The Debate of God.

[Prophet]

When Copernicus looked into the sky, saw things orbiting things other than the Earth, his interpretation of these facts culminated in an advancement in understanding that the geocentric model of the universe was incorrect.

When Issac Newton used his imagination to realize that the force that pulls all objects toward the Earth is the same force that causes the Moon to orbit the Earth and the Earth to orbit the Sun, that was also an advancement in understanding.

Albert Einstein used his own formidable imagination to realize that gravitational pull observed by Newton was actually not a pull but a "falling" caused by how space is shaped around matter. This is known as the theory of general relativity.

However, when Niehls Bohr and his many followers (Heidenburg's uncertainty priniciple comes to mind) to follow decided that the mere observations made are akin to an actual understanding of the underlying physical truth behind it, facts were mistaken for understanding. I cannot over-stress how opposed to this I am. Before, scientists had to make observations, form theories based upon their understanding of these observations, and then have theories confirmed by countless observations to follow. Now, in quantum physics, we have an entire branch of study which makes the observation and claims that what can be observed is all there is.

There is a battle for the soul of science going on, just like every other religion.

 

[cottage]

Does Reality itself reflect a doctrine, or is it doctrineless? Belief requires both thought and doctrine. True nature and the Absolute have nothing to do with thought, belief, or doctrine.

What is there prior to learning, doctrine, belief, or thought?

You are giving us nothing but the content of your mind, and if nothing is true of experience then there is nothing but a belief that true knowledge can be attained by such means. If a thing is certain and true of the world then it is knowledge, and knowledge is a true belief, but knowledge cannot be arrived at through contingent means. Further more, in order for a thing to be true you have to know what it is to make a mistake, in other words to know what it would take to falsify the experience.

The entire matter is easily settled by the questions that I asked you previously:

1. Please provide instances or examples of new information about the world, derived from enlightenment or a ‘higher state of consciousness’, that cannot be known from facts or self-evident demonstration?

2. What is this world of facts, devoid of those same facts, that can be seen as ‘true’, and by what criterion of truth do you ‘know’ it to be such?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

There is a battle for the soul of science going on, just like every other religion.

Science is not a religion; attempt to level the playing field, failed

 

[Tiberius]

First of all, GNG, I notice that you completely ignore that I said that you claim that science is bad without showing why science is bad.

You keep saying so, but you haven't shown how. I don't believe you because there is no answer.

Well, I'll tell you what. You define "True nature of reality" and we'll see where we go, mkay?

That has nothing to do with the issue: that you are an intelligent being which emerged from an intelligent universe.

Yes it does. You are just claiming it doesn't so you don't have to deal with an issue you can't respond to.

Yes, but so what? QM does not show us what the true nature of reality is.

Like I said, define "true nature of reality" is, and then explain how QM doesn't show us that.

Because, and feel free to call me crazy here, but it sure seems to me that understanding what governs the behaviour of the fundamental particles that make up everything in the universe IS EXACTLY what the true nature of reality is!

Yes, it tells us about how things behave. We can predict behavior. We can put QM to use in practical applications. But we neither understand what we are dealing with, nor does it tell us what the true nature of reality is. It never will, because factual knowledge is not understanding. Oh, we can say: "I 'understand' how that works", but that is in reference to its mechanistic functions. That is not a true understanding; it is just more knowledge. It is more accurate to say: "I know how that works."

Prove to me that QM is unable to tell us anything about the true nature of reality.

I was merely saying that I would have a look at it later, which I did.

How can you look at it later? You'll never get to later!

You want to whip me because you cannot defeat me.

lol, you aren't even playing the same game as me.

The fact that you don't see my simple point after two explanations is what is very sad. I think you do see it, but refuse to admit it. Let's just cut to the chase, shall we? Show me the location of this "I" you say exists.

My god, you;re arrogant.

I see your point perfectly well, and I happen to think it is nothing but rubbish.

The location of the "I" of a person is inside the brain. it is formed of the interactivity of all the brain cells working together. It is measurable, and when the person dies, the activity ceases and the "I" of that person is lost.

But that interactivity is just that - interactivity. There is nothing special about the way the neurons interact. The only thing special is what it results in. The energy that is detected when we measure that interactivity is no different to the energy measured in any other part of the body. it's just electrical energy.

