How does that apply to the search for the higgs boson prior to the finding of the Higgs Boson.
The difference is, Higgs theorized (that is to say, demonstrated theoretically and conclusively) the existence of the boson particle named for him, and we eventually developed scientific methods to discover it. That is nothing like what you're claiming for 'consciousness' - you can't even keep your own statements consistent, let alone cohesive.
Human consciousness exists and there are teachers teaching humanity how to expand that awareness beyond the body's physical limitations..And their are student who do the practice and they write books on what they have done. Many people have had the OBE, some by accident and others by practice.
A lot of this is nonsense; it sounds like you're stringing words together to make sentences because you like the way they sound, honestly.
Out-of-body experiences are based not on actually 'projecting' yourself out of your body, but on affecting the part of your brain associated with kinasthesia (the perception of movement) to create the illusion of moving outside of your body. Then the other parts of the brain attempt to fill in the holes. It's the same process that happens in dreams.
You can read the evidence of their experiences. You can be taught in a class. What other evidence you are asking me to supply. Stop asking for something as you are not sure of what you are asking for. Make it clear what evidence you need. I called your attention to the experiences of Paul Twitchell in the book he wrote called the Tigers Fang.
This is not evidence, Jesuis! I could teach a class on dragon-riding, even write books about it, but that wouldn't prove the existence of dragons that you could ride on. But that forms the sum and total of the 'evidence' you can provide, people writing books about it and teaching classes about it. What you need is something like a clinical trial (since you're talking about presumed human abilities), some way to isolate the variables so that we can check them scientifically and determine what might actually be causing them. But just simply repeating your claims that these people touch the divine doesn't cut it and never will.
It may have taken us this long to have this much empathy but it was always with the help of theists not atheists that we are accomplishing these things. That much is historically clear.
That's because for the majority of human history, we've been chained down by unproven theistic beliefs (which includes your beliefs, Jesuis). If someone admitted to being an 'atheist', they would be driven out or killed by their community. Is that an example of how 'theists' have enhanced human empathy? Not even decades ago, it was thought to be perfectly okay to slaughter people by the thousands, or millions, merely because they didn't share a religion or ethnicity - Saddam Hussein attempting to use poison gas on the Kurds after the First Persian Gulf War being an example of this, not to mention the efforts by Adolf Hitler, a Christian, to exterminate millions of Jews during the Second World War. I could recount dozens of examples where followers of a religion were perfectly willing to engage on pure butchery directed at nonbelievers.
Tell me this, Jesuis - if atheism had not been a crime punishable by death or exile for most of human history, do you think that advances in empathy, morality, and ethics would still have been limited to gnostic theists? I don't think it would have, for the simple reason that atheists can be empathic, ethical, and moral, and seem to be the ones pushing such behavior today.
No I meant that psychology as you might be thinking is more about the psychotic and not the sane. People who believe in God and do as Mother Teresa, Mahatma Ghandi, Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King did are not considered inhumane of psychotic. Their message is on humanity not inhumanity. That psychology does not get processed by the psychologist because they are so busy with the more inhumane disruptive personality.
No, psychology is about dealing with human behavior, which means both normal and abnormal. They have to establish norms before they can determine if someone is outside of the norm. Also, I think you're confusing psychology - the study of human behavior - with psychiatry - the medical treatment of abnormal behavior.
You are always higher than me - you know there is no God. That ladder has been climbed.
Wrong, Jesuis. I describe myself as an apatheist - one who neither knows nor cares whether gods exist. In short, I don't know if gods exist or not, and I don't particularly care whether they do either. I'll listen if someone makes claims, but I really have better things to do than try to find gods who seem bound and determined to hide from their 'creations'.
You have not been paying attention.
This is insulting. I have been paying attention to every single word you've written. Your inability to explain yourself, to remain coherent and cohesive, is nobody's fault but your own. That you would blame another person's lack of understanding of your confusing theology on them not paying attention is purely contemptible.
All life is conscious, it is the awareness part that is being debated. In the human form that level of awareness has evolved beyond the physical limitations imposed on it by the senses. Buddha sat under a tree and attained enlightenment. He created the eight fold path. Of course it was no some walk in the park it was a determined effort on his part after having learned many techniques from others.
How do you know
all life is conscious? As long as your beliefs rest on an unexamined assumption, you cannot claim that they're knowledge.
How do you know
Siddhara Gautama (known as the Buddha by some) actually attained enlightenment? Buddhist beliefs in enlightenment rely on the ability to be reborn into life after life, which is categorically unproven and frankly unprovable. When you take out those beliefs, you're left with (as Graybeard said) the equivalent of a self-help manual - impressive for the time, but we've done better since.
Nothing is accidental. Consciousness is likened to energy it cannot die. A person being born with high levels of empathy has been so inclined in his evolutionary journey.
liken consciousness to energy and claim that it cannot die. Leaving aside the fact that energy isn't 'alive' to begin with and thus cannot 'die' - the saying is that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it merely changes form - how do you demonstrate consciousness outside of living things? How do you demonstrate that consciousness has an independent existence to begin with? Where's the evidence?
Words are limited. Has anyone ever convinced anyone of anything on a debate forum like this? Granted If I had got you to read said books I would not have been having this discussion for the words and their meanings are clearly in there and you might have used them better than me.
Indeed, words are limited. That's why I think you'd be better off focusing on what you actually want to say rather than trying to make it sound 'mystical'. When you compound the inherent limitations of words by using words which are confusing and contradictory, you create nothing but problems for yourself.
Also, I take offense at your presumption that if I had read these books of yours, I'd have turned into a believer in your religion
. Do you seriously think that all people have to do is read a book and they'll magically be convinced to follow your religion? The mere fact that someone believes in something and writes a book about it does not demonstrate that the thing they believe in exists. The sooner you figure that out, the better, because it's getting tiresome to have to keep refuting the same basic points because you ignore my refutations.
Yes it is my certainty that gets everyone up on the wall. I am forcing a critical thinking change which ain't coming. Theists know God and atheists don't -- which is evident.
Your certainty gets everyone upset because you don't have any basis in fact for being so certain to begin with. It's arrogance that fuels your belief, not knowledge, and the fact that you don't recognize this will cause you no end of trouble. By the way, think about what you just said here - you're trying to force people to change their minds, but it isn't working. Doesn't that suggest to you that a change in tactics might be called for?
And no, gnostic theists do not know god. They think
they know god, but they have no evidence for it (aside from purely subjective stuff which they could have dreamed up out of nothing), and never have. What's worse is you, a self-proclaimed 'atheist', pretending that you are more certain than they are even though you only have their beliefs to go on.
No Consciousness is a God's creation. Mind is a tool that has desires in it to experience the environment of the physical universe but that it has overpowered man. The mind leads us throughout life to a death that indicates life has no purpose. The consciously aware say the mind is deluding us and we need to put it in check. We need to be more aware and not less.
Except you've said that gods are mental creations. You don't get to excuse your own god from that. If gods are mental creations, and consciousness is the creation of gods, then consciousness is created (or more accurately, caused) by the mind. You say we need to be more aware, not less; I agree. That means understanding things for what they actually are, not making things up in order to pretend that we understand them.
Are you willing to admit that your mind could be deluding you into these beliefs you hold?
What is a sufficiently developed mind in your mind?
I don't know for sure what a sufficiently-developed mind is. All I know is that certain higher-order life-forms appear to demonstrate consciousness, while the rest apparently don't. If someone can find evidence to show that other life-forms are conscious, then I'll consider it - but what I won't accept is someone arbitrarily declaring that all life is conscious and that consciousness is like energy when they don't have a single whit of evidence to demonstrate this.
According to the theists The mind has desires some positive and others negative.
Irrelevant, as desire does not demonstrate consciousness.
What that means is that anything that helps us to know our true selves is a positive desire and anything that makes us less aware and more addicted to the body and keeps out attention at the senses level makes us less and less aware of our higher self.
No, what it means is that you hold beliefs that you can't demonstrate, let alone prove.