Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Shad]

None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the FACT that I found the statement to be true, which it is.

Which is just admiting your confirmation bias, nothing more. Thanks for accept the charge I place on you.

No, it would NOT be the same.

"Dog bark tree chocolate bar bingo." is not a complete coherent sentence, which might be something like: 'Bingo! The dog barks at finding a chocolate bar under the tree'. I was responding to a complete coherent sentence that a computer generated from Chopra's words. The sentence was: "Making tea is the continuity of spiritual belonging". The FACT is that the statement in question DOES have meaning, which I demonstrated via explanation. If I were influenced by confirmation bias, I would not be able to explain the meaning of the statement; I would only say that it was true because I automatically favor everything Chopra says, regardless of its veracity.

It is not the same since you do not have a current system of beliefs that holds value in these word. Which is just you admitting, again, your confirmation bias. Again you miss the point that like the software quote there is no intended meaning from the source of the quote. The only meaning is based on your current views thus confirmation bias. You read meaning into words which had no meaning by the creator, software. It was no attempting to communicate anything to you.

So you have not shown that I have read into the statement in question something that is not there due to confirmation bias. You only assume that I did, based on YOUR confirmation bias against everything Chopra says.

I actually have and you have repeatedly provided evidence by reading meaning into a quote which had no intended meaning. The software was not attempting to communicate any idea to you. You created the idea based on your bias.

The point of the experiment was to show that Chopra's statements are as meaningless as computer generated statements, but the experimenters fail to understand that Chopra's statements are completely meaningful from a mystic's POV, an understanding the experimenters obviously lack. To them, Chopra's statements seem nonsensical, just as, for example, Zen koans seem nonsensical to those who are oriented toward logic and reason, and who have not nurtured an intuitive understanding of Reality.

It just did that as the only meaning Chopra has to those with specific religion and/or cultural biases. What he says has no meaning to those that do not already accept your religious view. Again this is confirmation bias as he is not making objective statements but subjective statements.

Did you miss the point about HC not being subject to proof via Reason, Logic, and Analysis? Facts describing how the Quanum world behaves do not tell us what the nature of the Quantum world is. Chopra is telling us what the true nature of Reality actually is, which Quantum behavior is an aspect of. Scientific peer reviewers are limited to the use of the scientific method, which does not apply to insights into Reality via HC.

Nope. You seem to have missed your use of reason and logic to explain your ideas then your flip=flopping when it turns against you. Quantum physics follows logic and reason thus is not the same as your religion. Try again.

Ah so you dismiss the best tool we have to gain factual objective knowledge. The only reason for this is that your belief is irrational and you wish to protect it from scrutiny. Sorry but just because you want it to be treated this way does not mean it will be. Especially in relation your flip-flop use of reason and logic.

The tools of measurement are created via consciousness, are extensions of consciousness, and the results are interpreted by it as well. All you can show is that you understand the results that the tools provide, but you do not understand the nature of that which the tools are looking at. You have zero clue as to exactly what QM actually IS. The mystic knows what the nature of QM is, though he may not know the about the specific math or the physics. Chopra is speaking to us about the nature of Reality, not about its behavioral characteristics. As Alan Watts has said, 'the dead man gives us all the facts, but tells us nothing'.

Irrelevant as the tool does not have consciousness. No one needs to be present during measurement thus consciousness plays no role in the actual measurement of the event. Pure sophistry based on a lack of understanding of QM. You confuse contamination from the tool with consciousness. The conflation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Observer Effect, and wave/particle duality, and how these things supposedly amount to"Reality" is a product of pseudoscientific mystics not science.

...which is totally your assumption, one which you have yet to prove.

Nope as you have proved it in this very post and previous posts. It is a justified conclusion not an assumption.

I asked you if the statement was true or not. I responded to the fact that it was true, which I then verified with facts. So that it is true is totally relevant to my response. You continue to assume that my response was dependent upon favoritism, rather than upon whether the actual statement was true or not. What is irrelevant is how the statement came to be, whether it was from a computer or from Chopra. It does not matter at all.

Which is irrelvent as you are asking me "Is my confirmation bias true" while you ignore the quote had no intended meaning. You creates a meaning based on your current beliefs which is /drum roll confirmation bias. Try again son

If you make a true statement, and a computer randomly makes a true statement, is there a difference in the fact of their veracity?

