Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

Deepity and bafflegab.

Aw, Loony! So disappointed in you. C'mon. We'll take this step by step, OK? It's not so difficult. Ready?

 

[godnotgod]

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.

The brain regulates heart beat, digestion, and other autonomic functions. Are you saying that this brain activity is thinking?

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.

mmmm....the Buddha stated his principle of Sunyata, which says that:

emptiness is form;
form is emptiness.

which came about before Quantum mechanics recently discovered the virtual nature of all mass.

From the POV of YOUR rational thinking, the mystic's experience is subjective and personal, but that is not the case. The mystical experience is beyond all personal views. It is an impersonal view, one that the rational mind has never experienced before. And no, the mystical experience does not occur within the mind, as you think, because it is beyond mind. It is in consciousness, which is before mind.

You are in such denial that you make things up as you go along which are in total contradiction to what mystics have reported as their experience. You have already decided that anything 'mystical' must be delusive, and that the only true knowledge comes from Reason and empirical observation. Is it not obvious to you that your view, while productive to a great degree within a certain context, is a very narrow one, and that another pathway to knowledge of a larger dimension may be possible?

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.

One of the latest episodes of peeling back layers is the discovery that all mass is virtual in nature. IOW, reality is not real. It is a complete illusion. You just are not prepared to accept that discovery as true yet, because you are still attached to the old paradigm. The 'fundamental forces' that dictate our lives are pure fiction, created by ourselves. We call this state of consciousness 'Identification', which we believe is real, but is in reality, only fiction, a hard pill to swallow for someone like you, for sure. But some are so rigidly indoctrinated by Reason that the old paradigm may have to be pryed from their cold dead hand.

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.

I do like it, but it is not the Gold Standard. You are just naive enough to believe that it is, just as the theist believes his particular doctrine is The Gold Standard by which all others should be judged. It is simply a certain level of magnification, that's all. Stop your silly worship of the God of Reason and Science.

It's not all it's cracked up to be. Some jokingly refer to it as Fawlty Towers. Fact is, Reason does have it's utility. Mystics use it all the time, but within the context of Reality itself, and not the other way around. Sorry, but Reality is still bigger....MUCH bigger..than Reason.

My definition of consciousness is simple and succinct, very easy to understand:

'non-dual consciousness is the complete settling of the activity of the mind'

...which is actually saying that consciousness precedes the mind. It is present all the time, regardless of mind activity or not. It is the default background to the manifested universe and all of IT'S activity. In reality, it is none other than The Absolute, perfectly still, changeless, unborn, ungrown, deathless, and existing outside of Time or Space.

Here's another definition:

Pure Consciousness is THAT which sees things as they actually are; conditioned consciousness is that which sees things as the mind conceptualizes them to be.

 

[Looncall]

Aw, Loony! So disappointed in you. C'mon. We'll take this step by step, OK? It's not so difficult. Ready?

Sure, it's very simple. You take words beyond their meanings and try to bamboozle folk with fancy language. I'm not buying any of it.
For example, you equivocate the word "virtual": you use it in the sense "not real" when the scientific notion is "very short-lived".
I suppose you feel superior using guff like "absolute reality". How nice for you, but I'm not taken in by baroque writing style.
I see no reason to suppose that mere navel-gazing provides any information.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Reality existed before science ever came around.

Why does that mean that science cannot define it?

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.

Again, you're continuing to make claims without actually explaining your meaning or how you reached your conclusion. I want to know HOW you know science is "sadly mistaken in this regard". Science isn't entirely descriptive - it is also informative and explanatory. It seeks not only to describe physical phenomenon, but to explain them. I see no reason to assert that science is limited in this regard.

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.

But how we do all of those things is understood to be a result of scientifically verifiable processes. There is nothing involved in the listening to or interpreting of music that science cannot explain or understand on some level.

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.

How do you know this? How do you know true understanding CAN'T be reached by reason, logic and analyis? How do you know we are even capable of "transcending" them, or that "true understanding" is even possible?

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.

How do you know that science isn't potentially infinite in its explanatory power? How do you know science cannot explain these things?

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.

Again, this is something of a non-sequitur. You're saying our knowledge or understanding of things is currently limited, therefore it must always be limited. I do not think this is a reasonable thing to assume.

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.

Can you demonstrate this?

Just look at the problem physicist Michio Kaku ran into when attempting to marry Relativity to Quantum Physics in understanding black holes:

Again, the fact that there are things we can't do or don't understand doesn't mean we will never be able to understand them. Limitations to science currently exist, but there is no reason to assert that these limitations will always exist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

The Buddha closely observed his experience of the everyday world and developed an insight into the conditionality of that experience. And again, sunyata has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

Again you are trying to conflate Buddhist insight into the everyday world of human experience with the workings of the sub-atomic world, this completely misrepresents both Buddhism and science.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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?

I have learned enough to know that you are continually misrepresenting both Buddhism and science in a desperate attempt to lend credibility to your idiosyncratic theories. From the human perspective the everyday world and the sub-atomic world are literally two different worlds. And this duality is nothing whatsoever to do with a meditative experience of non-duality.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The 'fundamental forces' that dictate our lives are pure fiction, created by ourselves.

