The Watchmaker Revisited

[godnotgod]

Pettis is good, but is not a master. And. Aikido may have some valid techniques, bufor fighting it is very. limited. And it is too bad that you do not understand the video that you linked.

He won some European contest.

Start a new thread on martial arts. This has gone too far from the original intent of consciousness existing in places other than the brain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He won some European contest.

Start a new thread on martial arts. This has gone too far from the original intent of consciousness existing in places other than the brain.

You brought him up. Winning a tournament does not make one a master.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Of course not! I never claimed that they were. But what makes you think science is the Gold Standard of Knowledge? Science is nothing more than a method for detecting characteristics and prediction of behavior, but behavior and characteristics are not the true nature of reality. My claims are based upon the direct insight into the nature of things.



Now you put words in my mouth for the second time, first saying that I claimed transcendence of nature, and now transcendence of physical laws. I never made any such claim. What I said was that the mystic transcends perceptual reality in order to apprehend Ultimate Reality.

EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, my friend. Not excuses, deflections, denials, avoidance, misdirection's, and silly word games. Claims that are not based on science are based on personal belief, which requires zero evidence. However, claims that are based on science DO require verifiable objective evidence. You seem to manipulate the truth, by manipulating key words to give the appearance of truth. This, as you have admitted, is not science. This is deception(deliberate or unintentional) disguised as science. There will always be those that want to believe that up is down, and down is up. There will always be those that want to believe that Elvis has just left the building, or that an all-knowing, all-present universal consciousness exist, and is independent of any subjective perspective. But from a scientific perspective, these beliefs only represents a flea biting the back of an elephant. Without evidence, only another flea will bite.

What you seem to not understand, is that in the hearts of most skeptics, atheists, or Gnostics, is a secret desire to believe that there exist something that IS greater than all the parts that make up reality. They would instantly change their minds, if there was any rational support for your claims. Stating that "evidence can't be obtained", or "you can't understand the evidence", or "evidence doesn't exist in the physical world", are all self-serving cop-outs. Creating your own language and logic, or borrowing, manipulating, and misapplying established scientific principles and understandings, only creates an obvious air of doubt, deception, and suspicion. All of these things makes the medicine you're peddling, very hard to swallow.

Science IS truly the Gold standard for acquiring the best possible explanations about any natural phenomena. Basically, the explanations by science works. The explanations can be tested, predicted, repeated, measured, is usually intuitive, and can be observed. Even human behavior with enough data, can be predicted using the scientific method. What other standard do you know that is similar? Or was your statement just another baseless assertion? Any explanation(except scientific), can be used to explain any unnatural phenomenon. Just start with the conclusion, and select half-truths, unrelated ideas, personal beliefs, fallacious arguments, and anything that sounds "sciency" to support it. And, "wallah" you have created your own truth. Anyone can do this, except science.

I certainly don't want to put words into your mouth. So when you say, "that the mystic transcends perceptual reality in order to apprehend Ultimate Reality", exactly what are you referring to as "perceptual reality"? The perceptual reality that I know is the physical reality. Which is bound by physical laws. Therefore, transcending the physical reality, also transcends the physical laws of nature.

Still waiting on the evidence.

 

[godnotgod]

EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, my friend. Not excuses, deflections, denials, avoidance, misdirection's, and silly word games. Claims that are not based on science are based on personal belief, which requires zero evidence. However, claims that are based on science DO require verifiable objective evidence. You seem to manipulate the truth, by manipulating key words to give the appearance of truth. This, as you have admitted, is not science. This is deception(deliberate or unintentional) disguised as science. There will always be those that want to believe that up is down, and down is up. There will always be those that want to believe that Elvis has just left the building, or that an all-knowing, all-present universal consciousness exist, and is independent of any subjective perspective. But from a scientific perspective, these beliefs only represents a flea biting the back of an elephant. Without evidence, only another flea will bite.