This is where your assumptions are completely incorrect. There is no reason to use science as any kind of authority to validate the mystical view. The mystic has nothing to prove, nor any ego to stroke by having scientific 'authority' on his side. All Chopra is doing is coming in at the point where science thinks it has discovered something 'new' and putting that knowledge into the correct context of Reality itself. So if anything, he is lending the authority of Reality, of which the mystical view is a perfect reflection, to what science has 'discovered', and thinks to be in the exclusive domain of science, which is hogwash. Chopra, as well as other mystics, are simply and correctly placing the horse ahead of the cart, which science has backwards. Thank you, Deepak Chopra!

There is no reason to accept mysticism nor the sophistry people spout about it when they have nothing to prove their claims. Chopra comments on a subject he knows nothing about so he point is irrelevant as an argument from authority. Authority to reality, more sophistry. Science produces results, mysticism has been bogged down in the same primitive thinking from the bronze/stone ages which spawned it.

Your problem is that you cling to scientific 'authority' as a child clings to his security blanket. You're forgetting that Reason, Logic, and Analysis, the very tools of science, are possible because of consciousness, which is not dependent upon those tools.

Nope. Science has proven itself again and again while mysticism has nothing going for it beside taking advantage gullible people.

 

[Shad]

Hilarious. So simply put Deepak took scientific terms then changed the meaning to suit his mysticism. Thanks for proving his sophistry. So in the end when he says Quantum he is not talking about physic thus whatever he has to say is irrelevant since he changed the meaning

 

[godnotgod]

Which is just admiting your confirmation bias, nothing more. Thanks for accept the charge I place on you.

I do not accept.

Finding the statement to be true does not mean I do so out of any confirmation bias; you have yet to prove that I find it true due to my favoring Chopra. I find the statement true because it IS true. Go back to Logic 101.

It is not the same since you do not have a current system of beliefs that holds value in these word. Which is just you admitting, again, your confirmation bias. Again you miss the point that like the software quote there is no intended meaning from the source of the quote. The only meaning is based on your current views thus confirmation bias. You read meaning into words which had no meaning by the creator, software. It was no attempting to communicate anything to you.

Whether there is intent or not in no way affects the veracity of the statement, which stands on its own, and is verifiable. Any meaning in the statement is already there. All I have done is to confirm it. If the statement were, instead, 'the earth is round', whether the computer had intent or not is irrelevant. Fact is, the earth IS round, and whoever reads the statement can verify it. What had no intent of meaning turns out to have perfect meaning, simply because it is true. You are confusing intent and meaning with what is true. Your problem, once again, is YOUR confirmation bias against Chopra, preventing you from seeing the issue clearly. And since you cannot prove that my response is due to a bias in favor of Chopra, rather than because the statement is true, you have no credible argument. Story end.

I actually have and you have repeatedly provided evidence by reading meaning into a quote which had no intended meaning. The software was not attempting to communicate any idea to you. You created the idea based on your bias.

The statement is true. I verified it as such. That is all. The rest is your mental poppycock. Were the statement UNtrue, and I confirmed it as true, you could then charge me with confirmation bias. You see how logic actually works?

It just did that as the only meaning Chopra has to those with specific religion and/or cultural biases. What he says has no meaning to those that do not already accept your religious view. Again this is confirmation bias as he is not making objective statements but subjective statements.

I can tell you here that you are simply wrong. Chopra's views are not religious, but mystical. Do you even understand the difference? Chopra has stated several times that he finds religion to be without credibility.

TBC

 

[Shad]

I do not accept.

Finding the statement to be true does not mean I do so out of any confirmation bias; you have yet to prove that I find it true due to my favoring Chopra. I find the statement true because it IS true. Go back to Logic 101.

Try again son. The statement by the software had no intended purpose nor idea to communicate since software is not capable of doing this on it's own. The fact that you read something of value into this statement is irrelevant and is confirmation bias by definition. Maybe take a course in logic to figures out your failures in logic. Maybe a reading comprehension class as well

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/fl/What-Is-a-Confirmation-Bias.htm

"A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information that confirms previously existing beliefs or biases. For example, imagine that a person holds a belief that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. Whenever this person encounters a person that is both left-handed and creative, they place greater importance on this "evidence" supporting their already existing belief. This individual might even seek out "proof" that further backs up this belief, while discounting examples that do not support this idea."

