Scientists actually do know everything about the universe.

[idav]

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.



Yes they do, on both counts.



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

The parts people do not believe is the idealist view of reality which in no way can be supported by evidence. This is where the idealist hide behind ignorance that science supposedly can never tap into. The material reality and the building blocks are all one and the same, there is no difference between material and immaterial, they are just labels that really further confuse the issue and cause divide in communication.

Thats where you lose the difference between opinion and knowledge. Anyone that would really show the key to consciousness would be getting a nobel prize. Just stating an opinion as fact doesn't work. Just saying its a unified field therefore consciousness is still a pretty big leap.

Not quite, I think intelligence is an emergent property due to all things, all data, being connected. We just happen to have a machine, the human brain, that exploits this aspect of reality. The brain is almost a replica of how intelligence would emerge from such a reality. All organisms clearly do not have the same level of intelligence, so it isn't like a super intelligence exists by default, but the properties are certainly there in physics otherwise human consciousness could never emerge.

 

[idav]

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.

Yes unfortunately sometimes people think, well this or that religion works therefore it must be true, which is classic confirmation bias. Fact is they all "work", for whatever it is they are trying to do, or they wouldn't all be practiced.

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.

I do agree, I hate to use the term consciousness beyond descriptions of human qualities, but I would even define a computer as having intelligence. Though I'm really not afraid of us being able to replicate consciousness via AI. I don't see the issue with this especially if consciousness is fundamental then that should make it even easier to replicate human consciousness. Taking it a step further, if consciousness is fundamental then computers are already aware without us even realizing how much.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The parts people do not believe is the idealist view of reality which in no way can be supported by evidence.

That is the problem with idealism, there is no evidence for it. Even dualism seems like a stretch.

Claiming that the big bang was an event in consciousness is really little different from claiming that God created the universe. Both are unsubstantiated religious beliefs, and both are heavily laden with confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

 

[idav]

That is the problem with idealism, there is no evidence for it. Even dualism seems like a stretch.

Claiming that the big bang was an event in consciousness is really little different from claiming that God created the universe. Both are unsubstantiated religious beliefs.

I don't see a difference between idealism and materialism except in semantics, philosophically they should be the same if they are based on monism. I guess they might throw in dualism just to make it more complicated than it already is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't see a difference between idealism and materialism except in semantics, philosophically they should be the same if they are based on monism. I guess they might throw in dualism just to make it more complicated than it already is.

Put very crudely, I think the main options are mind only, matter only, or both mind and matter. It seems to revolve around the question of whether consciousness is an independent entity/quality.

 

[idav]

Put very crudely, I think the main views are mind only, matter only, or both mind and matter. It seems to revolve around the question of whether consciousness is an independent entity/quality.

It's all about the premise where one has to create the other. One just switches for the other. For example Spinoza begins with the premise that all attributes start with substance, where plenty will insist, no it starts with mind. Mind would just be the attribute of substance instead of the other way around.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm not about to read all these posts but it ain't flat.
The universe has dimensions.
"Wide, deep, long" however you want to describe it but "flat" won't work.
Just watch Star Trek.

I think "flat" here means just 4 dimensions.

"Beam me up, Scotty?"

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Universal View is Unconditioned, Uncaused, Unborn, and because it is, everyone can see the same reality that the Buddha experienced. That is why he developed The 4 Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path, so that people can find a way out of Self-View and suffering, and realize Universal View and Nivana.

In the suttas Nibbana is most commonly described as the cessation of craving, aversion and delusion, but I don't recall it ever being described in terms of your "Universal View" thingy. In the suttas the Buddha repeatedly advised against metaphysical speculation, and yet you continually speculate about metaphysics and make baseless claims about the nature of the cosmos. I don't think you have any genuine interest in Buddhist teachings or practice, your only concern is twisting them out of shape to make them fit your new-age flap-doodle bodge-up.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Because the mystical experience is not thinking about the nature of things, it cannot be an interpretation, as all interpretations involve thought. No. The mystical experience is about direct insight, without thought, into the true nature of things, in which the observer and the observed merge into a single Reality. IOW, there no longer exists an 'observer of the observation'; an 'experiencer of the experience'. To help you get a handle on this a bit, think about a 'whirlpool'. Most people see it as a 'thing', but in reality, it is only the activity of whirling water, so there is no such 'whirlpool'. In this same sense, try to see the Universe, not as a collection of things, but as an action.

