Trippin in class...

So I was in class listening to Lane go back and forth from science to spirit and all of the sudden something crazy happened:
I was looking at a corner of the wall, and then I saw it get old and eventually get remodeled or taken down. I saw the infinite possibilities expanding in the past and the future. I remembered pangaea and then tried to imagine the little tiny events that changed the world into what it was. It was bizarre to be travelling in time, but I wasn't drugged, and thats probably why it wasn't convincing. I was just having a good time mentally massaging my mental member.

Then, I was thinking about the observer effect. I thought about how a video camera with no mic can only recieve visuals. In the same way, our mind is set up to only recieve five sensual stimuli (I think I counted that right), and so the possibility is that there is some sort of stimuli we cannot pick up on. I don't know, it's just about as proveable as the "waking life".

I'd like to remind Lane that when he was being a scientific worshipper, that you had to have proof to prove religion. Just cause we can't disprove his waking life theory, that makes it a good theory? Hmmmm

That is not to say that I don't buy into Lane's idea of the waking life. It's something that I've toyed with myself before. Though an important question is, can I wake up? or should I just live life?

I'm also finding Dawkins pretty frustrating. He tries to rename god? Tell me now that science isn't a religion. I think I should get a written version of his book so I can better form my thoughts and issues with him.

Anyways, this wasn't really much of a post, just writing down my little trip in class.

First Post

I had a couple of things I wanted to get off my mind on this medium to get me started. Once my brain juices flow, hopefully the momentum will get me going.

I have been having trouble listening to Dawkins' God Delusion on audiobook. It's not that it isn't interesting, but his voice is annoying, and its hard to turn on my ipod and not listen to good music. That said, my issue with Dawkins' god hypothesis: Dawkins is wrestling with a god that is supernatural. I can't help but suggest that god is nothing BUT natural. At least in my mind, if there is a god, god is all things natural. Rather than a white-bearded, male figure sitting in a chair in the sky, I picture a god that resembles mother nature, never really depicted but representing the forces of nature. Realistically, I must add, if there is a supreme "being" in our universe, I sincerely doubt that it could be defined in the bounds of male or female sex.

My second issue comes with Lane's religious/spiritual analogy of the waking life to come. I have long believed in a model like this, but more expansive than one of sleeping and dreaming, although it is a very apt analogy. My problem is that I had always pictured the ideal state of mind and body was that of a newborn, not polluted by the thoughts and materials of the world. Admittedly I don't know the answers of the universe, but when Lane referred to the boogey monster and the toddlers vs. the 11-year-old, he made it sound like the toddler is naive and therefore less developed. This sounds wrong to me because I think less developed is ideal. It is perhaps a bias on my part towards the past not only in the world (ie. our ancient pre-historic elders) but also in my own life (ie. my infantile self). Perhaps the ideal state is that of a infant AND a wise old person who has experienced the world but has not been polluted by it, or has been cleaned of it. I think this is a model that I'll have to work out...or not. My buddy Adam says it doesn't matter because it can't happen and if it does it won't matter.

All I can figure is there are two purposes: Enjoying life, and figuring out the ultimate state of life.