It's what that energy does that is special, not the energy itself.

 

[Prophet]

Science is not a religion; attempt to level the playing field, failed

So the whole of what I wrote is made wrong by a cheeky closing line that pokes fun at the fundamentalist way science operates... Failure, indeed.

 

[godnotgod]

How is repeating a thoroughly-dismissed nonsense koan, 'cutting to the chase'?

lol

Heh...heh...heh....careful, now, lest ye get yer udders all in a bunch, lol.

Firstly, I do not know to which 'thoroughly-dismissed' koan you refer (uh..dismissed by whom...you? ha ha ha); and secondly, the nature of a koan is that it IS non-sensical; that is precisely why it is a koan.

Try again.[/QUOTE]

Related to something you said above, please to describe how you would ever understand something that did not have at least one fact attached?

Later on that one...but for now, a koan, for one, is understood without any facts attached. The understanding is completely intuitive.

 

[godnotgod]

Those were the words, in toto, of one of the first Mtv commercials.

About as empty of worthy content as your assertions

Emptiness is essential to fullness, as space is essential to objects, as nothing is essential to everything, which is precisely what cutting-edge astro-physics is now telling us, and which Eastern wisdom has known for centuries.

 

[godnotgod]

You are giving us nothing but the content of your mind...

I am giving you what my mind knows.

..and if nothing is true of experience then there is nothing but a belief that true knowledge can be attained by such means.

Firstly, 'true knowledge', or the insight into the the way things actually are, as opposed to how they appear, is not an attainment. You don't 'get' true knowledge. It's already present. Only its realization is necessary. Belief only comes about when the mind begins to conceptualize what it thinks it knows about reality. This discursive mind then begins to attempt to 'grasp' at reality in order to 'know' it, but the more it grasps, the more elusive does the piercing into the true nature of reality become. This is the mind of science and religion.

If a thing is certain and true of the world then it is knowledge, and knowledge is a true belief,

Your logic is faulty here: if something is true of the world as knowledge, it excludes belief.

but knowledge cannot be arrived at through contingent means.

Some of the greatest discoveries have been made this way, and spiritual awakening can be sudden and spontaneous .

Further more, in order for a thing to be true you have to know what it is to make a mistake, in other words to know what it would take to falsify the experience.

In the rope/snake metaphor, once the illusion of the snake is SEEN, it is fully understood as illusion. What allows this to occur is the simultaneous presence of the mind which sees things as they actually are. So that knowledge is already present; it is not acquired knowledge. To know what it is to make a mistake is the presence of the enlightened state, which sees immediately into the nature of the experience rather than the facts surrounding it.

The entire matter is easily settled by the questions that I asked you previously:

1. Please provide instances or examples of new information about the world, derived from enlightenment or a ‘higher state of consciousness’, that cannot be known from facts or self-evident demonstration?

The nature of reality is always the same. The only thing 'new' is in how the world is expressed, and that is through great variety. But the underlying source from which all variety emerges is changeless. Factual knowledge is about the details of variety, but it ignores their source. It is like saying that the figure in the example I provided can exist independently of the field against which it is seen and understood as a dancer. It cannot.

What facts give us is not new information about the world, but old information, as all facts are based on memory from the past. That is exactly why facts can make predictions. But to see things as they are as they are unfolding is to see what is fresh, new, and alive. When we see things as they are, we are seeing both figure and ground simultaneously.

2. What is this world of facts, devoid of those same facts, that can be seen as ‘true’, and by what criterion of truth do you ‘know’ it to be such?

Reality itself is the answer to both questions.

This is not a 'world of facts'; that world exists only in the mind. Facts are not components of the world, but are descriptions ABOUT the world, either in terms of its characteristics and/or its behavior.

 

[godnotgod]

First of all, GNG, I notice that you completely ignore that I said that you claim that science is bad without showing why science is bad.

I never made such a claim; I merely indicated that science is in the wrong hands, is mis-directed, and therefore has its priorities in the wrong place.

Well, I'll tell you what. You define "True nature of reality" and we'll see where we go, mkay?

True nature of reality = the way things actually are, as compared to how we perceive them to be.

Yes it does. You are just claiming it doesn't so you don't have to deal with an issue you can't respond to.

