Questioning The Book

[Meedan]

Interresting theory Meedan.

If what you suggest is true, then there would be no evolution. Simply because one cannot evolve into something one does not know.

But that doesnt explain us being here.

But what does explain us here?? I find it hard to believe that a Great Intellect evolved from out of nothing. Although i see no other option.

I'm not presenting a theory here. All I am saying is that minds cannot imagine 'new' things - things that are not based on things we have experienced.

What kind of evolution are you talking about? If you mean evolution of the Great Intellect, then yes, this observation makes that theory even less likely. So, if the 'Spirit' is a mind, this proves that part of the book wrong also.

I am really interested in what anyone thinks about why they would have chosen to use the word 'Spirit'.

[Meedan]

However, i am quite sure that when we progress as far as the great Thaori, we are more capable of imagining something new.

What makes you 'quite sure' of this?

[bomohwkl]

Because I am still stupid at the moment.

Because it seems that the more intelligent you are the more intelligently you re-order and re-arrange and add, cut and paste several ideas to reinvent something completely "new"(innovation, creativity and imagination) and more importantly useful. Less intelligent people have more difficulty to do that.

Modern art seems to involve strange imagination ( but personally, i find modern art fails to capture the beauty of the world yet the modern art itself is quite thought provoking)

The universe cannot exist if G.I itself cannot imagining something new. The "contradiction" roots at the difficulty of human mind imagining something new. The most likely explaination is that we are quite "stupid". And lastly, Thao seemed to emphasis the difficulty to understand the evolution of G.I

[Meedan]

Because it seems that the more intelligent you are the more intelligently you re-order and re-arrange and add, cut and paste several ideas to reinvent something completely as if "new"(innovation, creativity and imagination) and more importantly useful. Less intelligent people have more difficulty to do that.

You still have no reason whatsoever to think that minds can ever imagine something truly 'new'. Of course, we will be able to re-arrange our ideas faster, better, but imagining something truly 'new' is a totally different thing. So, you have no reason to think it is possible, apart from unjustified belief (faith)? It sounds like you are saying that it is possible to imagine new things because the book says it is.

Other issues to think about:

Why did the book use the word 'Spirit'?

Can you give a single example of something 'intelligent' that the book says, which makes it likely to be a true account?

[bomohwkl]

The universe cannot exist if G.I cannot imagine something completely new. Have you think what would happen if G.I cannot imagine something new?

Something to think about?

Why did the book use both Spirit and superior intelligence

Can you give a single example of something 'intelligent' that the book says, which makes it likely to be a true account?

Unfortunately, I have mentioned so many times. You have to find your own answers.

[Alisima]

I've slept and thought about the mind created something new.

The first thing i thought of was "a new what?" a new pencil? a new drumkit? a new computer? a new sense? a new experience?

For something to be new it has to be totally unknown. However, what you know and i know are two different thing. You may find something completly new while i may already have experienced it.

So new does not depend on the concept or thing being new but on the beholder who hasnt yet experienced it.

The irony in creating something new is that you need to re-order, re-arrange and add, cut and paste old concepts. Through which someone can experience something previously unknown.

In fact, i find it quite entertaining

[Meedan]

The universe cannot exist if G.I cannot imagine something completely new. Have you think what would happen if G.I cannot imagine something new?

Something to think about?

I have no reason to believe in any 'Great Intellect', since I now think the idea is unlikely and surplus to requirements. You seem to base your beliefs on other beliefs you get from the book, and you base those beliefs on other beliefs gained from the book etc... If we look for justification and use observation, the 'Great Intellect' couldn't have imagined matter.

Why did the book use both Spirit and superior intelligence

Even better question. Care to answer it?

Can you give a single example of something 'intelligent' that the book says, which makes it likely to be a true account?

Unfortunately, I have mentioned so many times. You have to find your own answers.

You certainly haven't mentioned any intelligent statement from the book in this topic, unless you deleted it before I got a chance to read it. The closest thing I can find is:

He seems to understand the state of our civilisation( political, economical and socially), the state of human psychology and undertsand Jesus mission.

It certainly does NOT take superior intelligence to write the statements made about any of those topics. Perhaps access to a few articles. For many years I have known about the state of our civilisation. When reading the book, I was thinking 'Yes, I agree', or 'Yes, I know'. There is no new information there. The Jesus mission? You are presuming that the book is true again, which is circular reasoning. Everything about the book reads like someone has combined many myths, beliefs and bits of science written before 1987.

