Why would you think it is?

martin said:

I always find it hard to understand why some scientists and science minded others behave as if science has the final answer to "where does mind come from?" and other big questions that are if fact not answered at all by science.

Click to expand...

what an amazingly ignorant statement to come out of a someone who claims to be a professional Psychologist.

Science is about discovery. It is an ongoing process and we have done more in Science in the last 100 years than in the previous 1000 and more in the last 1000 than the previous 2000. As such Science reflects natural development, slow to start with and then speeds up and we identify laws/principles as we go. In the last 3000 years we have done more in identifying the nature of our brains and consciousness and especially so in the last 50.

Science has done more for our species than religion or the humanities or the occult. The USE of it for immoral purposes is usually done by opportunists (those who seek eternal life etc - childminded who cannot accept what they see in the mirror each day, riddled with vanity an unaccepting of fact) ignorant of, lacking in, any form of science training - something necessary for the species to advance from being just 'smart apes'.

Given my above comments, THIS statement of Martin applies to Martin:

"This kind of behaviour, if it comes from somebody who understands enough of science to know better, is also unethical and irresponsible, IMO."

As I have said before, if anyone asks for a recommendation to a Psychologist Martin would NOT be on the list.

There is NO EVIDENCE for any 'yi mind' but there IS evidence for resonance, projection, transference etc etc and the consistancy of the Emotional IC, all based on neuroscience research, validates the scientific perspective over any other offered to date.

The METHOD used to CREATE the IC is the SAME method used in general in our interpretations of reality. The DIFFERENCES are in the IC going further with the self-referencing than other disciplines. Simple. Given this encoding of our methods in the IC text, so we will experience resonance in that the universals of the IC 'fit' our sensing of reality IN GENERAL and so serve as classes through which we can communicate details.

As such, THERE IS NO NEED for the concept of a 'yi mind' and as such it can be ignored in that such a perspective LACKS precision, is inconsistant, and forces a reactive mindset when our consciousness has the ability to be proactive and so self-determining.

The proactive nature of our consciousness gives us CHOICES in behaviour where we can go with the flow or fight the context or move on. Utilising this feature that comes with consciousness moves us beyond just being 'smart apes'.

Chris.

As usual, you don't respond to me or anyone else. You only repeat your old conclusions.
Like a gun, bang, BANG, bang!
Well, if that is all you want, please go ahead.

Continued ..

lightofreason said:

what an amazingly ignorant statement to come out of a someone who claims to be a professional Psychologist.

Science is about discovery. It is an ongoing process and we have done more in Science in the last 100 years than in the previous 1000 and more in the last 1000 than the previous 2000. As such Science reflects natural development, slow to start with and then speeds up and we identify laws/principles as we go. In the last 3000 years we have done more in identifying the nature of our brains and consciousness and especially so in the last 50.

Click to expand...

Umm, did I deny that? Did you read what I wrote? And where is the ignorance? Neuroscience doesn't know as yet how the brain generates consciousness, if it indeed does that. There are only theories and although you may not like the idea, the possibility that consciousness doesn't originate in the brain is still wide open.
Again, you may not like it, but it is a FACT (and you know it) that neuroscience doesn't have the final answer to this socalled 'hard problem'. Progress is made, yes, but I didn't deny that.

And there are many other "big" questions of a religious/spiritual nature that science cannot answer yet or perhaps never. That is a fact and it's also a fact that some scientists (unfortunately) behave AS IF science has the answers.
And yes, such behaviour is IMO unethical, irresponsible (and apart from that unscientific too).

I guess you took this statement personal, hence your irritated reaction. Well, it was also about your behaviour but not specifically about you. Although I did use some of your statements as an example. But I said that I didn't want to pick on you, right?

As I have said before, if anyone asks for a recommendation to a Psychologist Martin would NOT be on the list.

Click to expand...