Any response is irrelevant to the issue, which is that you are an intelligent entity that emerges from an intelligent universe ala orange and an orange tree. That we can say particular things about an orange or about a human that differ from those about their source does not invalidate the source of your intellect, nor the source of the flavor of oranges.

Like I said, define "true nature of reality" is, and then explain how QM doesn't show us that.

It does not explain anything. Scientists admit they don't understand what QM is, as it upsets everything we have come to know via classical logic.

Because, and feel free to call me crazy here, but it sure seems to me that understanding what governs the behaviour of the fundamental particles that make up everything in the universe IS EXACTLY what the true nature of reality is!

Not only do we not have that understanding in QM, but we do not possess the deeper understanding of the background from which such particles emerged.

Prove to me that QM is unable to tell us anything about the true nature of reality.

QM does not address that question. Are you confusing 'reality' with the phenomenal world?

I see your point perfectly well, and I happen to think it is nothing but rubbish.

If you see my point perfectly well, you would have understood it. But because your brain is stuffed up with Holy Science, you see only rubbish, since your Holy Science tells you it is the one true faith, no others need apply. In psychology, we call that the projection of Shadow.

The location of the "I" of a person is inside the brain.

I see. So "I" is the chauffeur in the cockpit driving the body around, is it? He looks strangely familiar to that boogeyman we thought was under the bed as children.

re: 'location of the "I" of a person: what's that you say? a person possesses his "I"? You have stated that this "I" is located in the brain, but now that there is a person whom it is a part of? Where is this mystery 'person' you speak of? Perhaps 'only the Shadow knows'...nyah ha ha ha.....:biglaugh:

it is formed of the interactivity of all the brain cells working together.

Thinking already occurs in the brain. Are you saying that the brain creates a thinker of thoughts called "I"? To what end? Is it a willful act on the part of the cells? "hey, Joe! let's get together with the other guys on Saturday night and make an "I" thingie. We can call him "I-zen-stein", and then, just for the hell of it, give him the idea that he actually exists....ha ha ha ha ha:biglaugh:

It is measurable, and when the person dies, the activity ceases and the "I" of that person is lost.

What is the height, weight, color, and taste of this thing you call "I"? You say it is formed by the brain; once formed, where does it reside in the brain? And what is it's composition? Is it, perhaps green cheddar?

But that interactivity is just that - interactivity. There is nothing special about the way the neurons interact. The only thing special is what it results in. The energy that is detected when we measure that interactivity is no different to the energy measured in any other part of the body. it's just electrical energy.

It's what that energy does that is special, not the energy itself.

Uh...and the 'special result' is...what?

 

[godnotgod]

When Copernicus looked into the sky, saw things orbiting things other than the Earth, his interpretation of these facts culminated in an advancement in understanding that the geocentric model of the universe was incorrect.

When Issac Newton used his imagination to realize that the force that pulls all objects toward the Earth is the same force that causes the Moon to orbit the Earth and the Earth to orbit the Sun, that was also an advancement in understanding.

Albert Einstein used his own formidable imagination to realize that gravitational pull observed by Newton was actually not a pull but a "falling" caused by how space is shaped around matter. This is known as the theory of general relativity.

However, when Niehls Bohr and his many followers (Heidenburg's uncertainty priniciple comes to mind) to follow decided that the mere observations made are akin to an actual understanding of the underlying physical truth behind it, facts were mistaken for understanding. I cannot over-stress how opposed to this I am. Before, scientists had to make observations, form theories based upon their understanding of these observations, and then have theories confirmed by countless observations to follow. Now, in quantum physics, we have an entire branch of study which makes the observation and claims that what can be observed is all there is.

There is a battle for the soul of science going on, just like every other religion.

Good post. Good insights. The question I have re: observation, is: Who is it that is observing? Deepak Chopra puts it this way:

"We are the universe looking at itself through our eyes",

thus eliminating the observer of the observation. It also makes consciousness non-local.

 

[godnotgod]

Those are three names for the same thing.

No! It is three things of the same name! How do we know that? Because each one is observant of the others in a subject/object relationship, all of which is completely illusory. It all has to do with the delusion that we are somehow separate egos acting upon the world.

Distributed across the brain.

So "I" exists in the brain. Is the rest of the body then 'not-I'?

There are many instances of physical and chemical changes to the brain affecting personality and memory. Feel free to offer another explanation, but it's got to match up with evidence.

