Newborns are inherently atheistic. — Harry Hindu

Newborns are born ignorant of more or less everything, including knowledge of God.

The problem with atheistic scientists analyzing the truth value of religions is that they are usually more literal and fundamentalist about analyzing religious texts than many if not most religious believers. Instead of looking to or for the moral of a myth, legend, story, or parable (Yes, there is even Christian mythology. Only the dolts take it literally.); the atheist debunks the most literal interpretation of the text. That’s why so many atheists think the religious are stupid, or they think we are deluding ourselves. This is a mistake that religious texts can’t impart wisdom and that science alone can address all truths wrt humanity. — Noah Te Stroete

Nicely put. :up:

Now I'm confused. Do you mean that I'm assuming that a design is created in steps, and not appear whole, in one spontaneous burst? :chin: [ I'm not clear that I have done such a thing....]

It's a reference to the three beasts of revelation. — All sight

:up: All of God's creatures are welcome here. :smile: Especially the dragons.

Ominous? I thought it was lovely! :smile:

Then it was a miracle, and I have God to thank? :wink:

Yes, although in this case, primarily just because I see no evidence of an unconscious mind. — Terrapin Station

Then what created my firmware designs, which often emerged, fully-formed a la Coleridge, into my conscious mind after a shower? I would've remembered if I'd created these designs consciously, and I didn't. Some other part of me, a part of whose doings I am not directly aware, must've done it. Or so I conclude.

I think TS’s objection is “why call it ‘mind’?” when the unconscious doings may not be anything like mind. — Noah Te Stroete

Perhaps we call it "mind" because that's the word we created to describe the thing we call 'the mind'?

Then I can only conclude that you think the human mind is the conscious mind, and nothing else?

Is it too far-fetched to think an advanced alien can reconstruct the human mind from studying the voyager 2 spacecraft? — TheMadFool

No. But it would be quite an impressive feat, wouldn't it? :smile:

But I don't think it follows from that and the fact that the term "unconscious mind" exists that what "unconscious mind" is supposed to pick out exists. — Terrapin Station

But if the term is defined to mean 'that part of the human mind to which we have no conscious access, of which we are not aware", then either it exists, or there are no mind-doings that we aren't aware of? :chin:

For example, it's possible that there is an unconscious mind, and it's possible that there is not. — Terrapin Station

Hmm. "Unconscious mind" is the term we humans created to describe the human mind, minus the bit we call the conscious mind. The term exists. Our minds exist, as far as we can tell. So I think we might conclude that the unconscious mind exists, although it might not be quite what we think it is.

There are unconscious brain phenomena, obviously, and good reasons to believe so, but no good reasons for believing that phenomena is more or less just like concepts, etc. — Terrapin Station

So what do you think unconscious brain phenomena are, if there are "no good reasons" to think they resemble conscious brain phenomena? What do you think they might be? Go on, speculate instead of bemoaning the lack of justification. Lack of justification goes with the territory here, so let's accept it, and see how we can work with it?

OK, so do you care to respond to the contrast between requiring justification to accept a proposition, and rejecting one on a whim?

if your evidence isn't conclusive, logic does not permit you to draw a conclusion. — Pattern-chaser


But where did I say anything even remotely resembling that? — Terrapin Station

You didn't. It was me that said that. But you surely don't disagree with it, being a logical sort of fellow? :wink:

From logic: if your evidence isn't conclusive, logic does not permit you to draw a conclusion. Therefore if you accept a proposition, it must be because the evidence was conclusive, mustn't it?

"It appears that there may be unconscious mental phenomena" sounds like belief, and it sounds like you feel there are good reasons to take that stance rather than the alternative . It sounds like you feel there is something more than mere logical possibility for the "unconscious mind" side. — Terrapin Station

Too many "sounds like"s for me. :wink: I said what I meant; please ignore what you think it sounded like. :up:

Belief is not knowing. Belief can result from possibility, assumption, maybes, that sort of thing. And I think it can be tentative. It can in my mind anyway. It's your illogic that confounds me. You (quite rightly) require evidence - conclusive evidence - before you will accept a particular proposition, but you will reject it on a whim, citing 'no reason to believe'. The correct and logical path, where there is no conclusive evidence, is to continue the superposition of accept/reject until something causes the probability function to collapse.

