I realize that labels can be deceiving, but It would help our dialogue if, in profiles, posters listed basic interests, likes, dislikes, philosophy and/or religion, or lack of same.

I think the statement that "science is the only way" is dogmatic, and contrary to the principles science espouses. It's like saying "Christiantiy is the only true religion". Science has no final say on anything, it's guided by theories(and theories are not final or infallible truths) that are calibrated everytime there are new findings or observations. Science can't even explain the black hole phenomena (scientists call it a "singularity" since no laws of physics apply). Even the quantum theory is controversial, and there's still the string theory. Emprical science only applies to the physical universe. It's flat. It has essentially no purpose but to be source information for new technologies and knowledge for our material progress and physical satisfaction. It essentially does not involve itself in serious human affairs, like our search for meaning and values, art and culture. Even for the basic phenomena of human memory , consciousness , and subjective experience science has no firm explanation. But we use them all the time.

Religion/Mysticism often makes intelligent/creative people to be waisting time on things that do not exist. All those great minds could be put to practical uses like psychology.

Religion is for the weak minded sheep who do not feel comfortable without having a book of rules to live by.

My perception of the following are appended.

Reality.
That which exists in what we call the Universe, independent of 'mans' thoughts or concepts. (things we bump into if we walk around with our eyes closed - try it sometime).
Those thoughts or ideas (in their multiplicity) which occur in the mind of any individual . These thoughts, whilst really occurring, may or may not be True reflections of Reality itself (I consider them as models of Reality). When good, they can be very good, but one never knows for certain!

Truth.
The explanation of events which really did occur without any interpretation of mans memory.
'Man' may well have memories of what is thought to have occurred, but since these are based on an unquantifiable recollection of experiences, cannot be relied upon to be the Truth. Neither can any medium created by man be relied upon as the Truth (this includes email, photographs, letters, videos, telephone conversations, speech etc.).
The greatest difficulty with the Truth, is that one never knows when one has recognised it - it always has a probability attached, but often ignored.

Religions.
Religions are all Faith systems - they become necessary for anyone who is unable to decide on a 'what is to them' realistic view of causes.
Even atheists have beliefs based on their supposed 'realistic views of causes'.
I do not favour trashing any belief system, except those which, in the longer term, seem to do more harm than good for those who adopt them (or the rest or society).

Isn't "Reality" a function of man? Without man there's not even a concept of "Reality". Can the stones, trees, and rivers have any concept of "Reality"? If not for man's tendency to conceptualize and interpret will there even be existence or reality? Will there be "touch", "bumps", colors?

I think what we call the physical universe is a spread of matter and energy, nothing more. Without man(or any conscious being), his consciousness, perception , conceptualizations and interpretations, this matter and energy are nothing. For who will call them "matter" and "energy" or "reality" in the first place?

Who created man to give reality attention and is that matter/energy, nothing other than matter/energy without man being in it to call it what it is?
I think that matter/energy gave man the idea to call itself and its reality whatever it wants man to call it and that man is really matter/energy.

I reckon that the phrase "matter/energy gave man the idea to call itself and its reality" is quite circuitous. Are you equating matter/energy to idea? Or that matter/enegy generates idea , then to use that idea to look upon itself and call itself this and that ? Does this mean matter/energy is conscious and looking on itself?

The following is interesting. However, because this site is connected with the work of the late Herbert W. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God, I am reluctant to recommend it. But I will say that the following, about The Reluctant Messenger, is interesting.
The following is from RELUCTANT MESSENGER

BTW, for a relaxed approach to meditation take a look at http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/meditation.htm

What would differentiate idea from energy or matter?
What would separate consciousness from matter/energy/idea?
What would find reason to call itself this and that, and would that be something different than matter/energy/consciousness?

Not necessarily. Consciousness doesn't need to look back upon itself in the idea that it observes itself any more than we need to look back on ourselves when we are moving forward with clear intention and no distraction.

[quote name='Joesus' date='Dec 04, 2007, 08:09 PM' post='86012']
[quote]
What would differentiate idea from energy or matter?
[/quote]
Energy and matter are physical entities and lend themselves to measurements and empirical observations.

Ideas , thoughts , consciousness are not physical entities , can't be measured and their nature are still debated up to this time.

Fundamentally therefore, they are different.

[quote]
What would separate consciousness from matter/energy/idea?
[/quote]
Consciousness is a big subject on its own. From to the extreme materialist to the extreme spiritualist, consciousness has different meaning and function. For the materialists, conciousness is an illusion. For some it is an emergent property that took control of physical/biochemical entities like us . For others , its the soul. For some its God Himself. For me, I'm still puzzled about its real nature.

Not all matter is seen or experienced or measured, only that which is discovered, labeled and measured.

Thoughts, ideas and consciousness can be observed and experienced just as matter is measured, with the human senses.
What the human senses observe is not always measurable particularly the acceptance and relative understanding of physical measurements of relative matter and energy.
The acceptance and sensory experience of matter and energy is only relative to the personal experience and cannot be stabilized as a point of reference for all individuals in a particular experience of reality.

I would say that matter and energy are relative to the senses and that thought is relative to matter and energy not only as a system of measure but as an energetic compatible to matter as a manifestation of matter.

You're only split in what you know and what you think you need to believe.

When you say "Thoughts, ideas and consciousness can be observed and experienced just as matter is measured, with the human senses", what of the human sense are you referring to? Can we see ,hear, smell, touch,or smell thoughts, ideas and consciousness?

Personally , and as an expression of deep human pride, I don't want to believe that we are all just a lump of cheap and useless atoms and molecules bound together by random chance. But this is a world where science , empiricism, nihilism, and materialism are the most rational , the most logical, and the most accepted. This is a world where things like mind, consciousness, soul and spirit will always be denied because they are not seen and not directly measurable, and are therefore not scientific.

This is a world that not only lost its mind, but lost its soul. :-)

All senses are engaged in consciousness. Not all senses are attuned to consciousness.
Well then I guess your pride will have to take a back seat to majority rule.
No not exactly. Always is a long time, God is not democratic, and neither is God dependent on science for validation.
Soul is very much alive even if the world is full of blind people.

What, exactly, do you mean by "soul"?

Someone once said the soul is halfway between body and spirit. Another Teaching describes the heart as the seat of the soul, where consciousness of god resides as the individual, the extension of God that is evolving through personal experience.

Yes, but what is it? What are its properties? How is it created and destroyed?

Well the way I see it there are no properties that limit the soul to a particular form or no form.
Lets say you were to create a living reflection of yourself and you sent it on its way to meander through time and space. If it keeps in touch with you it would have some foundation to refer to as origin, maintaining a healthy lifeline to sustain itself.
Whether it utilizes potential to its benefit and progresses within the realm you have given it or created, would tend to give it some length of time to exist, as long as you exist for it to reflect the inner potential of you the creator.
If it does not fare to well with its environment and separates itself from its creator it may have no point of reference and may distract itself from the potential of reality, atrophy and fade away into illusions created without any point of reference in stability. If the illusions created take it away from potential and the atrophied connection to source withers to a point where it no longer is able to take care or sustain itself it may seek to find an alternate source of energy, maybe even try and siphon it from another reflection of the creator.
If it becomes troublesome to the other reflections and the creator sees that it is becoming cancerous to the whole then the creator pulls the plug and severs its ability to draw energy from source be it directly or through secondary sources.

This is the fundamental problem. Rick is asking about properties, creation, and destruction - whick are phenomenal contexts. Joesus is talking about spiritutal or nuomenal contexts. Rick's question, w/c is phenomenal , has no spiritual answer. The question , therefore , is in the wrong context. There's no way we can prove the soul or the spirit, by its very context, empirically.

That's why materialists will never be spiritualists if they only use their contexts, tools and methodologies. They will remain atheists if they stick only to empirical proofs.

Reminded me of this article....