What you seem to not understand, is that in the hearts of most skeptics, atheists, or Gnostics, is a secret desire to believe that there exist something that IS greater than all the parts that make up reality. They would instantly change their minds, if there was any rational support for your claims. Stating that "evidence can't be obtained", or "you can't understand the evidence", or "evidence doesn't exist in the physical world", are all self-serving cop-outs. Creating your own language and logic, or borrowing, manipulating, and misapplying established scientific principles and understandings, only creates an obvious air of doubt, deception, and suspicion. All of these things makes the medicine you're peddling, very hard to swallow.

Science IS truly the Gold standard for acquiring the best possible explanations about any natural phenomena. Basically, the explanations by science works. The explanations can be tested, predicted, repeated, measured, is usually intuitive, and can be observed. Even human behavior with enough data, can be predicted using the scientific method. What other standard do you know that is similar? Or was your statement just another baseless assertion? Any explanation(except scientific), can be used to explain any unnatural phenomenon. Just start with the conclusion, and select half-truths, unrelated ideas, personal beliefs, fallacious arguments, and anything that sounds "sciency" to support it. And, "wallah" you have created your own truth. Anyone can do this, except science.

I certainly don't want to put words into your mouth. So when you say, "that the mystic transcends perceptual reality in order to apprehend Ultimate Reality", exactly what are you referring to as "perceptual reality"? The perceptual reality that I know is the physical reality. Which is bound by physical laws. Therefore, transcending the physical reality, also transcends the physical laws of nature.

Still waiting on the evidence.

So if a claim is not verifiable via science, it can only be a belief?
Science claims that there is an observer-independent reality, but it is not testable. Science says that if it is not testable, it cannot be said to exist. Therefore, an observer-independent reality does not exist, according to the principles of science.

 

[exchemist]

So if a claim is not verifiable via science, it can only be a belief?
Science claims that there is an observer-independent reality, but it is not testable. Science says that if it is not testable, it cannot be said to exist. Therefore, an observer-independent reality does not exist, according to the principles of science.

Untrue, in my opinion.

First, so far as I am aware, there is no claim by science of observer-independent reality. If you think there is such a claim, I'd be grateful for a reference from a scientific source that says so. It seems to me such a claim would be philosophy, not science. Personally, I would think that science tacitly assumes there is an objective reality to model, but I have never seen this stated anywhere.

Secondly, there is evidence for an observer-independent reality, so it is testable. The simple fact that we can make reproducible observations of nature is consistent with this being the case. From there, Ockham's Razor would suggest it is simpler to assume that there is an independent reality than otherwise and that nothing is lost by making this assumption.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So if a claim is not verifiable via science, it can only be a belief?
Science claims that there is an observer-independent reality, but it is not testable. Science says that if it is not testable, it cannot be said to exist. Therefore, an observer-independent reality does not exist, according to the principles of science.

The problem with Chopra, like you, is that if you ask him a simple question, he will answer questions that were never asked. By the time he finishes answering unasked questions, you have lost interest in the original question, and simply want him stop talking. I have no idea what the ultimate reality is before the video, and no idea after the video. Although, I do now have doubts about my own perception of reality. NOT! What you and Chopra are really saying is, that we have something that we don’t understand (physical existence, reality), so let's take something else that we don’t understand (consciousness, observer-independent reality), and say that the first thing depends on the second thing”. This is just another Gap-filling argument from ignorance.

Our physical reality(on the macro scale) certainly exists independent of the observer. Especially, since our senses are being externally stimulated However our subjective perspective is not independent of our subjective reality. This can be easily tested. Did the sun rise over the earth in 1088 AD? Can this be verified or tested? Therefore, is the existence of the sun in 1088 AD just a belief? Do you think that the moon will rise tonight? Or, will it rise only if there is an observer to see it? Either the Universe and our physical reality exists independent of our existence, or the Universe and our physical reality does not exist, unless we exists to observe it. From an evolutionary and environmental perspective, the answer is a no-brainer).

I agree that our perception of reality is the brain's best-guess representation of the true reality, but this representation works and keeps me alive. Since knowing the true nature of reality might forever be beyond our grasp, this perception of reality will just have to do.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Now this part, particularly described godnotgod to the tee.

Also godnotgod has tried to twist quantum theory to his vantage, eg when he used Tong’s video lecture, but nothing in the video described Pure Consciousness or Brahman.

