mohammed; all of them would have never existed and we would be a very primitive society right now.

So, are you saying evolution did not create the ego? And if evolution did create the ego, then why would evolution favor enlightenment over ego?

Evolution favors primative societies. That's why almost all of the history of life on this planet does not involve sophisticated societies. This seems to be direct contrary evidence to the existence of enlightenment as anything but a man made idea.

So, are you saying evolution did not create the ego? And if evolution did create the ego, then why would evolution favor enlightenment over ego?

Off course evolution created ego, or else we could have never become a society. The thing is, after the ego is created, it tends to controll us; most people die and never were able to control their egos.
Enlightment is about not letting the ego control us in order to reach higher truths and understanding. Enlightment is about getting to know your true self, and not act according to what you were told to act by others.

Most people live their entire lifes being controlled by their egos, and this means they behave in the way they were expected to behave by society out of fear. They never get to know themselves, and that is sad.
Picture an imaginary cage around you, which is your ego, this is real; we can get out of the cage if we desire it, it means the path of enlightment; or we can live confortably inside the cage, and never realize we were caged by ourselves. The cage simply is not there the moment you are born, and it vanishes when you reach a certain age. But if it vanishes before you realize this situation, you will be free to do whatever you want, but you will not know what to do, it will be too late.

Enlightment is our other option, it means to drop what society was expecting of you, to get out of the cage when we can do it, in order to get to know your true-self better and do what you were born to do. In other words: live exactly the way you want to live, without lying and hypocresy, being who you truly are is part of the path to enlightment.

Evolution favors primative societies. That's why almost all of the history of life on this planet does not involve sophisticated societies. This seems to be direct contrary evidence to the existence of enlightenment as anything but a man made idea.

I´m not talking about materialistic primitiveness. I´m talking about primitives of spirit, of understanding, of truth.

I am not talking about consciousness. I am talking about higher consciousness, i.e. enlightenment. What's the evolutionary point of that? You don't need enlightenment to reproduce and raise children.

Care to define this.. "enlightenment" ?
If you mean what i think you mean you can stop asking because it doesnt exist.

Evolution has little control over culture. I think enlightnment is our natural state but culture has created confusion in a mind that has not yet completely adapted to civilization.

Wisdom Seeker is defining enlightenment as being free of societal controls so you can do what you want to do - not what somebody else tells you to do. Defined that way, enlightenment does seem to exist as it is really a relearned childlike state. However, I still don't see how a relearned childlike state gives an advantage in reproduction and child rearing, so I still maintain that enlightenment as defined by Wisdom Seeker is still a fairly useless man-made idea in evolutionary terms.

Wisdom Seeker is defining enlightenment as being free of societal controls so you can do what you want to do - not what somebody else tells you to do. Defined that way, enlightenment does seem to exist as it is really a relearned childlike state. However, I still don't see how a relearned childlike state gives an advantage in reproduction and child rearing, so I still maintain that enlightenment as defined by Wisdom Seeker is still a fairly useless man-made idea in evolutionary terms.

I agree. Also, i dont think it even exists.

Enlightenment is our natural state? Maybe it's our first state, but not our last. The brain does grow larger as we age - does it not? Does not our inherent capacity for language assume the presence of other humans, and in turn, hasn't our brains been developed with a dependency on others in mind? Isn't the controls that others place on our behavior, i.e. the ego as defined by Wisdom Seeker, a fundamental assumption upon which our brains evolved?

On what do you base the existance of this "enlightenment" ? Seems like its just an assumption..

Enlightenment is our natural state? Maybe it's our first state, but not our last. The brain does grow larger as we age - does it not? Does not our inherent capacity for language assume the presence of other humans, and in turn, hasn't our brains been developed with a dependency on others in mind? Isn't the controls that others place on our behavior, i.e. the ego as defined by Wisdom Seeker, a fundamental assumption upon which our brains evolved?

Enlightenment doesn't preclude interacting with others. However, you may be correct that society is encouraging something other than this. Perhaps that is why there are so few enlightened people.

There are so few enlightened people, because "enlightenment" is not an instinctual behavior.

It's analogous to the fall from the garden of Eden, caused by the pursuit of knowledge. Certainly civilization has led to great benefits to humanity, but evolution doesn't care about our happiness, only our survival.

Well, of course, evolution is most concerned with our survival. However, evolution is also concerned with other things which may or may not help with our survival, such as hapiness. You could also argue that evolution created us, we created enlightenment, and therefore evolution created enlightenment. Isn't this true? However, are all the strange things humans do and believe beneficial to survival and directly attributable to evolution? I think not.

You guys say enlightment is not of use, or that it doesn´t exist... But I tell you that it is the misunderstood purpose of every religion and initiary cult that ever was; religions have disorted the message in order to manipulate people, but the message is still there.

Enlightment is our true nature. If we were concient we would be more concerned with following what God intended for us, instead of what the society intended for us.

Well, of course, evolution is most concerned with our survival. However, evolution is also concerned with other things which may or may not help with our survival, such as hapiness. You could also argue that evolution created us, we created enlightenment, and therefore evolution created enlightenment. Isn't this true? However, are all the strange things humans do and believe beneficial to survival and directly attributable to evolution? I think not.

I think we created the idea and mystique of enlightenment, but not the thing itself. It's not really something, but the absense of something- what I would call a disfunctional cultural adaptation.

I thought being "enlightened" we would be more in tune to what we wanted - not what God wanted?

I thought being "enlightened" we would be more in tune to what we wanted - not what God wanted?

When the ego cease to control us, there will be no desire for self-gratification.

So, when the ego ceases to control us, I won't want to smoke or booze it up?

I thought being "enlightened" we would be more in tune to what we wanted - not what God wanted?

I don't understand the question.

So, when the ego ceases to control us, I won't want to smoke or booze it up?

Probably not because you won´t want self-gratification, but it is not a restriction, you are free.

So, smoking and booze are just coping mechanisms caused by the pressure created by societal controls? What if I were addicted?

Addiction to all kinds of things is what prevents enlightenment. Addiction (attachment) to various pleasures and distractions. There's nothing inherently wrong them....

But aren't children attached to various pleasures and distractions? Ever hear of a Merry-Go-Round?

Can someone please enlighten ;) me ? What does this enlightenment mean ? I mean what definition of enlightenment are we using ?

Wisdom Seeker says enlightenment is a relearned childlike state. I was using this definition, as frankly, it seems to be as good as any.

Can someone please enlighten ;) me ? What does this enlightenment mean ? I mean what definition of enlightenment are we using ?

yoga dudes in India and buddhists' type of higher consciousness.

But aren't children attached to various pleasures and distractions? Ever hear of a Merry-Go-Round?

Probably not. They just do it.

Enlightment is not a childlike state, it is more of a new-born state. How new-borns live every second is similar on how an enlightened man live every second. With the exception that the enlightened man is conscious, the child is not. All animals are enlightened, but they are not conscient of that. We are all enlightened, but the ego is the dust in our eyes. Some people spend their entire lives without realizing that fact, and never follow their Buddha-nature (inner-self/Christ), they only follow their ego towards an empty purpose.

Why would children "just do" something that is obviously fun, instead of "just doing" something that is obviously less fun like cleaning their rooms?

So, why would evolution ever favor a "new born like state", which is so obviously unready to meet the challenges of survival such that it must rely on its parents to keep it alive?

Why would children "just do" something that is obviously fun, instead of "just doing" something that is obviously less fun like cleaning their rooms?

Children are not of the same consciousness level of a Buddha, you are speaking like if it was the same thing. Just because a child has no ego, an animal has no ego, an enlightened man has no ego, it doesn´t mean that they are all in the same level of consciousness of the situation. Children and animals are not aware of their state, they are vulnerable.

http://www.contactyoga.com/img/faq.jpg
http://swamij.com/images/circles-aum-states.jpg

Well, then enlightment isn't like a new born, because a new born is not aware of its state either? So, what exactly are you describing as enlightenment?

So, are you saying evolution did not create the ego? And if evolution did create the ego, then why would evolution favor enlightenment over ego?

It's not a matter of one over the other, but what is the proper place of ego in our lives? Buddhism proposes that much of human suffering is caused by an unnatural emphasis on our sense of self, which tends to separate us from nature and society as a whole.

Nice little diagram. However, how exactly does this define enlightenment?

Nice little diagram. However, how exactly does this define enlightenment?

Devoid of inner senses. Enlightenment is a 4th state sense of reality.

Why would children "just do" something that is obviously fun, instead of "just doing" something that is obviously less fun like cleaning their rooms?

I think you answered your own question. Children (and people) obviously prefer to do things that are fun. You ask some strange questions.

Spindergoat. That's nice that Buddhism proposes such. However, why should I believe that Buddhism has more of a basis in our genetic makeup than ego? It seems to me that the reverse is far more likely.

children do things that are fun because these things excite them to feel better/good within themselves. Fun can be anything that children are introduced to that makes them feel fun, that makes them feel more free and engaged in activity that excites them.

The point is that children don't just go out and have fun, because that's what they do. It's because they are attracted to fun, and are quite capable of self-gratification. This seems to defy the idea that enlightenment is a child like state, since children do in fact seek self-gratification. If children didn't seek self-gratification, than why choose the Merry-Go-Round over cleaning up the room?

Well, then enlightment isn't like a new born, because a new born is not aware of its state either? So, what exactly are you describing as enlightenment?

Enlightenment is like a new-born, thats why the Hindus, the Christians, the Egyptians, and many others call this state "the second birth/the birth of the spirit". When the new-born loves, his whole self become the love, when a new-born is angry, his whole self becomes angry; there is no division between him and the emotions, he is a whole, he is one. A new-born child does not know he is separated from the whole, he does not exist, because he only knows that there is a loving woman, there are other people, but he IS them, he does not separate the other people from him, because he does not know he is a separate entity. A child is one with the whole, with God.

This is the state of a Buddha, but the Buddha is in a more organized state of consciousness, the Buddha knows the ways of the ego, and he knows how to approach them. A Buddha is a master of his energy, he knows how to use his energy for the benefit of others, and he knows that others are not a separate entity from himself.

The point is that children don't just go out and have fun, because that's what they do. It's because they are attracted to fun, and are quite capable of self-gratification. This seems to defy the idea that enlightenment is a child like state, since children do in fact seek self-gratification. If children didn't seek self-gratification, than why choose the Merry-Go-Round over cleaning up the room?

children are different. Fun can be anything really, children just needed to be shown that it is indeed fun. For example cleaning can be done with style, while dancing. Such is done in Mongolia/North China. Self gratification is seeked by everyone, however that gratification comes in many forms.

Basically, I believe that is the reason of the ego. We need to create an ego anyway in order to understand it, without an ego, we would behave like monkeys. But when we reach understanding, the ego cease to control us and we become aware of reality.

If an infant did not know he existed, then he wouldn't know anyone else existed either. It's all a seemless emotion to the baby. Nevertheless, the baby does know his mother exists, because he wouldn't cry to get her attention to give him something to eat if he didn't know she existed.

But how does knowledge of elminating our egos create a survival advantage from the perspective of evolution?

There is no such knowledge. However, lack of enlightenment could lead to the end of life as we know it. Look where we are right now, territorial apes with nuclear weapons and a chip on our shoulders.

There is no such knowledge. However, lack of enlightenment could lead to the end of life as we know it.

knowledge brings to enlightenment.

But, that still doesn't prove that enlightenment is derived from evolution - does it?

I have no idea what enlightenment really is, only what it feels like.

Dragon, only in the sense of The Enlightenment as a historical period.

Well, you seem to be indicating that enlightenment is a feeling. What kind of a feeling? Pleasurable? Smug? Confident?

I think the feeling of bliss is more like a consequence of freedom from common worries and troubles. It isn't just the feeling itself, because that fades.

enlightenment is a sense of different reality, sense of understanding of outer self. Even though it is a feeling of contempt and peace, enlightenment is much more than that. Enlightenment is an experience like life is. If life is a feeling, so is enlightenment.

Life is more than a feeling. Life is words floating around in your head. As the feeling of bliss fades, what is left of enlightenment?

Life is more than a feeling. Life is words floating around in your head. As the feeling of bliss fades, what is left of enlightenment?

pity.

people are not just animals, people unlike animals cannot be predicted, people are different and so are different their souls and their choices. How they react to failures and success depends entirely on individual.

So, pity is the end result of enlightenment? Sounds like sadness to me. How is that an evolutionary advantage? Again, if enlightenment exists, what evolutionary advantage does it pose?

So, pity is the end result of enlightenment? Sounds like sadness to me. How is that an evolutionary advantage? Again, if enlightenment exists, what evolutionary advantage does it pose?

feeling of outer sense...higher probability of survival by sensing the outerworld.

While senses in a general sense give you a higher probability of survival. But what exactly does enlightenment allow you to sense, that others can't sense, that gives you a survival advantage?

While senses in a general sense give you a higher probability of survival. But what exactly does enlightenment allow you to sense, that others can't sense, that gives you a survival advantage?

sense other people, see future, know past, see higher meaning of the world. Feel at one with the universe.

My eyes can sense other people just as well as enlightenment. My memory knows my past, again without enligtenment. No one can see the future - only guess at it. How does enligtenment permit better guesses at the future? A higher meaning of the world and feeling at one with the universe doesn't put bread on the table, so how is that an evolutionary advantage?

John, believe me or not. But I have seen the future many times and it came true. I have seen it in such detail that it could not have been just a guess or a movie I seen, I have seen the future. What I feel about this world changed me after what I have been through. I would not have believed anyone unless I experienced it myself and once I did, I felt like there is this world I live in I did not know of all this time.

I would have lived on like everyone else if not for what I have seen, and what I have seen and felt has changed me and my believes. I believe that this world is not what it acts to be. This reality has much more to it than physics which define it.

Seeing the future is impossible according to science. What you experienced is clearly impossible in evolutionary terms. At best, you guessed at the future. Now, a good guess at the future can be a tremendous evolutionary advantage. What did you guess at and how did it make you more likely to survive or reproduce? If not, then what good is this skill in terms of evolution?

Seeing the future is impossible according to science. What you experienced is clearly impossible in evolutionary terms. At best, you guessed at the future. Now, a good guess at the future can be a tremendous evolutionary advantage. What did you guess at and how did it make you more likely to survive or reproduce? If not, then what good is this skill in terms of evolution?

well guess what I told that myself and I keep on telling that to myself. But I saw it nevertheless and not just one time but many. Now how do I live on with something that has no proof from science/society, whereas I myself have clearly experienced it as being reality? :shrug: This is what ascension is.

How have you excluded self-delusion or hallucination as an explanation? If you can see the future, prove it to yourself that this is the explanation. Write down what you saw with enough specific detail that when it comes true, it would be undeniable to any reasonable person that you indeed predicted the future.

Life is more than a feeling. Life is words floating around in your head. As the feeling of bliss fades, what is left of enlightenment?

