The Watchmaker Revisited

[godnotgod]

Haven’t you noticed that people have been asking you for some simple clarifications or explanations (eg “Pure”, “Ultimate”, etc) over and over again...

You and some of the others still don't get that Ultimate Reality does not fit into a nice neat little box, the kind you and they are used to. You want something palatable to the rational mind so it can make 'sense' of it, but there is no such thing. Ultimate Reality, as the name implies, is outside the reach of the rational mind. I have tirelessly explained that it is transcendent of the mind of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. It cannot be rationally explained, and that is why Zen, for example, calls itself 'a finger silently pointing to the moon'. Having said that, it is the very consciousness by which you know you are experiencing perceptual reality. The mind experiences perceptual reality; pure consciousness, ie 'Ultimate Reality', is what knows you are experiencing perceptual reality.

 

[godnotgod]

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?

In a sense, yes, but the newborn is unaware of it.

Empty and no-mind are as close as we can get using words. Emptiness, or Sunyata is what our true nature is, so how can it be contaminated?

Don't understand your last statement/question.

 

[godnotgod]

Still waiting for the evidence.

You demand evidence for something you are already in possession of. I cannot help you. Go inside, and stop your neurotic fidgeting about for 'evidence'. You're like the man who lost his keys inside his house, but is looking for them outside on the street under a street lamp.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

heh heh...I mean 'go to your room and meditate in silence'.

The mystical experience is not a philosophy, so you have nothing to worry about.

Where did I say 'my' mystic version of Hinduism and Zen is 'better'? I never said any such thing. I was just trying to demonstrate to you that they are not contradictory one to the other as you seem to think. You see conflict because your mind is conflicted. When your subject/object split is healed, you will see things as complimentary, instead of in dualistic terms.

Why do you think the material world is real?

 

[godnotgod]

From the human perspective, there are no absolutes. .

Sounds like an absolute statement to me.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

You have just provided it. Your mind is still in a conditioned state, specifically, that of the subject/ object split. In reality, no such split exists in nature. If there is only one reality, as you have noted, then there are no 'parts' to it; 'parts' being only an idea in your mind where the subject/object split is still dissecting the world you live in.

The point of the fish in the sea is that it is metaphor for man immersed in a sea of consciousness he does not realize is present, because his conditioned mentality tells him something else.

 

[Polymath257]

So if a claim is not verifiable via science, it can only be a belief?

If a claim cannot be verified by science even in theory, then it is an opinion.

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.

But it *is* testable and has been extensively tested. If the reality depended on the observer, there would be little agreement between observers about the outcome of specific observations. The fact that we can and do get agreement shows that the reality doesn't depend on the observer.

Yes, each of us learns about reality through observation. But the fact that different observers reach the same conclusion shows that it isn't the observer that is the relevant variable. Instead, it is a reality outside of us that determines what we can and do observe. That is what it means to be observer independent: that the reality doesn't depend on which observer is observing.

This is tested every day in every way by the simple fact that we can agree, for example, that there are cars on the highway and a chair in my room.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

No, an observer is required to observe that independent reality. But this simple fact that different observers detect the same reality shows that the reality is not dependent on the observer.

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.

Again, a nice story. What actual evidence do you have to support this conjecture?

*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 would be a very poor fish scientists that didn't quickly figure out that there is a medium in which they swim. it is quickly and easily tested. Not so with your 'Ultimate Reality' background.

 

[exchemist]

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.

But not the same observer. When different observers with different observational setups perceive the same thing, then once their methodology has been scrutinised for error we proceed on the basis that their findings are objectively correct and not observer-dependent.

Arguing about whether the phenomenon exists in the absence of any observer is a sterile exercise, as no observable consequences result.

 

[ecco]

Calling the content of my posts 'mystical, metaphysical nonsense' and 'woo' without evidence does not make them woo or nonsense.

If I called your posts 'mystical, metaphysical nonsense' and 'woo' without evidence I would indeed be wrong.

However, that is not what I did. I read your posts. I even read some of your linked articles. They provided all the evidence that any rational person would need to label your posts 'mystical, metaphysical nonsense' and 'woo'.

Google 'chi' and you will find that definitions of chi all point to it as the life force, contrary to what subduction thinks.

Ooops. Once again, you are wrong..

chi1
kī/
noun

1. the twenty-second letter of the Greek alphabet ( Χ, χ ), transliterated in the traditional Latin style as ‘ch’ (as in Christ ) or in the modern style as ‘kh’ (as in Khaniá and in the etymologies of this dictionary).

About the closest to your concept is...

Princeton's WordNet(3.00 / 1 vote)Rate this definition:
qi, chi, ch'i, ki(noun)

the circulating life energy that in Chinese philosophy is thought to be inherent in all things; in traditional Chinese medicine the balance of negative and positive forms in the body is believed to be essential for good health​

Notice the "is thought to be" and "is believed to be" qualifiers.

Some people believe the Nazca Lines were put there to provide landing markers for ancient aliens.
Some people think black cats are harbingers of misfortune.

Believing and thinking about something don't make anything real.


So now let's Google "woo woo definition" ...

woo woo A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations.​

Notice the only qualifier here is the word "readily". That definition clearly defines you.

Also, you have not been able to address my question: Why don't your aikido no-touch masters go into an MMA ring?

 

[ecco]

Tong said: "There are no particles in the world". What is it about that statement you do not understand

Thirty pages and 500 posts ago I asked you why Tong showed particles (quarks) in his presentation if he didn't believe particles existed.