Your existing belief holds that tea has spiritual meaning. The software is not attempting to communicate anything regarding tea. You read meaning into the sentence the software had no intention of making as software has no intent.

Whether there is intent or not in no way affects the veracity of the statement, which stands on its own, and is verifiable. Any meaning in the statement is already there. All I have done is to confirm it. If the statement were, instead, 'the earth is round', whether the computer had intent or not is irrelevant. Fact is, the earth IS round, and whoever reads the statement can verify it. What had no intent of meaning turns out to have perfect meaning, simply because it is true. You are confusing intent and meaning with what is true. Your problem, once again, is YOUR confirmation bias against Chopra, preventing you from seeing the issue clearly. And since you cannot prove that my response is due to a bias in favor of Chopra, rather than because the statement is true, you have no credible argument. Story end.

It shows that your view is irrelevant since it confiorms to a bias you already hold. You confirmed your own bias, you did not confirm any intended meaning the software was communicating itself. You filled in the blanket which conformed to your preexisting beliefs, nothing more.For someone that hold no meaning for tea there is no meaning. Hence again, your preexisting beliefs create a bias which provides the very meaning you are spouting.


I have no bias against Chopra. He makes claims he has no evidence for. He makes claims about quantum physics which are not supported by the field. He misinterpret QM to fit his religion rather than what QM states. I am pointing out his dishonestly, calling a fraud a fraud and pseudoscience for what it is. That is not a bias. That is called standing up against people that spout sophistry in attempt to give their religion credibility. Which is exactly what Deepak does.Hence why in one of my link an actual physicist offered to example QM to him as Deepak spouts off about topics he has no knowledge of. He does this since big science words freak the gullible and ignorant out while making him look intelligent in the eyes of the uneducated.

The statement is true. I verified it as such. That is all. The rest is your mental poppycock. Were the statement UNtrue, and I confirmed it as true, you could then charge me with confirmation bias. You see how logic actually works?

Hilarious, read the fallacy again son. You confirmed your bias nothing more. You are still reading meaning based on your bias into a quote that has no intended meaning. You are selective following your preexisting bias for meaning while ignoring software had no intended meaning. Which is the very definition of confirmation bias. Try again, son.

I can tell you here that you are simply wrong. Chopra's views are not religious, but mystical. Do you even understand the difference? Chopra has stated several times that he finds religion to be without credibility.

His mysticism is based on religion so he is lying. It isn't based on science it is grounded in Hinduism and Buddhism, both are religions.

 

[godnotgod]

Try again son. The statement by the software had no intended purpose nor idea to communicate since software is not capable of doing this on it's own. The fact that you read something of value into this statement is irrelevant and is confirmation bias by definition. Maybe take a course in logic to figures out your failures in logic. Maybe a reading comprehension class as well

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/fl/What-Is-a-Confirmation-Bias.htm

"A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information that confirms previously existing beliefs or biases. For example, imagine that a person holds a belief that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. Whenever this person encounters a person that is both left-handed and creative, they place greater importance on this "evidence" supporting their already existing belief. This individual might even seek out "proof" that further backs up this belief, while discounting examples that do not support this idea."

Your existing belief holds that tea has spiritual meaning. The software is not attempting to communicate anything regarding tea. You read meaning into the sentence the software had no intention of making as software has no intent.

It shows that your view is irrelevant since it confiorms to a bias you already hold. You confirmed your own bias, you did not confirm any intended meaning the software was communicating itself. You filled in the blanket which conformed to your preexisting beliefs, nothing more.For someone that hold no meaning for tea there is no meaning. Hence again, your preexisting beliefs create a bias which provides the very meaning you are spouting.

You are mistaken. I am not confirming a belief I already hold as true; I am confirming what the statement, at face value, says, which is:

'making tea is the continuity of spiritual belonging'.

So I read the sentence, and then reflected on it, realizing it is true in the context of Japanese Zen. The tea ceremony, of which the making of tea is a part of, is an extension of the spirituality found in Zen. So I was responding to the content of the sentence, rather than the notion that Chopra said it. This is not based on any belief I hold, as I do not practice the tea ceremony. It is based on the FACT (ie 'FACT', as in 'FACT') that the growing and preparation of tea, and the Japanese tea ceremony itself, are seen as an extension of Zen spirituality. Therefore, I am not confirming any bias I possess, but am confirming that the statement provided reflects the beliefs of others. That it does is fact. That the software which generated the statement in question had no intent of meaning behind it has zero bearing on the fact that the statement is true, and being true, has meaning because it is true, and not due to any intent. There is nothing to read into a statement that turns out to be true in and of itself.

