Scientists actually do know everything about the universe.

[godnotgod]

The quote mining of Planck really does not do him justice. My claim is that he says these things based on scientific knowledge but you insist its his awakened state.

Well here is the full quote where he explicitly says its from his years of research and working in science!

Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

So please don't make things up and try not to take people out of context. Its the ramifications of science that tells us this, not some insight from "silence" as you put it. If you don't understand why science suggests such things then you'll need to study much harder in quantum mechanic as Planck has given huge contributions on the subject.

I said, had you paid attention, that at a certain point after his scientific research, he came to the conclusion that he did via intuitive insight. He was not basing this insight on science. There is no evidence for "an intelligent mind that is the matrix of all matter". Otherwise, this would be commonly accepted amongst scientists today; instead it is a raging controversy. The science itself if not telling him that, unless you have some that was available at the time Planck made this statement?

He is only using his scientific credentials to lend credibility to what he is about to say.

But the key to my point is what he says toward the end:

"We MUST ASSUME behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

THAT, idav, is a statement from intuitive insight, not from science.

The real question here is why he thinks 'we must assume...."

The force he is referring to is The Unified Field, which John Hagelin calls 'Pure Abstract Intelligence'. So do you agree with Hagelin?

 

[godnotgod]

I think that ALL experience is personal, not least because it is experienced by an individual at a particular time in a particular location.

If experience is personal, there must exist a self that is experiencing the experience, but where is this so-called 'self' we call 'I' that is the experiencer of the experience?

 

[idav]

I said, had you paid attention, that at a certain point after his scientific research, he came to the conclusion that he did via intuitive insight. He was not basing this insight on science. There is no evidence for "an intelligent mind that is the matrix of all matter". Otherwise, this would be commonly accepted amongst scientists today; instead it is a raging controversy. The science itself if not telling him that, unless you have some that was available at the time Planck made this statement?

He is only using his scientific credentials to lend credibility to what he is about to say.

But the key to my point is what he says toward the end:

"We MUST ASSUME behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

THAT, idav, is a statement from intuitive insight, not from science.

The real question here is why he thinks 'we must assume...."

The force he is referring to is The Unified Field, which John Hagelin calls 'Pure Abstract Intelligence'. So do you agree with Hagelin?

You will need to debate that with the person your quote mining. The quote in context specifically says it's due to scientific research and Planck mentioned nothing about tapping into the cosmos via meditation. That's your assumption which I showed to be false. If you don't want to believe Planck then you certainly won't believe me when I say and repeat, such things are the ramifications of knowledge gained via science. It isn't that it's knowledge but a computer matrix type universe is the ramifications of such knowledge, they are two different animals. By ramifications I mean they are realizations based on available knowledge, unavoidable ideas about the nature of reality based on facts.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Usually that's knowledge anyone can agree upon. Like things fall, anyone can test such a claim.

OK, so objective knowledge is testable, and something that everyone can agree on. Clearly "mystical" experiences don't qualify.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If experience is personal, there must exist a self that is experiencing the experience, but where is this so-called 'self' we call 'I' that is the experiencer of the experience?

I didn't mention "self" or "I", and you are just preaching again.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

This sounds like a reference to God, and I don't see anything to suggest he believed in "Cosmic Consciousness". Yet another red herring.

The Wiki article says that Planck was a Lutheran but became a deist later in life:

"Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith. He said: "Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[32]
Later in life, Planck's views on God were that of a deist. For example, six months before his death a rumour started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."[35]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Religious_views

I think it is very difficult to know to what extent Planck's scientific work influenced his religious beliefs.

 

[idav]

OK, so objective knowledge is testable, and something that everyone can agree on. Clearly "mystical" experiences don't qualify.

Yes and no. Personal experiences are inherently subjective. However if, for example, meditation works there should be objective evidence, like meditation experts that gain increased mass in the frontal lobe.

 

[idav]

I think it is very difficult to know to what extent Planck's scientific work influenced his religious beliefs.

I don't doubt this but my objection to godnotgod is his claim that Planck had no scientific influence in his beliefs.

 

[godnotgod]

I didn't mention "self" or "I", and you are just preaching again.

Personal does not refer to self or I?

 

[godnotgod]

You will need to debate that with the person your quote mining.

The quote in context specifically says it's due to scientific research...

No, it does not. It says:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much...."

He is only saying that, after so much time spent doing scientific research about the atom, that he now has arrived at the position that their is something else going on of a conscious nature. IOW, there is something about the behavior of the atom that leads him to think this. The research itself provides zero evidence for consciousness.

There is no scientific research that he or anyone else has done that is evidence for his assertion that:

"...behind this force [is] the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

The scientific method is so designed that it cannot test for 'a conscious and intelligent mind'. If you know of such evidence, please present it here so everyone can look at it.

...and Planck mentioned nothing about tapping into the cosmos via meditation. That's your assumption which I showed to be false.

What? You have proved nothing of the sort simply because I never claimed that Planck tapped into the cosmos via meditation. That is ridiculous! What I said is that Planck's statement was based on intuitive insight rather than hard science, even though his science led up to the threshold of his realization. But he's not saying WHY "we must assume behind this force [is] the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

If you don't want to believe Planck then you certainly won't believe me when I say and repeat, such things are the ramifications of knowledge gained via science. It isn't that it's knowledge but a computer matrix type universe is the ramifications of such knowledge, they are two different animals. By ramifications I mean they are realizations based on available knowledge, unavoidable ideas about the nature of reality based on facts.

So, then, based upon such 'ramifications', I ask you once again: Do you then believe what John Hagelin is saying, that the Unified Field is 'Pure Abstract Intelligence'?

 

[godnotgod]

I don't doubt this but my objection to godnotgod is his claim that Planck had no scientific influence in his beliefs.

That's not what I said: I said that, after years of scientific research, he made the intuitive assumption that there must be a conscious mind behind the force which brings the atom into existence. He even tells us this himself:

"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

Assumptions are not scientific evidence, let alone proof, but 'must' assume tells us that the information is such that there can be no other answer. The process is an intuitive one, such as: 'based upon the evidence, one can only come to the conclusion that......' He is not saying that the the evidence proves the existence of a conscious mind behind the behavior of the atom.

 

[idav]

No, it does not. It says:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much...."

He is only saying that, after so much time spent doing scientific research about the atom, that he now has arrived at the position that their is something else going on of a conscious nature. IOW, there is something about the behavior of the atom that leads him to think this. The research itself provides zero evidence for consciousness.

Your twisting his "to suit your agenda. It says, as you bolded "as a result of my research", he didn't say as a result of his intuitive insight.

I will get back to you on the video but just from the title I gotta say I am already skeptical. Because nobody knows what the universe is actually made of nor does anyone know where consciousness comes from. Do I believe the unified field is pure abstract intelligence? I suppose thats one way of putting it, everything is data in my opinion so anything that transcends said data would be an intelligence of sorts.

 

[idav]

So, then, based upon such 'ramifications', I ask you once again: Do you then believe what John Hagelin is saying, that the Unified Field is 'Pure Abstract Intelligence'?

In the video when he starts off I'm already turned off. He starts off by saying that quantum physics says we create our own realities. That is false. People agree on how the experiments will come out in QM but interpretations are different. The interpretation that nothing exists without an observer has been debunked as a misunderstanding of what science means when they say "observer". Observer doesn't mean someone with eyes, it can be any instrument which essentially breaks a quantum state before we have a chance to detect said quantum states, with actual scientific instruments.

When he goes further to say "we can ask about consciousness", maybe, and completely agree there isnt consensus. I do completely agree that the science shows that everything is "fundamentally one", I do feel that is a very important realization, and I feel has been proven through experimentation. However to further speculate that at the basis of such unity is consciousness is really unfounded.

He then starts to say that "consciousness is not created by the brain but is rather fundamental in nature", this is also unfounded speculation. Consciousness has everything to do with the brain. Just cause we might be in some sort of unified matrix doesn't take away the physics of mind coming from the brain. Rather what I believe is that the brain is simulating such a unified field, and sure because of the fundamental unity this makes it possible but that certainly doesn't make everything under the sun conscious. He says we should be able to link quantum physics with nuero science, I agree with that, but with interpretations of QM still up for debate it isn't all together clear how that will pan out.

After that he keeps mentioning the unity but then says everything is just made of consciousness which he never seems to get around explaining how that logical leap is taken. Unity doesn't automatically lend to everything being made of consciousness. He does say things just like your saying, that the "self is universal and realizing it is enlightenment", which is great for putting your own ego on a pedestal. Enlightenment does have to do with realization but acting like some like having the opinion that everything is made of consciousness somehow makes ones opinion greater is just a form of delusion of grandeur.

I only lasted 5 minutes in that video.

I think this Kaku puts it pretty well and mentions that consciousness is big debate. Kaku says there are levels of consciousness which I agree with, meaning the super consciousness wouldn't be fundamental but an emergence as animals are able to reference space, like reptiles but humans differ in being able to reference time, which typically doesn't occur in other animals. If consciousness like we are used to were fundamental then animals would be able to tap into time like we do.

 

[godnotgod]

Your twisting his "to suit your agenda. It says, as you bolded "as a result of my research", he didn't say as a result of his intuitive insight.

So where is the evidence from his research that an intelligent mind is behind the force that creates the atom? Can you point me to just one of his peer-reviewed papers attesting to that 'fact'? You and I both know there is none. So that is not what he means. Otherwise this 'intelligent mind' he claims exists would be common knowledge by now. It is not. There are only a handful of scientists and many mystics who see that this is the case. The rest think it is poppycock.

I will get back to you on the video but just from the title I gotta say I am already skeptical. Because nobody knows what the universe is actually made of nor does anyone know where consciousness comes from.

Yes they do, on both counts.

Do I believe the unified field is pure abstract intelligence? I suppose thats one way of putting it, everything is data in my opinion so anything that transcends said data would be an intelligence of sorts.

So do I understand you to agree that if the UF is pure abstract intelligence, then all material reality comes out of it?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes and no. Personal experiences are inherently subjective. However if, for example, meditation works there should be objective evidence, like meditation experts that gain increased mass in the frontal lobe.

Sure, there is evidence that regular meditation has neurological effects and psychological benefits. But the personal interpretation of meditative experiences remains subjective. As with my earlier example, a Christian mystic might well assume certain meditative states to mean the presence of God, while a non-theist could experience the same states and not make that assumption.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

[]That's not what I said: I said that, after years of scientific research, he made the intuitive assumption that there must be a conscious mind behind the force which brings the atom into existence. He even tells us this himself:

According to the Wiki article Planck was a theist and later a deist, so he was clearly talking about God here. It sounds like his scientific work reaffirmed his faith in God, though changed the way he thought about it.

But there is nothing to suggest he believed in your "Cosmic Consciousness", or that he was a philosophical idealist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do I believe the unified field is pure abstract intelligence? I suppose that's one way of putting it, everything is data in my opinion so anything that transcends said data would be an intelligence of sorts.

I think though we need to be cautious about anthropomorphising the sub-atomic world, assigning it human qualities like intelligence and consciousness.
And the same applies to the universe.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Personal does not refer to self or I?

Read again what I actually said, and how I described "personal". Individual experiences in different locations at different times.

You really need to listen to what other people are saying, instead of responding with your own dogma in knee-jerk fashion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't doubt this but my objection to godnotgod is his claim that Planck had no scientific influence in his beliefs.

According to the Wiki article it seems that Planck moved from theism to deism. It sounds like his scientific work reaffirmed his faith in God, but changed the way he thought about it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"We MUST ASSUME behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
The force he is referring to is The Unified Field, which John Hagelin calls 'Pure Abstract Intelligence'.

No, it is clear from the context that Planck is referring to God here, and yet again you are twisting the facts to suit your own agenda, and making spurious connections.

Your whole approach is spurious, it is all smoke and mirrors, a cobbling together of half-truths, cliches and baseless claims, a house of cards.