Defying the Deity by AnthonyT

HK: That sounds like Gnosticism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 11:32 AM

Quote:
My take would be that the universe is much larger than we think, and what we see is limited by the lifespan of light.

Very possible. If we could see every star and galaxy in the universe, the night sky would be white (or maybe beige...)

I can understand a hesitance to embrace the big bang as a theory, and people who consider it western theological stuff. But the steady state universe doesn't work for me, even with red shift caused by extinction.

For me, the idea that our universe might have burst out of a white hole on the other side of a black hole makes a lot of sense, and at least doesn't leave the why behind the big bang unexplained (and also uses known principles and observations as a basis). I'm undecided on the ultimate end fate, myself.

Agreed on chaos theory and diffusion, and I also suggest that localized accumulations of matter might have enough gravity to overcome at least somewhat the expansion energy. Apparently there's a supercluster out past Virgo that us and a number of other nearby galaxies are actually moving towards even though it's far away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:38 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
My take would be that the universe is much larger than we think, and what we see is limited by the lifespan of light.

The lifespan of light?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:01 PM

Space has dust. Dust plus light = diffusion and/or electron excitation and absorption, therefore a finite distance light can travel. He might be talking about something else though, there's a few other scientific hypotheses I've heard about limitations of light and distance.

There is a slight problem with JUST this explanation in that depending on how much dust there is you could expect that far away objects should appear more blurry than they do, but I'm forgetting the other explanations involved.

However, there is also the curvature of the universe to consider.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:00 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Anthony's book analogy is interesting. I think of it like God is a room and time is a piece of thread floating in that room. God experiences it all at once, it is happening, it happened, it will happen, its all the same at once. God isn't constrained by the mundainities of time. But we are, we are born and then we live and we die and stuff happens after we die and at that point we're sort of not stuck in time anymore, but not in the way that God is not stuck in time.

The universe is too big and amazing for me to figure out how it works.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:09 PM

Byte,

When I have more time, I can logically get to there from nowhere, but I think there ultimately are some things which ultimately I suspect cannot be determined with certainty.

Okay, briefly trying.

Tired light, the light travels 16 billion light years, and it is crossing strands of space time, getting reabsorbed and re-emitted in less than absolute perfection but with no measurable difference. However, over billions of years, there is a redshift that will ultimately reduce everything to 21 cm. This creates the illusion that we are at the center of the universe.

Outside of that, there might be more stars, but they do not make our sky white because their light cannot reach us. since we do appear to be in the center, there is only one alternative to the tired light, which is that 16 billion years ago existence didn't exist. This seems illogical to me, especially when you look at the universe, and the speed at which things develop. The Solar System, for example, was born out of the nebula of the collision of two stars. This background already burns almost the entirety of the 16 billion years without explaining where those stars came from. To make matters worse, even looking back close to 16 billion years we see no primodial goo but rather a universe behaving exactly like our own full of a similar matter distribution and development of galaxies and stars, all states can be seen at the edge as can be seen at the center, and all states are available.

Far more logical to me is that the universe is infinite in age, or at least so close that we cannot measure it from here. This so called static state universe ties in to the world as we know it: creation is not an event, but an ongoing ever turning process. As the wheel turns, our creation and destruction is always occurring.

So, all of that said, where did we come from?

In the world according to dreamtrove, we live in a black hole. This is because the matter in the universe when added up fits the density equation for a black hole, meaning that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.

What is the size of that black hole? I don't know. More than 32 billion light years across. That's the only thing I can say for sure. Possibly much larger.

Does it shrink, expand, or stay steady?

It probably expands. This assumes that there is an "outside" and that as a black hole we draw from it.

So, what's it like inside? The same as inside any black hole: there is a universe. This has to be so because the black hole has no center. Since gravity seeks to collapse to a center, and it can never reach the so called singularity, it will immediately fall into orbit around it. Which is basically how all other systems operate anyway. But, as it does so, as stuff collapses into the whole it draws in the fabric of space time, the tangled weave of threads. So, the collapse into the hole is not matter, but threads. Thus, space itself is being drawn in, which increases the amount of space inside the black hole.

This means the black hole is dimensionally transcendental, and outside, should there be an outside, it will appear far smaller than it does to us. Were we ever to reach our universal event horizon, and escape it, we might look back to see a small dark storm circled furiously by the destruction of spacetime, and outwards, an infinite field of who knows what. More stars and galaxies? other black whole universes? Something that never occurred to us at all?