Ancient teachings and modern science agree: you, I, all living things, all things in existence are made up at their most essential level of vibrating, pulsing energy.
For millennia, mystics have recounted their experience of this energy, which is said to manifest in our hearing awareness as a humming vibration around and within everything else.
In the Sanskrit tradition, this sound is called "Anahata Nada," the "Unstruck Sound." Literally, this means "the sound that is not made by two things striking together." The point of this particular distinction is that all ordinary audible sounds are made by at least two elements: bow and string; drum and stick; two vocal cords; two lips against the mouthpiece of the trumpet; the double reed of the oboe; waves against the shore; wind against the leaves. All sounds within our range of hearing are created by things visible or invisible, striking each other or vibrating together, creating pulsing waves of air molecules which our ears and brain interpret as sound.
So, sound that is not made of two things striking together is the sound of primal energy, the sound of the universe itself. Joseph Campbell likens this unstruck vibration to the humming of an electrical transformer, or the (to our ears) unheard hummings of atoms and molecules.
And the ancients say that the audible sound which most resembles this unstruck sound is the syllable OM. Tradition has it that this ancient mantra is composed of four elements: the first three are vocal sounds: A, U, and M. The fourth sound, unheard, is the silence which begins and ends the audible sound, the silence which surrounds it.
There are several traditional and allegorical interpretations of this ancient sound.



The lovliest explanation of OM is found within the ancient Vedic and Sanskrit traditions. We can read about AUM in the marvelous Manduka Upanishad, which explains the four elements of AUM as an allegory of the four planes of consciousness.
"A" (pronounced "AH" as in "father") resonates in the center of the mouth. It represents normal waking consciousness, in which subject and object exist as separate entities. This is the level of mechanics, science, logical reason, the lower three chakras. Matter exists on a gross level, is stable and slow to change.
Then the sound "U" (pronounced as in "who") transfers the sense of vibration to the back of the mouth, and shifts the allegory to the level of dream consciousness. Here, object and subject become intertwined in awareness. Both are contained within us. Matter becomes subtle, more fluid, rapidly changing. This is the realm of dreams, divinities, imagination, the inner world.
"M" is the third element, humming with lips gently closed. This sound resonates forward in the mouth and buzzes throughout the head. (Try it.) This sound represents the realm of deep, dreamless sleep. There is neither observing subject nor observed object. All are one, and nothing. Only pure consciousness exists, unseen, pristine, latent, covered with darkness. This is the cosmic night, the interval between cycles of creation, the womb of the divine Mother.




It might be said that the ultimate aim of Yoga is to enter this third dreamless realm while awake. Yoga means "yoke" or "join." Through yoga we "join" our waking consciousness to its "source" in the world of pure, qualitiless unconsciousness.
Which brings us to the fourth sound of AUM, the primal "unstruck" sound within the silence at the end of the sacred syllable. In fact, the word "silence" itself can be understood only in reference to "sound." We hear this silence best when listening to sound, any sound at all, without interpreting or judging the sound. Listening fully, openly, without preconceptions or expectations. The sound of music, the sound of the city, the sound of the wind in the forest. All can give us the opportunity to follow the path of sound into the awareness of the sound behind the sound.
When one really "listens" to this silent sound, this unstruck vibration, one comes inevitably to stillness, to pure and open existence. The poet Gerhart Hauptmann says the aim of all poetry is "to let the Word be heard resounding behind words." The sound behind the sound. And, in making the sound of AUM, we hear this unstruck sound most clearly in the instant when the last humming vibrations of the "M" fade away. At that moment, that instant separating audible sound and silence, the veil is thinnest, and our listening awareness is most expansive.

At that moment of silence, to use William Blake's words, the "doors of perception" are cleansed, and "everything would appear to man as it is, infinite."

. . .Some consider Pranava synonymous with the "Word" of Christian scripture. ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.") Aum, or Pranava, is the "sound of rushing waters" described by Christian mystics and saints. Pranava, or Aum, is the actual voice of God, the manifestation of God as sound, by which God creates, sustains, and dissolves the universe. In the purified and celibate yogi, Aum can actually be heard as a sound and felt as vibration. Those yogis who can hear pranava may focus on it as a powerful meditation technique. Another word for the Pranava is "nada," meaning inner sound. The Pranava is considered to be the Maha Nada, or the Great Inner Sound. It is also called the Anahata-Nada, or "unstruck sound."