Understand, sonny? Now go to your room, because this issue is now closed. We're done.

Now, if you wish to pursue this irrelevant side issue just to make a fool of Chopra, please open up a new thread and link me to it so we can devote in depth time to your silly poppycock, devoid of authentic logic, a tool you tout yet fail to understand. Shame that it takes a mystic to teach a materialist how to use it.

TheJapanese tea ceremony, also called theWay of Tea, is aJapanese culturalactivity involving the ceremonial preparation and presentation ofmatcha(抹茶), powdered greentea. InJapanese, it is calledchanoyu(茶の湯?)orsadō, chadō(茶道?). The manner in which it is performed, or the art of its performance, is called(o)temae([お]手前; [お]点前?).Zen Buddhismwas a primary influence in the development of the Japanesetea ceremony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_tea_ceremony

In addition, Zen meditators, during intensive meditation sessions during the winter months, (called sesshin), drink green tea prior to meditation as it keeps them from falling asleep during practice.

 

[godnotgod]

His mysticism is based on religion so he is lying. It isn't based on science it is grounded in Hinduism and Buddhism, both are religions.

Are you deaf? I told you that Chopra regards religions as being without real credibility:

"God is not an external deity but the inner intelligence within you that mirrors the wisdom of the cosmos"
Deepak Chopra

In bringing elements of eastern philosophy to the western world, he (Chopra) intends to help people become happier, healthier, and more peaceful. In his view, organized religion is just a relic of the past, and is irrelevant in the face of modernity and science.

"We have a completely different understanding of the world today than we get from religious scriptures. In my view, religion is just cultural mythology. . . . I think we are at a particular phase of evolution in our understanding both of the cosmos and ourselves that we need to step into a new evolution of spirituality."
Deepak Chopra

While we can pull good things from the teachings of religious leaders, from Jesus to the Buddha, he (Chopra) believes it is the dogma and ideology of religion that is dangerous and divisive.

http://hollowverse.com/deepak-chopra/

Chopra, like his father, were practiced meditators. Their practice was mystical in nature; not that of orthodox religious belief. Meditation is a mystical practice. Yoga, for example, is the mystical branch of Hinduism, while Zen is the mystical branch of Buddhism. But even that is out of context, since all orthodoxy is based on the original spiritual experience. Zen, Yoga, Sufism, Kabballah, Gnosticism, etc. are attempts to reconnect directly and inwardly to the source of the spiritual experience, and not to some external religious doctrine or belief in an external deity.

So who said Chopra's mysticism was based on science? That was never his claim. No mysticism is based on science, but mysticism allows the inclusion of science, as the mystic's view is a comprehensive one. That is precisely why Chopra can argue from a scientific POV as well as a mystical one.

So it turns out that, contrary to your claim that Chopra is lying, it is you who are attached to erroneous views which you cherish because they support your confirmation bias.

You may go to your room, now, sonny. In fact, you might enjoy a nice, soothing cup of green tea while you're there, returning to Square One. Nighty nite, and sweet dreams. Would you like us to leave the light on for you so you might actually SEE and appreciate the workings of genuine Logic, and not that pseudo watered down excrement you only think is Logic?

 

[Shad]

You are mistaken. I am not confirming a belief I already hold as true; I am confirming what the statement, at face value, says, which is:

'making tea is the continuity of spiritual belonging'.

A meaning which is solely a product of your preexisting beliefs. The software had no intended meaning, you read meaning into it. Which is confirmation bias. Where as it has no meaning for me as I lack your preexisting belief.

So I read the sentence, and then reflected on it, realizing it is true in the context of Japanese Zen. The tea ceremony, of which the making of tea is a part of, is an extension of the spirituality found in Zen. So I was responding to the content of the sentence, rather than the notion that Chopra said it. This is not based on any belief I hold, as I do not practice the tea ceremony. It is based on the FACT (ie 'FACT', as in 'FACT') that the growing and preparation of tea, and the Japanese tea ceremony itself, are seen as an extension of Zen spirituality. Therefore, I am not confirming any bias I possess, but am confirming that the statement provided reflects the beliefs of others. That it does is fact. That the software which generated the statement in question had no intent of meaning behind it has zero bearing on the fact that the statement is true, and being true, has meaning because it is true, and not due to any intent. There is nothing to read into a statement that turns out to be true in and of itself.

