The Watchmaker Revisited

[godnotgod]

Particles are more commonly the presentation.


Not the only way manifests.

There are no 'particles'; there are only fields. All fields taken together as a whole is The Unified Field. The Unified Field is just another name for Pure Consciousness; Brahman; The Ground of All Being; Tao; The Void; Pure Abstract Intelligence, etc.

 

[atanu]

You have failed to explain how we can get of the moon, ....

Can you please explain this? What exactly you wish me to explain?

In advance, I enquire of you "Kindly also explain how you know of the moon? Do we know of any object -- graspable or thought, or dreamlike -- in absence of awareness?"

 

[exchemist]

Can you please explain this? What exactly you wish me to explain?

In advance, I enquire of you "Kindly also explain how you know of the moon? Do we know of any object -- graspable or thought, or dreamlike -- in absence of awareness?"

Sorry typo, what I had meant to write was "You have failed to explain how we can get pictures of the moon, taken when we are not looking at it."

How do you account for that?

 

[atanu]

Sorry typo, what I had meant to write was "You have failed to explain how we can get pictures of the moon, taken when we are not looking at it."

How do you account for that?

In any case whatsoever, no object can be proven to be existing apart from the witnessing awareness, including the picture of the moon.

There are only two possibilities.

The physical — as defined by Polymath as the objective reality apart from the mental — gave rise to the mental process by some process. And with that created intellect we are trying to unravel the nature and source of the intellect itself. To me this is a childish wishful thinking. A created intellect can never unravel its source just as created objects such as cars or characters in films and novels cannot know the nature of their creators. Harry Potter cannot know its author.

The other possibility is that the consciousness — the fullness, representing the potential to be aware — IS. It is always the present. The Self inherent in this potential sees things as per desire et cetera. This model is supported by changing mental forms in our waking, dream, and deep sleep states. Although difficult, the truth of this is also realisable through meditation whereby the meditator can verify self nature as pure indivisible awareness devoid of objects.

The latter understanding, whether verified or not, however, offers immense practical benefits. In the former model, there is nothing at the substratum of intellect other than brain chemicals. Who will control and direct those chemicals and how? In the latter model, the fullness of consciousness is always the stable refuge for the flight of intellect. Just as mind is rested in sleep, a meditator can consciously introvert the mind into the fullness and remain in a state called waking deep sleep to calm and control mental activity.

And only in that state of highest control, at the level of Self Realisation or at the level of Buddha-hood, the sage sees and realises that mind is brahmA — the creator, the watchmaker.

For me, as of now, the latter model is more coherent and the understanding that mind is the creator (watchmaker) is an intelligent faith.

 

[paarsurrey]

Not necessarily. The point was that sometimes things aren't what they seem. Assuming is correct as long as you follow through.

In Religion there is no need to assume, the correct concepts are perfectly given and understood from the Word from the context, always. One may and is welcome to check it to have the experience. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Earthling]

In Religion there is no need to assume, the correct concepts are perfectly given and understood from the Word from the context, always. One may and is welcome to check it to have the experience. Right, please?

Regards

I don't think so, no. I would disagree. One should check, yes, but no religion is perfect. Far from it.

 

[exchemist]

In any case whatsoever, no object can be proven to be existing apart from the witnessing awareness, including the picture of the moon.

There are only two possibilities.

The physical — as defined by Polymath as the objective reality apart from the mental — gave rise to the mental process by some process. And with that created intellect we are trying to unravel the nature and source of the intellect itself. To me this is a childish wishful thinking. A created intellect can never unravel its source just as created objects such as cars or characters in films and novels cannot know the nature of their creators. Harry Potter cannot know its author.

The other possibility is that the consciousness — the fullness, representing the potential to be aware — IS. It is always the present. The Self inherent in this potential sees things as per desire et cetera. This model is supported by changing mental forms in our waking, dream, and deep sleep states. Although difficult, the truth of this is also realisable through meditation whereby the meditator can verify self nature as pure indivisible awareness devoid of objects.

The latter understanding, whether verified or not, however, offers immense practical benefits. In the former model, there is nothing at the substratum of intellect other than brain chemicals. Who will control and direct those chemicals and how? In the latter model, the fullness of consciousness is always the stable refuge for the flight of intellect. Just as mind is rested in sleep, a meditator can consciously introvert the mind into the fullness and remain in a state called waking deep sleep to calm and control mental activity.

And only in that state of highest control, at the level of Self Realisation or at the level of Buddha-hood, the sage sees and realises that mind is brahmA — the creator, the watchmaker.

For me, as of now, the latter model is more coherent and the understanding that mind is the creator (watchmaker) is an intelligent faith.

Sorry but can you please address what you think happens when an unmanned instrument takes a picture of, say, the dark side of the moon, which we cannot observe for ourselves. Are you claiming this is a picture of an illusion? If so how is it that different machines, at different times, send back pictures which are consistent with one another?

Or is the object shown in the picture real?

 

[Willamena]

You have failed to explain how we can get of the moon, taken when we are not looking at it. Do you want to try to address this, or just continue making assertions?

The instrument returns the picture for us to "look at." It doesn't fail to do that if we can say it took the picture; and until and unless it does that, how could we say that it took a picture?

 

[atanu]

Sorry but can you please address what you think happens when an unmanned instrument takes a picture of, say, the dark side of the moon, which we cannot observe for ourselves. Are you claiming this is a picture of an illusion? If so how is it that different machines, at different times, send back pictures which are consistent with one another?

Or is the object shown in the picture real?

Do you mean that the picture of the moon is perceived independent of a witnessing awareness? Or that camera took a picture on its own?

I think you are not following what I am saying. You are concerned with seeing with eyes. Nothing that is directly perceived or indirectly known through reports is separate from the witnessing awareness.

So, it is impossible to say that something objective exists independent of the awareness.

In my previous post, I explained the problematic implications of assuming that non sentient matter gives rise to sentience. Such created sentience cannot know it’s source.

 

[exchemist]

The instrument returns the picture for us to "look at." It doesn't fail to do that if we can say it took the picture; and until and unless it does that, how could we say that it took a picture?

You can't of course. But once you have the picture, it tells you the moon was there in spite of not being observed by you.

 

[Willamena]

You can't of course. But once you have the picture, it tells you the moon was there in spite of not being observed by you.

Well, no, I have a picture, so it is observed by me.

The purpose of such instruments is to extend the reach of our senses.

 

[exchemist]

Do you mean that the picture of the moon is perceived independent of a witnessing awareness? Or that camera took a picture on its own?

I think you are not following what I am saying. You are concerned with seeing with eyes. Nothing that is directly perceived or indirectly known through reports is separate from the witnessing awareness.

So, it is impossible to say that something objective exists independent of the awareness.

In my previous post, I explained the problematic implications of assuming that non sentient matter gives rise to sentience. Such created sentience cannot know it’s source.

You receive, from a satellite, a picture of part of the moon you cannot see. There is a time stamp on the picture denoting the time the satellite took the picture. I claim this is evidence that the moon was there objectively, i.e. independent of your observation of it.

If the moon is only an image in my consciousness, how can this be?

 

[exchemist]

Well, no, I have a picture, so it is observed by me.

The purpose of such instruments is to extend the reach of our senses.

And what, then, can you infer from the picture?

 

[Willamena]

And what, then, can you infer from the picture?

The larger picture.

 

[exchemist]

The larger picture.

Have a nice day.

 

[godnotgod]

That could be quite funny: this Xavier Borg crank will probably be very angry, in which case it could be popcorn time for the other scientifically literate people on this forum.
But then again, as the guy merits his own entry at no. 511 in the Encyclopaedia of American Loons: Encyclopedia of American Loons: #511: Xavier Borg , he may be used it it by now. I do not promise to get into a protracted discussion with some internet crank, however.

If you can refer me to similar ideas on other sites I'd be most intrigued, as I find it hard to believe that the same foolish mistake about the (fictitious and artificial) classical radius of the electron can have been made by a lot of people. What seems to me more likely is that these others have said something rather different, which may have appeared on a casual reading to have looked similar. Borg seems to be an "electric universe" crank, of whom there are quite a number, so you may have come across some of these, I suppose. More about that general brand of nuttiness here: Electric Universe - RationalWiki.

OK. We have a response from Blaze Labs re: your criticism re: 'mathematical proof':

"The fool is that person who is not able to look at reality from a different point of view than what his books have spoon fed him during his entire life. The problem with this particular issue is that a single spherical standing EM wave will look exactly the same as a distribution of electrostatic energy to an external observer. It's true that the mathematical proof shown on my page can be interpreted as showing that the electron is some sort of a statically charged sphere, but then such model will get in trouble explaining why electron 'clouds' look the same as standing waves from radio antennas rather than a bunch of statically charged spheres."

Xavier Borg, Blaze Labs

 

[godnotgod]

The problem we are having re: whether the moon is present or not when not being observed, is that we are looking at the question from two different perspectives, one being that via perceptual reality, the other via Ultimate Reality. We know what the answer is from the POV of perceptual reality. I post here the position from the POV of Ultimate Reality, which basically says that the world is a play of the divine nature, and everything you see is you. The moon is none other than your consciousness playing itself as 'moon'. But the consciousness has been altered to see it perceptually. When the perceptual filters are removed, you will see 'moon' as a projection of consciousness, but not the consciousness of a personal view, but that of a universal consciousness. IOW, you are the Universe, looking at itself through your eyes.

Does the moon exist if there are no sentient beings to look at it?
(edited)

When you see an object, the moon being the example you chose, your eyes are not really “seeing” the moon. Your eyes are responding to photons that follow all the rules of wave-particle duality. The electro-chemical reaction in your rods and cones sends an electrical current to your brain, an action potential that goes to your occipital cortex where it is registered as a particular intensity and pattern of electrical firings in your synaptic networks. No image entered your eyes, no image enters your neural networks. Yet you see the moon in your consciousness. There was no moon till it was an experience in your consciousness. Your brain is not registering pictures of the moon. It is sensing a digital on-off code of photons or waves of electricity (same thing) The collapse of wave function that creates the moon is in your consciousness (that has no location because its non local) The moon exists in consciousness — no consciousness, no moon — just a sluggishly expanding wave function in a superposition of possibilities. All happens within consciousness and nowhere else. In fact, the sluggishly expanding possibility wave function is also within consciousness. The same principle applies to any macro object including your own body. That’s why I said on Larry King that you are not in your body, the body is in you. You are not in the world, the world is in you. You are not in your mind (thoughts are possibility waves till experienced in consciousness) the mind is in you. This “you” of course is not a person. It is what Stuart Hameroff (whom you quoted in your blog as generating heat but not light — alas they are the same thing — light and heat) says in an upcoming interview: “I think a fundamental field of protoconscious experience has been embedded all along — since the big bang — in the (quantum realm) and that biology evolved and adapted in order to access it and maximize the qualities and potentials implicit within it — this could be the basic fabric of the universe.”
Let’s say your looking at a rose, a beautiful red one. What does it look like to a honey bee? The honey bee has no receptors for the usual wave lengths of light that you and I sense. It responds to ultraviolet so I don’t know what the experience of a rose to a honey bee but it has some experience, it is drawn to the flower and in fact makes honey out of it. What about a bat who can perhaps sense it as the echo of ultrasound. I don’t know what that experience is like either because I’m not a bat. What about a chameleon whose eyeballs swivel on 2 different axes? I can’t even remotely imagine what that object looks like to a chameleon. There are innumerable species who because of the nature of their sensory apparatus have a different experience of that rose. The senses do not see a rose. They register electricity! The neurons do not see a rose, they sense ionic shifts. What is the real look of the rose? There is no such thing! It depends on whose looking and also the instruments of observation — in this case the instrument of observation is the nervous system. (Of course that’s where you and I differ because you say you are your nervous system and I say you are the user of your nervous system.) Who is looking? A non-material observer. What is it looking at? It is looking at possibility waves that collapse as space time events in its own consciousness. That non-local observer is a single observer in all these different observations. Schroedinger: “Consciousness is a singular that has no plural.” You are the eyes of the universe looking at itself as a rose or the moon! Rumi: “Let the waters settle and you will see stars and the moon mirrored in your own being.” Every sentient biological entity is a singular consciousness looking at itself as a particular object. The observer and observed are the same being. The history of the cosmos is a history that is conceived in a particular way as if we were there or other biological organisms were there to observe it. But just as you cannot have an electrical current without a +ve and -ve terminal in place, you can’t have an object unless there is consciousness and a collapse of wave function to create that experience. There is now also a field called “time symmetric quantum mechanics” that says that information from the future fills in the indeterminacies of the present.” In other words the universe evolves teleologically.
Deepak Chopra

