Scientists actually do know everything about the universe.

[godnotgod]

I'm not ignoring everything, your just ignoring my reconciliations. I am not like some the atheists you talk with, I'm theist and have in fact experienced what your describing and also believe that reality has some sort of awareness, however that's a far cry from claiming knowledge that this default awareness exists, and claiming knowledge that a subjective meditative experience somehow gives you credibility to claim such knowledge is unfounded. You assume a lot of me but your assumptions of me also are unfounded.

This is not about a personal claim to credibility. The credibility belongs to that awareness present in higher states of consciousness. This experience is beyond the self, so no claim can be made in the sense that 'I am the authority regarding this kind of knowledge, etc' There is no such 'I' making such a claim. What sees, understands, and relays the knowledge is consciousness itself, without an 'I'.

Your assertion that: "You don't have knowledge of this pure consciousness or you would be able to use science to back it up..." is simply not true. Science is incapable of backing it up because the mystical experience is beyond the method of science. The only way it can be verified to your satisfaction is for you to experience it for yourself. Again, that is exactly why the mystic can only silently point to the moon. If you are attentive you will see things as they are, because the conditioned mind will be out of the picture in that moment. But you continue to attack the pointing finger rather than look to what is being pointed to.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, they are. Like I said, you might do better preaching this stuff on a new-age forum.

Well now you are in direct denial of factual evidence and testimony from literally thousands of people who have practised with Chopra. You're just plain wrong, buddy, and now you're just flapping your gums in the breeze. So stop already, or better yet, do a session at the Chopra Center so you can either verify or falsify your assertions. That is the scientific way. Until then please cease and desist your silly and empty diatribe about the man you hate so much, when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. If, after your visit (he has 3 day seminars), you still feel the same way, you can return here, armed with the evidence to support your claims. Fair enough?

 

[godnotgod]

...one of my peeves is people who say things like, I know god exists, or I know the cosmos are conscious, without any sort of back up or evidence other than personal un-testable experiences. It may very well be true but I don't see why people should be hurt when asking for some evidence.

idav, can you tell me where you, as a conscious being, leave off, and the universe begins?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Until then please cease and desist your silly and empty diatribe about the man you hate so much,

Please desist hijacking threads and filling them with mystical flap-doodle inspired by a pretentious charlatan. Everyone will be greatly relieved.

 

[godnotgod]

Your saying all this without even realizing how much I agree with you. I simply ask for evidence if something is said in a way that is more preaching than debating. Arguments should be based on a solid foundation or its pure conjecture. What I won't do is make your arguments for you, but even when I present evidence your so bent on me being wrong you miss my points and as such do a disservice to expanding spiritual understanding.

I'm not bent either way. I just simply noted that you left out the most important part of Planck's quote, namely, that there is intelligence behind the electron. If that is the case, then the Universe is intelligent. That's all. You had requested that I produce some evidence of some important scientists who made such a claim, and I did. But instead of acknowledging the content of Planck's statement, you went off on another tangent.

BTW, here is yet another piece of evidence for noted scientists, in this case, the physicist Freeman Dyson who believe there is consciousness behind the atom:


“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

― Freeman Dyson

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/466596-it-is-remarkable-that-mind-enters-into-our-awareness-of

Then again, maybe this is just more 'flapdoodle' from our beloved but misdirected intelligencia.

 

[godnotgod]

Please desist hijacking threads and filling them with mystical flap-doodle inspired by a pretentious charlatan. Everyone will be greatly relieved.

Please desist from your false and inflammatory statements until such time as you can say with confidence via direct experience, that Chopra is a fraud, and his thousands of happy members of the Chopra Center are deluded.

 

[godnotgod]

In any case, while subjective "mystical" experiences can be a useful source of personal insight, they are certainly not a valid basis for making claims about the ontology of the cosmos. They are not a valid basis for claiming that the big bang was an "event in consciousness", or claiming that space-time is merely a concept, or whatever.

No, they are not. But you are still referring to self-view. The consciousness that knows that the BB was an event in consciousness, and that space-time is purely conceptual, is no-self-view, the same no-self-view that the Buddha himself used when determining that all phenomena are empty of inherent self-nature, which, BTW, he never had to verify via scientific evidence nor experiment. His findings are there for anyone who wants to can see the exact same thing for themselves. But in order for this to occur, first a radical transformation of consciousness must occur. This is the process of spiritual awakening, transformation, and unfolding.