Life is alot of things, but words are only a part of it, they are empty symbols. They are frames we hold up to the infinite universe and move around like they mean something of themselves.

As the bliss fades, there is nothing left. There's nothing you can hold on to, and the survival advantage, if any, is doubtful. Enlightenment is not a strategy for the survival of the species or even the soul, as Christianity claims to be. It has no practical value.

How have you excluded self-delusion or hallucination as an explanation? If you can see the future, prove it to yourself that this is the explanation. Write down what you saw with enough specific detail that when it comes true, it would be undeniable to any reasonable person that you indeed predicted the future.

I told my dream to my mother 6 months before this event happened...and I have seen it with such detail and this dream was so different from all the rest with that sort of reality in it. Six months past since I have seen the dream and it happened.

Lets put it in "scientific words"; we only use 10% of our brain capacity and the other 90% remains in darkness. Enlightment is to put a light in that darkness, were the words are insufficient.

Lets put it in "scientific words"; we only use 10% of our brain capacity


Untrue.

http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=12

Untrue.

http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=12

There are theories in both sides, it haven´t been proved untrue. The thing is, if we would be using all of our brain capacity were do you store new memories? Or why don´t we all use both hands? Why some people are dumber than others if they have same brain mass? Some dumb people even have a bigger brain mass than average.
And given the fact that scientists are going crazy with quantum physics, a whole universe in just an atom, do you seriously think we are using all of our capacity?

There are theories in both sides, it haven´t been proved untrue. The thing is, if we would be using all of our brain capacity were do you store new memories? Or why don´t we all use both hands? Why some people are dumber than others if they have same brain mass? Some dumb people even have a bigger brain mass than average.


The brain stores information in the memory areas - what else could you use it for?
It has been proven untrue - MRI and similar scans show that different areas of the brain light up when doing different things.
We might possibly use only 10% at any given time (and I'm not even sure about that) but the whole of the brain gets used throughout life.

And given the fact that scientists are going crazy with quantum physics, a whole universe in just an atom, do you seriously think we are using all of our capacity?
A whole universe in an atom?
Tell me more...
Some people don't use what they are capable of, some (i.e. the dumb ones) can't because of something or other (chemical imbalances, what not - biology isn't my "thing").

[Edit]
8. We Only Use 10% of our Brains
Concept: The average human only uses 10% of his or her brainpower, leaving the other 90% in untapped potential.

Reality: Brain imaging techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie dormant. While certain functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain.

Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, reading Vince's Blog, or daydreaming, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another.
From http://www.vincehanks.com/Lists/myths.htm

I actually stronlgly believe in the universe in one quantum particle idea. In fact we are in a universe which is part of a particle which makes another universe...ad infinitum.

Multiverse?

ok Oli, I am reluctant on the fact that we use all of our brain capacity, but if it was true, it was just an analogy. It is your fault that is now a failed analogy :mad:

JK

I actually stronlgly believe in the universe in one quantum particle idea. In fact we are in a universe which is part of a particle which makes another universe...ad infinitum.

I believe this as well... It is the meaning of the famous phrase used by many: "You are Gods".

I actually stronlgly believe in the universe in one quantum particle idea.
So we're not actually here until a scientist in the bigger universe looks for us?

In fact we are in a universe which is part of a particle which makes another universe...ad infinitum.
It's a FACT is it?
Any evidence?

ok Oli, I am reluctant on the fact that we use all of our brain capacity, but if it was true, it was just an analogy. It is your fault that is now a failed analogy
Sorry - I missed that it was supposed to be an analogy, otherwise I might have let it go... :D

It's a FACT is it?


I am sorry that was a figure of speech (http://www.radiosrichinmoy.org/c_/audio/radio/46/46-18-1.m4a).

I am not talking about consciousness. I am talking about higher consciousness, i.e. enlightenment. What's the evolutionary point of that? You don't need enlightenment to reproduce and raise children.

Higher consciousness provides the understanding of the complexities as the universe moves from simple (elementary particles) to complex structures. It is your job to understand that complexity and impart that knowledge and wisdom to your progeny and perhaps the society.

While businesses look for Organizational Change Management to compete with their nemesis...the HR people and the hiring managers can not differentiate Consciousness and higher consciousness. They think it is linear...and a monkey could do it....so they hire you know what....

I doubt we are a particle in a larger universe - like our universe but only bigger. The universe at different size scales is similar - but not identical. Electrons whizzing around a nucleus is similar to a planetary system, but also very different. I would expect that on larger scales, the organization of matter would be similar but not the same. Moreover, if the next larger universe is in a higher dimension, that universe will probably be very very different than this one. As far as the assertion that universes go up in scale ad infinitum, well that gets distrupted by the introduction of higher dimensions. Do the higher dimensions go on ad infinitum? Don't know. Hard to imagine (or impossible?) higher dimensions.

I was researching about this whole 10% of our brains thing, and I can see why the confusion. We actually use our whole brains, but our awareness is normally at only 10% of our brain. In other words, we use only 10% of our brains consciently in a given time. So to use about 20% at a given time it would be something out of the ordinary for sure, not to mention to put our awareness in the whole 100% of the brain at a given time.

Have any enlightened individuals had a CAT Scan or MRI done of their brains to see whether they are any different than the rest of us dummies?

It would be pretty darn difficult to perform a CAT scan on Jesus while he was walking on water, 2000 years ago.
There are enlightened men right now, but do you think they are concerned with proving this? Only the weak mind is competitive.

The 10% brain thing always comes up. It is similar to saying oh...you have 300 HP in your car but you only use 60 HP to cruise on a level highway. So why buy a 300HP engine?

The more I think about it, the less the original post makes sense. I mean, it is like asking: "Why would evolution give us brains?"

Have any enlightened individuals had a CAT Scan or MRI done of their brains to see whether they are any different than the rest of us dummies?


Many moons ago, I was in the advanced electronics lab doing graduate research. I was playing with a high gain amplifier and recording th data while watching in on the digital scope. I touched the proble to my head under the baseball cap and saw complex wave patterns. But then I had to finish the classroom question forgetting the probe was on me. Later when I played back, I saw the pattern change to much more complexity and amplitude went up and a lot got clipped due to the high primary amp gain. What that means who knows....Brain has too many nodes to accurately decipher what is happening....

I am very skeptical of the existence of a higher state of consciousness. It seems similar to claims of ESP. There doesn't seem to be a grounded reason in evolution for the development of such a state - let alone a mechanical explanation for one. Although an enlightened person may not feel the need to undergo an MRI of his brain, he may want to just for the sake of the non-believers.

It's my view that there is no higher state of consciousness. It is in fact lower. That is, more basic to our nature. The kind of consciousness that we commonly experience now has been shaped by relatively recent cultural forms. It's a return to more intuitive, natural thinking that is represented in Buddhism and Taoism.

Are you sure about that? I've seen how primative individuals think, and it is really scary how dumb they are. It seems that enlightenment would be smarter, not dumber.

Does that mean evolution would not create a higher state of consciousness specis because there is no need for it as all that is needed to know has already been known and no use will come from such specis to whether converting Jupiter to a Sun, or teraforming Mars or roam the galaxy to lend a hand to the nature or harness the blackhole etc....

Then the question comes why the middle staters? towards what?

How does evolution have anything to do with anything not on this planet?

Are you sure about that? I've seen how primative individuals think, and it is really scary how dumb they are. It seems that enlightenment would be smarter, not dumber.

Enlightenment has little to do with intelligence or the abilities of so-called primitive people.

Well then, what's enlightenment?

