Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[outhouse]

I haver repeatedly told you that Higher Consciousness does not operate within the spheres of Reason, Logic, and Analysis.

You cannot prove a higher consciousness exist. Come back when you have evidence.

Until then a higher conscious is strictly imagination and mythology.

 

[godnotgod]

You cannot prove a higher consciousness exist. Come back when you have evidence.

Until then a higher conscious is strictly imagination and mythology.

Well DUH!...If HC does not operate within the spheres of Logic and Reason, then its veracity cannot be proven via of those means. I keep telling you that; what part of 'cannot' do you not understand?

You make this error in logic, and then top it off by jumping to the erroneous conclusion that because HC cannot be proven via logic/reason, it then MUST be imagination and mythology. How reasonable, logical, or scientific is THAT?

 

[outhouse]

Come back when you have evidence

Until then a higher conscious is strictly imagination and mythology.


Unlike science, we do not know exactly how QM works but it is observed. You don't even have that. Quit making unsubstantiated claims that appear to be imaginative.

 

[Monk Of 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:

If nature did not follow logic and reason then we would not see such success in those processes in determining the world around us.

We don't know what the fluctuations are yet.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If nature did not follow logic and reason then we would not see such success in those processes in determining the world around us.

We don't know what the fluctuations are yet.

Agreed. I speculate those fluctuations are interactions within a Unified Field, not something mystical.

 

[Runewolf1973]

He does a good job of explaining the importance of interaction. Interaction is everything.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Well DUH!...If HC does not operate within the spheres of Logic and Reason, then its veracity cannot be proven via of those means. I keep telling you that; what part of 'cannot' do you not understand?

You make this error in logic, and then top it off by jumping to the erroneous conclusion that because HC cannot be proven via logic/reason, it then MUST be imagination and mythology. How reasonable, logical, or scientific is THAT?

I don't know exactly what it is that you say here. But things cannot be proven without logic or reason. In the absence of them there is no way to verify truth.

 

[godnotgod]

If nature did not follow logic and reason then we would not see such success in those processes in determining the world around us.

We don't know what the fluctuations are yet.

Nature does not follow logic and reason. Logic and Reason are products of THINKING. Logic and Reason are products of HUMAN thought. Are you saying nature thinks?

In fact, nature does not follow 'laws of the universe'. It follows patterns; cyclical patterns, like the seasons and the orbits of planets. The endless birth and rebirth of the universe in differing incarnations is also a cyclical pattern. In nature, we observe many cycles, such as the Carbon Cycle.

What you call 'laws' seem to be continually broken by evolutionary processes.

On top of not knowing what the fluctuations are, we DO know they create the virtual, not the real, mass of the atom. What that means is that the 'material reality' built upon such virtual mass, is not so material, but virtual. Show me how Reason explains that.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know exactly what it is that you say here. But things cannot be proven without logic or reason. In the absence of them there is no way to verify truth.

They can be proven via pure seeing into the nature of things, without thought. This kind of knowledge has been going on for thousands of years, and those who practice it, have come up with consistent conclusions, independently of one another in space and time. IOW, we all possess within is a Universal Consciousness, that, when free of personal views, sees the same Reality, as the true nature of Reality is the same here as it is everywhere. Were it not so, we would not be able to come up with a fairly consistent system of demonstrable thought such as Science. So you might say that that which cannot be proven is the basis for that which can.

 

[godnotgod]

He does a good job of explaining the importance of interaction. Interaction is everything.

Your mind is moving again, LOL.

Be that as it may, what have you to say about the fact that the brain is non-local, which is what the experiment demonstrated?

 

[godnotgod]

Agreed. I speculate those fluctuations are interactions within a Unified Field, not something mystical.

'Mystical' simply mean the merging of the observer with the observed.

But the Unified Field is not material, although it creates the virtual mass of the atom that we THINK is material. The materialist paradigm is dead, my friend. We just need to catch up to that reality. IOW, The Unifed Field is Consciousness. See here:

 

[godnotgod]

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

Backwards, again!