When the matter splashes into the hole in creates a vibration in the goo in which it lands, instantly creating a vibration, frequency, which creates the uncertainty between A and B, which in turn defines the limits of said thread, which in turn will create sympathetic vibrations in others, leading to a complex network of threads which will later cross to create sub atomic particles and energies, and in so doing create space itself, and therein lies your big bang, but I can't see how we can be at all assured of having any idea when, or how fast, or how large, but my off hand guess would be far greater than has yet been guessed.

This also logically suggests that inside the black holes with our universe, exist universes. If all threads within are attached to those without, then we can predict the size of the inside, but we have no way of knowing if they are.

All of this of course gives us more questions than answers.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
In the world according to dreamtrove, we live in a black hole. This is because the matter in the universe when added up fits the density equation for a black hole, meaning that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.

Could you please be specific about the "density equation" for a black hole? I know very well the equation for escape speed, and how it involves the distance from and mass of the object to be escaped from. However, that equation in no way applies to the total matter in the universe. ie: the density of the entire universe is nowhere near what's required of a black hole.

For example, to make the sun a black hole, you'd have to fit the entire mass of the sun, every bit of it, into a sphere 3 km across. Think about that. You're saying the universe as a whole is this dense? Nonsense!

Anyway, I'm very curious as to where you got this idea of yours. Please do share that equation.

As for the whole universe being inside a black hole - I love the idea in a sci-fi way, but as for actual science I'm afraid it's more nonsense. The laws of physics break down inside a black hole because the gravity is so strong that regular matter and energy as we understand it cannot exist. The empty space inside atoms collapses. The empty space between quarks collapses. This is not a place where well ordered existence can happen.

Now, if you want to picture black holes as portals to another plane... ok. Sci-fi is fun, and I like that idea. Black holes are weird and mysterious enough that it makes for a good tale. But it sure as hell doesn't gel with any physics equations that I know.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:45 PM

And back to the point of thread (although I'd love to go on talking about black holes for a while - I just got to these in my classes before winter vacation, and there's never enough time to talk about all the weirdnesses of black holes!)

My view of religion has been somewhat altered by discussions I've had here in RWED. First, my background: my mom grew up Mormon and escaped (her words), and so I grew up with no religion except a few church-goings with friends. I didn't think about it much except to be happy that I had my Sundays free, and no Bible school in the summer. So I'm perhaps a bit biased that I didn't have the "training" that most westerners have.

Actually, I always find it somewhat confusing that people feel uplifted by religion. It must be all that training I didn't get, because any mention of Bible and Jesus and holy ghost and all that makes me feel completely stifled, like I can't breathe properly. All that sin and guilt and stuff. Ick! I just can't see any joy in that.

Whatever - my experience on these threads, some time ago, was relating to evolution. Anyone remember those threads? In those, I began to see that Western religion is a continuation of the need for humans to see ourselves as the center of the universe. OK, we've been forced to admit that the earth isn't the center of everything, but the human way of being and of thinking is, right? It *has* to be, right?

Certain posters on RWED (no longer here, and I miss them) could not imagine that any process other than that of a human-like diety could have brought life into being. I think this mentality applies to a whole lot of people out there. They need the universe to be run by a idealized human form who feels emotion - love, jealousy, anger - just the way they do. They have to believe that nature was "engineered" in the same way that humans would engineer something. The can't imagine that any other creative process could do it.

So, in order to feel powerful and in control of their lives, people need to believe that all of nature is controlled by a being like them. They cannot fathom a "natural" process that is capable of doing more than they can do -- by which I mean the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. This is not a human-like intelligence, but I believe it is quite capable of creating all that we see and all that we are.

Maybe that's frightening, because this form of "god" - the machine of nature - doesn't feel love or pity. And maybe it's not useful, because it doesn't care who we sleep with or whether we put cash in the bucket on Sunday.

It's more comforting and more useful to create a God in the form of a human being - a male authoritarian human being, of course - so that we can feel that the proper kind of power is in charge.

It's quite self-centered of us, I think.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:56 PM

Mal

It's not my idea, it's a widely circulated one, and I learned it in astronomy many years ago. I will dig it up.

But before going further I will echo Byte's statement earlier: I have no desire to threadjack Anthony's religion thread into a discussion of cosmology, so I'll start a separate thread for this discussion.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:58 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"a male authoritarian human being, of course"

Hello,

A female God would not bother me.

I've worshipped a few women in my time. ;-)

Even a sexless, nonhumanoid God would not bother me. I often think of an energy field when I try to picture God.