Lol. Fortunately, because I have no practice! Like many people you seem to think that every psychologist is a therapist. I did some counseling and coaching in various jobs but I'm not a therapist. I am a theoretical psychologist. My specialisation is the psychology of - guess what? - religion.
So no need to tell me that 'angels' or 'yi minds' might be imaginary or hallucinatory. I know everything about religious psychopathology and when I say that certain 'beings' do indeed exist you can be sure that they passed 20 or 30 or so reality checks.

Yes, sorry for your world view, they do exist. And what is more, they are essential for life on earth. Without them we would probably not have survived till now.
I could tell you more, but you will not believe it. You have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, including the scenes of science. But that's okay, there is apparently no need for you to know this now. Later ...

Scientists believe that 23% of the universe is "dark matter" and 73% is "dark energy," leaving only about 4% of the universe that is visible and experimentally verifiable. So 96% of the universe is thought to be invisible matter and energy that scientists can only infer is there, without being able to quantify its nature.

And as for "yi mind" or heavenly beings... just because a theory might make the existence of some things unnecessary doesn't mean they don't actually exist. They could very easily exist in that other 96% of the universe.

And thinking about it i can't think of anything that exists that needs to be necessary to exist. Necessary to what afterall ? Oh of course one can say evolution develops according to necessity of continuance of certain life forms - but still who/what makes this a necessity other than the life force itself.

Its certainly not a necessity that i or anyone else exist, and no one needs to believe in us to exist - we just exist.

Crazy logic that Chris says I only perceive Yi mind because I need to - and yet I perceive him and don't need to ?

Also Chris if your're there - the basis of your theories that all is product of brain, neurology etc etc - I do get it absolutely, no need for repetition. I got the gist of all that aged about 11 (many many years ago , these ideas are not new !) but dismissed it as an entire explanation of human experience since it so clearly fell so far short, was limited, a partial truth. I noticed how gladly some jumped at the chance to pigeon hole all out of the ordinary human experience, like astral travel - all spiritual experience as a product of brain function and it seemed clear to me it was because they were afraid, had not experienced such things themselves and could not allow that others did - and SCIENCE conveniently provided an escape route for those who felt fear at such things.

Having said that isn't that quite a dated concept of science anyway - i don't think these days its automatic that a scientific persepective rules out or denies a real connection of minds to MIND, to a greater energy field, or other minds or other realms of consciousness beyond the little computer processer we call a brain and you call God .

My point is I can't see you as a representative of modern science here.

lightofreason said:

3000+ years of research into brain/mind. In fact the mind part is very small and maps to our sense of SELF and THAT has definite developmental dynamics as covered in the above reference and associated references and you can see it operating when using the Emotional I Ching where it works off brain dynamics alone - and so mind is emergent from brain when we associate mind with the development of, a product of, self.

The I Ching is a book derived from perceptions of reality by human brains lacking understanding of themselves and so using LOCAL context to aid in creating analogies to describe what they felt from their perceptions.


LOL! I know more about it than you or Laozi. ;-)

Click to expand...

3000+ years of research into brain/mind, I Ching, Emotional I Ching all that knowdledge useless. What a shame !

Some people Know everything .....except how to behave.
I have a problem with such a man. Chris what would you reccomend ?

IC: "what do you have to say about Chris's interpretation of the IC?"

Hex 5.2.3 leading to Hex 3

Well, this has definately been a "Schlammschlacht" here!!! (means: mudslinging contest)

Martin,

If you ever feel to write more about angels, I would be very interested in what you have to say.

Rosada

rosada said:

Martin,

If you ever feel to write more about angels, I would be very interested in what you have to say.

Rosada

Click to expand...

Me too! It's an area I've looked into a lot. Behind the flowery nonsense surrounding this subject, the idea of angels, fairies, sprites, demons, elementals and the like has a very, very old history indeed. Quite fascinating actually, regardless of one's belief or not in such things.

You're on Martin..