 

[godnotgod]

I simply ask for evidence if something is said in a way that is more preaching than debating. Arguments should be based on a solid foundation or its pure conjecture. .

My arguments are based upon a solid foundation, not on speculation, doctrine, belief, or theism. I want you to show me the doctrine that I am preaching. OK? Last I looked, Reality is doctrineless.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The consciousness that knows that the BB was an event in consciousness, and that space-time is purely conceptual....

Empty claims. New-age religious beliefs.

It seems that you have been preaching this stuff for so long that you now believe your own rhetoric.

 

[godnotgod]

Empty claims. New-age religious beliefs.

It seems that you have been preaching this stuff for so long that you now believe your own rhetoric.

I know what I know.

Show me the religion you perceive in my statement.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I know what I know.

I don't think you "know" very much at all, you just keep arrogantly regurgitating the same cliched new-age rhetoric, the same old mystical flap-doodle. You had some superficial involvement with Zen, and then you got sucked in by that fraud Chopra. And now you just preach at people, like the fundamentalist you are.

Prove to us that the big bang was an event in consciousness. Prove to us that space-time is merely a concept. You can't of course, these are just empty claims, new-age religious beliefs, mystical flap-doodle.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think you "know" very much at all, you just keep arrogantly regurgitating the same cliched new-age rhetoric, the same old mystical flap-doodle. You had some superficial involvement with Zen, and then you got sucked in by that fraud Chopra. And now you just preach at people, like the fundamentalist you are.

Prove to us that the big bang was an event in consciousness. Prove to us that space-time is merely a concept. You can't of course, these are just empty claims, new-age religious beliefs, mystical flap-doodle.

You don't know the degree of my involvement with Zen, so why are you making rash statements?

You continue to call Chopra a fraud, but have no proof. Many others contradict you directly via their first hand experience with Chopra, and there are many more of them than there are of you, so cut the crap and grow up,

First of all, for Causation to occur, Space-Time must already have been in place, but Space-Time did not come into existence until the Big Bang occurred. Therefore, the BB occurred outside of Space-Time, which means it was Uncaused, as Causation is dependent upon Space-Time. But even if it were caused, there had to have been a cause to the cause of the BB, and a cause to that cause, and so on, invoking the Law of Infinite Regression.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I see. So Chopra's people are just a bunch of zombies, mentally controlled by a charlatan. Sir, we are talking about thousands and thousands of people who have reintegrated back into society after practising in his programs. Yoga and organic food creates mind controlled idiots?

You're just talking off the top of your head, aren't you?

Do the tens of thousands of people who take advice from their daily dose of Dr. Phil legitimate the psychological missteps of Dr. Phil?
Do the tens of thousands of people who send in money for prayer shawls and holy water to day-time televangelists legitimate that particular brand of snake oil?
Do the white-girl Yoga instructors actually open up a pathway to the inner-most chakras, centralizing people's spirits with the mother goddess?
Do priests actually talk to an invisible magic man in the clouds when you confess to them your sins?
Do the people who gave up their life savings to Harold Camping, focusing their attention solely to their faith in preparation for the end of days, legitimate the ideas of a crackpot?
Do the life-changing examples of cults followers somehow legitimate the teachings of those cult leaders?

Pay more attention to the analogy and don't get so butt-hurt that I've insulted someone you happen to respect.

Junk food tastes good - but junk food is bad for you.

Most people are idiots.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

First of all, for Causation to occur, Space-Time must already have been in place, but Space-Time did not come into existence until the Big Bang occurred. Therefore, the BB occurred outside of Space-Time, which means it was Uncaused, as Causation is dependent upon Space-Time. But even if it were caused, there had to have been a cause to the cause of the BB, and a cause to that cause, and so on, invoking the Law of Infinite Regression.

Meh. It appears that the big bang "created" space-time, beyond that it is a matter of speculation and religious belief.

There is nothing wrong with speculation and religious belief, but do stop dressing them up as "facts". Drop the arrogant preachy tone and start listening to different points of view for a change, you might actually learn something.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Please desist from your false and inflammatory statements until such time as you can say with confidence via direct experience, that Chopra is a fraud, and his thousands of happy members of the Chopra Center are deluded.

You are sounding like a cult member now. I have seen enough of Chopra to form a view, and I have also seen solid criticism of his quackery by credible observers. Personally I think he is obnoxious, he comes over as rude and arrogant, more interested in petty point-scoring than in meaningful debate.

Instead of knee-jerk defensiveness to criticisms of your dodgy guru, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you have been duped.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My arguments are based upon a solid foundation, not on speculation, doctrine, belief, or theism. Reality is doctrineless.

Nonsense. You are just parroting Chopra's mystical flap-doodle, and making baseless claims like the big bang being an event in consciousness.

 

[idav]

This is not about a personal claim to credibility. The credibility belongs to that awareness present in higher states of consciousness. This experience is beyond the self, so no claim can be made in the sense that 'I am the authority regarding this kind of knowledge, etc' There is no such 'I' making such a claim. What sees, understands, and relays the knowledge is consciousness itself, without an 'I'.

Your assertion that: "You don't have knowledge of this pure consciousness or you would be able to use science to back it up..." is simply not true. Science is incapable of backing it up because the mystical experience is beyond the method of science. The only way it can be verified to your satisfaction is for you to experience it for yourself. Again, that is exactly why the mystic can only silently point to the moon. If you are attentive you will see things as they are, because the conditioned mind will be out of the picture in that moment. But you continue to attack the pointing finger rather than look to what is being pointed to.

Its your continued claims to everyone else not being credible. Those of you that say science is incapable of backing up mystical interpretations seriously underestimate science while at the same time jumping at what quantum mechanics has to offer, which seems disingenuous to me.

I can experience these things as well but also show that the nature of reality, through quantum mechanics, ties everything together as one, space-time practically appear to be illusions according to science. So we should be able to do valid experiments that prove that data can transcend space and time and that we can tap into it.

I am of the opinion that science can and will answer most everything. Your anti-science crowd can say nay all you want and just hide behind unverifiable experience, but that isn't knowledge, just opinion.

You keep saying I have a conditioned mind, you keep saying that to everyone. I've seen other posters, like me, saying they agree with our sentiment but not the way your portraying in with great arrogance. I am not one to downgrade your experience, instead your downgrading everyone elses knowledge claiming yours and the mystics experience can never be verified to be true, that's fine as long as your willing to say you don't know for certain and not spout opinion as if it is fact.

 

[idav]

My arguments are based upon a solid foundation, not on speculation, doctrine, belief, or theism. I want you to show me the doctrine that I am preaching. OK? Last I looked, Reality is doctrineless.

The mystic experience is not a solid foundation because all walks of life can experience this enlightened state and still have different answers. I am not conditioned as you keep claiming because I, speaking for myself only, do not require to see in order to believe. The mystic interpretation is that everything is made of "mind" or "consciousness" but this claim is speculation at best. As a pantheist I certainly feel mind is part of the equation, not that it's easily provable, but also claiming we can never know does a disservice to spiritual ideas.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The mystic interpretation is that everything is made of "mind" or "consciousness" but this claim is speculation at best.

There seem to be different interpretations of mystical experience. A common theme I have noticed is that of union with some assumed greater reality, or God, or whatever. It is all very subjective of course.

 

[godnotgod]

There seem to be different interpretations of mystical experience. A common theme I have noticed is that of union with some assumed greater reality, or God, or whatever. It is all very subjective of course.

I guess you just refuse to listen, insisting on your own self-view.

Once again:

"different interpretations" of the mystical experience are not the mystical experience. They are still 'self-view'.

The mystical experience is the realization of union with the greater Reality, and that Reality is The Universe. It is 'the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'. As it is beyond self-view, it is not subjective. The Buddha made some observations concerning the phenomenal world and stated that nothing possesses an inherent self-nature. This was stated as a universal principle applicable to all things and to anyone else who wants to know the true nature of things. Therefore, the consciousness it speaks to is of a universal nature common to all humans. This kind of view, unlike self-view, which is what you continue to cling to, is unconditioned, unborn, ungrown, and uncaused. It just sees things as they actually are, rather than how the thinking mind conceives them to be.