A shift in our patterns of consciousness coupled with a dis-identification with the illusory personna that culture influences us to create. It's a return to a more natural, less linear and analytical way of thinking. It's a release of conscious control over the actions of the mind. Instead of forcing yourself to think about certain things, it's more like stepping back and observing the production of your mind. Your mind itself, after all, cannot be observed with itself.

We think about what is in our environment. The production of your mind will always be a reflection of your environment. How is that enlightenment?

It is. Enlightenment is surrounded with all kinds of mysticism and hooey, but it's really very simple.

So, are you saying that enlightenment is thinking without words?

It can't be defined so easily, but that is an aspect of it, yes.

Enlightenment has little to do with intelligence or the abilities of so-called primitive people.

en·light·en·ment /ɛnˈlaɪtnmənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-lahyt-n-muhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the act of enlightening.
2. the state of being enlightened: to live in spiritual enlightenment.
3. (usually initial capital letter) Buddhism, Hinduism. prajna.
4. the Enlightenment, a philosophical movement of the 18th century, characterized by belief in the power of human reason and by innovations in political, religious, and educational doctrine.

Looks like dumb people can get their too....:D forget the higher cosnsciousness.....

You know the 18th century movement is not the enlightenment we are talking about.

Related topic:

March 26, 2007
Special to World Science
Updated March 27

Human evolution has been speeding up tremendously, a new study contends—so much, that the latest evolutionary changes seem to largely eclipse earlier ones that accompanied modern man’s “origin.”


more (http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070326_evolution.htm)

So what if man is still evolving? How does this explain the evolutionary advantage of a higher state of consciousness?

So what if man is still evolving? How does this explain the evolutionary advantage of a higher state of consciousness?

It is a fact that man is still evolving; the main evolutionary advantage is not to live like primitive apes killing each other.

If enligtenment is an evolutionary advantage, then why are so few of us apparently enligtened? We all have opposable thumbs - and yet we all aren't enlightened?

Because not all of us are willing to do the ultimate sacrifice in order to become enlightened. It is to surrender that who you think you are, your personality; and start living a pure life on which you do exactly what you want to do with total dedication to truth.

I understand why you think people choose not to be enlightened. I am asking, well, doesn't the fact that so few people choose to be enlightened evidence the fact that enlightenment does not contain an evolutionary advantage?

I understand why you think people choose not to be enlightened. I am asking, well, doesn't the fact that so few people choose to be enlightened evidence the fact that enlightenment does not contain an evolutionary advantage?

Our goal in life is to become enlightened, any other goals are fabrications of society that are strongly liked to our personality.

Why do I say that our goal is to become enlightened? Well maybe because if you become enlightened, the real you will reach the surface and you will do exactly what you were meant to do in this life. If you don´t become enlightened, or even followed that goal, then you will live your whole life following other people´s expectations for you, and you will never know you true self. You will get another chance for sure, as many chances as necesary for you to understand.

O.K. I get that you believe in enlightenment. I don't believe in enlightenment. Moreover, I don't see how enlightenment would even exist as it serves no evolutionary advantage. Unless it gives us an evolutionary advantage, there is no reason to believe the body is capable of enlightenment. Now, enlightenment can surely exist as a philosophy or man made thought. I don't doubt that. I doubt that there truly is a physical state of enlightenment that our brains are designed to reach. Get what I am saying?

O.K. I get that you believe in enlightenment. I don't believe in enlightenment. Moreover, I don't see how enlightenment would even exist as it serves no evolutionary advantage. Unless it gives us an evolutionary advantage, there is no reason to believe the body is capable of enlightenment. Now, enlightenment can surely exist as a philosophy or man made thought. I don't doubt that. I doubt that there truly is a physical state of enlightenment that our brains are designed to reach. Get what I am saying?

I get you friend, but enlightment is very far from being a physical state. And the funny thing about it is, you don´t need to believe in it in order to reach it, as a matter of fact, if you believe in enlightment, you need to drop that believe in order to obtain it; because enlightment is an experience, some say it cannot be described in words.

But this is my understanding of Buddha´s "First Noble Truth" (life is suffering). Life is suffering because most people never realize their purpose in life, and they live only a karmic life, full of suffering, and non-understanding. When I say you will get other chances, it is because you have learned something in this life, but you need to keep paying for your karma (suffering) until you understand it, and step away from the karmic cycle.

Enlighment is nothing but steping away from the karmic cycle, no more re-births, because you have reached your karmic peak.

O.K. If enlightenment is not a physical state, then it was not designed by evolution and is simply a philosophy - a man made idea. As for the belief that life is suffering, that's an interesting idea. I tend to think that evolution has engineered us to actually enjoy suffering or struggle. That's why we like crossword puzzles. Wouldn't it make sense that evolution would engineer an organism that actually enjoys struggling with the environment? Wouldn't that organism be more successful? Yes, life might be suffering, but we are designed to enjoy it. It gives us purpose and meaning. This is the flaw in enlightenment and why it doesn't physically exist.

We are creators of our reality, to be able to create a reality without the limits we impose on ourselves is enlightment. Yes, you can call it philosophy, you can call it hope; but it is in fact the truth behind all religions.

I see some flaws in your assumptions, John. I think it is physical. I think the capacity for this state did evolve, but humans are unique in that we are more than what evolution made us. This is due to culture. There is something called cultural insanity. That is a kind of insanity that is taught, like mass hysteria, and not due to innate physical traits. I think our society is caught in something like this. Our natural state is one in which suffering isn't as problematic to our psyche as it is in modern society. Since we lack the perspective of enlightenment, our suffering transcends mere physical pain or discomfort. Elightenment is not the absense of problems in dealing with the world, nor is it the absense of physical pain. It is the absense of mental disfunction and anxiety in your dealings with the world. It's as if our brains can work in one of several states. Through some mental trigger, there is suddenly a shift to another stable state, like the planet's shift from an ice age to a modern climate. I suggest this other stable state is more basic to our nature, and that the modern psyche is the newer one, less stable, less evolved, less able to deal with hardship and more volnerable to breakdown. That is why modern people seem to be so unhappy despite our technological advances.

Why would our modern psyche be less evolved? Isn't newer more evolved? Are you talking about reverting back to our fish brains as enlightenment? If so, then I can see how such a state could still exist in our minds, and that such a state had an evolutionary advantage at some point in our past development. By why follow our fish brains, when we can use our more advanced homosapien brains?

Humanity existed for millions of years before civilization. I'm not suggesting that enlightenment is a return to so primitive a pattern as our fish ancestors, but something more recent (this is just speculation).

Our modern culture is not the result of evolution, except in the sense that evolution made it possible. If you consider our brains like the hardware, and culture like the software, then our brains evolved to run AfricaMan 1.0, but we are forcing it to run NewYorkCityMan 2.3. NewYorkCityMan 2.3 is better for the cultural environment we created, but it's running on old hardware, so there are bugs.

In the mythology of Buddhism they always talk about the "old masters", about a time when there was no talk about enlightenment because it was how everyone was, it was the natural state of being.

O.K. That I can understand, and how it may have a place in evolution. You want to go back to before man had language, no?

Language is a very interesting subject with respect to enlightenment. Behind it's symbolic nature is a lie. It's like a net that chops reality into bits.

I recommend the work "Seeing Through the Net", by Alan Watts. (mp3 lecture series)

http://www.alanwatts.com/raudio_index.html

Well, true - language cannot give you a 100% accurate reflection of reality. But, what senses can? Sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing - they are all limited. Are you saying that enlightenment uses a perfect sixth sense?

