The Watchmaker Revisited

[atanu]

Yes, but without answering it concisely. How about a concise answer, rather than an obscurantist sermon?

That is poor choice of words, IMO. I have no sermon to make.

What exactly you wish to enquire? Please be precise. Regarding your last query "Whose consciousness it is?", I am emphatic and precise that the answer is in:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker-revisited.209581/page-13#post-5682406

I request you to desist from personal attacks. If you do not wish to discuss just say so.

 

[exchemist]

I occasionally drift into hyper or hypo subtletarianism.

You are quite the wordsmith, aren't you?

 

[exchemist]

That is poor choice of words, IMO. I have no sermon to make.

What exactly you wish to enquire? Please be precise. Regarding your last query "Whose consciousness it is?", I am emphatic and precise that the answer is in:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker-revisited.209581/page-13#post-5682406

You said. ".... it is not possible to prove existence of any object independent of the consciousness/awareness."

Whose consciousness? The consciousness of whom, or of what conscious entity?

Give me an answer in a single sentence, or explain succinctly why you can't.

 

[exchemist]

That is poor choice of words, IMO. I have no sermon to make.

What exactly you wish to enquire? Please be precise. Regarding your last query "Whose consciousness it is?", I am emphatic and precise that the answer is in:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker-revisited.209581/page-13#post-5682406

I request you to desist from personal attacks. If you do not wish to discuss just say so.

If you think I am making a "personal attack" then report me. I am happy to abide by the jurisdiction of the moderators.

 

[atanu]

You said. ".... it is not possible to prove existence of any object independent of the consciousness/awareness."

Whose consciousness? The consciousness of whom, or of what conscious entity?

Give me an answer in a single sentence, or explain succinctly why you can't.

The answer is simple. It is not possible to prove existence of any object independent of the consciousness/awareness. "Whose consciousness?", is irrelevant.

Still, if you insist, I wrote of two possibilities:
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker-revisited.209581/page-13#post-5682406

If you think I am making a "personal attack" then report me. I am happy to abide by the jurisdiction of the moderators.

I usually do not report. If you persist to use adjectives for me, I will stop responding to your posts.

 

[exchemist]

The answer is simple. It is not possible to prove existence of any object independent of the consciousness/awareness. "Whose consciousness?", is irrelevant.

Still, if you insist, I wrote of two possibilities:
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker-revisited.209581/page-13#post-5682406

So you mean the consciousness of just "some observer", is that it? If so I don't have too much of a problem with that.

However it is equally impossible to disprove the existence of said object on this basis.

In science we avoid this problem by the simple expedient of relying on evidence instead of proof. We have no "proof" the sun will rise tomorrow, but a lot of evidence that it should. This pragmatic approach to existence seems to work fine for most of us.

 

[Polymath257]

Well. Try to say that in a dream. Actually, in a dream you can take a picture.

And it will seldom align wi tut h previous observations.

Btw, I very seldom recall dreaming. It is not something I do much. I assume I do dream, but dont remember. Which is fine for me.

 

[Audie]

You are quite the wordsmith, aren't you?

I found years ago that the English language
is not big enough for me.

 

[Audie]

The answer is simple. It is not possible to prove existence of any object independent of the consciousness/awareness. "Whose consciousness?", is irrelevant.

Still, if you insist, I wrote of two possibilities:
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker-revisited.209581/page-13#post-5682406



I usually do not report. If you persist to use adjectives for me, I will stop responding to your posts.

Boys! Stop it!

 

[exchemist]

The answer is simple. It is not possible to prove existence of any object independent of the consciousness/awareness. "Whose consciousness?", is irrelevant.

Still, if you insist, I wrote of two possibilities:
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker-revisited.209581/page-13#post-5682406



I usually do not report. If you persist to use adjectives for me, I will stop responding to your posts.

Adjectives? I have not described you with any adjective, so far as I can see.

 

[godnotgod]

If you prefer crank physics, that is up to you.

You have crank on the brain, which is muddying up your thinking.

You get to post about the math proof, but when he responds twice already in a reasonable manner, you dismiss his content and go ad hominem. Not very scientific, is it? Try taking a look at the moon, instead of attacking the finger that points to it.

