Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

Exactly so, it's all a question of scale. Quantum mechanics applies at the sub-atomic level and Newtonian mechanics applies at our everyday level, and trying to conflate these two levels is completely misunderstanding the science. That's why it's nonsensical to suggest that "mystics" have a direct insight into the quantum world.

Hmmm.....? I don't recall anyone ever saying anything of the sort on this thread, do you?

As for myself, what I DID say was that mystics have a direct insight into that which is manifesting both the sub-atomic and the everyday world, and that both are none other than the SAME world.

Will you kindly direct us to where someone made the statement you allude to?

 

[godnotgod]

So you do accept that if a mystic drops a brick on their foot it will hurt?

Of course. Mystics are human beings.

And if you do accept this then why do you keep saying things like: "Bricks are made of atoms made of virtual particles"? ( post #391 ).

Because they are.

Do you accept that in fact quantum mechanics is irrelevant to the experience of a mystic?

No. It is every bit a part of it. Were it not for virtual particles, there would be no brick.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

As for myself, what I DID say was that mystics have a direct insight into that which is manifesting both the sub-atomic and the everyday world, and that both are none other than the SAME world.

That's just as nonsensical. A mystic has no access to the sub-atomic world, just the everyday world, so logically they cannot have access to your mythical "Ultimate Reality" which supposedly encompasses both.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No. It is every bit a part of it. Were it not for virtual particles, there would be no brick.

You're dodging the question. What I said was: "Do you accept that in fact quantum mechanics is irrelevant to the experience of a mystic?"
Clearly quantum mechanics is irrelevant to the experience of a mystic, because a mystic has no access to the sub-atomic world.

 

[godnotgod]

What you don't seem to have ever grasped is that just because it is different than we thought on the very very small scale it doesn't take away anything from what we have already known it to be.

Because 'what we have known it to be' is a totally convincing illusion, projected via virtual particles.

What you don't seem to have ever grasped is that, in spite of how we perceive it, the world is still an illusion. That is the difference between the conditioned mind and the awakened mind. We call the condition of the awakened mind 'Higher Consciousness' because it sees things as they actually are, rather than how the conditioned mind perceives them to be. Quantum physics has now confirmed the illusory quality of everyday reality. When it says that all physical reality is virtual, it is saying that how we perceive it is faulty. Once this has been detected, the mystic seeks something beyond his perceptual reality, and that is Ultimate Reality.

That is a meaningless definition that attempts to assert a lot of unsubstantiated things about consciousness rather than actually answering the question. I do not accept that this is a valid definition.

You asked for a definition. I provided one. If you cannot accept it, then there is no basis for further discussion.

Your problem is the same problem of the theist: you want all ideas to conform to your standard, as if your standard were THE standard against which all others are to be judged.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Quantum physics has now confirmed the illusory quality of everyday reality.

No, quantum mechanics has confirmed that the sub-atomic world is very weird, this has nothing whatsoever to do with our experience of everyday reality. You're still making the school-boy error of conflating the behaviour of the sub-atomic and everyday worlds.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

you want all ideas to conform to your standard, as if your standard were THE standard against which all others are to be judged.

I think that's the pot calling the kettle black. You have become so attached to your ideas that you can't cope with anyone challenging them.

 

[godnotgod]

That's just as nonsensical. A mystic has no access to the sub-atomic world, just the everyday world, so logically they cannot have access to your mythical "Ultimate Reality" which supposedly encompasses both.

If that is the case, then how did the Buddha know that the 5 aggregates were empty? If he were only accessing the everyday world for that information, he would never have seen that. But because he was seeing the everyday world from another viewpoint, he was able to do so.

Remember that the Heart Sutra is also referred to as The Perfection of Wisdom.

You have things ***-backwards: because the mystic has access to Ultimate Reality, he can see the illusory nature of the everyday world. I never said he has access to the sub-atomic world. You're adding things in that aren't there. Access to Ultimate Reality involves a spiritual awakening, and that is exactly what the Buddha experienced. This awakening is what transforms our view of the everyday world from it being mundane into that of the miraculous:

"Chop wood,
carry water.
How miraculous!'

from Zen

 

[godnotgod]

No, quantum mechanics has confirmed that the sub-atomic world is very weird, this has nothing whatsoever to do with our experience of everyday reality. You're still making the school-boy error of conflating the behaviour of the sub-atomic and everyday worlds.