It really sounds like you need to do what I did - get rid of all previous beliefs about the book, life, the universe etc.. then start again. Even if you again come to the conclusion that the book is true, it may highlight some areas that you are not thinking critically enough.

[Vesko]

Anyone who has paid any attention to their own minds, is aware that it is not possible to imagine something that you haven't experienced, or that isn't based on ideas that you have experienced.

Let's take the example of a computer program. To write any program, you need a fundamental resource, memory, and certain fundamental operations, such as storing and retrieval and the three (!) Boolean operations, AND, OR and NOT, from which you build addition, multiplication, division, etc. Once you have those simple things, it's smooth sailing from there. By thinking and experimenting, you could write any computer program using memory and those very few fundamental operations alone.
By paying attention to my mind, I have found out that my imagination works in the same way as a computer -- it has the fundamental resource of memory, and can perform all the Boolean operations. Much like making an arbitrary computer program, I could imagine anything, within the limits of the quantity of memory I have, the way I use those fundamental operations on this memory, and the time I have. Whether it would have value in the real world, that is another thing. I could imagine absolutely anything with the only condition that I've got all the abovedescribed fundamentals.

How can it be true that the "Spirit imagined experiencing feelings through a special creature. He had imagined Man...", let alone the universe.

It can be true because of what I explained above. It can be all the more true because the Spirit probably already knew himself (or herself ). By knowing his (her) own being, s/he could very well imagine Man's being as a mini-version of it. So what's the problem here?

The same goes with the counterintuitive claim that "the creator sought spiritual experiences through a material world".

Do you mean that he couldn't imagine the material world?

[Meedan]

Let's take the example of a computer program. To write any program, you need a fundamental resource, memory, and certain fundamental operations, such as storing and retrieval and the three (!) Boolean operations, AND, OR and NOT, from which you build addition, multiplication, division, etc. Once you have those simple things, it's smooth sailing from there. By thinking and experimenting, you could write any computer program using memory and those very few fundamental operations alone.
By paying attention to my mind, I have found out that my imagination works in the same way as a computer -- it has the fundamental resource of memory, and can perform all the Boolean operations. Much like making an arbitrary computer program, I could imagine anything, within the limits of the quantity of memory I have, the way I use those fundamental operations on this memory, and the time I have. Whether it would have value in the real world, that is another thing. I could imagine absolutely anything with the only condition that I've got all the abovedescribed fundamentals.

Notice that you include 'memory'. Without the memory (experience) of something, you cannot imagine it. It isn't possible to imagine things that are not based on things you have experienced (experienced either through self-reflection or through 'sense' experience). I am not saying that the 'Spirit' or 'Great Intellect' would not be able to do anything, since there would still be the self-reflection ideas to re-arrange and play with.

How can it be true that the "Spirit imagined experiencing feelings through a special creature. He had imagined Man...", let alone the universe.

It can be true because of what I explained above. It can be all the more true because the Spirit probably already knew himself (or herself ). By knowing his (her) own being, s/he could very well imagine Man's being as a mini-version of it. So what's the problem here?

Not having experienced matter, it would be even harder to imagine a 'special creature'. I agree that the Spirit's concept of 'Man' would just be taken from its own mind. I was really just saying that the spirit couldn't even imagine one atom, let alone a universe and creatures (that these minds will exist inside).

The same goes with the counterintuitive claim that "the creator sought spiritual experiences through a material world".

Do you mean that he couldn't imagine the material world?

Yes. Spiritual experiences through a material world? Why through a material world? The book gives a vague description (intentionally in my opinion ) then excuses itself by saying that Michel was finding it hard to understand, ("oh so no wonder I don't get it either").

[bomohwkl]

It really sounds like you need to do what I did - get rid of all previous beliefs about the book, life, the universe etc.. then start again. Even if you again come to the conclusion that the book is true, it may highlight some areas that you are not thinking critically enough.

I am now more interested in self-development in the area of my weakness of life. There is no point over-developed certain area of life while neglecting something. Also, it takes a long long time for me to really UNDERSTAND something in the book and FOC. I only find out that only through involvement of life (eg making choices, actions and interactions) that I can really understand the real meaning. If not it is just theoretical. I have not seen so much "power" within me until I really understand what I am really capable of when I am able to interact with Higher-self subconsciously and learn to observe the purposes of life and the universal laws.