It is the mavericks who will carry the day in science and in spirituality. No stale musty materialist paradigm here to clog up the works.

Forward.

 

[godnotgod]

Best thing to do with a crank is ignore them.

What the #%$&*@ do you know, anyway?

Right, but in this case, he chooses to ignore the content and have his mind yanked along by a fixation called 'crank'. Are you also one of the fixated ones? Label something as derogatory, and that gives one the right to condemn, ostracize, dismiss, and even exterminate.

 

[godnotgod]

You are quite the wordsmith, aren't you?

She likes to think so. More like 'pedant', with an air of contrived superiority.

 

[godnotgod]

I found years ago that the English language
is not big enough for me.

You've got it backwards, dearie. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity. Lose the fat.

 

[exchemist]

You have crank on the brain, which is muddying up your thinking.

You get to post about the math proof, but when he responds twice already in a reasonable manner, you dismiss his content and go ad hominem. Not very scientific, is it? Try taking a look at the moon, instead of attacking the finger that points to it.

It is the mavericks who will carry the day in science and in spirituality. No stale musty materialist paradigm here to clog up the works.

Forward.

That's because his maths "proof" was lies. He claimed it proved something about waves when it did no such thing. And then he responded with irrelevant stuff about electromagnetic mass he had quickly looked up on physics stack exchange, to try to bamboozle you at least, and possibly me, too.

Look, in real life we all make judgements about who to listen to and who to ignore. Nobody is under any obligation to take seriously the ravings of the nutter on the street corner. If we did that, we'd not get anything done. So it comes down to the credentials of the speaker. Borg instantly forfeited any claim to be taken seriously with that maths nonsense you cut and pasted. And then I looked hm up and, surprise surprise, found he was listed in the Encyclopaedia of American Loons, which confirmed my suspicions. And then I found this nonsense about "COH2" on his website. It is all hogwash. That is why I don't bother to listen to any further arguments of his. He does not merit it.

But you go ahead, I'm sure it all makes sense in Trumpworld, what with alternative facts and all. I know, I'm trapped in a "rigid paradigm"......they laughed at Galileo (well they didn't, but never mind, we get the idea).........I've heard it all before.

 

[godnotgod]

That's because his maths "proof" was lies. He claimed it proved something about waves when it did no such thing. And then he responded with irrelevant stuff about electromagnetic mass he had quickly looked up on physics stack exchange, to try to bamboozle you at least, and possibly me, too.

Look, in real life we all make judgements about who to listen to and who to ignore. Nobody is under any obligation to take seriously the ravings of the nutter on the street corner. If we did that, we'd not get anything done. So it comes down to the credentials of the speaker. Borg instantly forfeited any claim to be taken seriously with that maths nonsense you cut and pasted. And then I looked hm up and, surprise surprise, found he was listed in the Encyclopaedia of American Loons, which confirmed my suspicions. And then I found this nonsense about "COH2" on his website. It is all hogwash. That is why I don't bother to listen to any further arguments of his. He does not merit it.

But you go ahead, I'm sure it all makes sense in Trumpworld, what with alternative facts and all. I know, I'm trapped in a "rigid paradigm"......they laughed at Galileo (well they didn't, but never mind, we get the idea).........I've heard it all before.

If you want to allow your attention to be enslaved by vicious gossip, instead of paying attention to the reasonable response Borg offered up, that is your business. You don't want to engage him not because he doesn't know what hes's talking about, but because you don't want to be associated with what others deem derogatory. This happens all the time in mainstream science, which is why Borg has taken a stance against it. And many others are jumping ship from the dogma of modern science.

Trumpworld? Excuse me? I am dead against Trump and his cabal. Care to take a second look at your assumptions about both Borg and me?

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

Anybody please

Regards

 

[exchemist]

If you want to allow your attention to be enslaved by vicious gossip, instead of paying attention to the reasonable response Borg offered up, that is your business. You don't want to engage him not because he doesn't know what hes's talking about, but because you don't want to be associated with what others deem derogatory. This happens all the time in mainstream science, which is why Borg has taken a stance against it. And many others are jumping ship from the dogma of modern science.

Trumpworld? Excuse me? I am dead against Trump and his cabal. Care to take a second look at your assumptions about both Borg and me?

