Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

That's because consciousness is a complex form of interaction. All of existence is interactive, but some forms just interact in more peculiar ways than others.

Consciousness is non-material in nature, so how can it interact with anything else? I am saying that consciousness is already a fact by default within everything, and is what makes 'interaction' possible. IOW, it is already in place before any such 'interaction', or non-interaction come into play.

Consciousness is not a form of interaction; it is a state of being. As a state of being, it is non-interactive; it is The Changeless, only seeming to interact as existence. I make the distinction here between Being and existence. It is the same distinction Yeshua makes when he says:

'Before Abraham was, I Am'

Being (Pure Conscious Awareness; ie; 'Sat-Chit-Ananda') is not in Space or Time, and yet emerges only in the eternal Present Moment. Existence is always in Space and Time, and because it is, is a product of the past, pretending to exist in the present, with an eye to the non-existent future (ie; 'becoming').

Everything seems to be interacting, changing, within the perfect stillness of Pure Conscious awareness. That is what we call maya.

When you are asleep, dreaming, nothing is changing in reality. It only seems to be doing so while you are still in the dream-state. When you awaken to the next level of consciousness, that of Wakefulness, it becomes evident that the dream of changing images and events was purely illusory. When you awaken to the next higher level of conscious awareness from that of everyday existence, or wakefulness, it also becomes evident that this world of seeming realness and effervescence is but an illusion as well, but an illusion of a much higher caliber than that of the sleep-dream level of consciousness.

Watch the video in post #1338 so you can understand what I am talking about.

 

[godnotgod]

I thought none of that exists?

It is real within the context of Waking Sleep, the Third Level of Consciousness, just as you are the 'real' hero slaying the dragon within the context of the dream world, the Second Level of Consciousness. But within the context of the Fourth Level of Consciousness, that of Self-Remembering, or Self-Transcendence, it is not real. It is pure fiction. This material universe and all that seemingly 'interacts' within it, is pure fiction. 100% of it.

 

[allfoak]

Science says it already has them firmly in hand

Science?
What the general public is given is not science it's entertainment.
What children are being taught is that they are nothing but flesh and bones so eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die.
We are possessed by material things because we have been taught that we are nothing more than material things ourselves.
So called science has destroyed an entire nation by corrupting the thinking of the children.
It has completely dismantled the family unit and turned us into a bunch of politically correct zombies.

 

[godnotgod]

Science?
What the general public is given is not science it's entertainment.
What children are being taught is that they are nothing but flesh and bones so eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die.
We are possessed by material things because we have been taught that we are nothing more than material things ourselves.
So called science has destroyed an entire nation by corrupting the thinking of the children.
It has completely dismantled the family unit and turned us into a bunch of politically correct zombies.

While all that may be true, the fact still remains, no matter what you may think about science:

Evolution is a FACT.

The context within which that fact exists may change the meaning of the fact, but it is still a fact, unless you have evidence that can refute it as being not-fact.

 

[allfoak]

unless you have evidence that can refute it as being not-fact.

I have yet to see evidence that Darwinism has been proven to be fact.

 

[godnotgod]

I have yet to see evidence that Darwinism has been proven to be fact.

The Theory of Evolution has several features, eg; adaptive radiation; natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, etc. Below is just one example and proof of evolution occurring within our lifetime:

Published on Aug 26, 2014
The Galápagos finches remain one of our world’s greatest examples of adaptive radiation. Watch as evolutionary biologists Rosemary and Peter Grant detail their 40-year project to painstakingly document the evolution of these famous finches. Their pioneering studies have revealed clues as to how 13 distinct finch species arose from a single ancestral population that migrated to the islands 2 million to 3 million years ago.

The video expertly illustrates the effects of natural selection on Galápagos finch populations.

 

[Skwim]

I have yet to see evidence that Darwinism has been proven to be fact.

Just so no one goes to needless lengths in helping you out, just what do you consider to be acceptable evidence of evolution?


Hint: evolution isn't called Darwinism anymore except by fuddy duddy preachers who don't know any better.

 

[Runewolf1973]

While all that may be true, the fact still remains, no matter what you may think about science:

Evolution is a FACT.

