Question on Intelligent Design

[godnotgod]

That isn't two different realities. It is two different perspectives. Those are two ways of looking, not the reality itself.

Exactly what I said. I said we SEE two different realities; not that there actually EXIST two different realities. Read again.

But the 'form' of the wave is what conveys information. The 'form' of the whirlpool is what will sink a ship. And the 'form' of a rock is what will hurt you if it hits you.

But the point is that whirlpool and rock are not things, but forms. You asked for the difference. Form is empty of self nature because there are no things in the Universe. There only appears to be 'things', and we confuse forms with them.

The interconnectedness of the universe is a triviality. Now go beyond *that* and see how the universe is also divided into parts and we can learn how those parts inter-relate. And we can do that in detail, thereby understanding more of the interconnectivity.

There are no such 'parts' as 'things' that are interconnected. Everything in the Universe co-arises with everything else as form, which we see as 'parts' or 'things' that are interconnected. It is a seamless continuum rather than an interconnectedness of 'parts'. Again, a flaw of the discriminating mind.

And, again, if that is how you use the word 'conscious', then it is far from the way I use it. So much so that communication is hampered. What I see is interaction, not consciousness.

What you see as 'interaction' is a total illusion. The consciousness creating the illusion is the only reality. But your very fact of seeing is consciousness, which you deny.

Yes, things in the universe interact with other things in the universe. In fact, ultimately things in the universe are *defined* by how they interact. A rock interacts in rock-like ways.

'Rock-like' being a set of defined behaviors of form, which says nothing of any inherent 'rock nature'. What you call 'rock' is a form-feature of the greater whole; not a 'thing' which possesses any inherent 'rock nature'.

But not all interaction is consciousness. Consciousness is a certain very specific type of interaction seen in complex brains (so far).

Consciousness is not the interaction, but what creates the illusion of interaction. You narrowly and arbitrarily define it as belonging exclusively to 'brain'. I am defining 'brain' as belonging to consciousness. Scientific studies show, for example, that concentrated conscious attention (ie meditation) grows thicker cortexes than in non-meditators.

Perhaps that is *your* journey. It is not *my* journey. My journey is to understand the multitude of interactions and to be *myself*. I don't see emptiness as the goal. If anything, it is the opposite direction from the goal.

You make a wide variety of claims and use specialized terminology that disagress with the standard usage. That is fine, but you really should define your terms to encourage communication.

Yes, I have read Watts, Campbell, and many others. I understand your viewpoint. I just disagree with it.

I never said that emptiness is the goal; it is simply the nature of phenomena. If you disagree with this, tell me why. I have explained why this is the case.

This is not a question of 'my' journey vs 'your' journey, but about the way things actually are, as compared to how we only think them to be. Science is still a sculpted, conditioned viewpoint; what I am describing is an unconditioned view that simply sees things as they are.

You imply that the goal is the opposite of 'emptiness', which would be 'somethingness', I suppose. But there is no such thing, and both the mystics and Quantum Physics are almost having a meeting on this point. Newtonian physics told us that there was a materiality to the world, but Quantum Physics is saying that what we used to call the 'material world' is actually a superposition of possibilities, and that all 'particles' in the Universe are actually standing waves appearing as particles. IOW, material 'reality' is a virtual reality, something the Hindus have called maya, or illusion, for over 4000 years. Western science is the new kid on the block, brash and aggressive and cocksure, still wet behind the ears. Ouch!

 

[godnotgod]

That isn't two different realities. It is two different perspectives. Those are two ways of looking, not the reality itself.
.

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda
[bracketed text mine]

"Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.

Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.

And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space.

And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.

Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice.... If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps that is *your* journey. It is not *my* journey. My journey is to understand the multitude of interactions and to be *myself*. I don't see emptiness as the goal. If anything, it is the opposite direction from the goal.