I do find it comforting to imagine a God who loves, however.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mal

It's not my idea, it's a widely circulated one, and I learned it in astronomy many years ago. I will dig it up.

But before going further I will echo Byte's statement earlier: I have no desire to threadjack Anthony's religion thread into a discussion of cosmology, so I'll start a separate thread for this discussion.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Excellent. I have more thoughts, but I'll save them for the new thread.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"a male authoritarian human being, of course"

Hello,

A female God would not bother me.

That's because you're cooler than the av-er-age bear.

Quote:
Even a sexless, nonhumanoid God would not bother me. I often think of an energy field when I try to picture God.

I've been there too. Long story - the end result is that when I felt afraid as a teen and a young adult, whether sitting in class feeling insecure or lying in bed fearing the under-the-bed monster, I would picture a glowing blue energy field around me that nothing could pierce. I'd go ahead and let my imagination put that monster under the bed, have it reach around a giant skeletal hand to stab me with it's bony fingers, and the field would repel it. It totally worked.

I see this as evidence of the power of the human mind. I have no problem with religion in that sense - it allows us to tap into our own strengths, that 90% of our brains that we "don't use." This role of religion is a good one. And in a way, it supports that human form of God. God really and truly is us, the power we have inside ourselves to be stronger and better.

The problem is when it doesn't stop there. The problem is: My god doesn't like abortion so you can't have one. My god doesn't like gays so you can't get married. My god loves America so if you don't believe in my god than you're not a real American. Etc.

That stuff pisses me off to no end.

Quote:
I do find it comforting to imagine a God who loves, however.

Because you're exceptionally cool, Anthony, I hope you'll take this as philosophizing and not an insult...

In this, you're no different than the caveman who came up with stories to explain thunder and lightening. They needed the comfort.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:42 PM

Mal4Prez: White holes and fecund universes. It's unlikely that we'll ever have evidence for white holes, beyond what we can observe backwards through time to our own big bang. But we can mathematically demonstrate white holes, and we also know that there's very likely a white hole in every black hole. That in turn suggests a great deal about the actual cause of our big bang and universe.

I actually agree with DT on the universe being in a blackhole, except for I have doubts about string theory, and I actually like the yo-yo universe more than I like a static universe. Because, predictions about black holes suggest that they actually eventually evaporate completely, which would fit with theoretical black hole collapse with the emission of hawking radiation. Alternatively the big bang could be a worm hole, but the problem is no one can really propose how to get matter back across the white hole and out the black hole on the other side.

EDIT: Oops, new thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:47 PM

Back to this topic, my dad was also a renounced mormon, my mom went to church a few times, probably mormon church, her family was less religious and all of her living relatives are not at all. Dad's family is still mormon, but aside from hurtful comments about my life choices, we all get along all right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 7:34 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Not to do with god, or black holes - but - I've been suspicious for a while of any religion that says - god(s) is(are) all powerful, unknowable, and forever - but, not to worry! We've got god(s) all figured out! And we can speak for god(s)! Here are god(s)' rules, this is the word of god(s).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 4:15 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Not to do with god, or black holes - but - I've been suspicious for a while of any religion that says - god(s) is(are) all powerful, unknowable, and forever - but, not to worry! We've got god(s) all figured out! And we can speak for god(s)! Here are god(s)' rules, this is the word of god(s).

Hello,

I agree with you, Kiki. It bothers me when men claim to speak with the authority of Gods. I much prefer the philosopher priest, who admits imperfection of understanding and walks beside you in trying to puzzle out meaning. Rather than the priest-king who claims to be the mouth of God and the conduit of his will on Earth.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 4:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What's less obvious is how many good decisions were made by such internal moral compasses, and how many bad actions were taken by those who either lack them, or ignore them.

What some people call an internal moral compass, other people call "the voice in their head". How many crazy people said "god" told 'em to do it?

If I have belief, it is that the universe is real, that we must make our own moral judgments, and that internal voice which many people rely on tends to be as often wrong as right. Why put all of this on some conveniently (for us) un-locatable being? I think that's just a way to evade responsibility.

Anyway, that's not helpful to the discussion, so carry on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:04 AM

MALACHITE

Hey Anthony,
I agree with what you eventually said about how God would not command you to do something sinful, but that some other (demonic) entity could. I can't think of where that biblical reference is off hand. Paul briefly mentions in 2 Cor 11 that "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light", but I'm thinking there is another verse in 1John or Peter that talks about how God would not order us to sin...
As far as Abraham sacrificing Isaac, it would be worth looking up some online concordances for some explanation. Some of the relevant verses are Genesis 22:12-14 12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”

A neat thing about this is how it foreshadows how God himself would later "provide" by sacrificing his own son for humanity just as he provides a ram to be offered up instead of Isaac.