The context within which that fact exists may change the meaning of the fact, but it is still a fact, unless you have evidence that can refute it as being not-fact.

I'm just curious... So why do you concern yourself with such things as evolution (change) if it is what you would consider not real or existing anyway? How can maya (change/evolution) be fact if maya does not exist?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm just curious... So why do you concern yourself with such things as evolution (change) if it is what you would consider not real or existing anyway? How can maya (change/evolution) be fact if maya does not exist?

We may say: 'Last evening, I dreamed I was a news journalist'. Were someone to ask us, within the dream, if it is a fact that I am a news journalist, I would answer: 'Yes, it is a fact'. But after awakening, if someone were to ask the same question, I would have to answer: 'No, it is not true that I am a news journalist'. That was just part of a dream.

From the POV of the Third Level of Consciousness, evolution is a fact. But from the POV of the Fourth Level and beyond, it is lila and maya.

Lila is the play of The Absolute; maya is the illusion that lila creates.

"All this world is but a play,
Be Thou the joyful player"

Robin Williamson

As I stated: "The context within which that fact exists may change the meaning of the fact, but it is still a fact, "

So what I would say, is that facts are just part of the larger context of lila and maya. If you understand facts within this larger context, then you have the correct view.

So don't take life too seriously, even death.

edit: from an even more refined POV, we might say that evolution is a series of adjustments to the play of maya.

Ultimately though, and more to your point, biological evolution, along with our social indoctrination and mental conditioning, must also be transcended in order to experience Higher Consciousness.

"Sri Ramakrishna said that maya is nothing but the egotism of the embodied soul. And that is genetic. The prime directives of the genetic programming are to direct a stream of negative entropy upon ourselves and to pass on the genetic line. That is why we feel ourselves to be the doers of action and the enjoyers of its fruits. It is just a genetic mirage. The genes have us persuaded that by following their dictates we'll reach the peace of the changeless, the freedom of the infinite, and the bliss of the undivided. They don't have it to give. We don't get the undivided; we get a family. You must have noticed.

Our problem is to reach the goal, and not be hoodwinked by the genes. But this is not a journey from one place to another in an actual world. It is a journey from one point of view to another. That is why it is often referred to as an "inner journey." It is a journey from an erroneous point of view, dictated by the genes, to a point of view from which we can see through the genetic mirage."

John Dobson, astronomer

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

[Runewolf1973]

Consciousness is non-material in nature, so how can it interact with anything else? I am saying that consciousness is already a fact by default within everything, and is what makes 'interaction' possible. IOW, it is already in place before any such 'interaction', or non-interaction come into play.

Consciousness is not a form of interaction; it is a state of being. As a state of being, it is non-interactive; it is The Changeless, only seeming to interact as existence. I make the distinction here between Being and existence. It is the same distinction Yeshua makes when he says:

'Before Abraham was, I Am'

Being (Pure Conscious Awareness; ie; 'Sat-Chit-Ananda') is not in Space or Time, and yet emerges only in the eternal Present Moment. Existence is always in Space and Time, and because it is, is a product of the past, pretending to exist in the present, with an eye to the non-existent future (ie; 'becoming').

Everything seems to be interacting, changing, within the perfect stillness of Pure Conscious awareness. That is what we call maya.

When you are asleep, dreaming, nothing is changing in reality. It only seems to be doing so while you are still in the dream-state. When you awaken to the next level of consciousness, that of Wakefulness, it becomes evident that the dream of changing images and events was purely illusory. When you awaken to the next higher level of conscious awareness from that of everyday existence, or wakefulness, it also becomes evident that this world of seeming realness and effervescence is but an illusion as well, but an illusion of a much higher caliber than that of the sleep-dream level of consciousness.

Watch the video in post #1338 so you can understand what I am talking about.

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of self-hood, and the executive control system of the mind.