Take deep breath...

Slow down...

Look: what you perceive as and call 'interaction' is occurring against a background of Perfect Stillness. Otherwise you would not be able to detect it as movement. The problem with your idea, and the problem with how most of mankind sees 'reality', is that you focus on the foreground (ie; 'interaction') and ignore the background (The Changeless), while at the same time not realizing that it is The Changeless that is creating the illusion of 'interaction', or 'change'. This is maya, or illusion, the result of lila, or play, thoroughly convincing to the ordinary mind of Reason. Only the awakened mind can see through the illusion.

So it is not interaction that is fundamental to everything; it is The Changeless; The Absolute; that is fundamental to everything. For 'interaction' to occur, it must first be without action. 'Change' can only be seen against a still background. That background is Pure Consciousness.

you see the hedge against the hills;
you see the hills against the sky;
but you see the sky against CONSCIOUSNESS!

(I see that you are further along the path than some of the others here, but every time you come to the threshold of the truth, you recoil back to your safe haven of Reason.)

 

[Runewolf1973]

(I see that you are further along the path than some of the others here, but every time you come to the threshold of the truth, you recoil back to your safe haven of Reason.)

There are many proclaimed "truths", but there is only one Reason. As such it is by personal choice that I shall stick with Reason until one of those "truths" can present itself as fact. I will say this though...out of all those many proclaimed "truths" I would say yours makes the most sense.

 

[godnotgod]

There are many proclaimed "truths", but there is only one Reason. As such it is by personal choice that I shall stick with Reason until one of those "truths" can present itself as fact. I will say this though...out of all those many proclaimed "truths" I would say yours makes the most sense.

I here make the distinction between doctrine and truth, but 'truth' is a problematical word; Ultimate Reality may be better. Ultimate Reality, however, is beyond mere fact and Reason, as well as beyond all doctrine.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I here make the distinction between doctrine and truth, but 'truth' is a problematical word; Ultimate Reality may be better.

What is "real" about that Ultimate Reality?

 

[Shad]

If nature did not follow logic and reason then we would not see such success in those processes in determining the world around us.

We don't know what the fluctuations are yet.

Logic is not a thing thus nature does not follow it. It is a tool to understand reality which is built upon our observations of nature and self. You have it completely backwards.

 

[godnotgod]

What is "real" about that Ultimate Reality?

It's not subject to distortion as perceptual reality is. It is beyond taste, smell, hearing, seeing, and touch. It is the only true Reality that is behind the illusory phenomenal world that we only perceive as being real.

"Nothing we see or hear is perfect, and yet there, in the midst of all of the imperfection, lies Perfect Reality"

“Everything we see is always changing, always losing its balance. But the reason everything looks beautiful is because it is out of balance, but its background is always in perfect harmony. This is how everything actually exists; losing its balance against a background of perfect balance. So if you see things without realizing the background of perfect balance, everything appears to be in the form of suffering. But if you understand the background of existence, you realize that suffering itself is how we live, and how we extend our life.”

Shunryu Suzuki, SF Zen Center

 

[godnotgod]

Logic is not a thing thus nature does not follow it. It is a tool to understand reality which is built upon our observations of nature and self. You have it completely backwards.

Logic and Reason tell us things about self and nature; they do not tell us what they actually are.

 

[Shad]

Logic and Reason tell us things about self and nature; they do not tell us what they actually are.

Both are a toolsets we developed by us, nature does not follow logic nor reason. Reason and logic follow nature. Hence why apparent logical and reasonable views become outdated in when new information is provided. There are far more people that do not use logic nor reason for a lot of their views thus fail to use the toolset properly since as with any toolset one must be educated in it's use.

 

[outhouse]

. Reason and logic follow nature

Why use those when you can twist reality into something its not with imagination and fantasy and mythology????