Also, in the New Testament (Hebrews 11:17-19), Paul praises Abraham for his faith and also gives a possible insight into Abraham's thought process:

17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death."

God had already promised Abraham that his descendents would be as numerous as the stars and that Isaac would be crucial in God's plan towards redeeming humanity. Abraham believed God's promise, and so was able to take the leap of faith and offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Again, if Paul's reasoning is sound, there is another hint at what God would do to redeem humanity (have Jesus rise from the dead).

By the way, I think it is fine to have questions and doubts about God and the Bible (I sure do), but hopefully those questions and doubts give a person motivation to pursue God more and seek answers. That being said, there is something valuable about having faith and knowing that you won't get all the answers... Christianity has its share of paradoxes like that...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:33 AM

Interestingly, none of my voices particularly govern morality, but day-to-day decisions and struggles.

I do have a moral reaction, but it's more of a "this is so wrong" gut feeling, or maybe some (to me) righteous anger. And I'll occasionally get the warm fuzzies if I see someone else doing something nice.

Unfortunately, this only means I only think I know how not to do wrong, and I have no idea how to do right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:53 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I see this as evidence of the power of the human mind. I have no problem with religion in that sense - it allows us to tap into our own strengths, that 90% of our brains that we "don't use." This role of religion is a good one. And in a way, it supports that human form of God. God really and truly is us, the power we have inside ourselves to be stronger and better.

I've often said that if I were to "worship" anything, it would be the human mind; the complexity of it and the things I can only imagine it capable of (if we had access to that 90%) leave me speechless. Of course I don't mean it seriously, but you get the idea.

Quote:
Actually, I always find it somewhat confusing that people feel uplifted by religion.

That one's easy, you got part of it already. The "man as God" thing--and thanx for that, nobody else mentioned it and I think it's a very valid observation. Also, religion can make people feel safe; they're not alone in the world (as we all know we are and feel it); then there's the HUGE sense of community, of belonging. "Safety" is partly having someone to look to for answers, to please and know that, by pleasing, that afterlife is assured, too. And more, I'm sure.

It's interesting to me that there are two others here with a parent who "escaped" Mormonism like I did. If they ever told you why, I'd be fascinated to know. And your mom's word for it is right on, Mal4; it's how I always felt, too. They don't let go easy, that's for sure! To "officially" escape, you have to talk to an elder (in other words, be counseled to stay) to get removed from their rolls. They literally pursued me for several years after I renounced it...all the way to one of the communal houses I was living in--how they found me I'll never know, but there they were! I've related the story of how we got rid of them before, and I never saw them afterwards, but it certainly was a shock to see how far they'd follow me and try to get me "back in the fold".

To me it is right on the cusp of being a cult in many ways. Jim's family comes from Southern Idaho--they're not Mormon, tho' one of his nephews converted. If you're not Mormon in the town where they lived, you're excluded from doing business with many; his nephew converted partly because Jim's brother had an insurance firm and he was able to deal with customers; was NOT the only reason he converted, but it helped, and he eventually moved across the Bay from us and started his own agency. We went over a couple of times, but we have nothing in common. And of course he had gone on to marry a Mormon and have a good number of kids...

I just find it interesting that within this small population we have three "escapees". Others have left their original churches, certainly, but a) Mormonism isn't THAT common that even having several in this small community with family backgrounds is probably a bit unusual, and b) Nobody else has mentioned before having LDS family backgrounds or being one themselves and having gotten out. So I find it interesting, being an escapee myself.

As to the moral compass, Sig, I disagree, to a point. I believe if we are TRULY honest with ourselves...which means a lot of soul searching, a lot of becoming self-aware (which most ultra-religious DO NOT DO)...we know what's right and wrong far more often than not. If you mean some inner voice which says "do this" or "don't do that", I agree. But if you mean following your belief in who you want to be, but not blindly, and it being very important to you, I believe actually thinking about words and actions ("meditating", if you will, as someone mentioned) will virtually always give the right answer. It may be the wrong answer for others--such as believing one should intervene in another's life "for the good" (which is a fallacy anyway). It might have negative consequences, but if we came to a decision out of self-awareness (in other words, recognizing if our impulse might be part of our own flaws, not for the right reason), it's still the right decision for US. There will always be mistakes, so in that respect I agree the decision can be wrong, but I believe with honesty and self-knowledge, we know what's right.

That of course precludes all those who don't take their religion seriously or just use religion to escape responsibility, or take their religion so seriously that what "god" wants MUST outweigh their own self-awareness. It precludes them automatically because in my view one can never leave the decisions to some other person or power; that's abdicating responsibility.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This is NOT to be offensive or in any way diss your faith, Mala, just asked out of honest curiosity. You say having questions should hopefully be "motivation to pursue God more and seek answers". My question is: Why is it more valuable to try and pursue God and seek answers relating to him, rather than pursuing self-awareness and seeking to know and be what one believes is right, and accepting oneself and others? What is the purpose in working hard to understand another, even an all-knowing god, rather than working hard to understand oneself?

I hope I'm not offending, I just don't understand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 8:17 AM

MALACHITE

Hi Niki,
I'm probably not understanding where your comment is coming from, since I didn't read the entire thread, so forgive me. I don't see an either/or between introspection and pursuing God. In fact, the pursuit of God calls for rigourous introspection and self evaluation. In the context of Anthony's first post, Anthony had a question involving the nature of God, a biblical story and a what-if sort of question. I think self examination and discovery is certainly important, but it seemed like he was looking to understand the nature of the Christian God and the meaning behind a particular biblical story. Introspection would only get him so far... Just like, if I don't understand a math problem, becoming self aware isn't going to help me learn how to solve that problem -- though I suppose I might feel more at peace with my lack of knowledge. I would hope that a person would know that they don't have all the answers within them and would then decide to seek external help. That is just what he did when he posted the question in the first place.

We may be approaching this from 2 different mindsets. I don't believe that an individual is perfect, and I don't believe humans are even able to evaluate themselves perfectly. I also don't think any human can evaluate/judge another perfectly, either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:21 PM

Quote:
How many crazy people said "god" told 'em to do it?

Fewer. That was my point of how "what's less obvious." That would be the part that's more obvious.

But I find that my internal voice is never wrong, but I am sure that sometimes people get the wrong advice, like about killing John Lennon. But it's rare. I'd simplify this to "our subconscious is more aware of right, wrong and consequences than our conscious minds, which are well trained at lying to us."

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:32 PM

People have more than one internal voice. I'm sure you would too if you listened. Your internal voices will have contrary tones and opinions and advice. One may be 'the Authority' and it might appear godlike to some. It uses lots of 'shoulds' and 'should nots' and berates you when you have disobeyed. Another might be 'the petulant child' which says 'I want...' 'I deserve...' 'It's unfair..' Another may comment or observe your voices. The omnipotent narrator in your head. You choose to listen to one voice at any time, or they may all shout above one another in competition to be heard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:05 PM

I'll let DT explain it, but he told me he USED to have multiple voices like you describe, but after a year of over-medication on psychiatric drugs, he says he only has one.

You description is familiar... I have a slightly different break-down of voices though.

I don't really have a voice that takes priority over the others. I have one that thinks over what I want to do for the day that I call the taskmaster. I have one that gives advice and tries to calm down panic attacks and other episodes. That one argues with the vicious one that's trying to destroy me. Then I argue with both of them. Another one occasionally tells those two or all three of us to shut up when it gets too irritated. The last one is the third person narrative, who along with the taskmaster pretty much ignores all the drama.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:08 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
A female God would not bother me.

For many years when I was a teenager and not getting along with my mom, God took the voice of a woman, and I prayed instead to God the Mother.

I also now conceptualize God as universal energy or collective unconscious that connects all life.

I sort of think of God as similar to the alien that talked to Jodie Foster in Contact. It takes the form of whatever we need at the time.

Or we imagine it in the form of whatever we need at the time. As long as humans need strength and comfort outside of themselves, we will harness whatever resource we must to seek it.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'll let DT explain it,

Me? Oh no. I don't know how this works.

Oh, I get it. She wants me to say something, so here it is.

Magon. That's how *your* mind works. A couple of months ago I was researching this topic and I found some radically conflicting analyzes of how this worked. So, I went onto forums discussing the topic, and sure enough, people had a wide varierty of experiences.

Roughly 10% of people have no internal voice at all. About half of the remainder have one internal narrative voice. The rest have any of an assortment of combinations, many of them no doubt unique.

This lead me to the conclusion of what I thought was a fairly profound revolution that we are internally radically different. in spite of how similar we are in so many other ways.

We all have the same special genome to build from, so we are physically extremely similar.

We grow up in the same society, and so we learn to talk together, and as a result, we speak the same language.

Ditto for science, history, culture, etc. with perhaps more variation.

But we all learn to think by ourselves. This means we might come up with anything as product.

So, yes, I hear what you're saying: We might have voices we can't hear, and if we were more aware, we'd all hear more voices.

You may well be right; but that doesn't mean they would be the same voices as one another.

Your voices seem to reflect the id, ego and superego, but that's not how it's going to work for everyone. Some people see pictures, some don't. Some hear voices, some don't. Some people have separate languages stored in adjacent regions, one block for spanish, one for english, etc. Other people store the words side by side, where dog, perro and chien are all stored next to one another, rather than in their respective language zones.

Our brains share some similarity either dictated or encouraged by genetics. But to some extent we really do seem to be all different. I propose "sanity" is merely the ability to communicate between our brains and the other brains we meet. Ergo, I think "do you hear voices" is a really bad diagnosis of mental health.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'll let DT explain it, but he told me he USED to have multiple voices like you describe, but after a year of over-medication on psychiatric drugs, he says he only has one.

You description is familiar... I have a slightly different break-down of voices though.

I don't really have a voice that takes priority over the others. I have one that thinks over what I want to do for the day that I call the taskmaster. I have one that gives advice and tries to calm down panic attacks and other episodes. That one argues with the vicious one that's trying to destroy me. Then I argue with both of them. Another one occasionally tells those two or all three of us to shut up when it gets too irritated. The last one is the third person narrative, who along with the taskmaster pretty much ignores all the drama.

Yes, that is pretty much what I meant. Everyone will have different kinds, I was probably describing my own and some people may have one dominant voice, but the others are still there, perhaps quieter.

Psychosis is when you are unable to identify the voices as being your own, some kind of recognition capacity has been turned off in your brain, and you perceive the voices as being external.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:29 PM

DT, again some links can be useful.

I don't believe that someone would have no internal voice, but they have not understood that there are narratives played out in their mind. It's a bit like some people claiming they never dream. Everyone dreams, just some people don't remember them.

You see this in children, because they have no learned to internalise their dialogues, and it is fascinating to watch and listen. Of course we call it play, because we don't like to admit that we are constantly playing out dramas and fantasies in our minds the same as they do.

edited to make sense

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:38 PM

I got a kibitzing request to alter my definition of sanity to include the words "communicate anything inside your brain with other brains" on the theory that a serial killer may be able to communicate with others psychotically while keeping the thought "must gut the kids like rabbits" dancing in the back of his mind until he caves to it.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:42 PM

Yeah, well that's pretty farfetched.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
DT, again some links can be useful.

I don't believe that someone would have no internal voice, but they have not understood that there are narratives played out in their mind. It's a bit like some people claiming they never dream. Everyone dreams, just some people don't remember them.

You see this in children, because they have no learned to internalise their dialogues, and it is fascinating to watch and listen. Of course we call it play, because we don't like to admit that we are constantly playing out dramas and fantasies in our minds the same as they do.

edited to make sense

Better than links of where I was a couple months ago, randomly surfing, girls gone wild notwithstanding, it might be a better idea to surf and come to your own conclusions.

I did run into this idea consistently: 10% of the people have no internal voice. I asked around and found this was true, I found 5 people out of 50 did not, and their basic feeling was "what's an internal voice" and "oh, that would be weird" and "doesn't that slow you down when you read?" and some really weird ones like "thoughts are pictures not words."

When I was a kid I had many internal voices. I think that you're right about dreams, and perhaps you could awaken the internal voices of those who have none, but they do not have them, it's not just awareness.

I find that it takes a fairly radical jarring of the neurochemistry of the brain to awaken dormant regions, and the changes can be striking and unsettling for the individual.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
DT, again some links can be useful.

I don't believe that someone would have no internal voice, but they have not understood that there are narratives played out in their mind. It's a bit like some people claiming they never dream. Everyone dreams, just some people don't remember them.

You see this in children, because they have no learned to internalise their dialogues, and it is fascinating to watch and listen. Of course we call it play, because we don't like to admit that we are constantly playing out dramas and fantasies in our minds the same as they do.

edited to make sense

Better than links of where I was a couple months ago, randomly surfing, girls gone wild notwithstanding, it might be a better idea to surf and come to your own conclusions.

I did run into this idea consistently: 10% of the people have no internal voice. I asked around and found this was true, I found 5 people out of 50 did not, and their basic feeling was "what's an internal voice" and "oh, that would be weird" and "doesn't that slow you down when you read?" and some really weird ones like "thoughts are pictures not words."

When I was a kid I had many internal voices. I think that you're right about dreams, and perhaps you could awaken the internal voices of those who have none, but they do not have them, it's not just awareness.

I find that it takes a fairly radical jarring of the neurochemistry of the brain to awaken dormant regions, and the changes can be striking and unsettling for the individual.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Reading is an example of using an internal voice, unless these poor souls still have to vocalise to understand text. A lot of people are not very aware, but there will be voices and pictures too. Perhaps deaf people may be an exception. But it doesn't really matter how thought occurs, but a narrative will take place in people's heads. It may be as simple as "coke or juice?" but it will be there, unless they are in a vegetative state, and even then there is evidence that the 'monkey mind' will be still be active one way or another.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 3:04 PM

That might be explained by the people who have picture thoughts, Magons.

Sometimes when I'm reading and I get really into it, the book plays before my mind like a tv episode. When I'm not that into it, I have a reading voice.

Maybe some of these are people who only have the visual version.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 5:18 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I don't see an either/or between introspection and pursuing God."

But only if that pursuit was through the bible?

What if I were to pursue god through Islam? Or Mithraism? Or Voodoo?

Not that I probably would do any of the above, but I don't find the bible to be a superior source of enlightenment. And it is after all only one of many, many beliefs that exist, have existed and will exist.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 5:27 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Sometimes when I'm reading and I get really into it, the book plays before my mind like a tv episode. When I'm not that into it, I have a reading voice."

I have done both as well. I remember getting a call while deeply involved in reading something and it was like waking up to a different reality. Perhaps it's a form of hypnosis.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 5:32 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I don't believe that someone would have no internal voice, but they have not understood that there are narratives played out in their mind."

Just today I was doing some routine labwork. I know that I was thinking things, b/c I once stopped to ask myself what was going through my head. But in general my thoughts passed through so lightly, so inconsequentially, that I have no memory of those internal conversations, except the one I stopped to notice.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 5:34 PM

My sister has no narrative reading voice, which might be due to a brain abnormality, but the result is that she reads 2000 words a minute with 100% comprehension. Actually, I've tested her on it. She could respond by quoting the entirety of whatever you gave her to read, verbatim. She can't now, of course, because of the cancer.

Brains are funny things, i thought it was curious that we were not alike. I find I can't read faster than the narrative voice, I'm not sure if I need to hear the words internally, I suspect not, but the reading voice won't shut up, so I am stuck at its speed.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 5:41 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Here's some interesting tidbits:

- dyslexia has been linked to auditory processing errors
- those speed reading courses are designed to free people from the internal voice so they can read faster.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Here's some interesting tidbits:

- dyslexia has been linked to auditory processing errors
- those speed reading courses are designed to free people from the internal voice so they can read faster.

1. Sometimes it's the eye. My sister knew someone who had this problem, and it went away with blue glasses. Astigmatism of some weird form.
2. I know, I tried them.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
Actually, I always find it somewhat confusing that people feel uplifted by religion.
That one's easy, you got part of it already. The "man as God" thing--and thanx for that, nobody else mentioned it and I think it's a very valid observation. Also, religion can make people feel safe; they're not alone in the world (as we all know we are and feel it); then there's the HUGE sense of community, of belonging. "Safety" is partly having someone to look to for answers, to please and know that, by pleasing, that afterlife is assured, too. And more, I'm sure.

This is another thing that annoys me about how some people - a minority, thank goodness - use religion. It gives them a sense of superiority. I'm going to Heaven and you're not! Whatever.

Quote:
It's interesting to me that there are two others here with a parent who "escaped" Mormonism like I did. If they ever told you why, I'd be fascinated to know. And your mom's word for it is right on, Mal4; it's how I always felt, too. They don't let go easy, that's for sure!

Well, my mom's complicated. She was running from more than religion, is my feeling, though she doesn't talk about it. There's all kinds of weirdness tied up in that family, most of which I can only guess at.

However, I can tell you that she got married and pregnant while quite young (not in that order, and probably in some measure on purpose to help with the getting away thing, is my guess. The wedding is not spoken of. I didn't see pictures of the wedding until four shots were discovered on a dead uncle's camera when I was in my 30s. My parents looked so young, and fucking terrified.)

She spent four years in the states but away from her family in CO, five years in Germany, another year and a half in PA, then settled in Omaha, NE at just about the time I was becoming aware of life outside myself. (I wasn't the firstborn.) After all these years away, the Mormons showed up at our door in NE: "Hey Ruth, where you been?"

I'm not sure what she said to make them go away, but she must have said something good. They left us alone.

Many of her siblings - she has 9 - and many of my cousins on that side are now Jehovah's Witnesses. Preachers. Scary shit. My sister and I have enjoyed exhibiting our piercings and tattoos when we visit these folks. It's the only way I can handle them - let them know that I'm sinner and proud of it so leave me the hell alone!

OK, seriously, as much as my parents passed some of their baggage on to me, I'm grateful that they taught to marvel in the beauty of the world I see, rather than forcing me to blindly obey the words in some book.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2011 9:56 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mala, obviously we come at things from different perspectives. I understand what you're saying about the original question, I wasn't addressing that. You addressed my question with

Quote:
I don't see an either/or between introspection and pursuing God.

I see them as two distinctly different things. Yes, introspection can be part of pursuing God, but not all combine them--some simply think they are "pursuing God" by blindly obeying what, to me, can only be man's interpretation of God. For them, what they see as "the pursuit of God" definitely does NOT call for rigourous introspection and self evaluation, in fact, quite the opposite. Introspection, on the other hand, needs no god. I guess my question was why do they have to be in conjunction with one another; isn't introspection, the effort at self-knowledge and self-awareness, sufficient unto itself? I assume you feel otherwise; ergo, we see things differently.

I just don't comprehend the need for "God" in the equation of pursuing self-awareness. That's just how I see it. I don't see the need for external help, nor do I see religion as being the "external help" one might need. I certainly don't believe anyone is perfect, but I don't see the pursuit of a god as enhancing perfection. Where that comes in, I believe in acceptance that nothing and no one will ever achieve perfection, or perfect understanding of self or others. I guess another way to put it is that I don't believe anyone or anything has the answers, and I don't believe in worshipping anything or anyone.

I believe that striving for self-awareness and acceptance can get us as close to understanding ourselves (and through that, others) as is possible, and the rest is acceptance of our (and others') flaws. I know of no external source which could give better answers than we find within ourselves, when it comes to ourselves, if that makes any sense. And the fact that any god's teachings are interpreted by humans means, to me, that one is seeking understanding by looking to another, flawed, human.

I also agree that, far too often, people who are religious THINK pursuing/worshipping/following a god somehow makes them better than others, kind of a stamp of "better", and I think that is counter-productive. I know really good people who are Christian and believe in God; I know really good people who either have no religion or pursue another form of "force", or what have you; and I know people who do really bad things but BELIEVE they are good because they are religious.

Judging is unacceptable, to me. I'm not sure what you mean by "evaluation". But I firmly believe that if we HONESTLY strive toward self-awareness and self-knowledge, we can achieve as close to understanding, improving and acceptance as is possible, without an external source. It's a very long and difficult process, and one which can never be achieved perfectly, but I accept that.

No doubt this is repititous as hell; I don't know how to put it in just the right words. It's just different perspectives is all.

Mal4, your story made me smile. Amazing how tenacious, and good at finding us, they are, isn't it?? I'm glad your mom found freedom. Jehovah's Witnesses?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2011 11:13 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

" Jehovah's Witnesses?"

Hello,

I spent a year studying with Jehovah's Witnesses while I was in High School. The group I met had a rather encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, and they were willing to answer questions. We didn't see eye to eye on several things, but they were nice folks.

I know some people have horror stories about Witnesses. Just wanted to relate that they're not all overbearing nutsos.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2011 11:25 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I wouldn't mind if they were all overbearing nutsos even, Anthony, if they didn't show up on my doorstep periodically to invade my privacy and try to push their bullshit on me. Religious prosletyzers are on the very BOTTOM of my list, so that's where they live.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2011 11:43 AM

HKCAVALIER

Hey Niki,

I think they do their fellow Americans a real service when they go door to door like that. They give us all an opportunity to be as unfriendly as we wanna be without consequences. That's a rare gift. We just have to seize that opportunity. People need to learn to say "no" whenever they want to say "no" and not just when it's "p.c."

Americans are too nice--it's one of the reasons the alpha psychopaths get a free ride. If I were a billionaire, I'd hire troops of fake Jehovah's Witnesses and send 'em around to teach people boundaries. Just be as obnoxious and pushy as possible and when folks either cave entirely to their demands or threaten to call the cops, I'd have 'em hand over some nice little anarchist pamphlets about what just happened.

No one can invade your privacy with a knock on the door and a question or two unless we let them. If a JW comes to my door, they will not be staying any longer than I want them to. To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, "Rude is good. Rude works."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2011 11:47 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think it is possible to be polite and firm at the same time.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2011 11:53 AM