The Watchmaker Revisited

[gnostic]

What I am saying about what Chopra knows about the Universe has nothing to do with credentials of any kind; the mystical experience is not based upon knowledge, but upon the direct apprehension of Reality itself.

Again, you are making assumption that what you believe, is real.

The whole mysticism is no better than theistic faith. It is based on belief and blind faith that there are consciousness working at non-locality level and blind faith that direct apprehension is possible.

Chopra is no better than any other fraud and conman.

 

[godnotgod]

Again, you are making assumption that what you believe, is real.

The whole mysticism is no better than theistic faith. It is based on belief and blind faith that there are consciousness working at non-locality level and blind faith that direct apprehension is possible.

Chopra is no better than any other fraud and conman.

You're not paying attention.

The mystical EXPERIENCE is not belief. Belief is the product of THOUGHT, which is the function of MIND. One believes that this doctrine or that is true. The mystical experience is not in mind, but in CONSCIOUSNESS, without thought,and therefore, without mind, and so cannot be belief. This mystical experience is the merging of 'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'. Merging is an experience, not a belief.

What do you mean to label Chopra a fraud and a conman? He very successfully operates The Chopra Center, and has transformed hundreds of lives.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Thanks for the clever 'sheet' explanation of Quantum Physics. I am aware of this scenario as representing 'pockets' in the field.

So it appears that 'particles', which in reality, are 'oscillating pockets of disturbances', or as Tong put it in the video on Quantum Fields I provided, they are 'bundles of energy'. So are we in agreement that these 'energy pockets' are the basis for the everyday macro world we live in, the 'physical' world you say is 'material'?

The 'bumps' in the sheet are not something apart from the sheet; they are, in fact. none other than the sheet, in much the same manner that the wave is none other than the ocean itself, the wave form simply being a temporary activity of the formless ocean, correct?

It appears to me that what you are calling 'the material world' is all about perception. IOW, we determine 'materiality' in terms of touch, taste, sight, sound, and smell. Is that correct?

In the video on Quantum Fields with David Tong, at one point he points to his audience and says: 'You're all made of Quantum Fields.....'

Your second last sentence is correct. Our eyes do interpret a certain wavelength of photons on the electromagnetic spectrum. They can interprets the photons within the electromagnetic field, as colour(cones) or shades of darkness(rods). Since we really can't physically see a photon, it is really only the brain's interpretation of the input signals it receives from its optical sense organs(rods and cones). The action potential produced by the stimulation of neural receptors are all the same(to my knowledge), yet a few molecules in the air, or on the tongue can be perceived as steak, feces, or flowers. Invisible compressed air can be perceived as a musical symphony. The same action potential produced by our end receptors, can be interpreted as pain, pressure, heat or cold. We can even perceive any part of our periphery, without looking at it. So yes, our subjective reality is absolutely the product of our brain's interpretation of what its sense organs perceive. Losing any of these senses, and the change in reality will become painfully obvious.

I also agree that the matter in the macroworld is also made up of these quantum fields. But you obviously know that although we are made up of quantum fields, we do not behave, or have the same properties as these fields. That would be a fallacy of composition, like water is made from two gases, therefore water is a gas. At the macro level of reality, our physical properties are defined by Gravity, Classical Physics, and General Relativity. This is not the case at the quantum level, which is dominated by force and matter carrying particles. Your ocean wave analogy is somewhat incomplete. An ocean wave tends to act only at the surface, but a quantum wave acts at all points in spacetime, and in all three spatial dimensions. It is a wave of particle probabilities caused by oscillating pockets of quantum uncertainty. Quantum objects act either like particles or waves, but never both at the same time. This seems to imply that these objects have no inherent reality until they are observed. They seem to have no reality between when they are observed, and when they are measured. You seem to entertain the notion that quantum objects, such as photons, always have definite and intrinsic properties. To accept this view of reality, is also to accept the absurdity that the future can influence the past. Unfortunately, it is anti-realism that you must except at this level of reality.