Another confused muddle of spurious connections. Non-duality is viewed by many as a purely psychological experience, and there is no objective evidence that it has any correlation with a larger "reality". Such experiences can be personally transformative, but using them to define the cosmos is the height of arrogance and egocentricity.

People have all sorts of "mystical" experiences, and subsequently interpret them according to their beliefs and assumptions. You want to claim you have a monopoly on what they mean, but again that is just arrogance.

You are the worst kind of fundamentalist, claiming to preach something new but oozing intolerance towards different views. You hate diversity and plurality.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

Yes, the phenomenal world, the aggregates of personal experience. But this has nothing to do with all your flap-doodle mysticism and metaphysical speculations about the cosmos.

Looking at the Heart Sutra:

"Form is no other than emptiness" - this means the aggregates of experience are empty of independent existence, all is conditional;

"Emptiness no other than form" - this means that emptiness is only a quality of the aggregates, so it is not a "thing" outside, beyond or beneath the aggregates.

http://www.fwbo-news.org/resources/heart_sutra.pdf

Unlike you, I don't make grandiose claims of being "awakened". I have been exploring spiritual traditions for 35 years, and I have met some wonderful people along the way. In my experience real wisdom comes with some lightness, openness and humility. All things that are glaringly lacking in you.

 

[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?

 

[godnotgod]

In the suttas Nibbana is most commonly described as the cessation of craving, aversion and delusion, but I don't recall it ever being described in terms of your "Universal View"

As I said, the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path were developed so that everyone can find a way to Enlightenment. That does not mean everyone will maintain a personal view of reality, because that is already what they have, and why they suffer. The 4NT and 8FP lead to a universal view that is called Nirvana. There is only one Nirvana, and it is the cessation of craving, aversion, and delusion because it is the cessation of the illusion of self. Without a self, there is no longer self-view, and if there is no longer self-view, there can only exist universal view.

 

[godnotgod]

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

So to be clear: are you saying that these individual experiences differ from one person to the next to the extent that they see reality differently?

 

[godnotgod]

No, it is clear from the context that Planck is referring to God here...
.

No, that is not what he said. You are jumping to conclusions. He said:

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

Today, we now know that the 'force' behind the atom is the Unified Field, and as a result, scientists are now studying Field Theory.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Nah, Planck says nothing about any 'God'. You have 'God' on the brain, and
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.

 

[idav]

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.

Every person who has ever studied or understands quantum mechanics agree that there are extraordinary ramifications. Which is why people like einstein came up with the epr paradox, almost invoking nonlocality as a given. Just logically, unity opens up a can of worms and even lends credibility to an omniscient(all knowing) universe. It is an entirely different thing to say the "knowing" aspect is default. He doesn't say consciousness and intelligence make up reality but an acknowledgement that it must be there.

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

No that is a bit of a leap. I think intelligence is due to the structure of reality, in other words I believe the intelligence is an attribute of reality that exists. The only thing I can figure is default is existence, the nature of reality being "one" allows the attributes such as intelligence. It does not make logical sense that intelligence must come from intelligence. Existence first and intelligence second, then from there all sorts of intelligence can spawn due to the attributes of existence and its oneness.

In the context of that quote planck isn't saying what is first, you simply read it that way due to your belief. Planck would have to be more specific for me to think he was an idealist.

 

[godnotgod]

In the context of that quote planck isn't saying what is first...

No? Let us carefully look once again at what he says, shall we?:

"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."

For brevity, it can be stated as follows:

"Behind the force that is responsible for the existence, vibration, and perpetuation of matter, lies a conscious and intelligent mind."

THAT is what Planck is saying. So it is clear that consciousness is first; matter second.

"Mind is the matrix of all matter."

NOT: "Matter is the matrix of all mind."

That is what John Hagelin and Amit Goswami are saying as well.

You haven't a clue as to how this can be, do you? Your mind is filled with science and knowledge, not allowing you to see things as they are.

Now you are going to respond with some off the wall crap, when the truth is staring you in the face.

matrix: From the Latin word for womb (in turn from mater or mother).
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/matrix

• the womb; uterus

• that within which, or within and from which, something originates, takes form, or develops;

http://www.yourdictionary.com/matrix#TvBvgPiDx67g6P5A.99

 

[idav]

No? Let us carefully look once again at what he says, shall we?:

"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."

For brevity, it can be stated as follows:

"Behind the force that is responsible for the existence, vibration, and perpetuation of matter, lies a conscious and intelligent mind."

I'm well aware you would take "behind this" to mean more than it actually says, and I disagree.