The parallel with Trump and his followers is the construction of an alternative version of reality, to fit in with preconceived ideas, even though it is bogus. You fiercely defend this fraud, in spite of not understanding physics yourself. I ask myself why. The answer has to be that you have built a belief system on this rubbish.

 

[godnotgod]

The parallel with Trump and his followers is the construction of an alternative version of reality, to fit in with preconceived ideas, even though it is bogus. You fiercely defend this fraud, in spite of not understanding physics yourself. I ask myself why. The answer has to be that you have built a belief system on this rubbish.

Nice try, but I already mentioned to you that I came to see the Universe as illusory via another pathway, namely via mysticism. I'm really just playing with the factual knowledge which confirms what I already know.

As I said, Mr. Borg has, in two email responses, addressed every single one of your points. So go fly a kite.

What you fail to grasp is that physics and math are already highly altered states of consciousness, which see reality in a very conditioned manner. The mystic's view, in it's ideal state, is an unconditioned view of reality. IOW, it just sees things as they actually are. Science is dealing with reality only in terms of behavior, characteristics, and prediction, but is unable to actually understand what the nature of reality actually is, and it never will, and that is because it is limited via its own methodology. So science is really about 'alternative facts'. And as Mr. Alan Watts once commented: "The dead man [of cold logic and reason] gives us all the facts, but tells us NOTHING" But those questions are for another thread. The problem is that that science has set itself up as The Gold Standard of all knowledge by which all others are to be judged. In doing so, it has become a dogma, from which many highly respected scientists have jumped ship. Mr. Borg is just one of them, and is paying the price by apparently being labeled as a crank. This has happened to Amit Goswami, Roger Penrose, Deepak Chopra, John Hagelin, and many many others. The pattern of condemnation and dismissal of ideas which employ consciousness as the fundamental reality by the established scientific community as 'woo' is clear. Science has a problem.

But to cut to the chase, I provided you a video which essentially takes the position that there are no particles; there are only fields. Did you have a look? Bottom line is that both Quantum Physics and the mystical view converge on this point: there is no material reality. You are still espousing the old materialist paradigm.

I post below once again the video about Quantum Fields as the building blocks of the Universe, and NOT particles, as we thought to be the case. Take a look. Maybe you'll unlearn something. Once it dawns on you that reality is not about the particle, but about the field, you may have an epiphany. Cheers.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nice try, but I already mentioned to you that I came to see the Universe as illusory via another pathway, namely via mysticism. I'm really just playing with the factual knowledge which confirms what I already know.

As I said, Mr. Borg has, in two email responses, addressed every single one of your points. So go fly a kite.

What you fail to grasp is that physics and math are already highly altered states of consciousness, which see reality in a very conditioned manner. The mystic's view, in it's ideal state, is an unconditioned view of reality. IOW, it just sees things as they actually are. Science is dealing with reality only in terms of behavior, characteristics, and prediction, but is unable to actually understand what the nature of reality actually is, and it never will, and that is because it is limited via its own methodology. So science is really about 'alternative facts'. And as Mr. Alan Watts once commented: "The dead man [of cold logic and reason] gives us all the facts, but tells us NOTHING" But those questions are for another thread. The problem is that that science has set itself up as The Gold Standard of all knowledge by which all others are to be judged. In doing so, it has become a dogma, from which many highly respected scientists have jumped ship. Mr. Borg is just one of them, and is paying the price by apparently being labeled as a crank. This has happened to Amit Goswami, Roger Penrose, Deepak Chopra, John Hagelin, and many many others. The pattern of condemnation and dismissal of ideas which employ consciousness as the fundamental reality by the established scientific community as 'woo' is clear. Science has a problem.

But to cut to the chase, I provided you a video which essentially takes the position that there are no particles; there are only fields. Did you have a look? Bottom line is that both Quantum Physics and the mystical view converge on this point: there is no material reality. You are still espousing the old materialist paradigm.

I post below once again the video about Quantum Fields as the building blocks of the Universe, and NOT particles, as we thought to be the case. Take a look. Maybe you'll unlearn something. Once it dawns on you that reality is not about the particle, but about the field, you may have an epiphany. Cheers.

Can I just ask you how many diseases have been cured with mysticism?