Yes. Spiritual experiences through a material world?

It doesn't seem to make sense until you really live with the knowledge and prove to yourself that you really understand through self-demostrating...............

[Meedan]

I am now more interested in self-development in the area of my weakness of life. There is no point over-developed certain area of life while neglecting something. Also, it takes a long long time for me to really UNDERSTAND something in the book and FOC. I only find out that only through involvement of life (eg making choices, actions and interactions) that I can really understand the real meaning. If not it is just theoretical. I have not seen so much "power" within me until I really understand what I am really capable of when I am able to interact with Higher-self subconsciously and learn to observe the purposes of life and the universal laws.

It doesn't involve removing understanding - that would be VERY difficult if not practically impossible. It involves checking the justification you had/have for each belief. Asking why you believe something... Is that justification good enough?... Could I have been wrong about... Is that really sound logic?... All starting from a more objective viewpoint (it won't work if you can't achieve this at least to some extent)

Yes. Spiritual experiences through a material world?

It doesn't seem to make sense until you really live with the knowledge and prove to yourself that you really understand through self-demostrating...............

Why through a material world, why would the 'Spirit' think of this material world? 'Prove to yourself' is a phrase I hear religious people saying a lot. Obviously it is not possible to prove something to someone else if they don't understand certain fundamental ideas, but the way you have been saying it is the exact context that I hear religious people say it. They reject logic and the need for justification. 'How do you know this?' "I just know." "You will just know" "I have proven it to myself"

So how have you proven it to yourself? Choose any part of the book, how have you proven that part to yourself? There must be a way of explaining what proved it for you. Otherwise it is very very likely to be faith.

Next...

How could I know? What I was hearing was so fantastic! Perhaps I was hallucinating; perhaps I had been drugged; perhaps I would soon ‘wake up’ in my very own bed? ‘No, Michel,’ interrupted Thao, reading my thoughts. ‘I wish you would stop doubting in this way. Telepathy itself should be enough to convince you.’

Can anyone explain this? Surely the logic of such an evolved being should be a little better than that!

(I'll try to keep most of my posts in this topic, don't want to clutter the board with my sceptical nonsense)

[Vesko]

Let's take the example of a computer program. To write any program, you need a fundamental resource, memory, and certain fundamental operations, such as storing and retrieval and the three (!) Boolean operations, AND, OR and NOT, from which you build addition, multiplication, division, etc. Once you have those simple things, it's smooth sailing from there. By thinking and experimenting, you could write any computer program using memory and those very few fundamental operations alone.
By paying attention to my mind, I have found out that my imagination works in the same way as a computer -- it has the fundamental resource of memory, and can perform all the Boolean operations. Much like making an arbitrary computer program, I could imagine anything, within the limits of the quantity of memory I have, the way I use those fundamental operations on this memory, and the time I have. Whether it would have value in the real world, that is another thing. I could imagine absolutely anything with the only condition that I've got all the abovedescribed fundamentals.

Notice that you include 'memory'. Without the memory (experience) of something, you cannot imagine it. It isn't possible to imagine things that are not based on things you have experienced (experienced either through self-reflection or through 'sense' experience).
...
I was really just saying that the spirit couldn't even imagine one atom

No, what is meant above is memory as a capacity to remember, not any particular data record of a past experience. Memory capacity is required so that the result of imagination (which is, after all, a form of computation) can be recorded in memory once it is finished, so that it does not have to be computed again. Any figment of imagination does not require pre-existing data, with the exclusion of data making the capability of imagination itself possible. So, in the strictest sense, you are right it is not possible to imagine things not based on things that you know (or have experienced), but it is also true that once you have the knowledge of how to use those fundamental AND, OR and NOT operations, plus -- ta-da! -- intelligence, you can lack ANY other experience and still be able to imagine anything.
You can start by filling empty memory cells with random values and AND, OR or NOT them using your imagination to achieve a desired result, which you may then store (remember) in memory for later recall if you wish, or discard it if it is of no value to you.
An atom, like any other complex system such as our computers, is most likely something that can be designed via AND, OR and NOT logical operations.

[Meedan]

No, what is meant above is memory as a capacity to remember, not any particular data record of a past experience. Memory capacity is required so that the result of imagination (which is, after all, a form of computation) can be recorded in memory once it is finished, so that it does not have to be computed again. Any figment of imagination does not require pre-existing data, with the exclusion of data making the capability of imagination itself possible. So, in the strictest sense, you are right it is not possible to imagine things not based on things that you know (or have experienced), but it is also true that once you have the knowledge of how to use those fundamental AND, OR and NOT operations, plus -- ta-da! -- intelligence, you can lack ANY other experience and still be able to imagine anything.
You can start by filling empty memory cells with random values and AND, OR or NOT them using your imagination to achieve a desired result, which you may then store (remember) in memory for later recall if you wish, or discard it if it is of no value to you.
An atom, like any other complex system such as our computers, is most likely something that can be designed via AND, OR and NOT logical operations.

Sounds interesting, but I don't fully understand. Do you mean that from logic and intelligence alone we can imagine new ideas? I don't see how you explained that. If the intellect had logic then, yes, we can assume he had the concept of number. Could you explain again from there?

What is this 'desired result' you talk about? Wouldn't that be imagining something new?
Wouldn't the memory cells have to be imagined?

[Vesko]

Sounds interesting, but I don't fully understand. Do you mean that from logic and intelligence alone we can imagine new ideas? I don't see how you explained that. If the intellect had logic then, yes, we can assume he had the concept of number. Could you explain again from there?

Yes, logic and intelligence (in fact, only intelligence, since it can derive logic) suffice to imagine new ideas, because they/it can operate on any set of abstract entities, such as numbers, and perform any logical operation on them, to produce any other abstract entity or a set of those as a result, the latter being able to represent a particular design or a mental construct (idea). Intelligence is necessary to control the process in order to achieve a desired result. A desired result can be anything and differ arbitrarily from the initial abstract entities. Anything includes something completely new.

What is this 'desired result' you talk about? Wouldn't that be imagining something new? Wouldn't the memory cells have to be imagined?

According to the above, "desired result" can be anything.

[Guest]

It doesn't involve removing understanding It involves checking the justification you had/have for each belief. Asking why you believe something... Is that justification good enough?... Could I have been wrong about... Is that really sound logic?...

Understanding cannot be undone. It can only be proven wrong by life lessons, experience and manisfestation of things in front of you and within you. Since mathematics are the most logical language, do you think that the mathematical logic of superstring theory describes the observable reality? Something which sounds logical but don't agree with the observations at the widest extent is not the truth. For some people telephathy, astral projections, existence of after life sounds illogical. So, what is logical? Have you ever exam why they say that?

They reject logic and the need for justification. 'How do you know this?' "I just know." "You will just know" "I have proven it to myself"

You are self-contradicting yourself. Isn't that what you have proven to yourself a justification by itself? What is more important, we need to continously learn to verify the "beliefs" even through unsual circumstances.

So how have you proven it to yourself? Choose any part of the book, how have you proven that part to yourself?

That we are a spirit in a physical body. That we can communicate with higher-self through meditation and concentration. That's higher-self can assist your material needs. That material evidence is nothing compared with what you can really understand. That telephaty exists. That dreams sometimes provide solution and attention of life you need to pay attention of. Not through books but through practise and what I can understand from the experience.

Can anyone explain this? Surely the logic of such an evolved being should be a little better than that!

That's the problem of humanity. Coincidence and after coincidence? How many coincidence is required to convience you? What are the chances that it can happen like that?


In TP

Your Higher Self monitors you continually, by day and by night and can intervene to save you from an accident. Someone, for example, who is to catch a plane, finds that the taxi breaks down on the way to the airport; a second taxi called also breaks down - just like that... just like that? Could you really believe in such a coincidence

We should be aware of coincidence after coincidence. There are interesting things we can learn and understand from it!

There are so many explanations of near death experience from conventional scientific theories. Some people dumb it as effect of hallucination, the lack of oxygen in the brain and etc.. There all sounds logical from the bio-neuroloigical point of view but when you look at a wider perspective, something is wrong. Such logic is just a narrow logic. Aim for the widest logic!!

I would end it with a message from Buddha

Buddha said that any beliefs that we accept as true without personal verification are called `superstition`. Buddha said he knew becuase he had verified `the beliefs` through his own realizations, practices and recognizing the fruits of manifestations of the essential universal truths

That's bomohwkl post.