Is the consciousness of a newborn pure?

 

[godnotgod]

Untrue, in my opinion.

First, so far as I am aware, there is no claim by science of observer-independent reality. If you think there is such a claim, I'd be grateful for a reference from a scientific source that says so. It seems to me such a claim would be philosophy, not science. Personally, I would think that science tacitly assumes there is an objective reality to model, but I have never seen this stated anywhere.

Secondly, there is evidence for an observer-independent reality, so it is testable. The simple fact that we can make reproducible observations of nature is consistent with this being the case. From there, Ockham's Razor would suggest it is simpler to assume that there is an independent reality than otherwise and that nothing is lost by making this assumption.

Point #1: The conceptual framework of the subject/object split is automatically built into the scientific method. It is assumed that the object, 'moon', exists whether the subject, 'observer', is present or not*. Reality exists as an independent object of the observer.

Point #2: In order for you to test the evidence for an observer-independent reality, an observer is required. The observer must always be part of the 'independent' reality being tested.

*We previously talked about the materiality of objects as equating to perception. So the material object 'moon' is a perceptual experience inside of consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

Is the consciousness of a newborn pure?

'Pure', in this sense, simply means 'clear', or unobstructed or uncontaminated by concept, idea, conjecture, etc. IOW, clear of thought or emotion. 'No-mind' in Zen, for example; 'no self-view', in Buddhism, etc.

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

 

[godnotgod]

Our physical reality(on the macro scale) certainly exists independent of the observer.
Especially, since our senses are being externally stimulated However our subjective perspective is not independent of our subjective reality. This can be easily tested. Did the sun rise over the earth in 1088 AD? Can this be verified or tested? Therefore, is the existence of the sun in 1088 AD just a belief? Do you think that the moon will rise tonight? Or, will it rise only if there is an observer to see it? Either the Universe and our physical reality exists independent of our existence, or the Universe and our physical reality does not exist, unless we exists to observe it. From an evolutionary and environmental perspective, the answer is a no-brainer).

In order for you to test the evidence for an observer-independent reality, an observer is required. The observer must always be part of the 'independent' reality being tested.

I agree that our perception of reality is the brain's best-guess representation of the true reality, but this representation works and keeps me alive. Since knowing the true nature of reality might forever be beyond our grasp, this perception of reality will just have to do.

The consciousness by which you know this is Ultimate Reality. You don't notice it because it is the passive background to all existence. Your mind is focused on the foreground of existence, ie; 'perceptual reality', while ignoring the background.* Actually, you don't ignore it; you ('you' in general) simply are not conscious of its presence, as your attention is captured by the foreground. This is especially true in the West, since we are conditioned from early on to see the world via a subject/object split. We don't see the background as an object; only the foreground. However, it is impossible for the foreground to exist without the background, the foreground always being part of the background, and the 'separate observer' (a construct of the mind) is 100% integrated into the background, but is not aware of it.



*A fish born into the sea is not aware that he is in the sea. His attention is almost immediately captured by the foreground, in this case, food and predator. Likewise, we are not aware of the background of Ultimate Reality, which is not some other distant realm of existence, but as close to you as your next breath.

 

[gnostic]

'Pure', in this sense, simply means 'clear', or unobstructed or uncontaminated by concept, idea, conjecture, etc. IOW, clear of thought or emotion. 'No-mind' in Zen, for example; 'no self-view', in Buddhism, etc.
'

Finally!

Your first definition to one of your many “Capitalised” adjectives that are often attached to the nouns.

If “Pure” means as you say, “clear”, “unobstructed” or “uncontaminated”, then it doesn’t needs to be capitalised, since this is not a “mystical” event. Such consciousness, can be natural, without the needs for Hindu, Zen, or your bloody New Age mongrel.

Capitalising, eg “Pure Consciousness” is just unwarranted sophistry, and often used by 3rd rated wannabe philosophers.

As to:

'No-mind' in Zen, for example; 'no self-view'.

I believed that’s call 無心 or transliterated as mushin and simply translated as “no mind”. Or, 無心の心, a transliteration to mushin no shin, “mind without mind”.

