No, I haven’t been overruled at all, diver dan.

<<I think you've been overruled on that theory AJP, It was Einstein who indicated science will be hobbled without imagination.>>

There is a difference between engaging in creative thought to envisage what might be possible, and asserting one way or the other when there is no evidence for either position. The former is the start of the investigative process; the latter is the end.

<<... imagination is critical to scientific progress.>>

Sure, but it doesn’t then follow that, in the absence of any evidence, we get to assert one way or the other.

<<… what [near-death experiences] prove by experience, is consciousness exists without ego …>>

Firstly, there is no evidence for Freud’s ideas on the Ego (given the context, I can only assume that’s the ego you’re referring to). Secondly, the ego would still be a part of our consciousness anyway.

<<… these are the tales of the subjects who returned to life after a proved physical death.>>

Yes, and, again, there are perfectly rational, neurological explanations for what these people report seeing. The brain malfunctions when it is dying, the light at the end of the tunnel is a common manifestation of this. It is even known which parts of the brain control which experience.

<<AJP. you keep returning to your brain damaged subject.>>

Yes, because it suggests that consciousness does not persist after the physical body dies.

<<... I believe I dismissed your theory as proof of anything more than an alteration to the degree of conscious awareness.>>

Yes, with your hypnosis example. However, hypnosis works on the physical brain, so it only compounds the problem for you and the idea of an eternal consciousness.

I'd also note that you are having it both ways. On the one hand, you claim that consciousness "dwells outside of our universe"; on the other, we can alter it with hypnotherapy.

<<We are discussing here the infinity nature of consciousness; are we or are we not?>>

We are, and brain injury, split-brain personality, and hypnosis are major problems for such a proposition.

AJPhillips

**<<We are discussing here the infinity nature of consciousness; are we or are we not?>>

We are, and brain injury, split-brain personality, and hypnosis are major problems for such a proposition.**

I put a stop on this point until you explain your view on ego. Especially your disbelief on Freud's version of ego. (Apparently). Ego is needed for conscious awareness.

Obviously you (and one other) have difficulty coping with imagination. My imaginary flight of fancy through the universe, powered only by consciousness, was example of that.
I have no evidence for the tale it is, but who knows the possibilities of consciousness as a force.

Sure, diver dan.

<<I put a stop on this point until you explain your view on ego.>>

What would you like to know?

<<Especially your disbelief on Freud's version of ego.>>

Most of Freud’s ideas were debunked or have no evidence for them. I'm sorry you had to learn about this now.

I'm surprised that you, as a Christian, were not aware of this. Christians often love shoving this in atheists’ faces (as if it meant something), because the ideas of his Christian contemporary, Jung, were shown to be more correct (I think the intimation is meant to be that Christianity is therefore right).

<<Ego is needed for conscious awareness.>>

Perhaps you should be explaining what your views on the ego are, too? Because I have no idea how the Freudian concept of the ego, or the alleged temporary absence of it during near-death experiences, suggests that the consciousness has mystical properties.

So long as you don't invoke the supernatural without supporting evidence, I'm probably happy to go along with whatever you think the ego is, at least for the sake of argument.

<<Obviously you ... have difficulty coping with imagination.>>

You have no basis for this claim. I distinguished between the imagination and blind assertions. You, on the other hand, are erroneously conflating the two. I have no problem with imagination. I do, however, have a problem with baseless assertions.

<<My imaginary flight of fancy through the universe, powered only by consciousness, was example of that.>>

No, all that was an example of was your determination to believe in the afterlife, while tap dancing around evidence against it.

<<I have no evidence for the tale it is, but who knows the possibilities of consciousness as a force>>

Yes, who knows? There are an infinite number of possibilities with respect to just about anything, if we really want to stretch our imaginations. Which is exactly why we need to wait for evidence before we accept a proposition. If we don't, then we can end up believing all sorts of contradictory claims.

AJPhillips...

So, in your abandonment of Christianity, you have forsaken the Freudian super ego?

I think Freud is correct from a practical point of view, describing the three phases of the psyche; but then, I would ...I'm a practical man.

The only Christian message I'm selling is its relationship to eternal consciousness, for the sake of the argument. Science is calling it cosmic consciousness. So therefore ask, is God a noun or is God a verb? And then think of cosmic consciousness.

**No, all that was an example of was your determination to believe in the afterlife, while tap dancing around evidence against it.**

I'm surprised at you AJP, that Jules Verne didn't immediately pop up in your mind at my adventurous galactic travel quest.

I could be critical of your imagination, but it would serve no purpose than to get you off-side, which is pointless.

**What would you like to know?** Re Ego!

1. Your relationship between ego and conscious awareness.
2. Enlarge on your view of ego..(this is a bit off topic).

Are you suggesting that I have abandoned my moral standards, diver dan?

<<So, in your abandonment of Christianity, you have forsaken the Freudian super ego?>>

Why would you suggest such a thing? And what have my morals got to do with life after death?

<<Science is calling [the eternal consciousness] cosmic consciousness.>>

As far as I’m aware, science is studying no such thing (let alone calling it anything) and hasn’t done so for over 100 years. The only people talking about such woo are quacks like Deepak Chopra.

<<So therefore ask, is God a noun or is God a verb? And then think of cosmic consciousness.>>

God is the ego entangled in spiritual belonging, and capable of being experienced only through the evolution of modality on an exponentially quantum level.

But I don’t see what this has to do with anything we’ve discussed. There is a saying:

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance…

<<I'm surprised at you AJP, that Jules Verne didn't immediately pop up in your mind at my adventurous galactic travel quest.>>

No, he didn’t. Never was a fan, sorry. Does this change anything?

<<I could be critical of your imagination, but it would serve no purpose ...>>

Again you confuse imagination with clinging to untenable positions. Mere imagination doesn't need to be defended with evasiveness and straw men. No one has criticised your imagination.

<<1. Your relationship between ego and conscious awareness.>>

You want to know my “relationship between ego and conscious awareness”? What is that even supposed to mean? You getting all Chopra on me?

<<2. Enlarge on your view of ego..(this is a bit off topic).>>

You want me to “enlarge” my view of ego? Sorry, you’ve completely lost me now.

I think I misread a question of yours, diver dan.

<<2. Enlarge on your view of ego..(this is a bit off topic).>>

I missed the “on” (it was late). While “enlarge on” still doesn’t make any sense, I suppose your request could at least then be interpreted to as “expand on your view of ego.”

If I’m right, then, yes, I agree, that’s probably off topic. Earlier, however, you wanted to bring the entire discussion to a screeching halt until I “explained my view on ego.” You were loosely tying ego to near-death experiences for God-knows-what reason:

“NDE's are not proof in themselves of the continuum of consciousness after death, but what they prove by experience, is consciousness exists without ego, these are the tales of the subjects who returned to life after a proved physical death.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19170#340826)

So, if near-death experiences are not proof of life after death, then I guess we can ditch this whole ‘ego’ diversion. Unless it is evidence of life after death, who cares if consciousness can exist without ego?

But since you asked, my view on the ego is that, like most things, it is healthy in moderation.

In the Freudian, psychoanalytical sense (i.e. the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity), I can only agree with psychologists in that this is an outdated way of looking at things and that, to any extent that it may be true, it is a gross oversimplification.

Freudian notions of the ego are the foundation on which those who like to play amateur psychologist base their naive assumptions. To the trained psychologist, however, it no longer has any use.