|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 21:53:50 GMT -5
Me neither. That blew my self aware mind. We currently have an ant problem here and we've been murdering self aware ants by the hundreds. It got me to pondering the deeper implications of the hive mind. Is a collective mind somehow self aware? I think there is such a thing as 'group entity' or 'group energy' that does have a level of self-awareness to it. Yeah, I think so too.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 21:56:55 GMT -5
The article didn't mention anything about screaming in agony and finally hanging themselves in their cribs. It said they died. The alleged study was about the significance of 'love and nurturing' which I see as the need to engage with the world that the child just entered. Everybody needs a reason to live. We commonly see old folks peacefully dying when that reason is no longer there. This reminds me of the guy who fell out of a plane without a parachute. All the way down he kept saying to himself, so far, so good. Could he be seen by the Hubble telescope?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 22:30:03 GMT -5
Classic case of happy-face-stickering and someone trying to live a concept. Yeah, doesn't work out so well, although there's the same outcome for the body. Such a drama If you look at his body language, there's no doubt that he's very much afraid of the bears. But he's drowning that out with lots of mental noise. Just compare the shots where he's playing with the foxes with the shots where he's playing (or attempting to play) with the bears. So, as most of the guys involved in that story have said, it's not a surprise that it ended as it did.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 22:33:30 GMT -5
The Harlow monkey experiments mentioned in the link above, saw these in a psychology class over 45 years ago. The point, it shows the baby monkeys suffer, without comfort and affection, even that from a doll. The thing is that to anyone who has children, that's a total no-brainer. The experiment just shows what everyone intuitively knows - unless they don't or pretend not to. I'd say the fact that they called off the experiment with the babies kinda proves that point.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 22:39:08 GMT -5
Obviously, animals learn from experience to be wary of certain situations. If they didn't, they wouldn't survive long. You call it being traumatized and conclude suffering, but you don't know that. Part of my interest here is to get peeps to stop knowing things they don't really know.
As for the infant, she can't remember being raped because there was no 'me' structure around which to form a traumatic event. Same reason you can't remember anything as an infant either. I don't know why her life is hell, but I'm not going to assume it's because of an event she doesn't remember. Well the thing is that there are some things that are known that you have to go out of your way intellectually NOT to know them. I'm not saying that that makes these things unquestionable, but equally, the nature of life is such that we can question the as.s out of some things, and we are still going to know them. In this case, if you hear a baby screaming, you can't NOT know that it is suffering. (There are certain other things that you also can't not know....ahem....) Precisely. Spiritual thinking, as you say, or trying to live a concept in my vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 22:49:05 GMT -5
Me neither. That blew my self aware mind. We currently have an ant problem here and we've been murdering self aware ants by the hundreds. It got me to pondering the deeper implications of the hive mind. Is a collective mind somehow self aware? I think there is such a thing as 'group entity' or 'group energy' that does have a level of self-awareness to it. That's the inner self (Seth)/inner being (A-H).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 22:53:31 GMT -5
Yeah, just hearing about some of these experiments breaks my heart. Sometimes the price of knowledge is too high. The result of the experiment is a total no-brainer. Any 3 year old can predict what the monkey is going to do. Only someone totally disconnected from their true self needs such an experiment to prove a point or dispel doubts. Unfortunately, science promotes and glorifies such disconnected attitudes and individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 23:00:14 GMT -5
The Harlow monkey experiments mentioned in the link above, saw these in a psychology class over 45 years ago. The point, it shows the baby monkeys suffer, without comfort and affection, even that from a doll. I remember seeing a documentary about that when I was a child. It was quite horrific to me then, and really, not all that different now. Well, what would the brown bear say here?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 23:06:28 GMT -5
I can't watch it because I know I will suffer if I do. I'm okay with suffering if I think it will serve value, but in this case, I don't think it will. The experiment is a GREAT example of your point though. Yes, thanks. Reef's link is much worse, it discusses a similar experiment with human babies. Yup, sick. I just hope that the fact that they called it off half way thru means the babies at least taught them a lesson. The article mentioned that it is difficult to verify where and when the experiment happened, only that it repeatedly shows up in older psychology text books. Could this mean that they've later scrubbed any evidence because it was so unethical?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 23:12:13 GMT -5
The article didn't mention anything about screaming in agony and finally hanging themselves in their cribs. It said they died. The alleged study was about the significance of 'love and nurturing' which I see as the need to engage with the world that the child just entered. Everybody needs a reason to live. We commonly see old folks peacefully dying when that reason is no longer there. I stayed at a friend's house in America once, I was quite young, but he and his wife had just had a baby. He went off to work early, around 5. The baby started crying at around 6.30. I expected Mom to get up but I think she was struggling to handle motherhood, and so left the baby. By 7 the baby was wailing. By 7.30 the baby was screaming. I was suffering, and was in dilemma over choice of going to Mom's bedroom to get her up, or go and get the baby myself and try and calm her...but I didn't feel I had much experience of babies, and I didn't want to insult the family. The baby was suffering. In the end I prayed and called on angels. Amazingly enough the baby calmed in about 5 minutes and THEN Mom got up. You just can't really compare old folks being at peace with impending death, and a baby not being given love and affection and dying as a result.
