Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Runewolf1973]

I never claimed that it did.

Virtual mass means that it is not real mass. It does not refer to a temporary state of existence, as was stated by another poster. That temporary state are the Quantum fluctuations which create the virtual mass of the atom. I post this once again for your benefit:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

It still means there is something going on (interactions) which are causing all of this.

 

[Shad]

But the fact that it actually works means it's valid. People actually get well and become happy. Are you going to tell me their physical wellness and spiritual happiness are delusions of the mind because there is no published blah blah blah?

The palcebo effect is a valid and sound solution for a number of medical condition since these condition are dictated by the mind rather than the body. It works for every religion and does nothing to validate the claims behind the practices such as prayer and meditation. It only shows both work in some form.

Meditation is a pathway to HC, not the goal itself, and so, relevant.

Prayer is the pathway to God. Your claims works just as well for every other religion and does nothing to validate the claims behind either. It only shows meditation has a n effect, not that the effect leads to HC, God, etc.

The goal of prayer meditation is not to experience HC.

God is a higher consciousness thus prayer leads to an experience with a higher consciousness. It also is self-reflective of the subject's consciousness. Neither proves anything regarding if HC or God are real.

Do you require published credible research to tell you that you exist, or that the water in a mountain lake is cold?

No my existence is an axiom. A lake is something I can see, travel to, take my family to, use tools of measurement on. Analogy fallacy since both can be evaluated using reason, one with tools while HC is not restricted by either. Also via induction one can infer one lake is cold based on the experience of another lake. Again this is using reason via logic which you admit is not applicable to HC. Besides this there are warm or hot lakes. The Boiling Lake and Frying Pan Lake are hot lakes due to being feed from hot springs rather than river/steam runoff. Again temperature is measurable

 

[Shad]

Did you read what I actually said? I said that the PATHWAY is the intuitive mind, not the outcome, which is the experience of Higher Consciousness, and is not based on Reason. IOW, one does not Reason or think one's way to Enlightenment. This is especially true with the Zen koan, which is a little riddle designed to cause the rational mind to self implode.

It is still a belief in a concept which leads to doctrine and dogma. This concept is not proven thus it is a belief which you wish to load with terms as if it gave it more credibility than any other religious belief. I have no need in entertaining your sophistry as it has any meaning or relevance to this fact.

STOP! You clearly don't know what you're saying: HC has nothing to do with any teaching in essence. It is beyond all teachings. It is a state of consciousness, not a doctrine.

Doctrine based sophistry

What I am saying you must concede to is the fact that you are looking at something through the bias of your rational mind, an experience you have not yet tasted. It's like someone trying to figure out the taste of lemons who has never eaten one.

Experiences are evaluated by reason. By admitting you have no evidence for your view and that I must accept it then experience it is no more than any other religion claiming "You must let in the Holy Spirit to understand" You seem to have issues with that anyone can reject your views as nonsense since you have 0 reason and logic behind it. You want to express your belief but not to have it criticized thus bury it in sophistry, nothing more. A lemon is real, you can buy one, you can eat one. Fallacious analogy again

 

[Runewolf1973]

Oh? And what is that 'something'?

HOW DOES THE BRAIN DETERMINE THAT INTERACTION IS INTERACTION?

The brain is evolved in such a way that it can pick up on and respond to changes in stimulation. It interacts because that is all there is to do...interact.

 

[Shad]

Hagelin's view is rejected by every credible physicist on the planet. He is a crackpot

 

[godnotgod]

The brain is evolved in such a way that it can pick up on and respond to changes in stimulation. It interacts because that is all there is to do...interact.

...and interaction occurs against a background of....what?

 

[godnotgod]

Hagelin's view is rejected by every credible physicist on the planet. He is a crackpot

Mavericks on the cutting edge are always seen that way by established 'authority'.

 

[Shad]

Mavericks on the cutting edge are always seen that way by established 'authority'.

They also have been just plain crackpots and more often than not.

 

[godnotgod]

It is still a belief in a concept which leads to doctrine and dogma. This concept is not proven thus it is a belief which you wish to load with terms as if it gave it more credibility than any other religious belief. I have no need in entertaining your sophistry as it has any meaning or relevance to this fact.

Show me the belief, concept, doctrine, and/or dogma here. For example, a Christian doctrine says that:

'no man goes to the Father but through Me'

Show me what the 'doctrine' of HC states.

I told you: the experience is an inner experience and cannot be proved via Reason. The experience is validated via the subject going to see for himself. Now having said that, are you going to redundantly continue to demand factual evidence for what I am saying?