Well, true - language cannot give you a 100% accurate reflection of reality. But, what senses can? Sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing - they are all limited. Are you saying that enlightenment uses a perfect sixth sense?

YES

What organ houses that sixth sense, then?

Not at all. The senses are all we have to percieve the world.

This state is just the functional activity of life. By life I do not mean something abstract but the life of the senses functioning naturally without the interference of thought. Thought is an interloper which thrusts itself into the affairs of the senses. It has a profit motive. Thought directs the activity of the senses to get something out of them and uses them to give continuity to itself.

U.G. Krishnamurti

Apparently, Spidergoat's understanding of enlightenment is not the same as Wisdom Seeker's. Who to question?

What organ houses that sixth sense, then?

That would be another thread I think; I don´t think a specific organ has that attribute, it is more likely to be our whole immune system.

I agree with spidergoat in everything he said on this thread

There is a kind of perfection or purity that occurs, which I think is what WS refers to. It may indeed involve some gland or other, like the thalmus or pineal gland. The truth of the thing cannot be captured in words, so one person's description will be different from another's.

A state of not thinking. But, don't we think even without using words? Don't we think in pictures? Are you saying enlightenment can only come when we aren't thinking at all? In other words, we have to be essentially non-functioning, because after all, you have to think to get up and go to the bathroom. Where's that pesky bathroom, anyway?

Yes, as a fact, we may seem to contradict each other. But enlightment is indeed beyond words; if you say that enlightment is "this", then you are intrinsically saying that enlightment is not "that"; but actually, enlightment is unity, not separation, it is beyond the duality of words.

With words, we can only understand what to do in order to pursuit that, but we cannot fully express the whole experience; even "Gautam the Buddha" and "Yeshua the Christ" had their way of explaining the same thing, take it as they were "poets of enlightment".

A state of not thinking. But, don't we think even without using words? Don't we think in pictures? Are you saying enlightenment can only come when we aren't thinking at all? In other words, we have to be essentially non-functioning, because after all, you have to think to get up and go to the bathroom. Where's that pesky bathroom, anyway?

You are getting close; you have to go beyond the mind. There is a lot to know about "the nothing"; in fact most of the Universe is empty, but emptiness contains more information than we can possibly imagine.

The fact is, with no mind, our true nature arises. There are many techniques and non-techniques to reach this state. Fasting for 20 days straight is for the mere purpose of achieving this no-mind state; when the belly is empty, your mind will become empty as well. After 20 days of fasting, it is said that you will start experiencing entire hours of non-thinking; after you gain control over this, you can stop the fasting and go to this “no-mind” state whenever you want to.

In “Mind control methods”, you are taught to go to this “no-mind” state, which they call “Alpha level of the brain”, we are normally in “Beta level”. So after you achieve this “Alpha level” of the mind, you can start hypnotizing yourself to do all sorts of unusual stuff; but this is another subject.

Ah, but that's the interesting thing, we can still function quite well without conscious thought. Sure you might have to call up this function now and then, but it's less necessary than one might assume. I suggest we are burdened by it's overuse, which, like overeating, leads to disfunction.

http://u-g.blogspot.com/2007/02/1.html

How does a higher state of consciousness help us to reproduce and care for our children?

The idea of a "higher state of consciousness" is a human invention. That is, we arbitrarily assign it the status of being a "higher state". In reality, the higher state may well be more raw and primal.

It's a simple concept to write, but not necessarily the easiest to understand. Okay, at least, it seems that way by the number of people I confuse with it.

We generally think of the brain as a generative organ. That is, our thoughts occur there, &c. Something lights up with electricity, something else is produced. But this is the wrong perspective, I think. I prefer to regard the brain as a filter of sorts. It must receive, prioritize, and respond to stimuli. Our natural tendencies compel us to view ourselves as creating these responses as if from nothing. Now flip that notion on its head: our responses are, in a certain and vital way, inevitable. We just haven't the means to track that inevitability.

It's not quite full-blown determinism, but rather the results of inhibition. We perceive a stimulus according to conditioned criteria, we prioritize and consider the stiumulus according to conditioned criteria, we respond according to conditioned criteria. In the end, we are filtering out information, paring down to the essential and utmost of the concept. Our responses, then, are the only ones we can manage under the circumstances.

Consider the Reticular Activating System in your brain:

... we also find the Reticular Activating System (RAS), an area which is enormously important because of its role in arousal and awareness. Our ability to think and perceive, even our power to respond to stimuli with anything beyond a mere reflex, is due to the brain cortex, but the cortex cannot function unless it is in an aroused state - awake. The brain cortex cannot wake itself up; what awakens the cortex from sleep and keeps it awake is the RAS. The RAS is also invoked in order to switch from perception of things outside us, to perception of things within our inner world. The RAS regulates and controls all our muscular activity and all our sensory perceptions; the cortex and RAS operate in a feedback mode, the purpose of which is to maintain an optimum level of arousal (see the following paper 'States of Cortical Arousal').

Sensations which reach the brain cortex are fed back to the RAS, and when the level of activity becomes too high, the RAS sends inhibitory signals to the cortex to reduce the excitation. Anxiety states occur when the inhibitory function of the RAS fails to keep cortical activity within comfortable limits. On the other hand, in a sensory deprivation situation, where the level of stimulation reaching the RAS via the cortex is too low, the RAS sends stimulating signals to the cortex to maintain alertness, frequently resulting in hallucinations. It is the RAS which switches on the cortex during sleep to produce vivid dreams. It is also responsible, during dreaming sleep, for inhibiting the activity of the whole spinal cord, so that the person does not literally enact the dream and possibly endanger himself. It is the function of biofeedback to facilitate cooperation between the cortex and the RAS, in order to achieve self-regulation.

The brain can receive, classify and respond to sensory information without such data penetrating into consciousness. However, if a repeated stimulus finally results in conscious awareness, this is because the RAS has been activated. This is the capacity of the brain for selective attention: when reading a book, especially if it is sufficiently interesting, the reader will be oblivious to surrounding distractions. This duality of perception is necessary to man's survival .... (Trans4mind.com (http://www.trans4mind.com/transformation/transform4.1.htm))

Put simply, as it was explained to me in psychology classes, the RAS is what lets you hear someone speak your name in a crowded, noisy room. Quite obviously, it does more, but all of that seems to be filtration; in fact, I learned about it by another name, the Reticular Autonomous Screen. Either way, it provides an example of the brain as a filter.

We receive information broadly and constantly. Why do you not perceive the motion of the Earth except by watching the stars in the sky? Why do we not hear the echo of the Big Bang without special equipment? Why do we not see infrared? All of these signals have been filtered out, and to the point that natural selection determined we do not need to perceive these things.

The "higher state of consciousness", in this sense, would actually be a more primal state of mind, one in which specific filters are arranged; while blocking out external signals, we focus on the processing of internal impulses. The trick, it seems, is to achieve this state without meditating, that is, while functioning in the world, that we might be able to see beyond the living conditions of society that have selected such a narrowly-censored view. The higher state of mind is an attempt to perceive what we are missing, what we have blocked out of our perceptions.

The evolutionary question, then, is whether humanity can endure while filtering more and more of its stimuli as irrelevant. The perceptive demands of farming in the nineteenth are not necessarily any greater or less than the perceptive demands of a twentieth-century assembly line, or technological labor in the twenty-first. Each generation is conditioned for even greater focus; filters are stronger, more numerous, or both. At present, society selects against the higher state. The most successful in the species are ever-more focused, and the dreamers and mythmakers increasingly left out in the cold. The question is whether this progression can continue indefinitely. We have the power to affect the factors of our natural selection; we can easily select ourselves out of the living Universe. In this context, it would be a fascinating debate whether the "higher state" is vestigial, or something to aspire to. Perhaps it simply is, a byproduct of our necessity. But nature is not extraneous: is it selecting out the "higher state", or does that "higher state" have a purpose and a value among the current generations of the species? I, for one, side with the latter. It will be our broader perception that eventually saves us from ourselves.