I believed that it was something about some essays written by late 16th century Zen abbot, Takuan.

As I understand it, Takuan wrote it for his contemporary friend Yagyū Munenori, who was also a famous samurai and kenjutsu master.

Imagine writing something about mushin that help any samurai to kill someone without thought, without remorse. No wonder why feudal Japan was a seriously f@##ed up society, when it mixed Zen philosophy with perfecting some killing techniques.

 

[godnotgod]

WOW! This is one of the most compelling talks I have ever seen/heard! Just beautiful!

 

[godnotgod]

Finally!

Your first definition to one of your many “Capitalised” adjectives that are often attached to the nouns.

If “Pure” means as you say, “clear”, “unobstructed” or “uncontaminated”, then it doesn’t needs to be capitalised, since this is not a “mystical” event. Such consciousness, can be natural, without the needs for Hindu, Zen, or your bloody New Age mongrel.

Capitalising, eg “Pure Consciousness” is just unwarranted sophistry, and often used by 3rd rated wannabe philosophers.

You simply misunderstand, gnostic.

'Pure Conscisousness', aka 'Brahman', 'The Ground of All Being', 'The Absolute', 'The Void', 'Tao', 'The Unified Field', all are not just absolutes, but are THE Absolute, since no relative 'other' exists to compare it to, the sole reason for capitalization.

As to:

I believed that’s call 無心 or transliterated as mushin and simply translated as “no mind”. Or, 無心の心, a transliteration to mushin no shin, “mind without mind”.

I believed that it was something about some essays written by late 16th century Zen abbot, Takuan.

As I understand it, Takuan wrote it for his contemporary friend Yagyū Munenori, who was also a famous samurai and kenjutsu master.

Imagine writing something about mushin that help any samurai to kill someone without thought, without remorse. No wonder why feudal Japan was a seriously f@##ed up society, when it mixed Zen philosophy with perfecting some killing technique.

You are arbitrarily transforming 'no-mind' into 'mindlessness', and you assume the Zen concept of 'no-mind' was employed by the Samurai to justify killing. Fact is, Zen 'no-mind' came into being prior to any such adaptation. It is a state of consciousness during meditation in which no concept of self or even of mind is present. All that is present is pure consciousness that simply sees things as they are, without thought.

In the Bhavavad-Gita, Lord Krishna is instructing the warrior Arjuna that under certain circumstances, there is a kind of killing that is OK. If your life is in danger from attack by a crazed lunatic, you may have no choice but to kill. The Taoist sage Lao tse calls this 'a regrettable necessity'. In all of these instances, mind is present as the deciding factor. 'No-mind' is not mindlessness, nor, in its purest sense, a tool to be used for wanton murder.

I know you want to make me look bad by making things up, gnostic, but you have only succeeded in doing that to yourself. You need more study and deeper meditation to pierce the facade of the illusion of 'reality'.

Now go to your room.

 

[gnostic]

'Pure Conscisousness', aka 'Brahman', 'The Ground of All Being', 'The Absolute', 'The Void', 'Tao', 'The Unified Field', all are not just absolutes, but are THE Absolute, since no relative 'other' exists to compare it to, the sole reason for capitalization.

And there you go again, throwing out your definition out the window, and piling it up with more of your baseless philosophical claptrap.

I knew the moment of peace was going to be rarity that was never going to last.

I know you want to make me look bad by making things up, gnostic, but you have only succeeded in doing that to yourself. You need more study and deeper meditation to pierce the facade of the illusion of 'reality'.

Make you look bad?

I didn’t make up anything regarding to Takuan and his relationship with some samurai and with some political connections to daimyōs and shoguns. Takuan was very well-connected. Didn’t one of the shogun had temple specially built for Takuan, so he could advise that shogun?

And you are forgetting that Zen Buddhism only arrived from China, just a few centuries before Takuan. The Pure Land Buddhism was around Japan longer than Zen, but it is Zen that’s was deeperly connected to the samurai caste and Japanese nobility, not long after it has taken root in Japan.

Before the general peace of Edo period, Japan has been in one civil war after civil war for several centuries, which coincidentally when Zen arrived and began expanding in Japan.