You make a wide variety of claims and use specialized terminology that disagress with the standard usage. That is fine, but you really should define your terms to encourage communication.

Yes, I have read Watts, Campbell, and many others. I understand your viewpoint. I just disagree with it.

Your science will prove to be empty in the end, and you will have missed out on the greatest experience you could have had in search of that elusive 'something',, which is right under your very nose. It is not about who you've read, or how much you know, or any teaching or doctrine, but the experience of awakening to what is, right here, right now.

If your journey is to be yourself, you will never be yourself. Stop the becoming. Stop the seeker. Realize your true nature just as it exists in this present moment.

If you want to 'understand' the multitude of interactions, you will drive yourself crazy in the end. All I can tell you is that what you think are a 'multitude of interactions' is a grand illusion, and the true reality is something that never changes at all, and that something is consciousness, which is not a matter of opinion, or a matter of agreement or disagreement. It simply is Reality itself, and you're missing it.

2500 years ago, the Buddha saw that the world was a 'multitude of interactions', a bubbling sea of temporal existence that is empty of self nature. And so, he sought higher ground and experienced Awakening to what is, and what is, is the source of the world we find ourselves immersed in. That source is inside, not in some future time or place 'out there', which will only lead you on and on and on....

 

[Polymath257]

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda
[bracketed text mine]

"Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.

Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.

And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space.

And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.

Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice.... If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

It is standard in cosmology (physics) to consider the universe throughout space and time as a single entity-a single 4-dimensional, curved spacetime manifold.

Not really a deep concept.

 

[Polymath257]

Your science will prove to be empty in the end, and you will have missed out on the greatest experience you could have had in search of that elusive 'something',, which is right under your very nose. It is not about who you've read, or how much you know, or any teaching or doctrine, but the experience of awakening to what is, right here, right now.

Yawn. Been there, done that. Moved on to explore other things.

If your journey is to be yourself, you will never be yourself. Stop the becoming. Stop the seeker. Realize your true nature just as it exists in this present moment.

To question is the answer.

If you want to 'understand' the multitude of interactions, you will drive yourself crazy in the end. All I can tell you is that what you think are a 'multitude of interactions' is a grand illusion, and the true reality is something that never changes at all, and that something is consciousness, which is not a matter of opinion, or a matter of agreement or disagreement. It simply is Reality itself, and you're missing it.

Nope, just exploring it at a different level than you. Reality as a single, absolute, interconnected whole gets boring after a bit. Now I want to learn about the manifold forms.

 

[godnotgod]

Nope, just exploring it at a different level than you. Reality as a single, absolute, interconnected whole gets boring after a bit. Now I want to learn about the manifold forms.

It is not a matter of 'this' and then 'that'. If you understood the nature of things via the single, underlying Absolute, this one key applies to all of the manifold forms, simply because it is the Source for all of them. This way, the cart is properly placed behind the horse. Now science can be understood in light of the greater Reality, rather than attempting to fit Reality into the conceptual frameworks of science.

 

[godnotgod]

So, to answer the question as to whether the Sun and the moon are inside or outside of human consciousness, the answer is that they are neither inside nor outside. What is the case is that human consciousness is the same consciousness as that of The Universe itself, since we are, lock, stock, and barrel, completely at one with the entire Universe, and so, what we think of as 'my' consciousness, is actually the consciousness of the Universe, projecting itself as everyone and everything. The Universe is not something that has things in it; it is those very things. You are none other than The Universe itself, thinking you are a separate observer in a subject/object split.

 

[shawn001]

It's not 'my' consciousness; consciousness is non-local, and is everywhere, inside and outside of everything. IOW, it is the fundamental reality out of which Everything emerged.

Think of a fish born into the sea. He does not know he is in the sea. His attention is captured almost immediately by the foreground of his existence, namely, food and predators. The background that is the sea that he exists in, that he knows nothing about, but that sustains him to the tune of 100%, is never detected. Likewise, we are born into a sea of pure consciousness, but from the get-go, our attention is captivated by the foreground of existence; the glittering but empty lure of the world. Most of us are never aware of the background, and are driven by the first 3 centers of consciousness: Power, Security, and Sensation, to which we are addicted, do not know how to free ourselves from, but which seem to us to be 'reality', a reality that is the cause of our suffering.

Neurotransmitters cannot exist without the consciousness which created them.

"Neurotransmitters cannot exist without the consciousness which created them"

Explain how consciousness create's matter in detail"?

Explain the "fundamental reality out of which Everything emerged in detail "?

"Think of a fish born into the sea. He does not know he is in the sea."

Explain how whales went from the oceans onto land and then back to the oceans in detail?

"3 centers of consciousness: Power, Security, and Sensation"

from the "Living Love System"

"and four higher Centers of Consciousness — Love, Cornucopia, Conscious-awareness and Cosmic Consciousness."

by Ken Keyes Jr a self-help author?

Not a bad guy I am sure, but not an expert on modern neuroscience.

 

[shawn001]

So what happened here?

Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist

 

[godnotgod]

"Neurotransmitters cannot exist without the consciousness which created them"

Explain how consciousness create's matter in detail"?

I used the word 'created' as a matter of convention. In reality, nothing is created or destroyed. Why? Because 'matter' is an illusion. This 'material' world is not being 'created', but is being manifested by consciousness. Brains are consciousness's way of putting autonomic functions in the background, so consciousness can focus up front on what is immediately at hand.

Explain the "fundamental reality out of which Everything emerged in detail "?

It's empty, which is why Everything can come out of it.

"Think of a fish born into the sea. He does not know he is in the sea."

Explain how whales went from the oceans onto land and then back to the oceans in detail?

I think that is pretty well accepted and documented, but has nothing to do with what I said: that a fish born into the sea does not know he is in the sea, just as you know nothing of the background of existence which you were born into. Your focus is on the foreground, the sound, color, smell, taste, and touch of the so-called 'material' world.

[/QUOTE]"3 centers of consciousness: Power, Security, and Sensation"

from the "Living Love System"

"and four higher Centers of Consciousness — Love, Cornucopia, Conscious-awareness and Cosmic Consciousness."

by Ken Keyes Jr a self-help author?

Not a bad guy I am sure, but not an expert on modern neuroscience.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe he ever made that claim, nor did I post the principles of the 3 lower centers to illustrate anything to do with neuroscience. Nor did I mention the 4 higher centers, which have to do with awakening to the background of existence. I posted the 3 Addictions to point out that most of mankind is driven by them in a kind of mental slavery to the material world, never realizing that there lies higher states of being which bring spiritual rewards.

Instead of trying to make an issue out of attacking the pointing finger, why not take a look at the moon instead? See what Keyes is talking about, instead of shooting the messenger, which in a nutshell, says that when the 4th level is experienced, the 3 Addictions become transformed into Preferences.

 

[Polymath257]

It is not a matter of 'this' and then 'that'. If you understood the nature of things via the single, underlying Absolute, this one key applies to all of the manifold forms, simply because it is the Source for all of them. This way, the cart is properly placed behind the horse. Now science can be understood in light of the greater Reality, rather than attempting to fit Reality into the conceptual frameworks of science.

The conceptual framework of science is simply that conceptual framework of reason and logic. We don't believe without evidence and we test the claims we make against new observations.

That is just as applicable to the 'Absolute' as it is to the manifold forms. The difference is that the 'Absolute' is untestable and hence loses.

 

[Polymath257]

It's not 'my' consciousness; consciousness is non-local, and is everywhere, inside and outside of everything. IOW, it is the fundamental reality out of which Everything emerged.

Think of a fish born into the sea. He does not know he is in the sea. His attention is captured almost immediately by the foreground of his existence, namely, food and predators. The background that is the sea that he exists in, that he knows nothing about, but that sustains him to the tune of 100%, is never detected.