Topal

OMG, umm, I would like to but I really don't know how to tell this story. It's long and complicated and I think I will indeed have to tell the whole story because if I only describe parts, isolated incidents, there is no context and then it won't make much sense.

But well, I will try to get something on paper. In notepad or wordpad that is, these are modern times, 21 century AD I believe?
Don't hold you breath, though, it's not good for your aura.

I was thinking, to make it a bit easier for me (help!), perhaps those of you who are interested in these beings could ask questions?
Such as "do they have wings?" (answer: umm, eh, umm, not sure!)

martin said:

I was thinking, to make it a bit easier for me (help!), perhaps those of you who are interested in these beings could ask questions?
Such as "do they have wings?" (answer: umm, eh, umm, not sure!)

Click to expand...

I don't think they need wings except in the eyes of the religious and romantically inclined.

Ok, I have two questions.

What do you believe to be the function or purpose of those entities/beings which have come to be known as Angels?

How can you distinguish between "angel communication" or the very VERY common practice of entities masquerading as angelic presences?

Perhaps it might be a good idea to start a new thread over at the "Open Space" saloon

Topal

Okay, I will try to answer your questions in a new thread in Open Space.
Will take some time, give me a moment. Or two.

Done ..

topal said:

Ok, I have two questions.

What do you believe to be the function or purpose of those entities/beings which have come to be known as Angels?
How can you distinguish between "angel communication" or the very VERY common practice of entities masquerading as angelic presences?

Perhaps it might be a good idea to start a new thread over at the "Open Space" saloon

Topal

Click to expand...

Why would angels have a function ? I don't believe any being has a function. What function do dogs have or algae or elephants -a being is being, why must it always be subserviant to the idea of function - its that work ethic thing again I have absolutely no function and i don't want one ! I'm not a household appliance !

trojan said:

Also Chris if your're there - the basis of your theories that all is product of brain, neurology etc etc - I do get it absolutely, no need for repetition.

Click to expand...

wrong. you miss the point totally. It is not about all being the product of the brain, the focus is on the method used by the brain to interpret reality where the method determines MEANING.

There is an 'out there' but our experience of it, our interpretation of it, is through our nervous system working as a filter. As IDM shows, self-referencing of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy, aka WHAT/WHERE, aka objects/relationships, gives us after only three loops, eight qualities or more so four qualified qualities and those eight qualities map to the qualities of the trigrams as derived from the self-referencing of yang/yin ans they do the basic categories of number type in Mathematics and the basic categories of basic emotion etc etc etc.

Anything OUTSIDE of those qualities will be perceived from INSIDE those qualities and so appear as if paradox (as covered in the paradox page http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )

What IDM identifies is the source of meaning, a generic template of qualities derived from the self-referencing in the neurology and seeding ALL meaning, be it derived from the real or the imagined.

What IDM identifies is the creation of metaphors using the template and so allowing each metaphor to replace any other in interpretation of reality where the TYPE of representations in metaphor aid in some metaphors being 'better' and describing more than others.

You failed to see any of this at age 11, you failed to follow-up your reflections - and none of this is 'old', it is new since it is only NOW that we have access to our neurology to be able to link neuron to hexagram interpretation and on into the dynamics of the species.

What the Emotional I Ching clearly demonstrates is that with application of a scientific perspective we can get the I Ching to work well, consistantly, and also allow us to derive testing for false results. In other words there is no need for magical/random methods to get the IC to work well.

Furthermore, using the science-derived information re self-referencing we can use XOR etc to take us WAY beyond 10th century BC thinking - we can get the IC to describe itself in general and so validate general interpretations and show how the IC is a self-contained system - as are all systems derived from self-referencing.

There is no need for angels or spirits or 'yi mind' to get consistancy out of the I Ching and in fact without those forms we get BETTER results than with them. Yes you can get 'best fits' using random/magical methods but not as consistant as using questions and emotions.

The extension of this into other self-referencing systems of categories etc is revolutionary in understanding personas, purpose, etc etc and there is nothing magical/random that can substitute for this material.

SO - you have NO IDEA what is going on, your failure to understand the science aspects of self-referencing and the neurology etc shows ignorance and you try to cover than up with magical/random perspectives that have to offer in consistant manner in aiding self and others. (and a lot of those magical methods are intepretations of neural activities 'gone wrong' - epilepsy in temporal lobes and other parts of the brain elicit false perceptions of objects as they do OBEs and NDEs where a consciousness unaware of consequences of neural dynamics tries to interpret what is going on through creation of stories - an example given before in the link to the page on angels.)

DO magical/random methods give you the computers we use to talk across the planet? no. Science gives us those computers and they allow for rich, consistant, communication when compared to 'astral travelling' - so your conceit is totally and utterly unjustified.

What MY use of scientific perspective is to bring the IC into the 21st century AD, offering consistancy and no 'mumbo jumbo' - no stories necessry to validate the IC dynamics, the science research into brain function gives us facts of nature, simple.

Chris.

Look there is nothing I do not understand about the points you make - its not that complex, though you like to think it is.

Don't waste your time in repetition to me.

But really, Chris, honest question: have you ever thought that maybe there is something wrong with the whole thing since you are the only one that actually "gets it"????

I mean, there is no reason to be alarmed, maybe it's not that the whole empanada is inherently wrong, maybe the problem is an external one... like perhaps you are an extra terrestrial?

That would explain your obvious, overwhelming superiority, that's for sure.:bows:

Lightangel stop flirting with all the men !

lightangel said:

like perhaps you are an extra terrestrial?

That would explain your obvious, overwhelming superiority, that's for sure.:bows:

Click to expand...

What? You didn't know? Chris is a Vulcan...

Live long and prosper

trojan said:

Lightangel stop flirting with all the men !

Click to expand...

Yeah! All those other men!!

Lol!!!

The emoticon's name is 'flirt' but it conveys MANY MEANINGS... besides, I like it very much

In those cases where I've used it, it is asking a question and being expectant about an answer, that is all

In this last case, it is being innocent....

yeah right

trojan said:

Why would angels have a function ? I don't believe any being has a function. What function do dogs have or algae or elephants -a being is being, why must it always be subserviant to the idea of function - its that work ethic thing again I have absolutely no function and i don't want one ! I'm not a household appliance !

Click to expand...

Trojan,

I said function or purpose. Who said anything about subservience. I think you're leather corset is too tight. That said, I think all beings have a purpose for existing. All life has a purpose, whether it's to hoover sludge from the ocean floor or for me to learn patience (among other things) Nothing to do with the work ethic - I'm no puritian! I can spank with the best of them!

Topal

topal said:

Trojan,

I said function or purpose. Who said anything about subservience. I think you're leather corset is too tight. That said, I think all beings have a purpose for existing. All life has a purpose, whether it's to hoover sludge from the ocean floor or for me to learn patience (among other things) Nothing to do with the work ethic - I'm no puritian! I can spank with the best of them!

Topal

Click to expand...

when i used the word subserviance what i was trying to get at was the idea that purpose precedes existence - which i thought you were implying. Whereas i see no purpose in anything at all on a universal level - but I'm getting a little deep for myself here - oops there i go into the abyss. I guess i just can't see why any being would have a purpose for existing - i don't have one - the eternal me cannot not exist, dress it up in a purpose or not it still exists - ooh Topal you're right about this corset - i can't do philosophy while i'm wearing it - anyway coming to terms with purposelessness is the project/purpose of all depressives i guess

I think many people take refuge in purpose, it saves them from looking into the abyss - it eludes me though - i better take this corset off

trojan said:

I think many people take refuge in purpose, it saves them from looking into the abyss - it eludes me though - i better take this corset off

Click to expand...

Maybe our purpose is to look into our own personal abyss and come out the other side like all good greek heros? ALways the hardest thing to do. Depression is a signpost to that I think.