Our sense of sight is an interaction with light using our eyes.
Our sense of hearing is an interaction with vibration using our ears.
Our sense of taste or smell is an interaction with chemical signatures using our noses and our taste buds.
There are many different interactions which combine to create that feeling of "consciousness". Our brains simply store and interpret that information for us. Self awareness is probably the most advanced form of interaction. It is the ability for us to interact with our own bodies, with our own brains, not just the external environment. Everything is interactive, some things just interact in more peculiar or complex ways than others. So maybe this "Pure Consciousness" as you call it, is really just the universe interacting with itself. That is interesting. If our ability to interact with ourselves leads to self-awareness, does the universe interacting with itself lead to its own type of universal self-awareness? I don't know. All I know is that it is all interaction. I believe this thing we call "consciousness" and "interaction" are one and the same.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Science?
What the general public is given is not science it's entertainment...So called science has destroyed an entire nation by corrupting the thinking of the children.

According to you, your conclusion isn't possible. "Science" can't have destroyed an entire nation as the "general public" aren't familiar with it (just an "entertainment" version). The corruption is at best the "entertainment" version you speak of, not "science".

 

[godnotgod]

Here's another classic example of natural selection:

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of self-hood, and the executive control system of the mind.

Our sense of sight is an interaction with light using our eyes.
Our sense of hearing is an interaction with vibration using our ears.
Our sense of taste or smell is an interaction with chemical signatures using our noses and our taste buds.
There are many different interactions which combine to create that feeling of "consciousness". Our brains simply store and interpret that information for us. Self awareness is probably the most advanced form of interaction. It is the ability for us to interact with our own bodies, with our own brains, not just the external environment. Everything is interactive, some things just interact in more peculiar or complex ways than others. So maybe this "Pure Consciousness" as you call it, is really just the universe interacting with itself. That is interesting. If our ability to interact with ourselves leads to self-awareness, does the universe interacting with itself lead to its own type of universal self-awareness? I don't know. All I know is that it is all interaction. I believe this thing we call "consciousness" and "interaction" are one and the same.

It is just your mind moving. Stop your moving mind.

As your source says: 'Consciousness is a STATE...'

A mirror is a of state of reflectivity It doesn't DO anything in order to be what it is. It doesn't retain any images either.

Pure Consciousness is like that. It has no history; no memory. It just sees things as they actually are, reflecting nature perfectly.

Are you confusing mind with consciousness?

You talk about interaction via the use of consciousness, so they are not the same.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It is just your mind moving. Stop your moving mind.

If there is nothing that is actually moving or interacting, then why do you say my mind is moving? There should be no mind to move. Obviously something is moving.

 

[godnotgod]

If there is nothing that is actually moving or interacting, then why do you say my mind is moving? There should be no mind to move. Obviously something is moving.

It's just a way of talking. Mind itself is an illusion. You're right. There is no mind that moves. Stop the mind and there will be no movement. More accurately, there will be neither movement, nor non-movement, as you will have transcended duality.

'Yoga is the cessation of the activities of the mind'
Patanjali

 

[Runewolf1973]

It's just a way of talking. There is no mind that moves. Stop the mind and there will be no movement.

It may be just a way of talking, but it doesn't make any sense. There is apparently no mind that moves, but yet you are saying I should stop moving it.

 

[godnotgod]

It may be just a way of talking, but it doesn't make any sense. There is apparently no mind that moves, but yet you are saying I should stop moving it.

Yes, absolutely.

Once it stops, you will realize it was never there to begin with.

Joshu's Zen

Joshu began the study of Zen when he was sixty years old and continued until he was eighty, when he realized Zen.

He taught from the age of eighty until he was one hundred and twenty.

A student once asked him: "If I haven't anything in my mind, what shall I do?"

Joshu replied: "Throw it out."

"But if I haven't anything, how can I throw it out?" continued the questioner.

"Well," said Joshu, "then carry it out."

 

[allfoak]

Just so no one goes to needless lengths in helping you out, just what do you consider to be acceptable evidence of evolution?


Hint: evolution isn't called Darwinism anymore except by fuddy duddy preachers who don't know any better.

Thank you but i don't need any help in understanding the deception that science has played a role in creating.
Not a preacher.
Not a christian.
And I am not in the dark about what has happened to America in particular from the teaching of "evolutionary science."
When you ignore half the equation of who we are as human beings you get results like we have now in a country run by a materialistic paradigm created by junk science and corrupted religion.