If that fish was *rational* and used *reason*, it would very quickly understand that it was surrounded by a substance that carries waves, and that it uses to propel itself. That is how, for example, humans learned that we are in a sea of air that we breathe. Why would a rational fish be any more encumbered than that?

Likewise, we are born into a sea of pure consciousness, but from the get-go, our attention is captivated by the foreground of existence; the glittering but empty lure of the world.

That is your *claim*. Now back it up with *evidence*. Use rationality, reason, and observation to demonstrate your claims. A rational fish would be easily able to do that to show the existence of water. Now it is your turn.

Most of us are never aware of the background, and are driven by the first 3 centers of consciousness: Power, Security, and Sensation, to which we are addicted, do not know how to free ourselves from, but which seem to us to be 'reality', a reality that is the cause of our suffering.

Cute claim. Now prove it. Why would a rational being ever come to think what you claim?

Neurotransmitters cannot exist without the consciousness which created them.

You have this precisely backwards: consciousness cannot exist without the neurotransmitters that cause it.

 

[godnotgod]

The conceptual framework of science is simply that conceptual framework of reason and logic. We don't believe without evidence and we test the claims we make against new observations.

That is just as applicable to the 'Absolute' as it is to the manifold forms. The difference is that the 'Absolute' is untestable and hence loses.

Since The Absolute is beyond the spheres of Reason, Logic, and Analysis, it is, of course, untestable via those very methodologies. But it is capable of being directly experienced and verified from one person to another, and that is exactly the case both throughout history and in different locations around the world. If you want to know how things behave and how to predict their behavior, you need science. But if you want to see into the true nature of Reality, you need a higher view. Science cannot yield this to you as it is limited by its very methodologies. The findings of science can only be truly valid when understood within the larger context of Reality itself, and that Reality is none other than The Absolute. What do I mean by 'The Absolute'? It is exactly The Universe. Why? Because The Universe, being Everything That Is, has no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. It is not only, then, an absolute, but The Absolute.

 

[Polymath257]

Since The Absolute is beyond the spheres of Reason, Logic, and Analysis, it is, of course, untestable via those very methodologies.

In that case, there is no reason to think it exists.

But it is capable of being directly experienced and verified from one person to another,

In that case, it *can* be tested. Make up your mind. All scientific knowledge is ultimately based on experience. And, all knowledge is based on testing abd observation (a type of experience) along with reason.

and that is exactly the case both throughout history and in different locations around the world. If you want to know how things behave and how to predict their behavior, you need science. But if you want to see into the true nature of Reality, you need a higher view. Science cannot yield this to you as it is limited by its very methodologies.

The 'true nature of reality' is precisely a description of how things behave and their behavior. You just negated your whole worldview.

 

[godnotgod]

In that case, there is no reason to think it exists.

...and yet, people have experienced states of higher consciousness for thousands of years. Just because those experiences are not verifiable via science does not mean they are delusions. Having said that, Zen is one mystical discipline which has built-in checks against seeing delusion as real.

In that case, it *can* be tested. Make up your mind. All scientific knowledge is ultimately based on experience. And, all knowledge is based on testing abd observation (a type of experience) along with reason.

No. The Absolute cannot be tested since it is beyond those methodologies and so does not conform to their testing parameters and/or criteria.

Scientific knowledge is based upon data and facts, derived via observation, first formulated as hypothesis, and then proven via repeatable testing.

There is no way to test for the inner experience of consciousness transformation, other than to observe and record its outward signs, such as increased alpha wave output, for example.

The 'true nature of reality' is precisely a description of how things behave and their behavior. You just negated your whole worldview.

How did I know you would jump right in on that one?

If what you say is true, then tell me what the true nature of The Universe is based upon what we know about its behavior.

 

[Polymath257]

...and yet, people have experienced states of higher consciousness for thousands of years. Just because those experiences are not verifiable via science does not mean they are delusions. Having said that, Zen is one mystical discipline which has built-in checks against seeing delusion as real.

People have had temporal lobe epilepsy for thousands of years. The results are essentially the same.

No. The Absolute cannot be tested since it is beyond those methodologies and so does not conform to their testing parameters and/or criteria.

It is beyond the methodology of observation, hypothesis formation, and new observation to test the hypothesis?

Scientific knowledge is based upon data and facts, derived via observation, first formulated as hypothesis, and then proven via repeatable testing.

There is no way to test for the inner experience of consciousness transformation, other than to observe and record its outward signs, such as increased alpha wave output, for example.

In this case, the experience *is* the test. But it is crucial to be careful of misinterpretation.

How did I know you would jump right in on that one?

If what you say is true, then tell me what the true nature of The Universe is based upon what we know about its behavior.

The universe is composed of quantum fields that interact probabilistically. Every particle corresponds to a field, and vice versa,

 

[godnotgod]

People have had temporal lobe epilepsy for thousands of years. The results are essentially the same.

Now you're using sloppy reasoning. How would you know what the results of either temporal lobe epilepsy or the experience of higher consciousness are unless you have had the experience yourself? And how do you know, then, via your reasoning, that your everyday experience of the world is not the result of temporal lobe epilepsy? For that matter, how do you know it is not just a higher level of dreaming?*

It is beyond the methodology of observation, hypothesis formation, and new observation to test the hypothesis?

It is not a hypothesis; it is an experience. A metaphor would be something like Plato's Cave Allegory, in which the doubtful prisoners would need to go outside the cave and experience the Sun directly.

In this case, the experience *is* the test. But it is crucial to be careful of misinterpretation.

Yes, crucial. But after a certain amount of inner work and development, it begins to become clear to the practitioner where the misinterpretations lie, and he then knows to avoid them. However, this is why it is a good idea to seek a teacher who can help you avoid such pitfalls.

The universe is composed of quantum fields that interact probabilistically. Every particle corresponds to a field, and vice versa,

That's still a description of its behavior, and not its nature. IOW, we don't know what The Universe actually IS.
****

• 
  
  
  • *One night, Zhuangzi dreamed of being a butterfly — a happy butterfly, showing off and doing things as he pleased, unaware of being Zhuangzi. Suddenly he awoke, drowsily, Zhuangzi again. And he could not tell whether it was Zhuangzi who had dreamt the butterfly or the butterfly dreaming Zhuangzi. But there must be some difference between them! This is called 'the transformation of things'.

• 
  
  
  • How do I know that enjoying life is not a delusion? How do I know that in hating death we are not like people who got lost in early childhood and do not know the way home? During our dreams we do not know we are dreaming. We may even dream of interpreting a dream. Only on waking do we know it was a dream. Only after the great awakening will we realize that this is the great dream. And yet fools think they are awake, presuming to know that they are rulers or herdsmen. How dense! You and Confucius are both dreaming, and I who say you are a dream am also a dream. Such is my tale. It will probably be called preposterous, but after ten thousand generations there may be a great sage who will be able to explain it, a trivial interval equivalent to the passage from morning to night.

Zhuangzi - Wikiquote

 

[godnotgod]

The conceptual framework of science is simply that conceptual framework of reason and logic. We don't believe without evidence and we test the claims we make against new observations.

That is just as applicable to the 'Absolute' as it is to the manifold forms. The difference is that the 'Absolute' is untestable and hence loses.

"Nature is smarter than we are"
Michio Kaku

 

[godnotgod]

People have had temporal lobe epilepsy for thousands of years. The results are essentially the same.

That's ridiculous.
Poor Buddha. If only he had known!

 

[Polymath257]

That's ridiculous.
Poor Buddha. If only he had known!

And he may well have. Is that such a silly notion?