Which is still reading a meaning into something based on your preexisting beliefs. You also created a meaning the software had no intention or purpose in making. Japanese tea ceremony is still based on preexisting belief. The software is not making a point about tea as it is software

Understand, sonny? Now go to your room, because this issue is now closed. We're done.

Try again son. You just defended your confirmation bias. Hilarious. Too bad your are defending a failure in logic. Your points are irrelevant in light of this fact.

Now, if you wish to pursue this irrelevant side issue just to make a fool of Chopra, please open up a new thread and link me to it so we can devote in depth time to your silly poppycock, devoid of authentic logic, a tool you tout yet fail to understand. Shame that it takes a mystic to teach a materialist how to use it.

No need as this thread fulfills the purpose. You gnashing of teeth and failures of logic show you have no ideas how to make reasonable nor logical points. Try again son.

TheJapanese tea ceremony, also called theWay of Tea, is aJapanese culturalactivity involving the ceremonial preparation and presentation ofmatcha(抹茶), powdered greentea. InJapanese, it is calledchanoyu(茶の湯?)orsadō, chadō(茶道?). The manner in which it is performed, or the art of its performance, is called(o)temae([お]手前; [お]点前?).Zen Buddhismwas a primary influence in the development of the Japanesetea ceremony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_tea_ceremony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_tea_ceremony

Irrelevant

http://landman-psychology.com/ConfirmationBias.pdf

In addition, Zen meditators, during intensive meditation sessions during the winter months, (called sesshin), drink green tea prior to meditation as it keeps them from falling asleep during practice.

Again arguing that your confirmation bias has merit. It doesn't. Try again son.

 

[Shad]

Are you deaf? I told you that Chopra regards religions as being without real credibility:

"God is not an external deity but the inner intelligence within you that mirrors the wisdom of the cosmos"
Deepak Chopra

His ideas are based in religious mysticism and pure sophistry. You make a mistake in thinking I take anything he says seriously in light of his use of sophistry on every point he makes.

In bringing elements of eastern philosophy to the western world, he (Chopra) intends to help people become happier, healthier, and more peaceful. In his view, organized religion is just a relic of the past, and is irrelevant in the face of modernity and science.

He has no issues using mysticism based on religion in his arguments. His own ideas are irrelevant to science since he can not prove any of his idea within science. It is why he sell books rather than conduct studies. One requires credbility he does not have. The other only requires gullible people to buy his books

"We have a completely different understanding of the world today than we get from religious scriptures. In my view, religion is just cultural mythology. . . . I think we are at a particular phase of evolution in our understanding both of the cosmos and ourselves that we need to step into a new evolution of spirituality."

Deepak Chopra

Yet all his mysticism is based on religion he dismisses.

While we can pull good things from the teachings of religious leaders, from Jesus to the Buddha, he (Chopra) believes it is the dogma and ideology of religion that is dangerous and divisive.

It is also dangerous in accept the word of a crackpot as credible when he has zero evidence, and refuse to produce any, regarding his claims. It is the same type of crackpot claims of religion only he is the one making grand claims backed by nothing.

http://hollowverse.com/deepak-chopra/

Chopra, like his father, were practiced meditators. Their practice was mystical in nature; not that of orthodox religious belief. Meditation is a mystical practice. Yoga, for example, is the mystical branch of Hinduism, while Zen is the mystical branch of Buddhism. But even that is out of context, since all orthodoxy is based on the original spiritual experience. Zen, Yoga, Sufism, Kabballah, Gnosticism, etc. are attempts to reconnect directly and inwardly to the source of the spiritual experience, and not to some external religious doctrine or belief in an external deity.

All of which are religious based as your very examples show. Spirituality is still a belief systems not a fact or knowledge system. Both have no credibility outside of their group of believers. The only positive studies of meditation are based on materialism as in controlling stress.

So who said Chopra's mysticism was based on science? That was never his claim. No mysticism is based on science, but mysticism allows the inclusion of science, as the mystic's view is a comprehensive one. That is precisely why Chopra can argue from a scientific POV as well as a mystical one.