THAT is what Planck is saying. So it is clear that consciousness is first; matter second.

It isn't clear that Planck is professing some sort of idealism, if so then there should be plenty more from him on the subject.

"Mind is the matrix of all matter."

NOT: "Matter is the matrix of all mind."

.
You have it clearly backwards here and hurts your argument, your arguing "mind is of matter", meaning source is matter. A matrix is a connection of things, like a social matrix for example. Saying its a matrix is just another way of saying that all matter is connected.

You haven't a clue as to how this can be, do you?

Don't speak for me. All semantics really, that you don't see your opinion for what it is, is telling.

Your mind is filled with science and knowledge, not allowing you to see things as they are.

How you can't see that knowledge allows us to see things as they are is beyond me.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Planck

Now you are going to respond with some off the wall crap,

Whatever have a good day, I'm done here.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm well aware you would take "behind this" to mean more than it actually says, and I disagree.

It isn't clear that Planck is professing some sort of idealism, if so then there should be plenty more from him on the subject.

You have it clearly backwards here and hurts your argument, your arguing "mind is of matter", meaning source is matter. A matrix is a connection of things, like a social matrix for example. Saying its a matrix is just another way of saying that all matter is connected.

Man, are you ever confused!

The original meaning of 'matrix' is 'mater' or 'mother', as in 'womb' and: "that within which, or within and from which, something originates, takes form, or develops"

So in that sense, when Planck says that 'this mind is the matrix of all matter', he is clearly saying that mind is that [ie; the womb] within which matter originates, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

No, I am NOT arguing that 'mind is of matter', and NO, source is NOT matter! And NO! the meaning of matrix is not as a connection of things, but as the SOURCE of matter. What clarifies this as the real meaning, and not as a connection of things, is the fact that Planck said that this mind (which is the matrix) he refers to is BEHIND the force controlling the atom, NOT as a matrix of connected matter. Now if it is behind the force of all matter, then it must, then, be the SOURCE of all matter. Understand?

As additional support for this view, remember that he previously stated that, in reality, 'there is no matter as such'. However, the 'conscious and intelligent mind' that he says if behind all matter is certainly real to him. So matter cannot have come first, as you surmise.

Besides, you had previously agreed that Hagelin's view that all matter originates via The Unified Field, and that The Unified Field is none other than Pure Abstract Intelligence. So if that much is true, then it follows that Planck's 'conscious and intelligent mind' is none other than The Unified Field.

Planck's statement has nothing to do with idealism, but with his direct realization of what matter actually is and is not, and what is actually behind what we call 'matter'. This is in perfect accordance with the Hindu view of this 'material' world as being nothing more than 'maya', or 'illusion'. For this kind of vision to occur, a transformation of consciousness must first occur. Otherwise, it will never be seen, as the conditioned mind is still holding sway.

Don't speak for me. All semantics really, that you don't see your opinion for what it is, is telling.

No, my friend, it is not semantics. It is that you simply are not reading correctly. I have just undone your argument as being erroneous, above.

How you can't see that knowledge allows us to see things as they are is beyond me.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Planck

OMG! You now have both feet in mouth!

Yes, Planck is correct, but he is referring to KNOWLEDGE, as in scientific FACTS and DATA; But as I told you many times: realization and the awakened mind are NOT about mere Facts and Data, but about the true underlying nature of Reality. Now, when Planck made the statement about the mind being the matrix of all matter, he was in a state of intuitive realization and not referring to facts and data that comprise knowledge. He was talking about the true nature of matter, which is non-existenct as such, and has behind it an intelligent and conscious mind that is the source of all such 'matter'. And THAT, idav, is what the mystic knows and the scientist hasn't a clue about, because his mind is still conditioned. It is the awakened mind that SEES that matter is an illusion, that SEES that there is intelligence behind the entire Universe, a vision that the conditioned mind is incapable of realizing in its present state, which is why you cannot see it either.

Whatever have a good day, I'm done here.

OK. Just run along, now. Cheers.

 

[godnotgod]

I think intelligence is due to the structure of reality, in other words I believe the intelligence is an attribute of reality that exists. The only thing I can figure is default is existence, the nature of reality being "one" allows the attributes such as intelligence. It does not make logical sense that intelligence must come from intelligence. Existence first and intelligence second, then from there all sorts of intelligence can spawn due to the attributes of existence and its oneness.
.

OMG! What a joke!

So then intelligence comes from stupidity?

Tell me how existence comes into being, and then tell me how intelligence, which is non-material, comes from the material world.