In summary, I agree with most of your post, and slightly disagree with the rest.

 

[gnostic]

You're not paying attention.

The mystical EXPERIENCE is not belief. Belief is the product of THOUGHT, which is the function of MIND. One believes that this doctrine or that is true. The mystical experience is not in mind, but in CONSCIOUSNESS, without thought,and therefore, without mind, and so cannot be belief. This mystical experience is the merging of 'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'. Merging is an experience, not a belief.

Again, you have no evidences for mysticism or the mystic experiences, I only got your words for it...which is as completely meaningless and unsubstantiated as the Abrahamic faith.

All you have done is mentioned a few scientists’ names, who are just as biased as you are with your mystic fantasy.

As to Tong, shunyadragon have already informed us that nothing in Tong’s video you have quoted, mentioned a single thing about consciousness, or your nonsensical “Pure Consciousness”, Brahman. Not in that two videos you have posted up, and not a single other videos Tong may have made.

Even in your warped Zen, don’t mention Brahman. It just you mixing Zen with Hindu lore.

All you have been doing, is constantly using false equivalence in your arguments.

And you are forgetting, godnotgod, using analogies are only great for philosophies, religions and myths, but it only make you look desperate when you try to mix science and your brand of mysticism.

How is your use of quantum physics any different from Muslims or Christian creationists using science? It is all a desperate attempts to validate their religions, just as you do.

 

[godnotgod]

Again, you have no evidences for mysticism or the mystic experiences, I only got your words for it...which is as completely meaningless and unsubstantiated as the Abrahamic faith.

All you have done is mentioned a few scientists’ names, who are just as biased as you are with your mystic fantasy.

As to Tong, shunyadragon have already informed us that nothing in Tong’s video you have quoted, mentioned a single thing about consciousness, or your nonsensical “Pure Consciousness”, Brahman. Not in that two videos you have posted up, and not a single other videos Tong may have made.

Even in your warped Zen, don’t mention Brahman. It just you mixing Zen with Hindu lore.

All you have been doing, is constantly using false equivalence in your arguments.

And you are forgetting, godnotgod, using analogies are only great for philosophies, religions and myths, but it only make you look desperate when you try to mix science and your brand of mysticism.

How is your use of quantum physics any different from Muslims or Christian creationists using science? It is all a desperate attempts to validate their religions, just as you do.

There is no physical evidence for the mystical experience of union with the Universe as it is purely an experience in consciousness. It is transcendent and transformative of our ordinary experience of material existence. But I already told you that many times, and I have explained to you why it is not a religious belief, which you conveniently ignore and stubbornly cling to your preconceived notions that anything other than 'thienthe' is 'woo'.

Yes, I have mentioned some scientists, intelligent men like Planck, Goswami, Capra, Hagen, Klafatos, and many others, who have come to realize that the old materialist paradigm is no longer a realistic view of the world.

I never claimed that Tong referred to consciousness in either video. Where did you get that notion? From the woo woo you so tenaciously cling to?

Zen, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are just different fingers pointing to the same singular Reality. The problem is that, instead of looking to that Reality, you are transfixed by the many-colored pointing fingers. I would strongly suggest that you take a closer look at what your Asian spiritual culture has to offer you, instead of categorically labeling anything you have no scientific proof of as 'crap'.

The scientific and the mystical views are just two different ways of looking at the same Reality, except that the scientific view is a highly conditioned one, while the mystical view is transcendent of all conditionings, as in:

"First there is a mountain;
then there is no mountain;
then there is"

Religions have an agenda to prove there is a God as a means of dealing with metaphysical anxiety.

The scientific agenda is the attempt to prove, via Logic, Reason, and Analysis, that the Universe can be known and ultimately understood in terms of factual knowledge, and that the nature of Reality can be plumbed by the rational mind.