Deepak himself makes his claim when he mixes his mystisim with physics. Or did you just forgot you argued for this very point a few posts ago? Your sophistry is catching up to you.

So it turns out that, contrary to your claim that Chopra is lying, it is you who are attached to erroneous views which you cherish because they support your confirmation bias.

Nope you proved point that he is lying. Your previous posts about his use of Quantum prove this. You claims regarding physics proves this. You just supported my charge unwittingly then denied it thus contradicting yourself.

You may go to your room, now, sonny. In fact, you might enjoy a nice, soothing cup of green tea while you're there, returning to Square One. Nighty nite, and sweet dreams. Would you like us to leave the light on for you so you might actually SEE and appreciate the workings of genuine Logic, and not that pseudo watered down excrement you only think is Logic?

Try again son. Next time try not to contradict yourself while providing evidence supporting my view unwittingly. Deepak supports are the best evidence of Deepak sophistry since they are even more incoherent then he is.

 

[godnotgod]

A meaning which is solely a product of your preexisting beliefs. The software had no intended meaning, you read meaning into it. Which is confirmation bias. Where as it has no meaning for me as I lack your preexisting belief.

Which is still reading a meaning into something based on your preexisting beliefs. You also created a meaning the software had no intention or purpose in making. Japanese tea ceremony is still based on preexisting belief. The software is not making a point about tea as it is software

You sure don't know how to read or listen, do you? You just keep going round and round in your little world of circular argument, either ignoring what I've said, or twisting it to suit your erroneus logic, which I have exposed via the genuine use of Logic. Once again, and for the last time:

"I am not confirming any bias I possess, but am confirming that the statement provided reflects the beliefs of others. That it does is fact. That the software which generated the statement in question had no intent of meaning behind it has zero bearing on the fact that the statement is true, and being true, has meaning because it is true, and not due to any intent. There is nothing to read into a statement that turns out to be true in and of itself."

Finis

Now go to your room and remain there until further instructed. "F" in Logic for Dummies

 

[godnotgod]

His ideas are based in religious mysticism...

You have zero basis for asserting that, as you have zero experience in the mystical experience. Religious doctrines and teachings are NOT the mystical experience.

Yet all his mysticism is based on religion he dismisses.

Pure conjecture.

It is also dangerous in accept the word of a crackpot as credible when he has zero evidence, and refuse to produce any, regarding his claims. It is the same type of crackpot claims of religion only he is the one making grand claims backed by nothing.

Tens of thousands of satisfied devotees say otherwise, the result of a mass placebo effect, I suppose. Get real. Chopra is a success because he knows how to apply the spiritual principles he teaches others to his own life.

All of which are religious based as your very examples show. Spirituality is still a belief systems not a fact or knowledge system. Both have no credibility outside of their group of believers. The only positive studies of meditation are based on materialism as in controlling stress.

A completely ignorant statement, seen from your confirmation bias POV, your nose pressed up against the windowpane, never having experienced what you condemn as nonsense. There are many scientific studies validating higher states of consciousness of long term meditators and monks. One has now found that long term meditators grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non-meditators, proof that consciousness grows the brain, and not the other way around.

Deepak himself makes his claim when he mixes his mystisim with physics. Or did you just forgot you argued for this very point a few posts ago?

I have never argued such a point. You are twisting things again, reading things into things about Chopra and myself that are not there to fit your confirmation bias, all fueled by your clinging to Reason and Logic as a child sucks his security blankee.

Nope you proved point that he is lying. Your previous posts about his use of Quantum prove this. You claims regarding physics proves this. You just supported my charge unwittingly then denied it thus contradicting yourself.

You're confused and full of yourself.

The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open. Nicholas of Cusa

Checkmate!

 

[Runewolf1973]

So you yourself are none other than Pure Consciousness.

You say it is Pure Consciousness. I say it is the Universe interacting with Itself.

“Nothing is permanent. Everything is subject to change. Being is always becoming.”

-Buddha

 

[Runewolf1973]

can't. either one. your both wrong

Okay, so explain your position.