Topal

trojan said:

Look there is nothing I do not understand about the points you make - its not that complex, though you like to think it is.

Don't waste your time in repetition to me.

Click to expand...

Based on your prose so far, you appear to know little/nothing about IDM/IC+ or more so have made false assumptions based upon your opinion of yourself. But we can test that - review this and get back to us on what it says and the consequences of that in the context of meaning derivation and the IC etc:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html

If you are as 'knowing' as you think you are then you should be more than willing to demonstrate that with an appraisal of the above page since it is an important one in covering understanding of meaning and the presence of entanglement in self-referencing.

Chris.

lightangel said:

But really, Chris, honest question: have you ever thought that maybe there is something wrong with the whole thing since you are the only one that actually "gets it"????

Click to expand...

There are those who 'get it' easily, some who will struggle but thats ok - eventually the dots will link up - perseverence furthers.

The main issue is that many who take their metaphors literally can get 'upset' when they find their specialisation is 'just another specialisation'. A lot of people have put in a lot of energy in their profession (years of study etc) but that energy has been at the level of expression, of words/symbols/languages etc rather than a focus on the essences of our species overall. Thus the VALUE they give to their profession and their identity wrapped up in 'being' a professional is suddenly diminished and with that they can experience feelings of being marginalised, apparent loss of importance, guru status etc etc - I witness a lot of that from 10th century BC fundamentalists where, from the IDM perspective, they have missed A LOT but need to hide that 'error' since it can be too humiliating to accept when the fact is it is not their fault per se, it just shows how easy it is to be sucked in to something where there is no formal methodology in validating the perspective (i.e. no science involved)

If you focus carefully on what is covered in IDM and demonstrated in the Emotional IC material you will find validation for versions of most 'occult' material where we seperate the wheat from the chaff (hex 23) ;-) - see the page "The Logic of the Esoteric" - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/esoter.html

IDM is a GENERAL as is the 'universal' form of the I Ching (aka IC+). The properties and methods associated with IDM and IC+ etc are 'new' discoveries from a science perspective - one may have 'intuited' something but there has been to date no formal mapping of neurosciences to metaphor formation. IDM resolves that and so brings in the training of individuals in IDM PRIOR to their training in specialisations - and so they get the essences of meaning and the identification of the basic categories of meaning across ALL neuron-dependent life forms. What THAT does is make learning the language of some specialisation a lot easier, picked up faster, than before since what is BEHIND the specialisation is GENERAL and so not unique to that specialisation.

IDM applies to ANY information and so allows one to pick up things quickly when compared to the 'traditional/specialist' methods of the past - it allows for the use of one metaphor to aid in fleshing out another and in do doing IDM formally shows the SAMENESS behind all of the DIFFERENCES.

Chris.

topal said:

Maybe our purpose is to look into our own personal abyss and come out the other side like all good greek heros? ALways the hardest thing to do. Depression is a signpost to that I think.

Topal

Click to expand...

To identify one's purpose as a species-member (rather than unique conscious being) just get the 63-ness of a hexagram associated with your persona. The MBTI mappings of type to hexagram for the basic eight MBTI categories are given:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/type.html

We can go to 4096 'types' or just 64 or just 8 - depends on the level of precision required. THEN comes instances of type where unique consciousness further differentiates.

The 63-ness describes the 'end' of the journey through a hexagram and as such the base attractor of behaviour. 24-ness covers the beginning and what we keep coming back to, repeating history etc. Since 63-ness maps to ending so we can neutralise a journey by bring it to its close early and so stopping it going through its full journey, disallowing it to 'get up steam' but close it 'naturally' using 63-ness (which is equivalent to the use of the Nash Equilibrium in game theory)

Note that the identified patterns apply to ANYTHING using self-referencing since X-ness is a property of such (and so applies to DNA/RNA categories etc etc)

Chris.