The mystical view, OTOH, is simply to see things as they are, and to directly experience that Reality. That Reality is that we are always in union with the Universe, but have failed to realize it due to mental conditioning by which we see a mechanical unintelligent universe in a subject/object split created by the illusory mind known as 'I'.

 

[gnostic]

There is no physical evidence for the mystical experience of union with the Universe as it is purely an experience in consciousness. It is transcendent and transformative of our ordinary experience of material existence. But I already told you that many times, and I have explained to you why it is not a religious belief, which you conveniently ignore and stubbornly cling to your preconceived notions that anything other than 'thienthe' is 'woo'.

Yes, I have mentioned some scientists, intelligent men like Planck, Goswami, Capra, Hagen, Klafatos, and many others, who have come to realize that the old materialist paradigm is no longer a realistic view of the world.

I never claimed that Tong referred to consciousness in either video. Where did you get that notion? From the woo woo you so tenaciously cling to?

Zen, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are just different fingers pointing to the same singular Reality. The problem is that, instead of looking to that Reality, you are transfixed by the many-colored pointing fingers. I would strongly suggest that you take a closer look at what your Asian spiritual culture has to offer you, instead of categorically labeling anything you have no scientific proof of as 'crap'.

The scientific and the mystical views are just two different ways of looking at the same Reality, except that the scientific view is a highly conditioned one, while the mystical view is transcendent of all conditionings, as in:

"First there is a mountain;
then there is no mountain;
then there is"

Religions have an agenda to prove there is a God as a means of dealing with metaphysical anxiety.

The scientific agenda is the attempt to prove, via Logic, Reason, and Analysis, that the Universe can be known and ultimately understood in terms of factual knowledge, and that the nature of Reality can be plumbed by the rational mind.

The mystical view, OTOH, is simply to see things as they are, and to directly experience that Reality. That Reality is that we are always in union with the Universe, but have failed to realize it due to mental conditioning by which we see a mechanical unintelligent universe in a subject/object split created by the illusory mind known as 'I'.

You don’t know me at all.

I don’t think Hinduism and Buddhism are craps. I think people who mixed New Age mysticism with Hinduism and Buddhism to be a load of craps.

It is all the New Age that I am disgusted with.

 

[godnotgod]

I don’t think Hinduism and Buddhism are craps..

The Buddha realized Oneness with Everything.

Hinduism teaches the yoga (ie; divine union) with Brahman, which is Pure Consciousness.

So this is OK with you?

 

[Polymath257]

You're not paying attention.

The mystical EXPERIENCE is not belief. Belief is the product of THOUGHT, which is the function of MIND. One believes that this doctrine or that is true. The mystical experience is not in mind, but in CONSCIOUSNESS, without thought,and therefore, without mind, and so cannot be belief. This mystical experience is the merging of 'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'. Merging is an experience, not a belief.

What do you mean to label Chopra a fraud and a conman? He very successfully operates The Chopra Center, and has transformed hundreds of lives.

Consciousness is part of the mind. So mystical experiences are like all other experiences: a product of how the brain functions. You *feel* a certain way. But that is the same as your brain *processing* in a certain way.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is part of the mind. So mystical experiences are like all other experiences: a product of how the brain functions. You *feel* a certain way. But that is the same as your brain *processing* in a certain way.

No. The mind is a creation of consciousness. Consciousness is present prior to mind coming into play, mind being the agent of thought. Without thought, there is still a conscious being, which does not think, but just sees. The self is a creation of mind. When mind is silent, there is no self; no 'I'. The consciousness that is present without self is the consciousness of the Universe itself.

How does the material brain create non-material consciousness?

The mystical experience is non-local and non-self.

 

[Darkstorn]

No. The mind is a creation of consciousness.

Is this based on wishful thinking or verifiable evidence?

Consciousness is present prior to mind coming into play, mind being the agent of thought.

I'd like to repeat my first question.