So gravity is just something we imagine then? And if we stop imagining gravity then we can fly? Some of the statements you make are ridiculous.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The brain regulates heart beat, digestion, and other autonomic functions. Are you saying that this brain activity is thinking?

In a rudamentary form yes.

mmmm....the Buddha stated his principle of Sunyata, which says that:

emptiness is form;
form is emptiness.

which came about before Quantum mechanics recently discovered the virtual nature of all mass.

I don't much care for what Buddah says. But even if I did your quote is meaningless in terms of science. Nothing in that quote even REMOTELY touches on anything QM has discovered. At best it is a prolific or at least psudo prolific proverb meant to have some sort of relation to the philosophical rather than the physical.

From the POV of YOUR rational thinking, the mystic's experience is subjective and personal, but that is not the case. The mystical experience is beyond all personal views. It is an impersonal view, one that the rational mind has never experienced before. And no, the mystical experience does not occur within the mind, as you think, because it is beyond mind. It is in consciousness, which is before mind.

You are in such denial that you make things up as you go along which are in total contradiction to what mystics have reported as their experience. You have already decided that anything 'mystical' must be delusive, and that the only true knowledge comes from Reason and empirical observation. Is it not obvious to you that your view, while productive to a great degree within a certain context, is a very narrow one, and that another pathway to knowledge of a larger dimension may be possible?

I do adamantly deny that your "mystical" experiences are anything but delusions until evidence is provided otherwise. I don't care if its narrow. The truth and facts are not a democracy and logic is a narrow narrow thing.

This all reminds me of a funny quote
"It makes sense if you don't think about it."

One of the latest episodes of peeling back layers is the discovery that all mass is virtual in nature. IOW, reality is not real. It is a complete illusion. You just are not prepared to accept that discovery as true yet, because you are still attached to the old paradigm. The 'fundamental forces' that dictate our lives are pure fiction, created by ourselves. We call this state of consciousness 'Identification', which we believe is real, but is in reality, only fiction, a hard pill to swallow for someone like you, for sure. But some are so rigidly indoctrinated by Reason that the old paradigm may have to be pryed from their cold dead hand.

I don't know when you are going to stop calling the world an illusion. A rock is just as real as it has ever been. There are still fundamental forces to the universe. There are still "elementary particles". We aren't made of pixy dust and dreams you know.

I do like it, but it is not the Gold Standard. You are just naive enough to believe that it is, just as the theist believes his particular doctrine is The Gold Standard by which all others should be judged. It is simply a certain level of magnification, that's all. Stop your silly worship of the God of Reason and Science.

It's not all it's cracked up to be. Some jokingly refer to it as Fawlty Towers. Fact is, Reason does have it's utility. Mystics use it all the time, but within the context of Reality itself, and not the other way around. Sorry, but Reality is still bigger....MUCH bigger..than Reason.

My definition of consciousness is simple and succinct, very easy to understand:

'non-dual consciousness is the complete settling of the activity of the mind'

...which is actually saying that consciousness precedes the mind. It is present all the time, regardless of mind activity or not. It is the default background to the manifested universe and all of IT'S activity. In reality, it is none other than The Absolute, perfectly still, changeless, unborn, ungrown, deathless, and existing outside of Time or Space.

Here's another definition:

Pure Consciousness is THAT which sees things as they actually are; conditioned consciousness is that which sees things as the mind conceptualizes them to be.

The definition of grass is when the sky and earth meet.

That is about the same amount of meaning and accuracy as your definition. Your definition pre-supposes ALL of your claims of consciousness rather than actually finding a working definition and then supporting that with evidence or arguments. But you YOURSELF have claimed that your point isn't logical or reasonable. So why do you continue to argue for it if it can't be argued for? Why hold a self admitted untenable position?

I also reject the concept of "pure consciousness'. Its like saying "pure cognition" or "pure smell" or "pure gobbletreckor"

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't know when you are going to stop calling the world an illusion. A rock is just as real as it has ever been. There are still fundamental forces to the universe. There are still "elementary particles". We aren't made of pixy dust and dreams you know.

An important point in this discussion.

 

[godnotgod]

The Buddha closely observed his experience of the everyday world and developed an insight into the conditionality of that experience. And again, sunyata has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics.

Obviously, the Buddha's insight was somehow different than that of the ordinary man. Otherwise he would not have become the Buddha.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure, it's very simple. You take words beyond their meanings and try to bamboozle folk with fancy language. I'm not buying any of it.
For example, you equivocate the word "virtual": you use it in the sense "not real" when the scientific notion is "very short-lived".
I suppose you feel superior using guff like "absolute reality". How nice for you, but I'm not taken in by baroque writing style.
I see no reason to suppose that mere navel-gazing provides any information.

It doesn't. One must focus on the consciousness inside the hara. Try it.

The quote you put down is not from me. It is from a Buddhist lama. Is he also guilty of bamboozling folk with fancy language?