Is this broader filtering of stimuli "enlightenment"? What you are describing makes sense, but I'm not sure that is what Spidergoat and Wisdom Seeker are referring to. For example, a blind man is better able to hear, because he doesn't have to deal with the distraction of sight. This is a known phenomenum. Is that enlightenment?

It is funny you mention the RAS, cause one of the most ancient techniques to achieve this "no-mind" state of awareness is to focus on a certain object and nothing else. A little flame will do, or a spot in the wall.
Our mind is always wondering without our control, we always go with the eyes from spot "A" to spot "B" unconsciously. If you focus your attention of a spot "A", your mind will make an effort to distract you. It is said that if you persist on this method, your mind will do an "inner-turn", from the fixed spot "A" towards the spot "B"; but this time it will not be an external spot, it is an inner-spot which we have never seen before.

This method is also said to awaken the innate potential of out-of-body experiences.

Well, if enlightenment only has to do with changing the filters on our perceptions, why are these filters better than others? Isn't it better to see, than to be blind even though you can hear a mouse from a mile away?

Again the profit motive, what is better for me based on the values I have been taught...

Isn't it enough to know that our assumptions about the ordinary state of perception are wrong or incomplete?

No. I already knew that. We also process a lot of information on a subconscious level. We also see things that aren't there, but are brains make us see them, such as optical illusions. But, why is a state of not thinking beneficial such that one could call it a higher state of consciousness?

I don't know that it is beneficial in relation to the values commonly held in society. In my view, it is it's own reward.

I can see it as its own reward. I don't see it as a prefered state, however.

Is this broader filtering of stimuli "enlightenment"?

Some would call it that. And perhaps, in accord with certain definitions of enlightenment, it meets the standard. It could, however, be simply an hallucinatory or irrelevant state. Marijuana, for instance, makes me very introspective; THC is good for my meditative needs. Opium resin, however, simply erases me; if there is a thought process taking place, either I don't know it, or I haven't smoked enough opium to obliterate it. Both drugs can create a sense of inner peace. Both drugs help me block out the world. But the function under the influence of marijuana has considerably greater potential for utility than the opiated alternative.

Additionally, some meditative practices seek a higher state of consciousness that involves self-erasure. For years, I sought a form of that, but it's gained me nothing useful. Even outside this wretchedly delightful corner of the Universe we call Sciforums, the ideas developed in such an state of mind still meet certain hostility. Self-erasure may be a different state of consciousness, but whether or not it's useful is left to debate; it depends, as always, by what one means by self-erasure. To some it may be a loss of concern for the self to the effect that one is willing to die in order to make a point. To others, it may mean living in a cave for years on end only coming out when researchers haul you in to attempt to verify your followers' claims that you haven't eaten a thing in ten years.

If I could exist with fewer filters or raised consciousness, or however we describe it, according to my idyll, I would. In such a state I'm less prone to the kind of petty bullshit that stains our merely human existence.

Ya know, Zen Monks say that Buddha never said a word, and yet, he spoke for 45 years. Zen Monks were right.

we only use 10% of the capacity.

If we only use 10% and the rest is useless, then why do we have it? it doesn't make sense since if it doesn't improve our probability to reproduce, we wouldn't have it, would we?

I would like to say that, for me, enlightenment is an awareness. An awareness that there is suffering and joy and the meaning of life is found in experiencing the juxtaposition of the two, and a feeling of connection to every person. It is basically what is defined as a peak experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_experience).
Of course this have little evolutionary advantage. Feeling this way does not help one survive.

If we only use 10% and the rest is useless, then why do we have it? it doesn't make sense since if it doesn't improve our probability to reproduce, we wouldn't have it, would we?

Because of further research, it came to my attention that was actually use almost our whole brains, but our awareness is of approximately 10% at a given time. We somehow lack the capacity to be aware of the whole brain in a given moment.

Because of further research, it came to my attention that was actually use almost our whole brains, but our awareness is of approximately 10% at a given time. We somehow lack the capacity to be aware of the whole brain in a given moment.

Are we actually always using only 10 percent? I think we can change that by growing up as in a.k.a. more self-confidence and people EQ, because then we realize so many more things at once!

Folks, for the umpteen time...we use the whole brain just as we use the whole heart or leg etc. Granted some of us use very little hair on the head so they vanish....

Now, when I take some brain juice, I can speed read a book quarter the time and retain the essence of it...but that is a different matter.

Folks, for the umpteen time...we use the whole brain just as we use the whole heart or leg etc. Granted some of us use very little hair on the head so they vanish....

Now, when I take some brain juice, I can speed read a book quarter the time and retain the essence of it...but that is a different matter.

We use our whole brain, but only approximately 10% at a time.

We use our whole brain, but only approximately 10% at a time.

That I beg to differ. It is more like 8.2%, that 1.8% can make a lot of difference.... :D

I wonder what the number would be for someone who is designing the next generation enterprise architecture for the U.S. Navy!!!

Do you think that the guy "designing the next generation enterprise architecture for the U.S. Navy" would be doing that at the same time he was thinking about his wife, his sons, his feelings, his past experiences, history, literature, and thinking about stuff that makes him laugh, makes him feel angry, makes him feel sorrow, all at the same time?

What do you think? People who are on Xanax look normal...but take away the pill, the brain goes to over drive....just some food for thought...unless you want to shut down that process to stay witin that 10%....:D

hehe, obviously not everybody is on 10% of awareness, that is just the average. It is like saying we Homo Sapiens are approximately of 5´8 feet tall; this is just an average.

Oh...wise one....:m:

How does a higher state of consciousness help us to reproduce and care for our children?

The mind is/makes waves, questions, with its thoughts and then spends its life making all sorts of bigger waves seeking solutions, answers, to all the waves (questions/answers) until it goes to sleep into thoughtless-silence: Samadhi, SELF-realization.

-- Really, Reality

Racial-super theories are like rats, once you think they've disapeared they show up and propagate again in another place. lol. By the looks of it this topic is no exception. how do you get 'race' rom 'higher state of conciousness'.

Racial-super theories are like rats, once you think they've disapeared they show up and propagate again in another place. lol. By the looks of it this topic is no exception. how do you get 'race' rom 'higher state of conciousness'.

Some people feel offended by this sort of things, that´s their problem.

I have not read thread, but answer I like best was first advanced by Humphres, I think. It is: "So our hypotheses can die instead of us."
I.e. we can consider the consequences of possible actions and avoid doing things that are likely to result in harm to us. (An un-conscious, automatically responding, creature can not do this.)

How does a higher state of consciousness help us to reproduce and care for our children?

Define "higher state of consciousness": either you're conscious or you're not. :confused:

Id lean towards pan-psychism, mind is a key component of matter 'all the way down'.
And if you take that to be true, what's weird isnt the prospect of consciousness its actually insentience thats completely inexplicable.

Define "higher state of consciousness": either you're conscious or you're not. :confused:

"Consciousness" is like a guitar string, you can tune it until it sounds harmoniously, or you can continue doing ugly noises your whole life.

"Consciousness" is like a guitar string, you can tune it until it sounds harmoniously, or you can continue doing ugly noises your whole life.

Speculation.
How is it measured, tested, demonstrated?