Without thought, there is still a conscious being, which does not think, but just sees.

I'd like to repeat my second question.

The self is a creation of mind. When mind is silent, there is no self; no 'I'. The consciousness that is present without self is the consciousness of the Universe itself.

This is getting tiresome, but i'd like to repeat my third question.

How does the material brain create non-material consciousness?

When did you verify that consciousness is non-material? Talking about that, i'd like to repeat my first, second, third and fourth questions.

The mystical experience is non-local and non-self.

So far the only verifiable thing about mystical experiences seems to be that they're wholly dependent on the person having the experience. I.E It's very much local and very much your self.

Oh and the fact that your explanations are far less convincing than those using science. I think your entire premise is "i wish this was true."

 

[godnotgod]

So far the only verifiable thing about mystical experiences seems to be that they're wholly dependent on the person having the experience. I.E It's very much local and very much your self.

Is that so? Show me this 'self' you say is having the experience; the 'experiencer of the experience', the "I" that thinks.

And while you're at it, show me the 'whirlpool' that is the agent of whirling water.

...or the 'It' that is raining.

Science is more convincing? Are you aware that what is called 'Emergent Theory' is not a bona fide scientific theory, but merely a hypothesis? Science cannot show how electrical energy and chemical molecules come together to create consciousness. Apparently, you have the secret to the hard problem.

 

[Darkstorn]

Is that so? Show me this 'self' you say is having the experience; the 'experiencer of the experience'.

I'm saying mystical experiences are subjective. It's not that difficult to understand. You're treating them as "Real Things" (tm) but i'm only conveying this point: Your wishful thinking isn't actually verifiable in this instance. It's just your wishful thinking. Your mystical experience, is your subjective experience.

If there is no self, then there is no self to experience mystical experiences. I.E Mystical experiences come from "the self." You get to choose how real that self is now.

And while you're at it, show me the 'whirlpool' that is the agent of whirling water.

Why?

...or the 'It' that is raining.

Oh, i get it now! You're just playing the semantic game, aren't you? I don't feel like playing that game.

Science is more convincing?

Yes, but that's not what i was saying. I'm saying the people who actually study quantum physics have a better understanding of it than you do, and are better at convincing people than you are. That's what i'm saying.

Are you aware that what is called 'Emergent Theory' is not a bona fide scientific theory, but merely a hypothesis?

Sure?

Science cannot show how electrical energy and chemical molecules come together to create consciousness.

So we must fill the gaps with wishful thinking and subjective experiences? Okay.

I think it's pretty sad that you also think it could never show it. But it has shown this: The brain is a material object. There's no magic involved most likely. If you feel there is, you show that instead.

Apparently, you have the secret to the hard problem.

No, i'm trying to imply that i'm criticizing you for making the claim that you have such secrets. With zero evidence, only your emotional pleading.

I literally asked you to show us some evidence behind your statements. I mean, when you're telling people what is and what isn't, it's up to you to show it. Otherwise you're demanding us to believe your words with no critical thought.

So, instead of doing that, and giving us something more, you move the goal posts and try to obfuscate the very, very simple issue into something else. The only thing i'm talking about in my first post is this:

You keep making statements. And you back them with emotional pleading in a debate thread. That's fine if you really think it's smart.

 

[Polymath257]

No. The mind is a creation of consciousness. Consciousness is present prior to mind coming into play, mind being the agent of thought. Without thought, there is still a conscious being, which does not think, but just sees. The self is a creation of mind. When mind is silent, there is no self; no 'I'. The consciousness that is present without self is the consciousness of the Universe itself.

Again, a nice story. But I have yet to see any evidence that backs up your assertions.

How does the material brain create non-material consciousness?

Already answered. Consciousness is a material process, not a non-material thing. In particular, it is the brain process that highlights certain information as important and in need of focus.

The mystical experience is non-local and non-self.