 

[Desert Snake]

Okay, so explain your position.

as soon as you notice non-knowledge, or such, you are faced with non-self interaction at some level. Now, I suppose one could get around this, but the explanations don't make sense to me,

 

[Runewolf1973]

I haven't formulated a coherent explanation yet /to my satisfaction/ what I do know however is that as soon as you notice non-knowledge, or such, you are faced with non-self interaction at some level. Now, I suppose one could get around this, but the explanations don't make sense to me, they beg more questions. im still working on some issues that are related to the discussion but peripherally as they are complicated. I don't know if im going to present anything here though, just stopping into the thread

I don't understand what you mean by "non-knowledge" or "non-self interaction". From a scientific standpoint absolutely everything in the universe interacts in some way or at some level. That includes everything from "virtual particles" to life itself. Life and consciousness are non other than complex forms of interaction. The universe is a wholly and fundamentally interactive unit.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't understand what you mean by "non-knowledge" or "non-self interaction". From a scientific standpoint absolutely everything in the universe interacts in some way or at some level. That includes everything from "virtual particles" to life itself. Life and consciousness are non other than complex forms of interaction. The universe is a wholly and fundamentally interactive unit.

No it isn't lol. Because your talking about consciousness. In some theoretical /not proven/ general description you may be correct, but this is very obviously a materialistic viewpoint you are presenting.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No it isn't lol. Because your talking about consciousness. In some theoretical /not proven/ general description you may be correct, but this is very obviously a materialistic viewpoint you are presenting.

What specifically are your referring to when you say "No it isn't."? And yes...I am very materialistic in a sense. I am not saying the universe is conscious, I am saying the universe is interactive. Consciousness is a complex form of interaction that evolved out of more basic, simpler forms of interaction.

 

[Desert Snake]

What specifically are your referring to when you say "No it isn't."? And yes...I am very materialistic in a sense.

Ok, yes when I first read your statement, I didn't realize /the materialistic perpective you were presenting /in general/

Well, it isn't on a practical level. What you are describing /it's just a theory anyway/, is more how things interact with each other. Used as an argument it doesn't really work, imo. I'm not going argue against your position beyond this basic point, though, as I don't think it would advance the dialogue.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ok, yes when I first read your statement, I didn't realize /the materialistic perpective you were presenting /in general/

Well, it isn't on a practical level. What you are describing /it's just a theory anyway/, is more how things interact with each other. Used as an argument it doesn't really work, imo. I'm not going argue against your position beyond this basic point, though, as I don't think it would advance the dialogue.

It is not just a mere theory, it is a proven scientific fact. That is why we have such thing as the Fundamental Interactions...gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces. Everything in the universe that we know of is subject to these forces or interactions. It is extremely practical (though some might think it simplistic) to describe the universe as being interactive. Interaction is everything.

 

[godnotgod]

You say it is Pure Consciousness. I say it is the Universe interacting with Itself.

I asked: Who, or what, is it that is aware?

You said: Awareness Itself, and that is Pure Consciousness.

I said: So you yourself are none other than Pure Consciousness.

...since 'who or what', according to you, 'is awareness itself, which is pure consciousness'

[/QUOTE]“Nothing is permanent. Everything is subject to change. Being is always becoming.”

-Buddha[/QUOTE]

The Buddha always referred to this world as being 'effervescent', and impermanent, and that includes that which is always in the process of 'becoming'. But if you look at the literature more in depth, it is clear that the Buddha is saying that 'becoming' is just an illusion, and that in describing the world as in constant flux, he was providing the queue that there is something behind all the transitory impermanence that is not subject to change.

One way of saying that becoming is illusory is the famous Zen koan:

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

...which simply means that if you see something in the process of becoming the Buddha, it is not real. Why? Because everyone already IS the Buddha. Buddha nature is not subject to becoming anything other than what it already is. Why would it? So he was pointing to the idea that Buddha nature is none other than The Absolute, The Changeless, 'The Indestructible Sunyata'.

note: re: 'Being': here the Buddha is referring to the state of temporal existence called Identification, which is always in the process of becoming. But Identification is fiction.

 

[godnotgod]

It is not just a mere theory, it is a proven scientific fact. That is why we have such thing as the Fundamental Interactions...gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces. Everything in the universe that we know of is subject to these forces or interactions. It is extremely practical (though some might think it simplistic) to describe the universe as being interactive. Interaction is everything.

'...the sound and the fury, signifying nothing'

I am afraid, my dear runewolf, that you are quite taken in by maya, and don't realize it.