I think you are the one stuck with the facade, and not looking deep enough.

 

[godnotgod]

And there you go again, throwing out your definition out the window, and piling it up with more of your baseless philosophical claptrap.

I knew the moment of peace was going to be rarity that was never going to last.



Make you look bad?

I didn’t make up anything regarding to Takuan and his relationship with some samurai and with some political connections to daimyōs and shoguns. Takuan was very well-connected. Didn’t one of the shogun had temple specially built for Takuan, so he could advise that shogun?

And you are forgetting that Zen Buddhism only arrived from China, just a few centuries before Takuan. The Pure Land Buddhism was around Japan longer than Zen, but it is Zen that’s was deeperly connected to the samurai caste and Japanese nobility, not long after it has taken root in Japan.

Before the general peace of Edo period, Japan has been in one civil war after civil war for several centuries, which coincidentally when Zen arrived and began expanding in Japan.

ha ha ha..what a thoroughly idiotic post!

''Peace" for you is smugness.

READ: The original meaning of 'no-mind' in Zen has NOTHING to do with the Samurai and their use of it. It is that original meaning which I am talking about, not your rambling on about what came afterward and how it was misused.

You seem to know quite a bit about the Eastern wisdom you regard as 'crap', but you only know about it intellectually, and not experientially. You eat the menu instead of the meal.

'Pure Conscisousness', aka 'Brahman', 'The Ground of All Being', 'The Absolute', 'The Void', 'Tao', 'The Unified Field', are not my creations, but terms used for centuries by mystics (other than Unified Field).

Have you gone to your room yet? No? Go now, and never return.

 

[gnostic]

ha ha ha..what a thoroughly idiotic post!

''Peace" for you is smugness.

I wasn’t talking about that sort of “peace”, as in nonviolence or cessation of aggression.

I was talking about “peace”, as in you finally submitting actual definition to some of your frequently used capitalised adjectives, without the philosophical or mystic clutters.

Haven’t you noticed that people have been asking you for some simple clarifications or explanations (eg “Pure”, “Ultimate”, etc) over and over again, without your usual evasive philosophical ramblings and word games?

The problem is you, like many creationists I have met here, have the bad habits of redefining words to suit your agenda, be they be philosophy, religion or mysticism.

 

[gnostic]

You seem to know quite a bit about the Eastern wisdom you regard as 'crap', but you only know about it intellectually, and not experientially. You eat the menu instead of the meal.

I do have a philosophy, if you must know, godnotgod.

This philosophy has no name, but it is best described as not following any one philosophy too strictly.

If there is a philosophy that have some real values in its teaching - be it east or west, I really don’t care - then I would follow to certain extent, incorporating into my personal codes.

But I don’t follow everything to the letter, because I find most of the contents of philosophies to be all talk, no action. Most philosophers are just intent on promoting their own versions of philosophies, and try to ignore everything else that’s not in their philosophies.

I find such attitude to be unrealistic and oppressive, and it has nothing to do with wisdom.

When I was younger, I might have found just about any philosophy or any religion or any mysticism to be attractive. At that time, I was even curious about paranormal and occultism.

But as I grew older, realism step in, and I cannot follow just one philosophy or one religion, or believing anything, while excluding everything else. The real world, simply don’t work that way.

You say your mystic version of Hinduism and Zen Buddhism is better, and Brahman is everything, but what everyone else perceive to be real, to be nothing more than illusions, this maya.

But what I see is the exact opposite, that your Brahman, your Ultimate Reality or the transcendent Pure Consciousness, to be all an illusion.

You says that mystics apprehend or experience everything directly, I say it is just simply wordplay.

It has become a game of he-say, I-say, where we have come around in full circle with no agreement. The differences between your philosophy and mine, is that I would never allow mine to rule me or run my life.

You say, you are not interested in teaching me anything, and yet you lecture, and whenever there are disagreement, you scolded with “go to your room”, which is like angry teacher telling a student sit in a corner.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

'Pure', in this sense, simply means 'clear', or unobstructed or uncontaminated by concept, idea, conjecture, etc. IOW, clear of thought or emotion. 'No-mind' in Zen, for example; 'no self-view', in Buddhism, etc.