Nope. YOU are still making the school boy error of putting words in my mouth.

NOTE: I did not say that we experience the sub-atomic world as the sub-atomic world. I said that we perceive it as the everyday world, because the everyday world is an illusion. Quantum physics says that the sub-atomic world is virtual in nature, and because the everyday world is completely built upon the sub-atomic world, the everyday world is also virtual, even though we perceive it as being real.

So, while we do not experience the sub-atomic world as such, it has everything to do with our experience of the everyday world.

While we do not experience air molecules striking our face as air molecules, they have everything to do with what we call 'wind' striking our face.

Do you understand?

 

[godnotgod]

I think that's the pot calling the kettle black. You have become so attached to your ideas that you can't cope with anyone challenging them.

I directly answered his request for a definition of consciousness. It is he (and you) who are so attached to the old paradigm that you cannot cope with ideas that challenge it.

 

[godnotgod]

No, quantum mechanics has confirmed that the sub-atomic world is very weird, this has nothing whatsoever to do with our experience of everyday reality.

You continue to wallow around in duality, thinking 'this world' and 'that world', when there is but one world. Have you learned nothing from your 'Buddhish' teachings?

 

[godnotgod]

They aren't. They have been rationalized later after the knowledge was obtained via logical and empirical methods. They had no profound knowledge. They had random guesses about the universe and some of them could be rationalized later. Many mystical teachings were found out to be totally wrong. I should look some up to show you.

To be clear: what I mean by 'mysticism' is the merging of subject and object; of observer and observed.

This experience has nothing to do with logic, reason, hunches, or empiricism. You are creating a false picture of the mystic's vision via your conceptual framework, when the mystic's vision is beyond the conceptual mind. Intuition is only the pathway to the mystical experience, and not the experience itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Monks literally can't stop thinking. If you think they do you are simply wrong. If they think they do they are deluded or don't understand the fundamentals of "thought".

Meditation is a form of mental process so yes it is "thinking". Focus is directing the brain's energy towards a specific task. Narrowing that focus helps improve results. Nothing about that is wrong or off.

Also I don't trust your source of Alpha Brain waves. I don't consider it fact so it isn't a supporting point for your argument.

You are free to verify my source via other sources, which say the same thing: increased alpha wave activity is indicative of less brain activity and higher states of consciousness.

Meditation is allowing the thinking mind to settle of its own accord by not attaching oneself to thoughts in the sense that they are 'my' thoughts. The focus is shifted from the thinking mind to the breath or the hara. Eventually, all thoughts come to a complete halt.

Because you operate from a position of rational thought, you can't see a condition that can exist without thought.

So what do you think are the 'fundamentals of thought?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you actually listen to music, or do you just hear the sound?

Both.

There is the attempt, then there is the experience itself.

The scientific method is a highly controlled, but still conditioned view. It yields factual knowledge, which is still not yet true understanding. It will never provide a true understanding of the nature of Reality simply because it's methodology stands in the way.

How?

Direct experience of Reality is not a subjective opinion, idea, theory, or concept of Reality; it is the merging of subject and object as a singular experience, without an experiencer. That such an 'experiencer of the experience' exists is only an idea, just as there is no such thing as a 'whirlpool'; there is only whirling water.

And why is science incapable of understanding those things scientifically?

How can you understand, via Reason, something that lies beyond Reason?

How can you demonstrate that anything lies beyond reason?

 

[godnotgod]

You're dodging the question. What I said was: "Do you accept that in fact quantum mechanics is irrelevant to the experience of a mystic?"
Clearly quantum mechanics is irrelevant to the experience of a mystic, because a mystic has no access to the sub-atomic world.

From The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, pp. 132 143:

To summarize the world view emerging from atomic physics, the words of a Tantric Buddhist, Lama Anagarika Govinda, seem to be perfectly apropos:

"The Buddhist does not believe in an independent or separately existing external world, into whose dynamic forces he could insert himself. The external world and his inner world are for him only two sides of the same fabric, in which the threads of all forces and of all events, of all forms of consciousness and of their objects, are woven into an inseparable net of endless, mutually conditioned relations."