 

[godnotgod]

They also have been just plain crackpots and more often than not.

...and dismissed as such. Hagelin has physics credentials to prove he is not a crackpot, and his view is accepted and applauded by many. He is also a practiced Buddhist who understands how physics relates to the mystical view. IOW, he correctly sees the universe as one experience, as I also do. Science incorrectly attempts to categorize the universe in purely rationalist, materialist terms, a view which is troublesome on both the micro and macro scales.

 

[godnotgod]

Doctrine based sophistry

Reality is neither, and its direct apprehension is also neither.

 

[godnotgod]

Experiences are evaluated by reason. By admitting you have no evidence for your view and that I must accept it then experience it is no more than any other religion claiming "You must let in the Holy Spirit to understand" You seem to have issues with that anyone can reject your views as nonsense since you have 0 reason and logic behind it. You want to express your belief but not to have it criticized thus bury it in sophistry, nothing more. A lemon is real, you can buy one, you can eat one. Fallacious analogy again

HC is also real. You can experience it directly, here, now, and is always available, no purchase necessary.

What part of 'HC is beyond Reason' don't you understand? That it is so is not an admission, but a reality.

Religions have doctrines. I want you to show me the doctrine you claim HC contains. You can't, because there is none. If there were, it would not be HC. Get it?

 

[godnotgod]

God is a higher consciousness thus prayer leads to an experience with a higher consciousness. It also is self-reflective of the subject's consciousness. Neither proves anything regarding if HC or God are real.

Of course not; you have to experience them directly to know they are real. HC is beyond factual, provable knowledge.

HC is not about the subject's consciousness; it is beyond all personal views. The experience of HC is an impersonal one. There is no longer an identification in terms of 'I' that is present in HC.

 

[godnotgod]

No my existence is an axiom. A lake is something I can see, travel to, take my family to, use tools of measurement on. Analogy fallacy since both can be evaluated using reason, one with tools while HC is not restricted by either. Also via induction one can infer one lake is cold based on the experience of another lake. Again this is using reason via logic which you admit is not applicable to HC. Besides this there are warm or hot lakes. The Boiling Lake and Frying Pan Lake are hot lakes due to being feed from hot springs rather than river/steam runoff. Again temperature is measurable

Hint: you know the water is cold via your immediate and spontaneous experience of it that it is cold.

 

[Runewolf1973]

...and interaction occurs against a background of....what?

That is open to speculation. You are free to speculate that it might be a form of higher consciousness, and science is free to speculate that it might be a unified field of some sort. I speculate that it is an interactive, unified field, but not consciousness as we know it. I personally wouldn't call it consciousness. An Ultimate Reality of sorts?...Perhaps...I could see that as a possibility. Not a "conscious" reality however...interactive.

 

[godnotgod]

That is open to speculation. You are free to speculate that it might be a form of higher consciousness, and science is free to speculate that it might be a unified field of some sort. I speculate that it is an interactive, unified field, but not consciousness as we know it. I personally wouldn't call it consciousness. An Ultimate Reality of sorts?...Perhaps...I could see that as a possibility. Not a "conscious" reality however...interactive.

Here's a little exercise...
Before you respond, please think about it carefully...

you see the hedge against the backdrop of the hills;
you see the hills against the backdrop of the sky;
but you see the sky against the backdrop of consciousness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Here's a little exercise...
Before you respond, please think about it carefully...

you see the hedge against the backdrop of the hills;
you see the hills against the backdrop of the sky;
but you see the sky against the backdrop of consciousness.

I already know there is a backdrop to all this, but I choose not to call it consciousness, nor do I believe it just sits behind the scenes idly and does nothing. How would a director who sits behind the scenes create a play or a movie without interacting in some way with the cast? If this background is creating or manifesting these "illusions"as you call them, then it is still doing something and that is still a form of interaction. Of course, I know you'll say something to the regards that there is no play because the play is just an illusion. I understand your perspective, however if you run into a brick wall you WILL feel it.

 

[godnotgod]

I already know there is a backdrop to all this, but I choose not to call it consciousness, nor do I believe it just sits behind the scenes idly and does nothing. How would a director who sits behind the scenes create a play or a movie without interacting in some way with the cast? If this background is creating or manifesting these "illusions"as you call them, then it is still doing something and that is still a form of interaction. Of course, I know you'll say something to the regards that there is no play because the play is just an illusion. I understand your perspective, however if you run into a brick wall you WILL feel it.