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

Just like Chopra, not the questioned asked. Is the consciousness of a newborn, or the unconscious mind, PURE? Also, is there such a thing as an IMPURE, SUB, SUPRA, IMPLICIT, or EXPLICIT Consciousness? When you say clear, do you mean "empty"? Or, do you mean "no-mind" literally? How do you stop a zero dimensional representation of reality, by a four-dimensional brain?

Certainly sounds like the mind of a newborn. Does this mean that Buddhists and Zen masters can achieve the consciousness of a newborn?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

In order for you to test the evidence for an observer-independent reality, an observer is required. The observer must always be part of the 'independent' reality being tested.



The consciousness by which you know this is Ultimate Reality. You don't notice it because it is the passive background to all existence. Your mind is focused on the foreground of existence, ie; 'perceptual reality', while ignoring the background.* Actually, you don't ignore it; you ('you' in general) simply are not conscious of its presence, as your attention is captured by the foreground. This is especially true in the West, since we are conditioned from early on to see the world via a subject/object split. We don't see the background as an object; only the foreground. However, it is impossible for the foreground to exist without the background, the foreground always being part of the background, and the 'separate observer' (a construct of the mind) is 100% integrated into the background, but is not aware of it.



*A fish born into the sea is not aware that he is in the sea. His attention is almost immediately captured by the foreground, in this case, food and predator. Likewise, we are not aware of the background of Ultimate Reality, which is not some other distant realm of existence, but as close to you as your next breath.

There is no need to complicate what is blatantly obvious. Anything that exists outside of our senses, can't be perceived period. This doesn't mean that these things don't exist. If I'm looking at a computer screen, I can't perceive my car in the garage. But, my car still exists whether it is perceived or not. Just ask someone to go and check if you're not certain. It would be intellectually irresponsible to equate the limits of our subjective perception, to the existence of the metaphysical. It is also irresponsible and opportunistic to equate the uncertainties(duality) that are inherent in the Quantum world, to the certainties that are inherent in the Macro(classical) world. Our objective reality doesn't require our consciousness or our presence to exit, but our subjective reality does.

I have already explained what consciousness is(IMO). You also ignored the meaning of the mind-melt illustration. So let's try again.

1. Everything that we perceive about our material reality must first exist outside of our mind, in one of the three forms of matter(including sound and sight). Things that are not in these forms are not perceived by our senses. Therefore, no conscious representation can be presented by the brain.

2. We are all trapped within our own subjective perspective. Therefore, our perceived reality is subjective. The center of our Universe is also subjective. No two people have the same perceptions, experiences, thoughts, behavior, beliefs, or consciousness. Since our sense organs cannot be shared by anyone else, it is unique and "self-specific". Your "ultimate reality" is simply our objective reality. Since no one can be everywhere, everything, everyone, and at every time, there will always be 99.99999% of the total reality we can't perceive. But the subjective reality that we do perceive, is enough to ensure our survival.

*A fish born into the sea is not aware that he is in the sea. His attention is almost immediately captured by the foreground, in this case, food and predator. Likewise, we are not aware of the background of Ultimate Reality, which is not some other distant realm of existence, but as close to you as your next breath.

It is totally irrelevant where the fish is born, it will behave according to the genetic materials it has inherited from its parents. It evolutionary blueprint if you will. You can take the same fish and put it in a small lake, it's behavior will be the same, or its future generations will either adapt or die. There is only ONE reality. The part we can perceive is subjective, and the part we can't is objective. But there is still only one physical reality.

As I have stated before, it is impossible(even with instruments and tools) to be everywhere and everything at once. Unless you are a God, there is no way to test everything that we can't perceive. We certainly can test some things, but not everything. So in this sense, our ultimate reality can't be tested. But we can't test ultimate knowledge, ultimate truth, or ultimate morality as well. I think you should change the word "ultimate" to "objective". It is a lot more germane. Using terms that only represents ABSOLUTES, is intellectually dishonest. From the human perspective, there are no absolutes. There is only our subjectivity. From an objective perspective there are no absolutes, there is only cause and effect and relativism.

Still waiting for the evidence.