Untitled

 

[godnotgod]

How?

The nature of Reality is not specifically a scientifically-defined nature. Science is an overlay onto Reality.

And why is science incapable of understanding those things scientifically?

Partly because science is a method of dissection. You cannot understand the music by dismantling the piano. Science wants to set up a separate observer of Reality, but that is not possible, as the 'observer' is 100% integrated into Reality itself.

How can you demonstrate that anything lies beyond reason?

I cannot demonstrate it for you. You have to go see for yourself via your own direct experience. Having said that, you must realize this experience is also beyond a personal view. All personal views must be transcended.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The nature of Reality is not specifically a scientifically-defined nature.

How did you reach this conclusion?

Science is an overlay onto Reality.

Science is a methodology through which we learn to analyse and understand reality, to the best of our ability. I wouldn't necessarily say that it tints reality like an overlay.

Partly because science is a method of dissection. You cannot understand the music by dismantling the piano.

This is something you keep asserting, but I have asked what you mean by "understand" and you have yet to really answer. Maybe you explained it some pages ago and I missed it, but I still feel like there is no reason to assert that science cannot "understand" something. We understand sound waves, how they are created, how frequencies can alter them, how we can generate them, how the human ear picks up these waves and how the brain interprets them. To what extent does this not qualify as an "understanding" of music?

Science wants to set up a separate observer of Reality, but that is not possible, as the 'observer' is 100% integrated into Reality itself.

Is there any reason to assume this limits science is any meaningful way? Can an observer who is a part of reality never understand themselves as a part of the reality in which they exist?

I cannot demonstrate it for you. You have to go see for yourself via your own direct experience. Having said that, you must realize this experience is also beyond a personal view. All personal views must be transcended.

Excuse me, but I'm not interested in personal views. I'm interested in factual claims. If you make a factual claim, I am interested in how you justify it. In this case, you have made a definitive, factual claim about the limitations of reason, and I am asking you how you came to that conclusion and why you think it is reasonable.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You are free to verify my source via other sources, which say the same thing: increased alpha wave activity is indicative of less brain activity and higher states of consciousness.

Meditation is allowing the thinking mind to settle of its own accord by not attaching oneself to thoughts in the sense that they are 'my' thoughts. The focus is shifted from the thinking mind to the breath or the hara. Eventually, all thoughts come to a complete halt.

Because you operate from a position of rational thought, you can't see a condition that can exist without thought.

So what do you think are the 'fundamentals of thought?

The fundamental aspects of thought is brain activity. Meditation still requires brain activity. No brain activity or as you may call it "no thought" would result in being brain dead.

To be clear: what I mean by 'mysticism' is the merging of subject and object; of observer and observed.

This experience has nothing to do with logic, reason, hunches, or empiricism. You are creating a false picture of the mystic's vision via your conceptual framework, when the mystic's vision is beyond the conceptual mind. Intuition is only the pathway to the mystical experience, and not the experience itself.

The experience is totally subjective and happens within the mind. In fact none of it is to be trusted as fact unless one can look at it objectively. Thus empiricism continues to be the only consistent way of obtaining new knowledge accurately. Despite what you have claimed none of the mystical concepts and claims by nameless men throughout the ages in a non-existent spiritually versed asian fairy tale land has come up with any secrets of the universe that somehow predates the scientific understanding of it.

Because 'what we have known it to be' is a totally convincing illusion, projected via virtual particles.

What you don't seem to have ever grasped is that, in spite of how we perceive it, the world is still an illusion. That is the difference between the conditioned mind and the awakened mind. We call the condition of the awakened mind 'Higher Consciousness' because it sees things as they actually are, rather than how the conditioned mind perceives them to be. Quantum physics has now confirmed the illusory quality of everyday reality. When it says that all physical reality is virtual, it is saying that how we perceive it is faulty. Once this has been detected, the mystic seeks something beyond his perceptual reality, and that is Ultimate Reality.

False. Our reality is exactly as we perceive it and not at the same time. What we "feel" and the fundamental forces that dictate our lives are very very real. What they are when you keep peeling back the layers and finding out what is next surprises us. That is true. But it isn't some illusionary concept as if we are in a dream which is what you seem to be describing.