I think 'no reason to believe' might actually mean 'this is hard thinking, harder than I can be bothered with, so I'll just ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, and maybe it will go away'.

Pending further consideration, evidence, and so forth, yes. :up: It appears that there may be unconscious mental phenomena. I'm happy with that uncertain conclusion, because it describes the available evidence without contradiction, addition, omission, exaggeration, or any other sort of misrepresentation. That kind of self-honesty pleases me.

This is nothing about proof. It's just about having reasons to believe something. I don't believe things just randomly. If you like doing that, okay. — Terrapin Station

You misunderstand. I don't accept these possibilities as valid or true (without further consideration, evidence, etc.), I just refuse to discard them without good reason, to use your words and your thinking.

If there are no good reasons to believe something, I don't believe it. — Terrapin Station

How sad that you will set aside the endless possibilities the Universe offers, just because you can't prove them. The world is a wonderful and uncertain place; embrace it. :wink:

So, because you can't find a way of gathering evidence, you ignore or deny the activity? :chin:

There are other common labels for some it, though, like "autonomic functions." — Terrapin Station

I just re-read this, and I wonder if you think that the unconscious mind embraces only hind-brain functions, and is nothing more than an automated system that makes sure I continue to breathe, without having to concentrate on it? Heartbeat likewise.

I submit that the unconscious mind does the above, but also deals with driving home while we're (consciously) thinking of something else. And it comes up with solutions to problems we've been working on, but without conscious attention. Coleridge found that Kubla Khan emerged into his conscious mind as if from nowhere. This too is the work of the unconscious mind, I think. And when I 'consciously' move my finger, it turns out that my unconscious mind issued the instruction before I made the conscious decision to move....

Because of the way we've defined the term, our 'unconscious minds' take care of anything and everything that is mental, but of which we are not aware (i.e. conscious).

What label would you apply/assign to unconscious mental activity? — Pattern-chaser


Unconscious brain activity you mean? (I wouldn't say that anything is unconscious mental activity)

Why wouldn't "unconscious brain activity" be a good enough label? There are other common labels for some it, though, like "autonomic functions." — Terrapin Station

I'm still wondering why you characterise unconscious brain activity - activity attributed to that part (or 'those parts') of the mind that we refer to as the 'unconscious mind' - as not being a mental phenomena?

scientists worthy of the name recognize that religions are about things, subjects, that by their nature remain outside of science - they have to or they wouldn't be religions. The only occasion for opposition is when religions claim truth for their beliefs, which truth is never demonstrable and remains a case for very special pleading. — tim wood

[ My highlighting.] :up:

I think you are conflating consciousness with awareness. We are aware of only a few things at a time, but our conscious activity covers a lot more ground. So it is awareness that is a "surface phenomenon," but awareness is only a small part of consciousness. — SophistiCat

Interesting. In discussions like this one, "conscious" and "aware" are often considered synonyms. Would you care to expand on how/where conscious activity covers a lot more ground than awareness?

I am interested to hear what others think on this? — philosophy

I think some confusion is introduced into discussions like this one by our conception of our own minds. As far as we know, each of us has a mind. And we are aware of a small part of our minds, which we have come to call our 'conscious mind'. The rest of our minds, when we think of it at all, we call our 'unconscious mind'. But, because we are only aware of our conscious minds, it is easy for us to fall into the trap of assuming that our minds are our conscious minds, and nothing else. We sometimes forget the major part of our minds, that we call the unconscious.

So sometimes we refer to our minds when what we actually mean is our conscious mind. At other times, we use 'mind' to refer to all of the human mind. And we don't distinguish between these two cases, because we don't notice or realise we're doing it.

So, is it that ''consciousness' is in some way fundamental to reality", or do we mean to refer to the whole mind here?

"Mentality" isn't the same thing as "consciousness." If one believes that there are unconscious thoughts, desires, etc., those would still fall under "mentality." — Terrapin Station

Indeed.