Actually, in some nursing homes for old folks, conditions are even worse, they not only not get any affection, they are not even kept healthy. So the comparison is a dud no matter how you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 23:21:17 GMT -5
It also brings us one step closer to seeing the truth about Seth's self-aware electrons. You mean like facebook and ST are self-aware? Some critters work collectively to support the group, like bees and ants. I don't believe there's some kind of biological communication going on, so it must be happening on another level. It makes me wonder if they are somehow self aware as a collective, and this somehow translates into individual self awareness. I've talked about the starling clouds before. I don't know how it's done, but it's not choreographed by bird brains. Wonderbeauty: Impressive. Some fish do the same. Actually, humans too. But it requires a high degree of alignment which means the inner being is taking over. One of Papaji's stories comes to mind, about driving a car to a nearby city and having no recollection of it when he arrived because he fell asleep at the wheel. He then used to ask: "I was asleep. So who was driving the car?"
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 23:27:58 GMT -5
I don't really have a problem defining ego like that, just adding it to the list of criterion necessary for an experience of suffering, along with the ability of self-recognition in a mirror (which incidentally seems to vary from animal to animal within the same species - presumably meaning I can torture one to death and it suffers, and another, not). I'd be careful of putting too much faith in the mirror test. It just seems to be the best we got. It's the best you've got if you have to rely on external instruments (and external evidence). Which means the limits of understanding (or proof) are identical to the limits the consensus trance sets. Seth talks a lot about this dilemma of modern science.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 6, 2018 5:47:34 GMT -5
It also brings us one step closer to seeing the truth about Seth's self-aware electrons. You mean like facebook and ST are self-aware? Some critters work collectively to support the group, like bees and ants. I don't believe there's some kind of biological communication going on, so it must be happening on another level. It makes me wonder if they are somehow self aware as a collective, and this somehow translates into individual self awareness. I've talked about the starling clouds before. I don't know how it's done, but it's not choreographed by bird brains. Wonderbeauty: I still think it's about the 'self-awareness' happening on a level prior to the appearance of collectivity (or individualtion). Anyway, I just wanted to mention how I watched a cool Attenborough documentary a few weeks back called Empire of the Ants which detailed how the ants are evolving. Diffeerent colonies of the same species that previously just annihilated each other on contact are starting to form communities, forming a super-colony. It kinda mirrors the history of man, and the complexity of their behaviour both individually and collectively is fascinating stuff. The individual colonies have long been thought of as a super-organism, so a bit like those forrests of trees that look individual but are connected by one root system beneath the surface, and I think it's the same with the ants, except the beneath the surface there doesn't refer to the ground. And more expansively, its easy enough to see how it could be applied to life in it's entirety, when we consider 'moving as One'.Worth a watch if anyones bored.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 6, 2018 6:44:34 GMT -5
Yeah, just hearing about some of these experiments breaks my heart. Sometimes the price of knowledge is too high. The result of the experiment is a total no-brainer. Any 3 year old can predict what the monkey is going to do. Only someone totally disconnected from their true self needs such an experiment to prove a point or dispel doubts. Unfortunately, science promotes and glorifies such disconnected attitudes and individuals. Absolutely, I'm entirely confident such experiments could demonstrate nothing that I couldn't glean intuitively, although I'm now questioning whether that can be applied universally. But of course science is based on empricism anyway, and so in many respects is without heart, and there are pros and cons to that. Yet without heart only goes so far, and perhaps that's what some folks need to learn. I too found myself wondering about the mind-states of those who would carry out such experiments, but on balance it should be said the vast majority of scientists would no doubt abhor those studies, both then and now, and attitudes have changed in recent times, perhaps even in part as a result of such studies. Btw, I just want to take the opportunity to make clear I don't have any problem with folks posting them, I not so sensitive as all that.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 6, 2018 7:17:45 GMT -5
I can't watch it because I know I will suffer if I do. I'm okay with suffering if I think it will serve value, but in this case, I don't think it will. The experiment is a GREAT example of your point though. Yes, thanks. Reef's link is much worse, it discusses a similar experiment with human babies. What's weird is I genuinely don't see it like that at all. In fact I actually seem to feel more sympathy for the monkey for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on. It may just be the added image on the front of the video to be working with, rather than just text, or maybe that I'm attributing less ability for the monkey to be able to make sense out of its predicament, or to relate to the different species not interacting with it (I didn't even see whether there were other monkey's around it). Anyway I'm honestly not sure. What I am 100 percent sure about is that I see their potential to suffer as being fairly equal (although if anything the monkeys mental development cycle is quicker, albeit not so advanced in the long run - making it's potential to suffer at that stage in it's development even greater than the babies) and that I attribute no more value to the baby humans life than the baby monkey's. I firmly believe that isn't a pretence but the result of insight and compassion. And I'll go even further and say that I see the view you've expressed there as being based on the remnants of the sort of mind-set that led to the experiments being performed in the first place. Sorry if that sounds harsh, or positioning, I mean it quite objectively.
|
|