You asked for a definition. I provided one. If you cannot accept it, then there is no basis for further discussion.

Your problem is the same problem of the theist: you want all ideas to conform to your standard, as if your standard were THE standard against which all others are to be judged.

Your definition wasn't a definition. It was nonsensical at best. And the standard that I conform to, empiricism, logic and the like IS the standard. If you don't like it then mystic yourself to the moon or mystic some electricity.

 

[godnotgod]

How did you reach this conclusion?

Reality existed before science ever came around.

Science is a methodology through which we learn to analyse and understand reality, to the best of our ability. I wouldn't necessarily say that it tints reality like an overlay.

We understand the behavior of aspects of the physical world, discover consistencies, and thus are able to make predictions about future behavior. But science does not understand the true nature of reality. If we did, we would have stopped searching long before. Being a methodology, it provides a description of reality, but descriptions are not reality itself, just as the menu is not the meal. In dissecting reality, science thinks it is going to someday reach an epiphany, in which it can the say: 'Ah-HA!. So THAT'S what it's all about!' Science is sadly mistaken in this regard. Factual knowledge derived via dissection is not Reality.

This is something you keep asserting, but I have asked what you mean by "understand" and you have yet to really answer. Maybe you explained it some pages ago and I missed it, but I still feel like there is no reason to assert that science cannot "understand" something. We understand sound waves, how they are created, how frequencies can alter them, how we can generate them, how the human ear picks up these waves and how the brain interprets them. To what extent does this not qualify as an "understanding" of music?

Understanding the mechanics of music is not to understand music. Music is created to listen to, not analyze. Music is non-verbal communication via the specific arrangement of certain sounds. But that which is intended to be communicated is not just notes and sounds. It is more than that, a Gestalt, if you wish. Understanding what the creator of the music intends depends on your mode of receptivity. If you are focusing on notes, waves, and the rest of the mechanisms, you are missing the message of the music.

Is there any reason to assume this limits science is any meaningful way? Can an observer who is a part of reality never understand themselves as a part of the reality in which they exist?

The very methodology of science is that there is an observer and the observed. Understanding the true nature of Reality involves a merging of the observer and the observed. Science and its handmaidens: Reason, Logic, and Analysis, must be transcended before true understanding can be achieved. Once this is done, the factual knowledge can then be placed in the correct context of Reality itself, which is the source of science's content. When the attempt is made to 'understand' Reality within the context of science, the results will be limited by the methodology of science. That is why paradox emerges: science's view of nature is a conceptual overlay that does not match nature. Nature is bigger than any methodology which attempts to define or encapsulate it. IOW, the finite cannot encapsulate the infinite. All it can really do is to point to it.


[/QUOTE]Excuse me, but I'm not interested in personal views. I'm interested in factual claims. If you make a factual claim, I am interested in how you justify it. In this case, you have made a definitive, factual claim about the limitations of reason, and I am asking you how you came to that conclusion and why you think it is reasonable.[/QUOTE]

I already told you: Reason is limited on both the micro and the macro scales; the Planck Scale is an example on the one hand, with the failed mathematics re: black holes on the other. In short, Reason can provide factual knowledge about the world, but it cannot tell us what the true nature of Reality is. For that, you need another kind of insight, one that is transcendent of Reason, Logic, and Analysis; one that does not attempt a dissection of Reality into 'parts', since the Universe is not a mechanical artefact. Reason always attempts to define; to encapsulate Reality, but Reality is infinite, and cannot be so contained. Just look at the problem physicist Michio Kaku ran into when attempting to marry Relativity to Quantum Physics in understanding black holes:

 

[Looncall]

From The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, pp. 132 143:

To summarize the world view emerging from atomic physics, the words of a Tantric Buddhist, Lama Anagarika Govinda, seem to be perfectly apropos:

"The Buddhist does not believe in an independent or separately existing external world, into whose dynamic forces he could insert himself. The external world and his inner world are for him only two sides of the same fabric, in which the threads of all forces and of all events, of all forms of consciousness and of their objects, are woven into an inseparable net of endless, mutually conditioned relations."

Untitled

Deepity and bafflegab.