Speculation.
How is it measured, tested, demonstrated?

You pull your penis out, and you´ll have a way of measuring your state of consciousness; try it... it is a very proof-oriented method.

Now seriously Oli, it is like saying you can create proof of what you are thinking right now. The level of consciousness can be measured by yourself, by how your mind wonders from the present moment and your present actions to the future or past.

The higher the level of consciousness, the more you are focused on the present; you are in total control of your subconscious.
The "perfect tunning" of your consciousness happens when the left side of your brain conciliates differences with the right side; the perfect tunning happens when your conscious and your unconscious become one... As Jesus put it: It happens when the male and the female in you become one.

I dare you to try a simple method for one day, and you can later tell me how it went... Only you will know the truth, and you will not be able to prove it, but I can rely on what you tell me is the truth, because if you lie, it makes no difference to me; it only makes a difference to you. Now here is the method:

Imagine a blue flame were your heart is, inside you (off course) for a whole day. And never deviate your attention from that flame. That will put your whole attention in a single spot, the blue flame. You will notice that you are able to do everything you normally do, but imagining the little blue flame, and focusing on it.
At the beggining, you will notice that you can be able to control your thought of the flame for only seconds, and then there will come a time in the day when you will notice that you totally forgot about the flame for hours. You are not going to be able to hold the "flame thought" even for minutes, but if you practice, you will become better and understanding of this.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/60/58/22195860.jpg

That is a high level of consciousness, to be able to put your attention in a single spot, without having your unconscious wonder in the past or future.

Now seriously Oli, it is like saying you can create proof of what you are thinking right now. The level of consciousness can be measured by yourself, by how your mind wonders from the present moment and your present actions to the future or past.
That's the point: my level if consciousness is evident only to myself - so how can anyone state whether or not it needs to be higher?

That is a high level of consciousness, to be able to put your attention in a single spot, without having your unconscious wonder in the past or future.
And how will imagining a blue flame improve me as a human being?
What relevance do blue flames have to my life?
If you're talking about being able to focus concentration and exclude the rest of world while doing a task then that's how I ALWAYS work when I have something of interest.
It's neither higher, lower or sideways from my normal state: it's what I've always done.

That's the point: my level if consciousness is evident only to myself - so how can anyone state whether or not it needs to be higher?

Crowds are the less conscient human beings on Earth; do you want to be part of a crowd, or be yourself?

And how will imagining a blue flame improve me as a human being?
What relevance do blue flames have to my life?

lol, you may want to raise arguments about this, but it is only a method for concentration, it is mind-training. Your mind is in control of you, not the other way around. If you are able to mantain the "blue flame" for a whole day, without interruptions, then you are in control of your mind.
It´s worth saying to you that you can work normally while thinking about the flame.
This is a 5000 year old method given by Shiva, to Devi. And it has remained un-changed for that bunch of years. I mean, it is one of the most widely used methods by meditative monks.

If you're talking about being able to focus concentration and exclude the rest of world while doing a task then that's how I ALWAYS work when I have something of interest.
It's neither higher, lower or sideways from my normal state: it's what I've always done.

That´s how you always work, because you are not in control of your thoughts.

If you are unable to use the method then just say it. And you are the less adecuate person to make an opinion about this if you don´t even want to try it.
You can argue all you want about the flavor of a pizza, your argument is not much good unless you have actually tasted pizza. I´m saying: here is the pizza, try it; but you continue doing arguments about how you don´t want to try it because is too "salty", I say just try it and then we will talk.

Crowds are the less conscient human beings on Earth; do you want to be part of a crowd, or be yourself?
I've never been part of a crowd.

If you are unable to use the method then just say it. And you are the less adecuate person to make an opinion about this if you don´t even want to try it.
Nope - I thought that the blue flame was to aid concentration - which as I pointed out I already do.
I asked about the relevance of blue flames since I couldn't see the connection (with anything).
If it's purely learning to focus on a particular object then, as said, that's how I work.

That´s how you always work, because you are not in control of your thoughts.
If I devote my thoughts to the task at hand then how am I not in control - my mind is doing what I want it to.

I've never been part of a crowd.

Nope - I thought that the blue flame was to aid concentration - which as I pointed out I already do.

I asked about the relevance of blue flames since I couldn't see the connection (with anything).
If it's purely learning to focus on a particular object then, as said, that's how I work.

If I devote my thoughts to the task at hand then how am I not in control - my mind is doing what I want it to.

The purpose of the flame is to concentrate your attention on a single spot, all your energy will go to that spot; and then you will be able to use that energy. When you spend time thinking about past experiences, or with anxiety, or damaging emotions, that is where the energy is going. You spend energy by thinking; so, I´m basically telling you a method for concentrating your energy to be able to use it in more productive tasks.

But you describe it like you are a conscient person, how come you are not in favor of cultivating consciousness?

My mind is doing what I want it to.

That is what your mind wants you to think.

That is what your mind wants you to think.

Then who is in control of our minds ? :confused:

Then who is in control of our minds ? :confused:

Your mind doesn´t need controlling to function, it is very independent by itself. We have to give power to our minds in order to function normally.
But you know that you don´t have control over your mind when you want it to do something, and it doesn´t. Like for example that focusing method I gave earlier; it is a very difficult task to concentrate on a single thing even for a day, your mind simply won´t let you.

Your mind will always be wondering on how your present experiences are related to your past experiences; and if not, then it is thinking about future results of the present actions. You mind cannot be at ease at the present moment, and that is what consciousness is all about; to be able to control your mind in order to use it, not be used by it.

That is what your mind wants you to think.

And am I not my mind?
If I got an artificial body would I be me? I assume so.
If I got a different mind in this body would I be me? No.
Because my mind is what I am.
The accumulation of memories experiences and thoughts.
I am my mind and I do what I want.

Your mind doesn´t need controlling to function, it is very independent by itself. We have to give power to our minds in order to function normally.
But you know that you don´t have control over your mind when you want it to do something, and it doesn´t. Like for example that focusing method I gave earlier; it is a very difficult task to concentrate on a single thing even for a day, your mind simply won´t let you.

Your mind will always be wondering on how your present experiences are related to your past experiences; and if not, then it is thinking about future results of the present actions. You mind cannot be at ease at the present moment, and that is what consciousness is all about; to be able to control your mind in order to use it, not be used by it.

What Oli said..
Where then, if "I" am not my mind, recides the self ?

I answer you both with a question. If you try to perform the concentration method, and you are not able to do so, because your mind doesn´t let you; is it you who is not letting yourself do what you want to do?

I answer you both with a question. If you try to perform the concentration method, and you are not able to do so, because your mind doesn´t let you; is it you who is not letting yourself do what you want to do?

"Your mind doesnt let you" is the flawed part. You are just not able to concentrate enough then.

I answer you both with a question. If you try to perform the concentration method, and you are not able to do so, because your mind doesn´t let you; is it you who is not letting yourself do what you want to do?

Your mind "doesn't let you"?
My mind has no will (is not separate from me) of its own.
If I'm not concentrating it's because I'm human enough to suffer distractions.

"Your mind doesnt let you" is the flawed part. You are just not able to concentrate enough then.

So why not work on it?

Your mind "doesn't let you"?
My mind has no will (is not separate from me) of its own.
If I'm not concentrating it's because I'm human enough to suffer distractions.

Your identification with your mind is frightening :eek: :p

Your identification with your mind is frightening :eek: :p

Because my mind is what makes my character - if I lose a leg or an arm am I still not me?
Yes.
If I lose my memories am I still the me I am now?
No.
I would behave differently, react to people differently etc.
My mind is myself.

Because my mind is what makes my character - if I lose a leg or an arm am I still not me?
Yes.
If I lose my memories am I still the me I am now?
No.
I would behave differently, react to people differently etc.
My mind is myself.

Man what a bad buddhist you would be :D

So why not work on it?

I never even tried.. :confused:
Why ? Should I become a buddhist ?

Too right - when I'm in the mood: no monkey mind, I have octopus mind.
Conversely I've surprised some Buddhists half to death with my "wisdom" when in another frame of mind.
What can I say? I'm uncategorisable. :)

Man what a bad buddhist you would be :D

He is right you know.
What if they would transplant your brain into some robot, would it not still be you ?

Okay, what about the fact that meditation makes you smarter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43006-2005Jan2.html) and gives you a better concentration? If meditation consist in no thinking at all, how come you become smarter?

He is right you know.
What if they would transplant your brain into some robot, would it not still be you ?

I believe not, but you might want to believe otherwise if you want to you know?

I believe not, but you might want to believe otherwise if you want to you know?

I know, and you can believe what you want to. But we're on a discussion forum right ?
So what part of the body contains the self according to you ?

Okay, what about the fact that meditation makes you smarter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43006-2005Jan2.html) and gives you a better concentration? If meditation consist in no thinking at all, how come you become smarter?

Two faults:
A) no where does it say "smarter": just that the workings of the brain change and
B) "no thinking"? When the article specifically states Both groups were asked to meditate, specifically on unconditional compassion.
So they were meditating on that subject while thinking nothing?
Dichotomous?

I know, and you can believe what you want to. But we're on a discussion forum right ?
So what part of the body contains the self according to you ?

The name that can be named, is not the eternal name.

The name that can be named, is not the eternal name.

What ?? Just name a bodypart :bugeye:

Two faults:
A) no where does it say "smarter": just that the workings of the brain change and
B) "no thinking"? When the article specifically states
So they were meditating on that subject while thinking nothing?
Dichotomous?

They practiced non-thinking during their entire lifes; just because they were asked to think about compassion when they meditated during the experiment doesn´t change that fact.

And yes, you can feel the compassion, and yet don´t think at all.

What ?? Just name a bodypart :bugeye:

An eternal body part? :confused:

You see, you are free to believe whatever you want; as for me, I rather experiment and see for myself which side is for real. As long as I know, all the prophets and all the enlightened men have spoken about reincarnation and the eternity of our true self; I want to experience it for myself in order to trust that. The methods are certainly there... As J. Krishnamurti said: "It doesn´t matter if you die for it"...

They practiced non-thinking during their entire lifes; just because they were asked to think about compassion when they meditated during the experiment doesn´t change that fact.

And yes, you can feel the compassion, and yet don´t think at all.

Feeling compassion is not the same as concentrating upon unconditional compassion, as they were asked to do.
And if you're not thinking at all how do you know what you're feeling?

FeelingAnd if you're not thinking at all how do you know what you're feeling?

I try to practice meditation, and I have reached small periods of time were I stop thinking. Specially in these periods curiosity arises in me; cause I have found myself flooded with tears of joy for no reason at all. My emotions are happening weather I think of them or not.

I try to practice meditation, and I have reached small periods of time were I stop thinking.
If you're talking that sort of "meditation" then look up Apollonian Ecstasy.
It doesn't require "meditation" or even attempting to not think.
I've had it many times when concentrated fully on something and "lost" hours at a time.

My emotions are happening weather I think of them or not.
Don't you have to think to recognise you're having the emotion?

Don't you have to think to recognise you're having the emotion?

To concentrate fully on a feeling with nothing else on my mind; I don´t call that thinking, is it thinking?

To concentrate fully on a feeling with nothing else on my mind; I don´t call that thinking, is it thinking?

If want to know what the emotion is, yes.

If want to know what the emotion is, yes.

There are times when I don´t really want to know what the emotion is, I just experience it, really.

What is it?
Why am I experiencing it?
If it's good how do I get it again (if it's worth having again)?
If it's bad how do I avoid it?

What is it?
Why am I experiencing it?
If it's good how do I get it again (if it's worth having again)?
If it's bad how do I avoid it?

Not at all, the main thing is not to judge what you are experiencing. You really are talking about the past now, not the present. You are saying that whenever an emotion arises in you, you need to compare it to emotions you have had in the past, and put the emotion in words. But that is not living in the present is it? What about if you are experiencing a completely new emotion? One that you have never experienced before...

You really are talking about the past now, not the present. You are saying that whenever an emotion arises in you, you need to compare it to emotions you have had in the past, and put the emotion in words. But that is not living in the present is it? What about if you are experiencing a completely new emotion? One that you have never experienced before...

Did I say all that?
No.
I said I ask what it is (is = now)
How can I avoid it (in future) if I'm enjoying it (enjoying = now)
etc etc.

What about if you are experiencing a completely new emotion? One that you have never experienced before...
That's why it works on new emotions (whatever they are - I doubt that at the age of 51 there's a new emotion hanging about waiting for me to come across :)).

An eternal body part? :confused:

You see, you are free to believe whatever you want; as for me, I rather experiment and see for myself which side is for real. As long as I know, all the prophets and all the enlightened men have spoken about reincarnation and the eternity of our true self; I want to experience it for myself in order to trust that. The methods are certainly there... As J. Krishnamurti said: "It doesn´t matter if you die for it"...

Hey, I just want to understand what it is that you believe. Up to now I have no clue :shrug:

I try to practice meditation, and I have reached small periods of time were I stop thinking. Specially in these periods curiosity arises in me; cause I have found myself flooded with tears of joy for no reason at all. My emotions are happening weather I think of them or not.

I'm sorry but how do you know you are not thinking, it makes no sense to me. Please explain.

Hey, I just want to understand what it is that you believe. Up to now I have no clue :shrug:
lol, if you are talking about God, I have no clue either; but I don´t close myself to possibilities. I call myself a "theist", although I´m not a believer of any religion. The reason I do this, is because for me it is impossible for our life to be an existencial coincidence, we are here for a reason, a very important reason one might say.
It doesn´t really matter to me if there were many gods who "built" the planet and genetically manipulated matter for us to come into existence; or if an alien planted DNA on Earth. Whatever it was, many people want to grasp it by thinking, well I know that that is quite impossible.

I just know that we are just energy in movement; our thoughts are energy, our actions, our words and our emotions as well... All is energy in different vibrations and we perceive this by our limited 5 senses which perceive each one a different vibrational frequency of the same energy; finally we interpret this with our brain. So far so good right?
The vibrational frequency of the energy of thought can be perceived by some people with what is normally called the "sixth sense", this can be cultivated and trained. This is part of what I have experienced naturally with love, and makes me want to go deeper into it.

But this opens the path to a whole new set of possibilities: are you changing the world with your thoughts? Well you are changing yourself with them, you are part of the world, and therefore you are changing a part of the world with them.
What about water changing its form in response to prayer and people´s thoughts? We are like 70% water so it takes no genius to figure out that the same changes are happening within ourselves depending on what thoughts and emotions we are sending to our system. Most people are addicted to certain feelings, some are hooked on depression, anxiety or fear; this is obviously later manifested in overall sickness.

We does consciousness fit in here? Well consciousness is the understading and controlling of these characteristics of our body. Some call it "being the Master of one´s energy".

I'm sorry but how do you know you are not thinking, it makes no sense to me. Please explain.

It has happened just a few times for me; but it is actually a very real thing. For example: one day I got angry at my boss, so I started noticing it, and I focused