That is a long ways from the brain actually creating an entity called "I".

Have you asked it?

The only reason you would ask it is if you were deluded into thinking you had one yourself. But I am certain that if asked, the infant would respond with the traditional 'goo goo ga ga', a clear sign that his "I" is in there somewhere, hiding out, a faint semblance of the gleam in his father's eye.

PS: and if you have an "I", which "I" is it that has it? and which one is it that knows this?

"I": the infinite echo of a self-created principle.

Furthermore, do you realize that "I" cannot exist without the label "I", which is to say that "I" is purely conceptual. It has no basis in fact. To conjecture that it does is the same mental process as to conjecture the existence of a creator-God.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Emptiness is essential to fullness, as space is essential to objects, as nothing is essential to everything, which is precisely what cutting-edge astro-physics is now telling us, and which Eastern wisdom has known for centuries.

Oh please. Cutting edge astrophysics is not confirming your Orwellian drivel.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Heh...heh...heh....careful, now, lest ye get yer udders all in a bunch, lol.

Firstly, I do not know to which 'thoroughly-dismissed' koan you refer (uh..dismissed by whom...you? ha ha ha); and secondly, the nature of a koan is that it IS non-sensical; that is precisely why it is a koan.

Try again.

Aw, don't be so butthurt. And look at you, trying to make up some false hierarchy of who can dismiss something. lol. You dismiss science whole cloth, so its not like you have any perspective in any case.

Later on that one...but for now, a koan, for one, is understood without any facts attached. The understanding is completely intuitive.[/quote]
Later on that one.. because you lack an answer? Noted.
But, you're wrong again, the koan can be understood because the concepts contained within it are factual. You must have definitions for the words in it in order for the contrasts to be examined. Try again.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

So the whole of what I wrote is made wrong by a cheeky closing line that pokes fun at the fundamentalist way science operates... Failure, indeed.

Well, it was rendered wrong by trying to pretend religion is equal to science in terms of truth, yes.

 

[Prophet]

Well, it was rendered wrong by trying to pretend religion is equal to science in terms of truth, yes.

The point of what I wrote was to illuminate the difference between observations and understanding which is the same difference that exists between pseudoscience and real science. My quip at the end was meant only to highlight how science has reduced itself to a shade of its former glory by becoming attached to irrational trains of thought, like any other religion that has lost its way in the hypocrisy of fundamentalism.

I have made no proclamations of superiority of science or religion over the other in ascertaining truth. Both can be valid. Both can be invalid.

I can see nothing to be gained by debating you further. Have the last word.

 

[Prophet]

Good post. Good insights. The question I have re: observation, is: Who is it that is observing? Deepak Chopra puts it this way:

"We are the universe looking at itself through our eyes",

thus eliminating the observer of the observation. It also makes consciousness non-local.

You cannot take my plain speech and render it false by converting it to your "zen speak". Fundamentalist eastern religion followers always try this on me....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, I realize why you need to give up so quickly, but, it's ridiculous to pretend the most modern theories are 'pseudoscience' because their statements cannot be directly observed by humans. These sciences don't come about simply from guesses [like your religion], but by predictions made based upon other observations, math, and other things. We've never 'observed' neutrons, but their presence can be shown; likewise a million other things you take for granted every day while chafing about the inequity of it all.

And whatever difference you wish to make between observation and 'understanding' is certainly muddied by the use of that latter arbitrarily vague term.

 

[godnotgod]

You take cannot take my plain speech and render it false by converting it to your "zen speak". Fundamentalist eastern religion followers always try this on me....

Excuse me? Where do you see any 'zen speak' (whatever that is!), an attempt on my part to invalidate what you are saying (I'm not), or anything that smacks of fundamentalist eastern religion here.

You seem to have become enmeshed in your own preconception. Why not just try responding to the question? You sound really hostile and defensive.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

lol, awesome

 

[Prophet]

Excuse me? Where do you see any 'zen speak' (whatever that is!), an attempt on my part to invalidate what you are saying (I'm not), or anything that smacks of fundamentalist eastern religion here.

You seem to have become enmeshed in your own preconception. Why not just try responding to the question? You sound really hostile and defensive.

You want a plain response? I could make no sense of your question.

I apologize for the unwarranted hostility. I guess I'm just getting tired of this crap. Tired of not being understood.