Actually, I've never used the phrase 'absolute reality'. It's Ultimate Reality, and The Absolute. That it may make me feel superior is besides the point.

Ultimate Reality, The Absolute, is none other than this Ordinary world. It's not a big deal, so I guess I have no reason to feel superior in using those terms.

re: 'virtual': I am referring to the mass created out of fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields. The fluctuations are short lived, but the virtual mass being created remains as real mass. That is why we experience it as the 'physical' world.

 

[godnotgod]

Again you are trying to conflate Buddhist insight into the everyday world of human experience with the workings of the sub-atomic world, this completely misrepresents both Buddhism and science.

You are deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying.

Re-read Lama Govinda's statement again:

"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."

 

[godnotgod]

From the human perspective the everyday world and the sub-atomic world are literally two different worlds. And this duality is nothing whatsoever to do with a meditative experience of non-duality.

OK. Show me where the everyday world leaves off and the sub-atomic world begins.

Lama Govinda, for one, says that there are not two worlds. Obviously he is lying, correct?

Show me the difference between the duality of the sub-atomic vs. the everyday world, and the duality of the mind.

 

[godnotgod]

I have learned enough to know that you are continually misrepresenting both Buddhism and science in a desperate attempt to lend credibility to your idiosyncratic theories. From the human perspective the everyday world and the sub-atomic world are literally two different worlds. And this duality is nothing whatsoever to do with a meditative experience of non-duality.

OK. Show me where the everyday world leaves off and the sub-atomic world begins.

Lama Govinda, for one, says that there are not two worlds. Obviously he is lying, correct?

Show me the difference between the duality of the sub-atomic vs. the everyday world, and the duality of the mind.

Is 'Buddhish' an offshoot of mainstream Buddhism that contradicts non-duality, holding up duality as the reality instead? Sounds like revisionism to me.

 

[godnotgod]

So gravity is just something we imagine then? And if we stop imagining gravity then we can fly? Some of the statements you make are ridiculous.

The 'fundamental forces' I was referring to are human in origin, such as our belief systems, our concepts about reality, the condition of Identification, etc, which we respond to and act upon as if they were real. We are in a state of Identification, believing the character being played to be real, when it is pure fiction, and remains so until we spiritually awaken.

Having said that, the physical world and its forces are also illusory, but they are illusions of a higher order than those of our human experience. That is why we see them as being real. The universe is a maya. Only that which manifests the universe is real.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know when you are going to stop calling the world an illusion. A rock is just as real as it has ever been. There are still fundamental forces to the universe. There are still "elementary particles". We aren't made of pixy dust and dreams you know.

When you are dreaming, objects seem 'real' to you. You realize their illusory quality upon awakening. How do you know you haven't awakened into yet another dream world in which objects also seem perfectly real to you, and that a higher awakening is not available which will demonstrate to you the illusory quality of this waking world?

That's 'stardust and dreams', and yes, we are....totally...and so what?

 

[godnotgod]

In a rudamentary form yes.

So are you saying that there is thinking without a thinker?

 

[Looncall]

It doesn't. One must focus on the consciousness inside the hara. Try it.

The quote you put down is not from me. It is from a Buddhist lama. Is he also guilty of bamboozling folk with fancy language?

Actually, I've never used the phrase 'absolute reality'. It's Ultimate Reality, and The Absolute. That it may make me feel superior is besides the point.

Ultimate Reality, The Absolute, is none other than this Ordinary world. It's not a big deal, so I guess I have no reason to feel superior in using those terms.

re: 'virtual': I am referring to the mass created out of fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields. The fluctuations are short lived, but the virtual mass being created remains as real mass. That is why we experience it as the 'physical' world.

So it is dishonest to use this phenomenon to claim that the world is an illusion. As you say, it is real.

Buddhist lama, oh yeah. He may live from a begging bowl, but someone else spends the day knee-deep in night soil in the rice paddy. Just another variety of the scam that is religion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

When you are dreaming, objects seem 'real' to you. You realize their illusory quality upon awakening. How do you know you haven't awakened into yet another dream world in which objects also seem perfectly real to you, and that a higher awakening is not available which will demonstrate to you the illusory quality of this waking world?

That's 'stardust and dreams', and yes, we are....totally...and so what?

There is no "awakening" to be had. At least there is no evidence of it. And now you are saying contradictory things. Well somewhat contradictory. Rather you are making leaps that don't make sense together even if your argument was taken as true.

If the world is made of quantum fluctuations, which it seems to be, and lets say for just a moment that I agreed with you that it in some way shape or form that actually took away from the "realness" of the universe (which I don't allot but simply for the sake of this point...) WHY would this have anything to do with the "illusion" concept that this is all part of a lower consciousness? Great the universe isn't how we precieve it to be. This isn't new information. But why would you suddenly be able to tack on more baseless unknown qualities of the universe? You jump from "illusion that it is solid" to "this is a dream and we have a higher consciousness". Both seem totally independent and unconnected in your argument yet you tie them together as if they do.

So are you saying that there is thinking without a thinker?

There can be calculations without a fully developed human brain yes.