Yes, you feel it due to perceptual reality, but Ultimate Reality still says material reality is illusory. So from the POV of conditioned consciousness, this material world is real; but from the POV of UR, it is not. The same is true of a dream; from the POV of the dream, the dream world is real; but from the POV of the awakened state, we see that it is not. And so, a further awakening from this seemingly awakened state called Waking Sleep sees it as fiction.

You are all over the map in your last posts, when the simple and obvious answer is non-action, or The Changeless, as the background to what you are calling 'inter-action'. Without it, you would not be able to detect interaction. But The Changeless is passive, and not readily apparent to the mind which is focused on 'interaction', but is there nonetheless at all times, and fundamental to the detection of the material world as material in motion.

 

[Shad]

Hint: you know the water is cold via your immediate and spontaneous experience of it that it is cold.

Experiences which can be verified by others and tools. Which is HC does not fulfill. So your comparison is fallacious. More so this causes issues with perception. If a person can not feel hot or cold then their experience of a cold lake is moot as they do not have the senses, perception, required for such an experience. Your example is no more than being chained in the cave talking about the shadows (HC) you see with your fellow prisoners. Again you cherry pick when and where HC is subject to reason and logic.

Show me the belief, concept, doctrine, and/or dogma here. For example, a Christian doctrine says that:

'no man goes to the Father but through Me'

Show me what the 'doctrine' of HC states.

I told you: the experience is an inner experience and cannot be proved via Reason. The experience is validated via the subject going to see for himself. Now having said that, are you going to redundantly continue to demand factual evidence for what I am saying?

The very idea of a higher consciousness is a belief. The method of accessing this is dogma and doctrine since methods are instruction... You have no evidence thus I can dismiss your claims due to lack of evidence. If it can not be validate by reason you have a unjustified belief, which I can also dismiss.

...and dismissed as such. Hagelin has physics credentials to prove he is not a crackpot, and his view is accepted and applauded by many. He is also a practiced Buddhist who understands how physics relates to the mystical view. IOW, he correctly sees the universe as one experience, as I also do. Science incorrectly attempts to categorize the universe in purely rationalist, materialist terms, a view which is troublesome on both the micro and macro scales.

Yes he does but he idea in unified field and consciousness is rejected by his peers. Just because someone has credentials does not mean they are not a crackpot especially pushing ideas their own peers reject. It is your mistake in asumming science should entertain as irrational, illogical, woo thinking as valid. Scientists would be spending more time rejecting nonsense from every crackpot with a marker and cardboard sign then progressing and resolving what it is meant to address. You confuse science with philosophy and religion which is expected since Deepak teaches all 3 are the same.

You also just contradicted yourself. If HC is not subject to reason and logic then Hagelin can not be used as a support as he uses both.... So you are cherry picking when HC is subject to reason and logic only when it supports your argument.

Reality is neither, and its direct apprehension is also neither.

Sophistry. "Making tea is the continuity of spiritual belonging"

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

HC is also real. You can experience it directly, here, now, and is always available, no purchase necessary.

Then you can provide studies proving this. After all if it is so easy then it can be shown in a controlled study group.

What part of 'HC is beyond Reason' don't you understand? That it is so is not an admission, but a reality.

No its sophistry so you can avoid any burden of proof you have for your claim

Religions have doctrines. I want you to show me the doctrine you claim HC contains. You can't, because there is none. If there were, it would not be HC. Get it?

Did so above

Of course not; you have to experience them directly to know they are real. HC is beyond factual, provable knowledge.

Provable means it is subject to logic and reason. Your sophistry is tripping you up or you do not understand what certain words mean.

HC is not about the subject's consciousness; it is beyond all personal views. The experience of HC is an impersonal one. There is no longer an identification in terms of 'I' that is present in HC.

Sophistry

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, you feel it due to perceptual reality, but Ultimate Reality still says material reality is illusory. So from the POV of conditioned consciousness, this material world is real; but from the POV of UR, it is not. The same is true of a dream; from the POV of the dream, the dream world is real; but from the POV of the awakened state, we see that it is not. And so, a further awakening from this seemingly awakened state called Waking Sleep sees it as fiction.

You are all over the map in your last posts, when the simple and obvious answer is non-action, or The Changeless, as the background to what you are calling 'inter-action'. Without it, you would not be able to detect interaction. But The Changeless is passive, and not readily apparent to the mind which is focused on 'interaction', but is there nonetheless at all times, and fundamental to the detection of the material world as material in motion.

It seems that what you are describing ultimately equates to no reality, no consciouness, no bliss, no anything.