I don't believe there is any good reason to believe that any nonconscious brain activity amounts to mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

Then what does it amount to? What label would you apply/assign to unconscious mental activity?

Sorry old chap. I don’t like to result to insult but you are being a bit of an ass. Could you please cut out the assness. Just a little. — Dan84


I did try. I asked him to let it go, but he persisted. So I tried asking nicely - but I'm meeting with that infuriating denial of genuine human emotion Buddhists affect - as a pretense of spirituality. — karl stone

This topic was created to discuss spirituality, enlightenment in particular. The persistence is yours. The derail is yours. The unfriendliness, that's yours too. Time to stop now. :up:

↪BrianW


Wouldn’t philosophy be dull if it was just science.

Imagine. — Dan84

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :up:

I'm quite sure, if asked, most people would understand the term enlightenment to refer to some eastern spiritual nonsense, and very few would know anything about the 18th century rationalist philosophical movement. What does that tell you? — karl stone

Not much. I see your assertion, and I disagree with it. I think that the two meanings of "enlightenment" that you describe are (roughly) equally well known. And I wonder why you need to be rude about a concept you disagree with? Is it that you think (Eastern) enlightenment somehow contradicts your scientific outlook? [ I don't think it does.]

What does that tell you? That science, while surrounding us with miracles of technology - and providing real knowledge of the world, is nonetheless held in contempt. — karl stone

There is an opposite perspective, that focusses more on the application of science where it is not the appropriate tool. Sadly, the best example I can think of is philosophy forums like this one, which are populated with Sciencists* eager to promote their Vulcan** philosophy over and above all other ways of thinking. Logic uber alles, as you might say.

So I would conclude that we should strive to use science where it is appropriate and useful, something we do not always do. But at the same time, and for the same reasons, we should strive never to use science where it is inappropriate and not useful, which is also something we do too often. :up:

I seek to address that - because truth is important, particularly as we face global scale existential threats. No amount of limb bending and chanting at the beyond is going to solve climate change. We need to complete the Enlightenment project. — karl stone

I submit that no amount of science is going to solve these problems either. The problem isn't science, it's people. And there are no scientific ways of dealing with people. Before it became too late, we should have been able to moderate our consumption and our population, and generally trodden less heavily upon the Earth. But our greed proved insuperable, and now our species has reached its end. Sadly, even completion of the Enlightenment Project won't change this.

* - not all contributors to philosophy forums are sciencists, of course. But they are very much in evidence; we've all seen and heard them. Thankfully, there are many non-sciencists, here and elsewhere, and one can find them if one looks carefully.... :up: :smile:

** - Vulcan as in Star Trek and Mr Spock, not the Roman God of Fire. Vulcan philosophy begins and ends with logic, Jim.

This modern terminology of distinguishing various theories from each other that is the lingua franca on the forum has been a trip for me. The practice makes me nervous, not the disputations involved but the unspoken agreements. — Valentinus

I'd like to hear more, if you'd care to expand...?

for the avoidance of confusion in future, perhaps you might use the word moksha, or Kevala Jnana, or ushta instead? — karl stone

Or perhaps you might accept that, like nearly every other English word in existence, "enlightenment" has several meanings, all of which are clearly understood (from context) by the vast majority of English speakers? Here's one link, but there are many others. The Eastern meaning of "enlightenment" is listed as a known meaning of this word. Must we only use words in the way that you, personally, use them? Piffle! :joke:

If a man has lived in a box for the entirety of his life, and he escaped the box to see someone getting killed, would he even recognise the 'someone else' as another person? Would he know he was human? :wink:

I don't know what non-conscious means — BrianW

It refers to the so-called subconscious, unconscious or non-conscious mind, that Guy Claxton calls the "undermind", which is my preferred term. Your conscious mind is a small part of your mind; your undermind is all that's left. It's what makes your heart beat and your lungs breathe; it automates those habitual actions you do often; it writes poetry, and is otherwise creative; etc.

if its results can emerge into conscious awareness, then I suppose it implies a sort of consciousness — BrianW

No! It implies a sort of non-consciousness!!! The point is that your conscious mind is a minor part of your whole mind, and your undermind is all the rest of it. If you are aware of something, it may well be conscious. If you're not, then it is not part of your conscious mind, the part of your mind of whose doings you are aware, or conscious. This is not an unfounded assertion. It is true by DEFINITION. Conscious and aware are exact synonyms, in this case.

Here's a simple example how it can be a conscious, systematic process:

Say that I'm writing a bit of music and I have the following melody notes: C Eb D F

By analyzing the notes in that chord, I might think, "Okay, let's try harmonizing that with a C minor chord . . . er--how about an Fmi9? Mabe an AbMa7? Gsus?"--I'm systematically trying different chords suggested by the melody I came up with, with an eye on creating different sorts of tension/release contours relative to those chords. — Terrapin Station

Let me begin by saying that composing (creating) music is sadly not a skill that I own. :fear: So I must guess, based on my own actual creative experience.

What you describe is part of the creative process, I think, just not the overtly creative part. :wink: I wonder if that came first, maybe resulting in the selection of C Eb D and F as your basic melody? Perhaps your aim was to capture the melancholy of an autumn day, and the truly creative part is to come up with a melody that would somehow evoke in a human mind that seasonal bleakness? I don't know; I'm guessing here.

I do know that creativity is not a simple, single, thing. It's ... I don't know what it is. :smile: It's partly or wholly non-conscious, which may be why I'm having trouble. How do you describe something you aren't aware of when it happens?

Your words seem to me to describe that part of the creative process that I call 'tidying up', although you could give it other, equally meaningful, names too. After the initial creative breakthrough, the new idea must be 'fitted' to human reality, connected to what we already have and know. All kinds of details must be checked and adjusted as appropriate. Sometimes this proves impossible, and that particular act of creation fails. It's a process, and all parts of it matter.

All IMO, of course! :smile:

I think it's a combination of the sub-conscious and the conscious. By this I mean, that while my consciousness was below the state we call wakeful, that is, in the sub-conscious state (which still implies the presence of consciousness), there were mental processes which were active and which generated memories which engraved such deep impressions that they intruded to the conscious state. — BrianW

To me, you're describing something wholly non-conscious here, whose results eventually emerged into conscious awareness. :chin: [Just like 'Kublai Khan' emerged into Coleridge's conscious mind, once his undermind had created it.]

In terms of the kind of Bhagavid Gita sort of enlightenment... — Dan84

...which is what the OP asked us to consider...? :chin: So why add alternative interpretations of "enlightenment" to muddy the original poster's topic?

That's interesting because for me a lot of the process is conscious and pretty systematic. — Terrapin Station

Oh, I spent lots of time planning (and the like), which is conscious and systematic, but the creativity is in addition to that. :smile: :up: Creativity involves creating something that did not previously exist. In my case, it was a design solution to a problem that had not been solved before. To create something novel, you have to move beyond conscious reasoned thinking to something much less rigid, something flexible, capable of creating something new. Nothing new can be made by deduction, or induction, or anything associated with that style of thinking. Creativity is unsettling, and partly defined by chaos and disorder. Creativity often breaks the rules, to come up with something new. Quantum Theory, for example, cannot be deduced from the science that came before it, and yet it's the most successful scientific theory ever created by man. Creativity is art ... and maybe other stuff too. :wink:

So he commented having read the topic title, but not having read any part of the OP? That seems strange....

Aren't you familiar with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment? — Terrapin Station

Yes, of course. But "enlightenment" in the context of Eastern philosophy, has only one meaning. Didn't you know that? I'm sure you did.... :wink:

I made this qualification because I have also been to a "philosophy forum", managed by philosophy students of the Spanish online public university, where people too much into reason and science got bullied and expelled, and marxist and feminist views were unquestionable. — DiegoT

I left my last philosophy forum because they had become a sciencist closed-shop. Any topic that was not scientifically-oriented and scientifically-discussed was trolled, and treated with "flippant dismissal" by the members and the moderators alike. Intolerance is the problem, not Marxism or feminism.

No one hates cakes. — Sir2u

I do. When I eat them, (the remains of) my teeth hurt. So I don't. :up: