rationalskepticism.org

Kafei wrote:....

So, the reason I believe there's no consensus to this peculiar phrase is simply because no one in this thread has had this phenomenon in consciousness occur to them. ...

Kafei wrote:...
Ramesh Balsekar, a recently deceased guru of India put it this way, "What is the significance of the statement 'No one can get enlightenment'? This is the very root of the teaching. It means that it's stupid for any so-called master to ask anyone to do anything to achieve or get enlightenment. The core of this simple statement means, according to my concept, that enlightenment is the annihilation of the 'one' who 'wants' enlightenment. If there is enlightenment - which can only happen because it is the will of God (or Cosmic Law if you're not comfortable with the word God) - then it means the 'one' who had earlier wanted enlightenment has been annihilated. So no 'one' can achieve enlightenment and therefore no 'one' can enjoy enlightenment. The joke is even the surrendering is not in your control. Why? Because so long as there is an individual who says 'I surrender' there is a surrenderer, an individual ego… What I'm saying is that even the surrendering is not in [your] hands."
...

Kafei wrote:...

I agree that mind may be the current physical state of the brain, but I think there’s more to it than that. I know that quote sounds like something Stuart Hameroff might suggest, but what’s implicit here is that this emergent property of matter, what we call “consciousness” is somehow intertwined with what M-Theorists rave about, the “higher dimensions” which make up String Theory. ...

Kafei wrote:...For instance, to give an example of this “sectioning” in the quote, when you imagine, say, a tree in the daytime spring scenery, you can see it in your mind’s eye quite vividly, can't you? You can make out brilliant colours and and even almost hear the wind as it brushes against its branches and leaves. But where is this tree, really? Where is it being projected? We can’t make the analogy from the computer’s output to a monitor, you see, because the tree isn’t really anywhere in your mind. If we were going to take a look at the physical brain, we wouldn’t find the tree, instead we may find certain electrical neural patterns, the breaking and forming of chemical bonds and various other fast chemistries, etc. But if we were going to use the computer analogy, then the monitor, where the image is being projected is in within this “sectioning” of hyperspace while the hardware is a direct correlate in the physical brain, they go together. So, what seems to be happening here is that the potentiality to imagine the tree was already there, perhaps had always been there. Graham Hancock had an interesting take on this issue, he said, “I don't believe that consciousness is generated in the brain any more than that television programs are made inside my tv.” So, when I say the "the tree perhaps had always been there," this is referring to that signal that is always there. It wasn't "your thought," it was something that was transceived, so to speak. So, when you say that it isn't "up for debate, anymore," I wanted to make sure you knew what I meant, otherwise to even make such a claim, you should at least offer some evidence.