https://michaelshermer.com/2010/03/...f-there-are-no-sentient-beings-to-look-at-it/

 

[exchemist]

OK. We have a response from Blaze Labs re: your criticism re: 'mathematical proof':

"The fool is that person who is not able to look at reality from a different point of view than what his books have spoon fed him during his entire life. The problem with this particular issue is that a single spherical standing EM wave will look exactly the same as a distribution of electrostatic energy to an external observer. It's true that the mathematical proof shown on my page can be interpreted as showing that the electron is some sort of a statically charged sphere, but then such model will get in trouble explaining why electron 'clouds' look the same as standing waves from radio antennas rather than a bunch of statically charged spheres."

Xavier Borg, Blaze Labs

Ha ha ha. As expected, he misses the point completely, being a crank. The classical electron radius is an artificial construct, with no physical meaning, that is actually defined as what you get by setting the electron rest mass equal to the energy of a charged sphere and then working out what its radius would have to be to give the right answer. What he does is to assume it is a real, measured thing (it isn't) and then "deduces" that there must be some sort of wave, without including anything to justify that assumption. He also makes matters worse by muddling this up with electron orbitals, which have quite different dimensions, being about 10,000 times bigger.

We won't get any further with this joker.

 

[godnotgod]

And only in that state of highest control, at the level of Self Realisation or at the level of Buddha-hood, the sage sees and realises that mind is brahmA — the creator, the watchmaker.

For me, as of now, the latter model is more coherent and the understanding that mind is the creator (watchmaker) is an intelligent faith.

You are forgetting an important fact: a watch is an artifact of human invention. It is a made thing. The Universe is not only not an artifact, but it is not even 'created'. Science, in looking for the original material from which the Universe was 'created', is coming up empty handed. But if the material world is an illusion, a manifestation of Consciousness, then we don't have to account for any such original 'material', because an illusion requires none. But to take the scenario one step further, 'The Universe' may, in fact, be Consciousness itself, playing itself as 'The Universe'. There is no 'creation'; nothing is real; the material universe is a phantasm. Only That which is behind the illusion is real. The Universe is not 'made'; it is grown from the inside out. We only think it to be 'real' because we are relying on our senses to tell us it is, but the senses are limited and faulty....and our consciousness is conditioned to see things as our perception tells us they are.

What is seen from the highest level of Self Realization is not a 'creator of the created', but that, from the very beginning, not a single thing exists.

Did you mean to say 'Brahman', rather than 'Brahma'?

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't think so, no. I would disagree. One should check, yes, but no religion is perfect. Far from it.

and one's reason for that, please?

Regards