If our culture defines us and science is part of what defines a culture then we have it wrong.
Common sense would show that to be true.
Our culture is confused, dangerous and disgusting and we are about to fall as a nation as a result.
This doesn't happen when the people are well balanced in their understanding of who they are as a human being.

I am not a scientist but i am not stupid.
This country is out of balance culturally with science and religion at the top of the list of who to blame.

You can show me all the proofs of evolution that exist and it would not impress.
If an understanding of evolution can help stop the drug addiction (legal and illegal) in this country I'm all ears.
We have severe psychiatric problems in this country, that doesn't happen to people who are being taught accurate information about themselves.

Is what we are being taught the truth?
It's doubtful given the results.
We have had plenty of time to see what the teaching of evolution has done for us.

If one is not taught their job correctly they will be unable to function in an environment in which they are supposed to be productive.
Without knowing who we are we as human beings we cannot function properly.
The evidence that we are not being taught properly is all around us.

It doesn't seem to matter that evolution has been proven true.
Nobody cares.
Nobody cares because it doesn't give people the answers they need.
It is much easier to engage someone in a discussion on politics or religion because the people teaching those subjects at least pretend to offer solutions to people's everyday problems.
What evolution teaches us doesn't really motivate people to be very altruistic in their thinking.

Everything is upside down and backwards in this country.
Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may be 6ft under taking up valuable real estate preserving your dead body.

 

[allfoak]

According to you, your conclusion isn't possible. "Science" can't have destroyed an entire nation as the "general public" aren't familiar with it (just an "entertainment" version). The corruption is at best the "entertainment" version you speak of, not "science".

I can see how what i said can be confusing.
Sorry
Yes the entertainment version of science that we see on television is a problem, but not near as much of a problem as what we are teaching children in school.
What children are being taught is driving them into confusion about who they are, when it should be making things more clear.

 

[Shad]

The point is that I am in accord with both Plato and Cusa.

Nope as their own work is vastly different once you read beyond your quote-mining, Try again son, you know like reading their work...

I am not saying not to use Reason either. I, like Cusa, am saying that Reason must be put aside before divine union can be achieved, and as for Plato, I agree that Reason is employed after the Sun is seen, but seeing the Sun comes prior to the use of Reason. I understand them perfectly. There is no conflict here other than the one you are fabricating in your head.

Then you accept you have provided zero reasons for me to accept your experience is more valid than a competing experience of a Christian or Muslim. Nicholas's divine union was about Christianity not HC. Again counting the hits, ignoring the misses.

I am not asking you to accept my personal view; I am referring to Cusa (his name is Nicholas of Cusa, so I call him Cusa).

You are attempting to use Nicholas as a source of authority in order to give your claim crediblility. However since his view and your own are vastly different when laid out you argument fails.

The only question for me is: is the following statement true:

"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

http://www.headless.org/Biographies/nicholas-of-cusa.htm

Which is only focusing on your quote-mining while ignoring the context.

It is true as a universal statement of the mystical view, because I see the same thing, and that same thing is the same everywhere, which others also confirm as true. There is only One Reality, whether you call it God, Tao, Brahman, Unified Field, etc, etc. Once again, because you have never had a mystical experience, you are still within the mind of Reason and cannot possibly know what I, or Chopra, or Cusa are pointing to. The only way you will get a glimpse is to pop the bubble of Reason, awaken from your hypnotic state, and go see for yourself, just as the prisoners in Plato's Cave cannot possibly know what 'Sun' is unless and until they leave their dancing cave wall shadows they only think is reality behind and venture topside. You, like so many others, still cling to a materialist paradigm that is slowly dying. Having said that, when you return to the world of Reason and Logic, it will be transformed for you so that instead of seeing Reality the way you think it is, you will actually see it as it actually is. It is then that you will understand the proper use of Reason, because you will no longer be attempting to define Reality in terms of Reason, but will instead understand Reason in terms of Reality.

Irrelevant as the very work you cite in a vain attempt at credibility is vastly different than your view as complete ideas. Again you are turn exclusive ideas into pluralistic ideas when these ideas are not. Again this is nothing more than confirmation bias followed by a refuse to read the work you are quoting ending is pure sophistry.

I thought you were done with this thread? So much for you word having any value