Again, a nice claim. But perhaps that experience is hallucinatory instead of factual?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm saying mystical experiences are subjective. It's not that difficult to understand. You're treating them as "Real Things" (tm) but i'm only conveying this point: Your wishful thinking isn't actually verifiable in this instance. It's just your wishful thinking. Your mystical experience, is your subjective experience.

If there is no self, then there is no self to experience mystical experiences. I.E Mystical experiences come from "the self." You get to choose how real that self is now.

There is no 'whirler' of the whirling water in a whirlpool, and yet, we have whirling water.

Show me this 'self' that must be present for experience to take place.

You see what I am saying? There is no 'experiencer of the experience' of consciousness: there is only the experience of consciousness itself, and we are that experience.

Get it?

 

[godnotgod]

Again, a nice story. But I have yet to see any evidence that backs up your assertions.



Already answered. Consciousness is a material process, not a non-material thing. In particular, it is the brain process that highlights certain information as important and in need of focus.



Again, a nice claim. But perhaps that experience is hallucinatory instead of factual?

When you stop thoughts, is consciousness still present?

 

[Darkstorn]

There is no 'whirler' of the whirling water in a whirlpool, and yet, we have whirling water.

That's just about as deep as saying we have planets orbiting the sun, yet no 'orbiter.'

I.E It's entirely meaningless and at best a false equivocation. No one defined that "whirling" requires a conscious agent. The same goes for "orbiting." Unless you wish to add a conscious agent to the mix. In that case, present evidence.

Show me this 'self' that must be present for experience to take place.

For me the self is a composite phenomenon. I.E i can't show you something that's at best subjective, at worst an illusion. Furthermore, it has almost nothing to do with any of my posts, it's just you deflecting the issue:

I was demanding evidence for your outlandish claims.

You see what I am saying? There is no 'experiencer of the experience' of consciousness: there is only the experience of consciousness itself, and we are that experience.

Get it?

I get it. As in i understand what you're saying. You need to understand that i'm literally making the claim that this is just wishful thinking unless you can somehow show it. You're asking me to accept your worldview without critical thought. In fact, you're purposefully avoiding my criticism and moving the goal posts. What purpose does that serve?

Once again, i was asking for you to show some evidence for your claims. Once again, i expect you to go on about your philosophy instead of addressing the glaring issues of it first. Proselytizing is so mind-numbingly tiresome.

I think part of the issue is that you hold your sense-perceptions as objective (!) instead of subjective. But that's pretty delusional so i hope not.

I don’t think Hinduism and Buddhism are craps. I think people who mixed New Age mysticism with Hinduism and Buddhism to be a load of craps.

I think that's part of the issue here, yeah.

 

[godnotgod]

That's just about as deep as saying we have planets orbiting the sun, yet no 'orbiter.'

I.E It's entirely meaningless and at best a false equivocation. No one defined that "whirling" requires a conscious agent. The same goes for "orbiting." Unless you wish to add a conscious agent to the mix. In that case, present evidence.

I am not the one making the claim that there is a self that must be present in order for consciousness to occur; you are. YOU are the one who has added a conscious agent to the mix, called 'self', aka, 'I'.

If 'whirling water' and 'orbiting planet' require no conscious agent, then why does the experience of consciousness require one?

For me the self is a composite phenomenon. I.E i can't show you something that's at best subjective, at worst an illusion.

If you can't show it, maybe it does not exist, and if it does not exist, then consciousness, according to you, cannot occur.

Furthermore, it has almost nothing to do with any of my posts, it's just you deflecting the issue:

I was demanding evidence for your outlandish claims.

The only outlandish claim here is that molecules and electrical current create consciousness. No one knows how that occurs. You?

I get it. As in i understand what you're saying. You need to understand that i'm literally making the claim that this is just wishful thinking unless you can somehow show it. You're asking me to accept your worldview without critical thought. In fact, you're purposefully avoiding my criticism and moving the goal posts. What purpose does that serve?

The only moving goal posts are those in your moving mind.

I have stated repeatedly that the experience of non-local consciousness can be directly experienced and verified by anyone. It is available and at hand at all times.

Once again, i was asking for you to show some evidence for your claims. Once again, i expect you to go on about your philosophy instead of addressing the glaring issues of it first. Proselytizing is so mind-numbingly tiresome.

Again, there is no factual evidence for higher consciousness other than direct experience, sorta like the prisoners in Plato's Cave going outside to see the Sun for the very first time. As long as they cling to the cave wall shadows of rational thinking, they will never get a glimpse. Seeing the Sun is not thinking. It is direct experience without thought.

 

[godnotgod]

No, i'm trying to imply that i'm criticizing you for making the claim that you have such secrets. With zero evidence, only your emotional pleading.

Excuse me? I have never made any such claim. I have always stated that what I am talking about is right under your very nose, but because of your mental conditioning, you fail to see it.

What 'emotional pleading'?

 

[Darkstorn]

I am not the one making the claim that there is a self that must be present in order for consciousness to occur; you are. YOU are the one who has added a conscious agent to the mix, called 'self', aka, 'I'.

But i wasn't talking about any whirlpools to begin with, you were. So how am i making any claims there regarding the self? Why are you talking about whirlpools by the way? I asked you to show evidence for your claims, but you seem to be dodging that.

If 'whirling water' and 'orbiting planet' require no conscious agent, then why does the experience of consciousness require one?

Consciousness can be defined as "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings." I think that pretty much requires an agent to count as consciousness. Another definition: "a person's awareness or perception of something." A person is an agent.

If you can't show it, maybe it does not exist, and if it does not exist, then consciousness, according to you, cannot occur.

That's not according to me at all, that's according to you. Why do you keep moving the goal posts?

The only outlandish claim here is that molecules and electrical current create consciousness. No one knows how that occurs. You?

Yeah. Physics.

The other option is magic, but i'm fully willing to accept that it might be magical. But that's exactly why i'm asking for evidence.

The only moving goal posts are those in your moving mind.

Oooooooh. Woooooooo....

You're so deep.

I have stated repeatedly that the experience of non-local consciousness can be directly experienced and verified by anyone. It is available and at hand at all times.

Yes, you keep stating it. But that's not enough.

You've presented no evidence in support of it. Therefore, i need no evidence to shoot it down. I can literally say "you are wrong" and it would be equally valid as your claim.

Again, there is no factual evidence for higher consciousness other than direct experience, sorta like the prisoners in Plato's Cave going outside to see the Sun for the very first time.

So... It's a bit like those guys who demand people to believe in their god?

As long as they cling to the cave wall shadows of rational thinking, they will never get a glimpse. Seeing the Sun is not thinking. It is direct experience without thought.

That sounds a lot like proselytizing.

Excuse me? I have never made any such claim. I have always stated that what I am talking about is right under your very nose, but because of your mental conditioning, you fail to see it.

Yeah, but that's what Christians say too. It's "right there." I just fail to see it. Totally my problem that it's not convincing at all.

What 'emotional pleading'?

"I have always stated that what I am talking about is right under your very nose, but because of your mental conditioning, you fail to see it. " This counts. You're "performing" a logical fallacy known as special pleading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

MOST of your claims would count as that. So: Your argument, and your worldview is a logical fallacy, and this is a debate forum. So, you might be right or you might be wrong. That doesn't matter. What really matters is how convincing you are. And you're not very convincing. Because your argument is a logical fallacy.

 

[Polymath257]

When you stop thoughts, is consciousness still present?

Depends on what you mean by the term 'thoughts'. Are emotions thoughts? Are sensations thoughts? All are part of brain functioning. So, if you restrict thoughts to what happens in the frontal lobe, then consciousness can exist without them. But it cannot exist without thoughts, or emotions, or sensations, or self-perception.