You never did respond.

So, once more, would you care to address why Tong showed particles (quarks) in his presentation if he didn't believe particles existed?

 

[ecco]

Why don't these so called aikido masters enter into MMA competitions?

Probably for much the same reason that geologists don't enter into debate with flat-earthers.

Well, that's typical of your "If I can't answer a question I'll just make a silly comment accompanied with a big grin and hope no one notices" approach. It's really lame.

Would you care to try giving a serious response?

 

[ecco]

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.

It's really funny. You try to distance yourself from woo and you post videos from one of the better know woosters to support your arguments.

That's like saying you don't believe in faith healing and then post videos of Peter Popoff.

 

[godnotgod]

No, an observer is required to observe that independent reality. But this simple fact that different observers detect the same reality shows that the reality is not dependent on the observer.

Logic does not follow. Whether different or not, an observer is still necessary to detect the reality. That 'reality' is perception experienced in consciousness, always.

Again, a nice story. What actual evidence do you have to support this conjecture?

What is it that knows it is experiencing perception?

It would be a very poor fish scientists that didn't quickly figure out that there is a medium in which they swim. it is quickly and easily tested. Not so with your 'Ultimate Reality' background.

How can the fish know? It is born into the sea.
You are born into a sea of pure consciousness, but your attention is captured by the glitter and noise of the world. What is the background against which we experience the phenomenal world?

You see the hedge against the background of the hills;
you see the hills against the background of the sky;
but you see the sky against the background of consciousness

 

[godnotgod]

It's really funny. You try to distance yourself from woo and you post videos from one of the better know woosters to support your arguments.

That's like saying you don't believe in faith healing and then post videos of Peter Popoff.

The only woo I detect is the woo that says that Chopra is a wooster, when no evidence is provided to support the claim. The problem with you is that woo is knit tightly into your brain preventing you from listening to the content of the alleged 'wooster', resulting in a kind of knit-wit situation, a truly warp and woo disaster.

Uh...Peter Popoff? I think you must have me confused with another poster. I have never posted any such videos.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, that's typical of your "If I can't answer a question I'll just make a silly comment accompanied with a big grin and hope no one notices" approach. It's really lame.

Would you care to try giving a serious response?

A 'serious' *cough* response may frighten you unless strapped into the buffer of a nice, safe metaphor.

 

[godnotgod]

Thirty pages and 500 posts ago I asked you why Tong showed particles (quarks) in his presentation if he didn't believe particles existed.

You never did respond.

So, once more, would you care to address why Tong showed particles (quarks) in his presentation if he didn't believe particles existed?

Convention.

Now tell me why he negated the existence of particles.

And how material reality can emerge from the Quantum Vacuum, which he calls 'absolutely nothing'.

And why he said that we ouirselves are made of fields, and not particles.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Sounds like an absolute statement to me.

No, it is a statement of certainty. A very high degree of certainty. Maybe you would like to provide evidence of anything in the world that I live in, that is absolute(metaphysical jargon excluded)? Or do I also possess this evidence, and you can't help me as well. It is always easy to make truth claims/assertions when you keep avoiding your burden of proof.

 

[godnotgod]

No, it is a statement of certainty. A very high degree of certainty. Maybe you would like to provide evidence of anything in the world that I live in, that is absolute(metaphysical jargon excluded)? Or do I also possess this evidence, and you can't help me as well. It is always easy to make truth claims/assertions when you keep avoiding your burden of proof.

The Universe is THE Absolute. I am using the word 'universe' to mean everything that exists, including intergalactic space, mulitiverses, and alternative universes, etc. It is The Absolute because there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared, and that is because The Universe is Everything, outside of which there is nothing.

When you said: 'there are no absolutes', it means no relative 'other' exists to which that condition can be compared, ie; 'there ARE absolutes'. Therefore, it is an absolute because, in your mind, it is the only possibility.

 

[Polymath257]

Logic does not follow. Whether different or not, an observer is still necessary to detect the reality. That 'reality' is perception experienced in consciousness, always.

Yes, the logic does follow. Since two different observers see the same thing, what they see does not depend on the specific observer. yes, to observe requires an observer, but the fact that different observers observe the same thing is what shows the reality doesn't depend on the observer. To be dependent on the observer would require different results for different observers.

This is what it means to be 'objective': that the results do not depend on the specific observer. And we have just established an objective reality.

What is it that knows it is experiencing perception?

The observer.

How can the fish know? It is born into the sea.
You are born into a sea of pure consciousness, but your attention is captured by the glitter and noise of the world. What is the background against which we experience the phenomenal world?

You see the hedge against the background of the hills;
you see the hills against the background of the sky;
but you see the sky against the background of consciousness

The fish knows about the water in the same way we knew about air. Water changes depending on conditions: it has eddies and currents and those are detectable. A fish scientist could easily detect that background and test its properties. And, just as we know of things that do not impress on our senses directly (like UV light, ultra-sound, X-rays, etc), there is no reason a fish scientist wouldn't be able to detect many things outside of the perception of fish.

We see reality through the filter of our senses via the mechanism of consciousness. This is a filter. We don't see all light (electromagnetic waves). We do not hear all sounds (pressure waves). Our senses are very far from perfect. And, even once the senses are stimulated, our ability to process the information is limited by time and bias. But these can be overcome through attention and testing. But you are confusing the filter (consciousness) with the reality.