Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

Like I said, it is no different than the Yin/Yang. The "middle" or center can only be defined by the duality of the left and the right the same way as the "oneness" of the Yin/Yang symbol can only be defined by duality of the Yin and the Yang. One cannot simply go "see" for oneself because invariably one will see or experience two. Without a doubt if one tries to see the middle they will see two sides and a duality, but that is why that middle...the true center or oneness...cannot be seen, not even from within.

The duality of Yin/Yang is defined by Oneness, not the other way round. The Two did not create the One; The Two came from the One, but the One still remains The One at all times.

In the religious sense, male and female did not create the androgynous nature of the divine nature; male and female came out of that androgyny.

The enlightened man sees Yin/Yang as One, not Two. Only the unenlightened see them as Two.

Further, if The Universe is The Absolute, which is The Infinite, there is no center or middle. All points are the center and not the center at the same time. And so it is said that:

'God is a circle whose circumference is endless and whose center is everywhere (nowhere).'

 

[godnotgod]

But really...I find that which can be seen and measured much more interesting.

Perhaps, but you only see the visible and the measured via of the invisible and the unmeasurable.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The duality of Yin/Yang is defined by Oneness, not the other way round. The Two did not create the One; The Two came from the One, but the One still remains The One at all times.

In the religious sense, male and female did not create the androgynous nature of the divine nature; male and female came out of that androgyny.

The enlightened man sees Yin/Yang as One, not Two. Only the unenlightened see them as Two.

Further, if The Universe is The Absolute, which is The Infinite, there is no center or middle. All points are the center and not the center at the same time. And so it is said that:

'God is a circle whose circumference is endless and whose center is everywhere (nowhere).'

What I meant by center, middle, or "inter" was precisely that which is everywhere and that which is endless, infinite and without bounds. Like you said the Two did not create the One, the Two came from the One. The same thing can be said about my word interaction. "Action" (the Two) comes after or out of "inter" (the One). That Yin/Yang symbol points to that interaction very nicely. For some reason though when I say the word interaction you assume a duality, but the duality of interaction is only an illusion. In effect what you are doing with my words is the equivalent of someone being shown the Yin/Yang symbol and only pointing at the two dots.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Perhaps, but you only see the visible and the measured via of the invisible and the unmeasurable.

Whatever works. Thus far your attempts to prove my way, or anyone else's on here for that matter wrong, have been somewhat.....unenlightening.

 

[godnotgod]

...the Two did not create the One, the Two came from the One. The same thing can be said about my word interaction. "Action" (the Two) comes after or out of "inter" (the One).

When I say: 'the Two came from the One', I mean the illusion of Two coming from the One. In reality, there is no change. That this world came out of the One is an illusion. An illusion is not an action, let alone an interaction. It's just a mistake in perception.

 

[godnotgod]

Whatever works. Thus far your attempts to prove my way, or anyone else's on here for that matter wrong, have been somewhat.....unenlightening.

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong; I'm just telling you what I see.

 

[Runewolf1973]

An illusion is not an action, let alone an interaction. It's just a mistake in perception.

Perception is an action.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong; I'm just telling you what I see.

Sure you can tell me what you see, but you cannot tell me anything about that Absolute or Unified Field for it is that which cannot be seen. I can do no better to be perfectly honest.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure you can tell me what you see, but you cannot tell me anything about that Absolute or Unified Field for it is that which cannot be seen. I can do no better to be perfectly honest.

"And the Light that I saw by was the Light that I was,
and the Light that I was, was the Light that I saw by"

"Tas tvam asi"

 

[godnotgod]

Perception is an action.

The perceptual mind is an illusion. An illusion cannot act.

 

[Runewolf1973]

"And the Light that I saw by was the Light that I was,
and the Light that I was, was the Light that I saw by"

Nice quote. You just can't get behind interaction. It is fundamental to everything, even that oneness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The perceptual mind is an illusion. An illusion cannot act.

Interesting...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So Aristotle had no influence on the writing of the Cave Allegory, at the time it was written. He only commented on what he considered flaws afterward.

I am using the Cave Allegory as metaphor, and as it stands, suits the purpose perfectly, which is that one must go see for oneself that which cannot be proved by any other means.

It suits it perfectly. I agree. Both positions have nothing to stand on and don't accurately portray reality.

 

[godnotgod]

It suits it perfectly. I agree. Both positions have nothing to stand on and don't accurately portray reality.

Nothing to stand on? Quantum Mechanics does not stand on Reason. It must operate upon a different set of rules. So even within science, we have a system operating outside the confines of Reason.

How would you know what accurately portrays reality? Man previously relied on Reason, Logic, and Analysis which told him the pre-Quantum world was reality. Now the apple cart of Reason has been upturned by Quantum Mechanics. Besides that, we seem to have reached the ineluctable limits of Reason on both micro and macro scales, as Kant had told us. Even more recent discoveries in the Quantum world are showing us that the mass of the atom is virtual in nature. So which 'reality' are you referring to?

If you had lived in a cave all your life, the only way you could know of the Sun outside would be for you to go see for yourself. Likewise, if you live your life only via the rational mind, the only way you could know of a higher experience would be for you to go see for yourself. No factual evidence exists for such an experience. How would you know it is a higher experience? How do you know you had been dreaming when you awaken, and that the dream was an illusion? Your existence on the level of rational thought is similarly illuminated via the unmistakably authentic experience of higher consciousness. There is nothing you can conceptualize about it that would even come close, just as your existence in a cave cannot possibly show you what the experience of sunlight is like. All that you can do is to see the ideas of both higher consciousness and Sun through the filter of your current state, and that is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How would you know what accurately portrays reality? Man previously relied on Reason, Logic, and Analysis which told him the pre-Quantum world was reality. Now the apple cart of Reason has been upturned by Quantum Mechanics. Besides that, we seem to have reached the ineluctable limits of Reason on both micro and macro scales, as Kant had told us. Even more recent discoveries in the Quantum world are showing us that the mass of the atom is virtual in nature. So which 'reality' are you referring to?

