Demystifying Quantum Physics

[godnotgod]

Consciousness being an illusion means it is unique to us and goes when we go.

Think about this: if consciousness is an illusion, you can only know that from the point of view of non-illusory consciousness. You are determining what is illusory from what is non-illusory, but that determination can only be made via of your being conscious. Therefore, that consciousness must be real.

The illusion is not consciousness, but that one thinks it is unique to oneself, that it is 'my' consciousness, as the self. There is no 'self' that 'goes'; there is only 'going', without a go-er..

 

[idav]

Think about this: if consciousness is an illusion, you can only know that from the point of view of non-illusory consciousness. You are determining what is illusory from what is non-illusory, but that determination can only be made via of your being conscious. Therefore, that consciousness must be real.

The illusion is not consciousness, but that one thinks it is unique to oneself, that it is 'my' consciousness, as the self. There is no 'self' that 'goes'; there is only 'going', without a go-er..

We have been able to unravel it by digging. It being illusory means it is smoke and mirrors and tells us little of the true nature of reality.

 

[godnotgod]

We have been able to unravel it by digging. It being illusory means it is smoke and mirrors and tells us little of the true nature of reality.

Heh..heh..all you get by digging are bones. That is like saying that a dead TV set means that the TV signals stop when the TV dies. What kind of logic is that?

The only 'smoke and mirrors' are those within your own mind. But as I said, if you know there is smoke and mirrors, then the consciousness with which you know that is one where there are no smoke and mirrors.

What is the nature of that consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

We have been able to unravel it by digging. It being illusory means it is smoke and mirrors and tells us little of the true nature of reality.

Which is...what?

You're not saying anything by equating consciousness with smoke and mirrors. We have two kinds of conscious awareness: conditioned and awakened. You are referring to conditioned awareness, which indeed comes and goes with our temporal, human existence. Problem is, we condition it by creating an illusory shell around it called "I". The true nature of reality can only be seen via an awakened consciousness, but as I mentioned earlier, it is this consciousness that is hidden from most of us, virtually non-existent, as far as anyone is concerned, since, as humans, we are preoccupied from birth with personal desires, the self, and the attention-demanding noise that constantly goes on all around us.

If you don't see things via an awakened consciousness, then you are seeing things in a kind of waking sleep; a dream. An awakened consciousness sees things as they actually are; a consciousness that is asleep sees them as they are not.

 

[godnotgod]

There is life and life feeds on life to sustain itself. Consciousness being an illusion means it is unique to us and goes when we go.

"All this world is filled with coming and going*; show me the path where there is no coming and there is no going."
Zen aphorism

If there werent, levels based on intelligence then every animal should be just in tune with the universe. The level of consciousness and intelligence we have is not found other organisms because of the evolution of the brain. The universe could be aware but would never know it without some sort of memory and recall which is possible but is localized events and not universal. The universe wouldn't know what we know without us knowing it.

Unless the universe is involved in a highly sophisticated game of cosmic Hide and Seek, in which YOU are the divine nature itself, but is playing the game so well, it has clean forgotten who and what it really is, and is instead pretending to be who you now think you are.

Intelligence exists in the universe because we are proof of it but it isn't the default in nature.

But our behavior would indicate otherwise, since we pretend we don't know who we are, imagine ourselves separate from the universe, and set out upon a journey of self-discovery. When we at last awaken to the state of Enlightenment that was always there from the very beginning, we realize THAT as the default condition, and our current state of confusion as that of a state of altered consciousness, and not the other way around.

That you think intelligence not the default condition is just part of the game of Hide and Seek. YOU are the Supreme Intelligence itself; YOU are the Indestructible Sunyata, pretending to be Little Old Me. That is, in fact, exactly what the Buddha discovered.
*****

"What then was the commencement of the whole matter? Existence that multiplied itself for sheer delight of being and plunged into numberless trillions of forms so that it might find itself innumerably."
Sri Aurobindo



*'Coming and Going' = 'Birth and Death'

 

[godnotgod]

The universe could be aware but would never know it without some sort of memory and recall which is possible but is localized events and not universal.

Consciousness does not rely on memory; memory relies on consciousness. The consciousness that exists in the present moment has no memory, no history. Memory and history are relics/traces of the past. Consciousness always dwells in the living present.

If consciousness is not universal, how do you explain archetypes, for example?

The universe wouldn't know what we know without us knowing it.

Unless it's playing Hide and Seek within all its infinite forms, forms that includes you.

Intelligence exists in the universe because we are proof of it but it isn't the default in nature.

No, the default is a universe that is a gyrating stupidity, with intelligence a defect, LOL. And yet, stars and planets and galaxies form, the seasons return, there is air, water, sunlight, and nutrients available for all it's lifeforms. It almost seems to nurture life.


34.

The Tao is like an overflowing river.

It rises to the left and to the right.

The ten thousand things arise from it, but do not depart from it.

The Tao acts, but cannot be defined.

It clothes and nourishes all beings, but does not rule over them.

It endures without desire and without seeming "big."

The ten thousand things find their home in it,

and yet it does not exercise lordship over them.

The Tao is very great, but it does not show its greatness.

Therefore, it is truly great.


51.

Tao gives birth to the ten thousand things. Te nurtures them.

They are formed from matter and completed by environment.

Therefore, the ten thousand things honor Tao and respect Te,

not in response to commandments, but just naturally.

Tao gives birth to the ten thousand things,

and Te nurtures, rears, develops, shelters, and protects them.

But Tao and Te do not try to own or rule the ten thousand things,

nor do they seek to make them dependent.

This is true power.
*****

Tao te Ching

 

[idav]

Which is...what?

You're not saying anything by equating consciousness with smoke and mirrors. We have two kinds of conscious awareness: conditioned and awakened. You are referring to conditioned awareness, which indeed comes and goes with our temporal, human existence. Problem is, we condition it by creating an illusory shell around it called "I". The true nature of reality can only be seen via an awakened consciousness, but as I mentioned earlier, it is this consciousness that is hidden from most of us, virtually non-existent, as far as anyone is concerned, since, as humans, we are preoccupied from birth with personal desires, the self, and the attention-demanding noise that constantly goes on all around us.

If you don't see things via an awakened consciousness, then you are seeing things in a kind of waking sleep; a dream. An awakened consciousness sees things as they actually are; a consciousness that is asleep sees them as they are not.

The illusory I doesnt exist except in our ego, it is self awareness which should be contrasted from regular awareness. I see basic awareness can exist like my eye avatar represents but fundamentally different from self awareness and intelligence it takes to be self aware which few animals have. Being aware or percieving is no guarantee you will remember or be able to utilize what is percieved to do some thought out action.

 

[idav]

Consciousness does not rely on memory; memory relies on consciousness. The consciousness that exists in the present moment has no memory, no history. Memory and history are relics/traces of the past. Consciousness always dwells in the living present.

If consciousness is not universal, how do you explain archetypes, for example?



Unless it's playing Hide and Seek within all its infinite forms, forms that includes you.



No, the default is a universe that is a gyrating stupidity, with intelligence a defect, LOL. And yet, stars and planets and galaxies form, the seasons return, there is air, water, sunlight, and nutrients available for all it's lifeforms. It almost seems to nurture life.


34.

The Tao is like an overflowing river.

It rises to the left and to the right.

The ten thousand things arise from it, but do not depart from it.

The Tao acts, but cannot be defined.

It clothes and nourishes all beings, but does not rule over them.

It endures without desire and without seeming "big."

The ten thousand things find their home in it,

and yet it does not exercise lordship over them.

The Tao is very great, but it does not show its greatness.

Therefore, it is truly great.


51.

Tao gives birth to the ten thousand things. Te nurtures them.

They are formed from matter and completed by environment.

Therefore, the ten thousand things honor Tao and respect Te,

not in response to commandments, but just naturally.

Tao gives birth to the ten thousand things,

and Te nurtures, rears, develops, shelters, and protects them.

But Tao and Te do not try to own or rule the ten thousand things,

nor do they seek to make them dependent.

This is true power.
*****

Tao te Ching

I agree with all that but it isnt stupid cause that would be in contrast to intelligent. It just is. I agree it would be in only the present moment and the ”I” tends to try and dwell in the past or predict the future. Just being in the present moment takes no thought or memory. Consiousness is defined and compared to what humans have but it goes beyond our concepts of smart or stupid.

 

[godnotgod]

The illusory I doesnt exist except in our ego, it is self awareness which should be contrasted from regular awareness. I see basic awareness can exist like my eye avatar represents but fundamentally different from self awareness and intelligence it takes to be self aware which few animals have. Being aware or percieving is no guarantee you will remember or be able to utilize what is percieved to do some thought out action.

You just answered the question. If the "I" is illusory, then it's self-awareness must also be illusory. Where is this 'self' of which it is aware, and which is this other self that is aware of the self? You see the problem. When this illusion of self is seen for what it is, what remains is pure consciousness itself, without a (personal) self. This pure consciousness that only sees is universal consciousness that has taken on an illusory identity, but has forgotten it has done so, and thinks itself real. It is dreaming, but when it awakens, remembers its true nature, and that its identity was only temporal and illusory.

In addition, you recognize the "I" as illusory from the position of the non-illusory not-I. What is that which recognizes the illusion as illusion?

I think you're confusing intelligence with the action it is based upon. Intelligence must always be present first before action is undertaken. You seem to be determining what intelligence is by how complex the action is. Simple plant life is essential as food to animal life, even though plants are not intelligent in the way animals are, in terms of the complexity of their action. And yet, animals cannot photosynthesize, while plants can, a very complex process. It is intelligence that provides simple plants as nutrients for the animal world. As the passage from Tao indicates: Tao nurtures all things, etc. The Tao is the Supreme Intelligence of which everything is a part, including you and I. In fact, as Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist concluded, after much frustration and arriving at nonsensical calculations about black holes, "nature is smarter than we are".

 

[godnotgod]

I agree with all that but it isnt stupid cause that would be in contrast to intelligent. It just is. I agree it would be in only the present moment and the ”I” tends to try and dwell in the past or predict the future. Just being in the present moment takes no thought or memory. Consiousness is defined and compared to what humans have but it goes beyond our concepts of smart or stupid.

Sorry, I was just being silly.

But the question remains, as regards your position: how does non-material consciousness arise from the material world?

 

[idav]

Sorry, I was just being silly.

But the question remains, as regards your position: how does non-material consciousness arise from the material world?

Emergence.

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Basically complex systems arising out of simple processes.

Ants are a good example of complexity giving rise to what seems like intelligence in mass numbers when an ant by itself would be o,f no use and would probably die. Same thing for individual cells of organisms.

My second answer is billions of years of chemical and biological evolution.

 

[godnotgod]

Emergence.

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is not a good link.

Emergence is no more than a conceptual hypothesis at this point. It is equivalent to suggesting that TV signals emerge from TV sets.

Basically complex systems arising out of simple processes.

That still does not address the question as to exactly how and at what point consciousness 'emerges'. Complex systems arising out of simple processes can still mean that consciousness was already in place even prior to the appearance of any physical phenomena whatsoever. In fact, the simplest process would be that of no-thing at all; that is to say, consciousness is 'non-material', and the more complex physical sub-atomic components emerged from that. This makes complete sense in the context of the 'material' world being an illusion, because it requires no explanation as to the origin of 'matter', as 'matter' is not real to begin with. We are finding that out on both the micro and macro scales.

In addition, the very complex systems of the cosmos have existed for billions of years prior to the emergence of life on this planet. So your theory of 'simple to complex' does'nt hold water, as pertains to the existence of consciousness. If anything, it would mean that consciousness DID exist all along. In fact, the Big Bang was a very complex process right from the get-go.

When you empty the mind completely, even where no concept of mind itself is present, no concept of self, what remains?

I will address the rest of your post later. Thanks.

 

[idav]

Emergence.

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is not a good link.

Emergence is no more than a conceptual hypothesis at this point. It is equivalent to suggesting that TV signals emerge from TV sets.




That still does not address the question as to exactly how and at what point consciousness 'emerges'. Complex systems arising out of simple processes can still mean that consciousness was already in place even prior to the appearance of any physical phenomena whatsoever. In fact, the simplest process would be that of no-thing at all; that is to say, consciousness is 'non-material', and the more complex physical sub-atomic components emerged from that. This makes complete sense in the context of the 'material' world being an illusion, because it requires no explanation as to the origin of 'matter', as 'matter' is not real to begin with. We are finding that out on both the micro and macro scales.

In addition, the very complex systems of the cosmos have existed for billions of years prior to the emergence of life on this planet. So your theory of 'simple to complex' does'nt hold water, as pertains to the existence of consciousness. If anything, it would mean that consciousness DID exist all along. In fact, the Big Bang was a very complex process right from the get-go.

When you empty the mind completely, even where no concept of mind itself is present, no concept of self, what remains?

I will address the rest of your post later. Thanks.

I dont have much problem with the idea of something fundamentally aware I just dont feel comfortable using consiousness or intelligence to describe it. Rocks may not be exactly aware that they hit each other but the interaction is an important step in sensing or knowing two rocks hit.

The complexity alone it isnt enough but when the human brains neurons are as many stars in our galaxy that is a complex system.

 

[godnotgod]

I dont have much problem with the idea of something fundamentally aware I just dont feel comfortable using consiousness or intelligence to describe it. Rocks may not be exactly aware that they hit each other but the interaction is an important step in sensing or knowing two rocks hit.

You're isolating a single event and not seeing it in relation to the entire process. You are still thinking in the realm of cause and effect. In reality, all things and actions are subject to interdependent origination. Mountains are pushed up by geologic forces, and then erode again to flat plains over extremely long periods of geologic time. Within this process, numerous ecosystems come and go. The crumbling of rocks as this occurs breaks them down along with their minerals being washed away by rivers and streams. These minerals become part of other bio processes, both plant and animal. In terms of Tao, this is part of Tao's nurturing of life-forms. But the actions of Tao are never willful or forced, but rather spontaneous and natural. This spontaneity and naturallness has intelligence behind it, but not how we ordinarily think about intelligence. It is non-rational in nature, and therefore, a paradox to the mind of Reason. In the words of the Tao te Ching:

"Tao abides in non-action, Yet nothing is left undone."

The consciousness is not that of one rock willfully deciding to strike another rock. This is an action of the universe, just as you are an action of the universe. "you don't understand It, because It understands you" Alan Watts.

The complexity alone it isnt enough but when the human brains neurons are as many stars in our galaxy that is a complex system.

Yes?...and...?...what does that mean?

 

[Straw Dog]

In terms of Tao, this is part of Tao's nurturing of life-forms. But the actions of Tao are never willful or forced, but rather spontaneous and natural. This spontaneity and naturallness has intelligence behind it, but not how we ordinarily think about intelligence. It is non-rational in nature, and therefore, a paradox to the mind of Reason. In the words of the Tao te Ching:

"Tao abides in non-action, Yet nothing is left undone."

The consciousness is not that of one rock willfully deciding to strike another rock. This is an action of the universe, just as you are an action of the universe. "you don't understand It, because It understands you" Alan Watts.

I understand what you're getting at to an extent, but I don't see the purpose in defining it as "intelligence". I certainly don't read that in the interpretations of the Tao te Ching that I use. I also think Laozi commits the anti-language paradox and ultimately fails in presenting a comprehensive philosophy without supplementation. This whole anti-intellectual trend in contemporary Zen does a disservice to both Buddhism and philosophical Taoism.

Have you read much Chuangzi?

 

[Straw Dog]

I don't believe in the Enlightenment sense of Reason, but we do have reasoning faculties. I also don't believe we can use our reasoning faculties to denounce the utility of reasoning. Again, anti-intellectualism is self-defeating.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't believe in the Enlightenment sense of Reason, but we do have reasoning faculties. I also don't believe we can use our reasoning faculties to denounce the utility of reasoning. Again, anti-intellectualism is self-defeating.

It is a mistake to take up any position either for or against, thereby plunging oneself into dualism. We need both the intellectual and the intuitive minds in balance one with the other. When social currents swing one way or the other, it is perfectly natural for opposing positions to surface. I think we should read anti-intellectualism as a sign that an extreme has taken precedence.

Reason can and should be utilized for part of the journey, but ultimately, the experience of Enlightenment is beyond the rational mind. The rational mind is limited mind; enlightened mind is unlimited mind. Osho points out that Kant said that reason has 'ineluctible limits' which cannot be overcome. We see that occurring in science on both the micro and the macro scales of rational investigation.

The Zen rejection of the intellect is only a phase in the transformative process. When the experience comes full circle, how we saw Reality previously through the lens of the intellect now becomes fully transformed, actually expanding the intellectual view, giving it full dimension:

"First there is a mountain;
then, there is no mountain;
then, there is."

As transformed individuals, we must still meet schedules, tie our shoelaces, catch trains, wash dishes, sweep floors, etc, along with all the other ordinary everyday tasks, but now we do them with an awakened consciousness, one that transforms the ordinary into the miraculous.

Reason still sees a polarized difference between right and wrong; the awakened mind sees them as complimentary and inter-dependent.

This is reflected in Yeshu's statement:

'Lest ye turn and become as little children, ye shall not enter into Paradise'

 

[godnotgod]

I understand what you're getting at to an extent, but I don't see the purpose in defining it as "intelligence".

Well if the universe is intelligent, then, in terms of the topic, QM must be seen and understood in terms of that intelligence. If not, that is to say, if the universe is purely an unconscious artifact, then QM will (and is) be seen as mere mechanical, explainable phenomena, as science would have it.

It's not a question of how we define it; but rather one as to how we see it, because our definition is dependent upon our vision, and if Chopra is correct:

"You are the universe looking at itself through your eyes"

 

[Straw Dog]

This is reflected in Yeshu's statement:

'Lest ye turn and become as little children, ye shall not enter into Paradise'

Yeah, children believe everything you tell them. When I was a child, I was a child. Now, I'm a man.

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah, children believe everything you tell them. When I was a child, I was a child. Now, I'm a man.

It's not the fault of children that they are being lied to. It's the fault of men. The minds of children are pure. They just see without judgment. Those of men are poisoned by notions of right and wrong, yours and mine, us and them, etc., which become the springboard for their divisiveness and wars and cruelty toward one another. Such is the current state of the world. Yeshu also said:


'There is a way which seems right to man which ends in death.'

The pure mind of a child is known as innocency. As J. Krishnamurti explains:

"...an innocent mind is one that is not caught in the psychological structure of society, and is therefore free of conflict; it is not weighed down by remembrances of things past - which is not a state of amnesia; it is no longer held in technique, though technique is necessary."

In short, the mind of innocency does not see the world as an object apart; it sees it as oneself.