If you had lived in a cave all your life, the only way you could know of the Sun outside would be for you to go see for yourself. Likewise, if you live your life only via the rational mind, the only way you could know of a higher experience would be for you to go see for yourself. No factual evidence exists for such an experience. How would you know it is a higher experience? How do you know you had been dreaming when you awaken, and that the dream was an illusion? Your existence on the level of rational thought is similarly illuminated via the unmistakably authentic experience of higher consciousness. There is nothing you can conceptualize about it that would even come close, just as your existence in a cave cannot possibly show you what the experience of sunlight is like. All that you can do is to see the ideas of both higher consciousness and Sun through the filter of your current state, and that is exactly what you are doing.

Even quantum mechanics and the quantum world follow logic and reason. It is only through logic and reason that we have discovered these. So long as you keep trying to push your unsubstantiated mystical bull with QM that you clearly don't understand the first thing about it just makes you look foolish in addition to being wrong.

There is no evidence of a higher experience. If it is your unsubstantiated and baseless belief that you feel you are entitled to because of a personal experience then by all means I can't argue with you there. But every scrap of supporting evidence you have attempted to bring to the table does not work in your favor.

 

[godnotgod]

Even quantum mechanics and the quantum world follow logic and reason. It is only through logic and reason that we have discovered these. So long as you keep trying to push your unsubstantiated mystical bull with QM that you clearly don't understand the first thing about it just makes you look foolish in addition to being wrong.

There is no evidence of a higher experience. If it is your unsubstantiated and baseless belief that you feel you are entitled to because of a personal experience then by all means I can't argue with you there. But every scrap of supporting evidence you have attempted to bring to the table does not work in your favor.

Of course logic and reason led up to the discovery of the Quantum world, but the Quantum world itself does not conform to logic and reason. It is you who fails to understand the first thing about it. Can reason and logic explain, for example, entanglement? No!

You seem to be very consistent in your circular position, as you have now returned to square one, and that is that you have completely ignored the fact that I haver repeatedly told you that Higher Consciousness does not operate within the spheres of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. Now, if you would like to make further comment while holding that caveat in your mind, then please, by all means. But please cease and desist from returning to the same old useless argument.

Thank you very much.

PS: I never said that I am opposed to Logic, Reason, and Analysis, or Science; I only said that they don't apply in the real world, 'real' not meaning this illusory existence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course logic and reason led up to the discovery of the Quantum world, but the Quantum world itself does not conform to logic and reason. It is you who fails to understand the first thing about it. Can reason and logic explain, for example, entanglement? No!

Yes it does. It does not hold up to conventional wisdom. That is the important distinction. The QM world is still ruled very much by logic and reason.

You seem to be very consistent in your circular position, as you have now returned to square one, and that is that you have completely ignored the fact that I haver repeatedly told you that Higher Consciousness does not operate within the spheres of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. Now, if you would like to make further comment while holding that caveat in your mind, then please, by all means. But please cease and desist from returning to the same old useless argument.

Strange how you attempt to "argue" a self-admitted untenable position. I might as well recite a flute tune with my anus and it will come up with about the same amount of weight for argument as anyone who intentionally throws aside any sort of logic or reason in an argument.

Like I said, if this is simply your "belief" and not something you claim to be an absolute truth then I can't argue with that. You are within your rights to believe it. However you cannot claim it to be true with no supporting evidence. You say it is beyond the realm of reason and logic and I say your full of ****. Simple as that.

Thank you very much.

PS: I never said that I am opposed to Logic, Reason, and Analysis, or Science; I only said that they don't apply in the real world, 'real' not meaning this illusory existence.

And I will continue with my stance that you don't know the first thing about the "real" world. You failed to grasp the meaning behind mystic teachings of "illusion" and even misquoted the Buddha. You fail to accurately portray the quantum mechanical functions and discoveries and the closest thing to supporting information that you have provided is from youtube videos of people.

 

[godnotgod]

The QM world is still ruled very much by logic and reason.

LOL..that would mean that something is conscious that utilizes logic and reason to rule it. You're kidding, yes?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

LOL..that would mean that something is conscious that utilizes logic and reason to rule it. You're kidding, yes?

No. I am saying that QM is ruled by logic and reason the same as traditional Newtonian mechanics or any other form of science. There can be no science if logic and reason are abandoned. QM is a field of science. The image you have painted of QM is that its some mystical essence that defies all of logic and reason. What you mean to say is it defies conventional wisdom. However it in no way defies logic or reason.

 

[godnotgod]

No. I am saying that QM is ruled by logic and reason the same as traditional Newtonian mechanics or any other form of science. There can be no science if logic and reason are abandoned. QM is a field of science. The image you have painted of QM is that its some mystical essence that defies all of logic and reason. What you mean to say is it defies conventional wisdom. However it in no way defies logic or reason.

QM, and the rest of science, only tells us how the universe behaves on a certain level; it does not tell us what it is. We don't know what 'fluctuations in the Quantum Field' actually are, and how they create the virtual mass of the atom. It's a total mystery to science.

No, nature is not ruled by reason and logic; if that were true, we would have one key to fit all; reason and logic are tools used to tell us about certain behaviors about nature that we can then use to make predictions with. But when the logic doesn't work, we have paradox, as when Michio Kaku demonstrated when he atttempted to marry Einsteins math to black holes:

...or when it was demonstrated via scientific experiments (replicated) that the brain is capable of non-local communication: