The Watchmaker Revisited

[ecco]

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.

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.

Both Chopra and you are into supernatural beliefs.

For someone who talks about perception a lot, you seem to have a hard time understanding the definition of the word "woo" and its derivatives.

If you want to say I'm lying about Chopra, OK. If you want to say I'm misinformed about Chopra, OK. But to suggest that I am the one who has woo tightly knit into my brain just shows that either:
You continue to misunderstand the term.
-or-
You intentionally try to obfuscate.

Given that you have been shown the definition of woo at least twice by me and given that I and others have explained it to you, one can only conclude that you intentionally try to obfuscate.

You're actions are like those of a six year old child who was called a booger-head. The best he can do in response is yell back "no, you're the booger-head".

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

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

This is another example of a problem with your perception. I did not say you posted any of Popoff's videos. Did you not see the second word: "like". Do you not understand what a metaphor is?

 

[ecco]

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.

Once again... 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.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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.

*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.

The point of the fish being born in the sea is NOT a metaphor, it is an analogy. Since fish literally ARE born in the sea, it is not a figure of speech. Therefore, you are making an analogous comparison. A true metaphor would be "reading your post is like drowning in a sea of useless platitudes, and baseless superlatives". It is obvious that no one can be everywhere, at every time, and be everyone. Therefore, it would be impossible to perceive objective reality. But we don't have to, for our survival. We are physically trapped within our subjective perspective by our own "self-specific" senses. It has nothing to do with a conditioned mind. It only has to do with the mechanical nature of our senses, and how their information is processed, period. Why do you imply or insinuate that there is some purpose for any abstract view of the nature of reality? Are you trying to say that by understanding the nature of "Ultimate Reality" you will be able to understand the nature of God? This sounds suspiciously like another clever and disguised God of the Gap argument.

When you make any truth claims, they might sound great to you, but can sound ridiculous to others. Reality, as the name implies are all things that are real to our senses. Those things that exist outside of our empirical reality, may or may not have any relevance to the human condition. But then the burden of proof is not mine.

 

[ecco]

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.

Like most of your posts, that's completely unresponsive.

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

Now tell me why he negated the existence of particles.
And why he said that we ouirselves are made of fields, and not particles.

He didn't negate the existence of particles.

For many years people believed everything was made up of atoms. Then we discovered that atoms were not the basic building blocks but were themselves comprised of even smaller things like proton and neutrons. Then we found that protons and neutrons are made up of quarks (particles). All Tong was doing was stating that even quarks (particles) are not the basic building blocks - energy fields are. Hence, at the most basic level, we are made from energy fields.

I'm not the only person in this thread who has tried to explain this to you.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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.

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.

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.

Does this not describe the mind of a newborn? In fact, being clueless or unaware would avoid any possible contamination of pure consciousness, right? The only conclusion I can draw, is that Zen, Buddhist, or any other follower of this kind of self-enlightenment, want to achieve the "pure consciousness" of a newborn.

The last statement was referring to the fact that, what our conscious mind represents as reality is dimensionless(zero-dimension). Our physical brain has 3 dimensions(and one of time). Therefore, how does achieving "no-mind" or the "empty-mind" control any zero-dimensional representation by the physical brain? In other words without sensory input, how does one control what the brain represents as thought? Illusions and delusions are also both zero-dimensional.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Those proceedings require an observer.

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

Phenomena is only experienced via perception, and the tools of perception. Without perception, where is there phenomena? Phenomena are sense-objects perceived as such in consciousness. Always.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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.

A man who has lost his keys, implies that he doesn't KNOW where his keys are. If he knew where they were(house or street), then they wouldn't be lost. Therefore, looking on the street near his car is probably a good place to start. Another poorly thought out analogy.

I agree that asking for evidence to support your extraordinary claims, is not the metaphysical, pseudo-sophistic, and rational thing to do. I'm sure you don't want the nuisance of any truths, facts, data, or clearly defined terms, to get in the way of a good belief.

 

[godnotgod]

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'.

What evidence?

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.

The people who write these definitions must say it that way because they have been indoctrinated in Western rational thought, which says that 'chi' is not testable via scientific methodology. However, modern medicine is now slowly adopting many of these methods as valid healing practices. In this particular case, we have real evidence of the efficacy of such methods. The Chinese have been practicing their medicinal techniques for a lot longer than we have ours. So it is now well beyond merely a 'thought to be' reality. The writers of the definition of 'chi' is trying to include it with superstition.

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.

That might be true if I gave credence to the supernatural, the paranormal, the occult, or pseudoscience, but I do not. The mystical experience is none of those things. It is simply the realization of Oneness with the Universe. Hindus call it 'yoga', which means 'union'

BTW, the breakdown of the patriarchal world view in religion and politics is the result of people not being spiritually nurtured by a rigid authoritarian system of thought. So they are turning toward the mother for such nurturing, and the practices which are feminine-based are Zen, Yoga, Taoism, Wicca, Sufism, and the like. Unfortunately, the patriarchal system has recoiled in the fear of losing its control, and is doing all that it can to retain its power over people in both religion and government, eg; 'Trump' and his ilk. But the proverbial cat has already been let out of the proverbial bag, so to speak. This revolution of consciousness in the name of spiritual freedom is also occurring within science, as many prominent scientists are now rejecting the materialist paradigm, and seeing the Universe as alive and conscious, instead of as a dead unconscious collection of 'things', a fluke of nature.

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

What reason would they have to do so?

What do you mean by 'my' aikido masters? I don't understand.

 

[godnotgod]

A man who has lost his keys, implies that he doesn't KNOW where his keys are. If he knew where they were(house or street), then they wouldn't be lost. Therefore, looking on the street near his car is probably a good place to start. Another poorly thought out analogy.

Why would he do that when he knows that he lost them somewhere inside the house?

I agree that asking for evidence to support your extraordinary claims, is not the metaphysical, pseudo-sophistic, and rational thing to do. I'm sure you don't want the nuisance of any truths, facts, data, or clearly defined terms, to get in the way of a good belief.

But there is no factual evidence for the mystical experience, something I have mentioned over and over again. So why do you persist in demanding factual evidence for an experience that is beyond mere fact?

 

[godnotgod]

Both Chopra and you are into supernatural beliefs.

mmmm......I don't entertain a belief in a God having power over nature, so no. I am not into the supernatural. You?

For someone who talks about perception a lot, you seem to have a hard time understanding the definition of the word "woo" and its derivatives.

I am not involved with it, so don't know what you're babbling on about, and why it excites you so.

If you want to say I'm lying about Chopra, OK.

Yes, you lie.

If you want to say I'm misinformed about Chopra, OK.

Yup! Misinformed, for sure.

But to suggest that I am the one who has woo tightly knit into my brain just shows that either:
You continue to misunderstand the term.
-or-
You intentionally try to obfuscate.

Yup! Failure to see that you are that very object of your very own disdain. Me? Not attached to the gooey stuff at all. Nooooooo!

Given that you have been shown the definition of woo at least twice by me and given that I and others have explained it to you, one can only conclude that you intentionally try to obfuscate.

You're actions are like those of a six year old child who was called a booger-head. The best he can do in response is yell back "no, you're the booger-head".

Thanks for the definitions, which now confirm a 'no-goo' er...'woo', condition at this end.

"All Clear, Cap'n!"

Who flung the first booger, anyway?

Security!

We'll get to the bottom of this, I assure you. In the meantime, go to your room and remain there until further notice from the Administration. In the meantime....

This is another example of a problem with your perception. I did not say you posted any of Popoff's videos. Did you not see the second word: "like". Do you not understand what a metaphor is?

No, I cannot say that I ever posted any videos LIKE those of senor PopOff. You?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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.

Again your lack of understanding, and parroted behavior is painfully showing. The Universe, time, space, and light are not absolutes. They are all relative, because of Relativity. The Universe is expanding at a rate of 68 km/s. Neighbouring galaxies are moving away from ours at 1000 km/s. Even movements, uncertainties, probability, and the duality of matter at the Quantum level, makes it not absolute. Nothing within the known Universe is absolute. The Universe is dynamic, and always in a state of flux at the Quantum and Classical levels. Not even absolute zero is absolute, it is just unachievable. Maybe the words you want to use were absolutely unachievable and absolutely limited?

The Universe can only be that which comprises OUR physical reality. Adding "multiverses" and "alternative Universes" to the list, is fallacious and dishonest. They are not what we know as being a part of the known Universe. So spare me the "red herrings" and support your assertions. Give me any example of any physical absolutes. I'm not interested in any examples that are theoretical, metaphysical, mentally or logically contrived, or was determined by the good people at Google U. Only those examples that can be scientifically demonstrated as being the absolute limits of any established principles, please. You certainly have no idea of what exists outside of our reality, so your assertion is only a belief. It could be many thing, only one of which could be nothing. Fallacies do not justify conclusions.

Since you can't provide evidence for something that is actual and specific(physical absolutes), I won't hold my breath waiting for evidence that is abstract(Ultimate Reality, Absolute Consciousness, etc.). You, like others, simply give the illusion of truth, not the evidence for truth.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Why would he do that when he knows that he lost them somewhere inside the house?



But there is no factual evidence for the mystical experience, something I have mentioned over and over again. So why do you persist in demanding factual evidence for an experience that is beyond mere fact?

The first part of your post merely changes the goal posts to save face. You never said that he KNEW that he had lost his keys somewhere in the house. You only said that he lost his keys inside the house. Providing only half-truths is just more dishonest tactics to save face. In either case I can see that the rabbit-hole will only get deeper, with more deception and dishonesty if I continue. This deception was not even germane, but it allowed me a glimpse into the true nature of your argument.

The second part of your comments is spot on. There IS no proof to support anything that comes out of your mouth. You are simply expressing your beliefs, and opinions, and have nothing objective to back it up with. That's fine, so let me ask you two questions. What is the material application of your belief? How does it in any way manifests itself to benefit society?

 

[godnotgod]

Again your lack of understanding, and parroted behavior is painfully showing. The Universe, time, space, and light are not absolutes. They are all relative, because of Relativity. The Universe is expanding at a rate of 68 km/s. Neighbouring galaxies are moving away from ours at 1000 km/s. Even movements, uncertainties, probability, and the duality of matter at the Quantum level, makes it not absolute. Nothing within the known Universe is absolute. The Universe is dynamic, and always in a state of flux at the Quantum and Classical levels. Not even absolute zero is absolute, it is just unachievable. Maybe the words you want to use were absolutely unachievable and absolutely limited?

The Universe can only be that which comprises OUR physical reality. Adding "multiverses" and "alternative Universes" to the list, is fallacious and dishonest. They are not what we know as being a part of the known Universe. So spare me the "red herrings" and support your assertions. Give me any example of any physical absolutes. I'm not interested in any examples that are theoretical, metaphysical, mentally or logically contrived, or was determined by the good people at Google U. Only those examples that can be scientifically demonstrated as being the absolute limits of any established principles, please. You certainly have no idea of what exists outside of our reality, so your assertion is only a belief. It could be many thing, only one of which could be nothing. Fallacies do not justify conclusions.

Since you can't provide evidence for something that is actual and specific(physical absolutes), I won't hold my breath waiting for evidence that is abstract(Ultimate Reality, Absolute Consciousness, etc.). You, like others, simply give the illusion of truth, not the evidence for truth.

Everything that exists, has existed, or will exist, AS A TOTALITY, is The Absolute, since there is no relative 'other' to which that totality, whatever it is comprised of, known or unkown, can be compared.

The physical Universe is defined as all of space and time[a] (collectively referred to as spacetime) and their contents.[10] Such contents comprise all of energy in its various forms, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and therefore planets, moons, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.[21][22][23] The Universe also includes the physical laws that influence energy and matter, such as conservation laws, classical mechanics, and relativity.

The Universe is often defined as "the totality of existence", or everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.[24] In fact, some philosophers and scientists support the inclusion of ideas and abstract concepts – such as mathematics and logic – in the definition of the Universe.

Synonyms
A term for "universe" among the ancient Greek philosophers from Pythagoras onwards was τὸ πᾶν, tò pân ("the all")...

Universe - Wikipedia

 

[godnotgod]

The first part of your post merely changes the goal posts to save face. You never said that he KNEW that he had lost his keys somewhere in the house. You only said that he lost his keys inside the house. Providing only half-truths is just more dishonest tactics to save face. In either case I can see that the rabbit-hole will only get deeper, with more deception and dishonesty if I continue. This deception was not even germane, but it allowed me a glimpse into the true nature of your argument.

The point is that, whether he knew he lost his keys inside the house or not is not the point. The point is that he's looking for them in the wrong place, the metaphor being that man is looking for the keys to reality outside his own nature, and he's using the wrong tools to do so, namely, the intellect, though it SEEMS to be the correct tool.

 

[Darkstorn]

Can someone rename this thread "the great thread of woo" or something?

It has nothing to do with the watchmaker argument ever since godnotgod stole the thread from the original poster.

 

[exchemist]

Those proceedings require an observer.

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

Phenomena is only experienced via perception, and the tools of perception. Without perception, where is there phenomena? Phenomena are sense-objects perceived as such in consciousness. Always.[/QUOTE]


Obviously, observed phenomena have to be observed, that is, perceived by an observer, yes. But to make the case for the idea that the phenomena may not occur unless observed, you need to show what such an idea adds to human experience. My point is that by definition it adds nothing.

If so, Ockham's Razor can safely dismiss this hypothesis as unnecessary. In which case we may as well proceed on the working assumption that phenomena have an objective existence, independent of observation. Which is what we do in practice, without even thinking about it.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Now you are being absurd.

You are just spinning lies, putting words I didn’t say.

I am very well aware that consciousness is required for being “aware” of what I am seeing, what I am hearing, what I am feeling or what I am smelling.

I have not said anything that may have contradicted this or opposed this about consciousness, but I still think the brain that control our consciousnesses.

Every actions, every functions that any part of our body perform, are controlled by our brain, whether we are aware of it or not, and that include our consciousness, our memories, our thoughts and our emotions.

Not of that would exist, including our consciousness, if we didn’t have any brain.

The consciousness doesn’t transcend the brain, because consciousness wouldn’t exist without the brain.

And here is where you get insulting, with your condescending straw man:

I never said I was teaching you anything. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Is that what you think? I'm just a finger pointing to the moon, but instead of you looking at the moon, you attack the pointing finger...

I know that this is merely analogy, but do you really think I would not notice the moon, without your stupid finger pointing ahead.

I have seen the moon many times before, day or night, and I am very well aware of the moon existence. I don’t need your finger to point at the moon, to find it.

I am aware of the moon, just as you are aware of it. What it doesn’t require, is your absurdity that it take “ultimate reality” or “pure consciousness” or “transcendence” - to be aware of the moon existence.

Your pointing finger analogy, is just stupid as your other faulty analogies, eg TV signals, the escaped prisoner from a cave.

They are merely analogy, allegory and anecdote, all of which serve no real purpose other than promoting mysticism in the flawed and biased ways.

Surely, you have a better example, then a finger pointing at the moon to demonstrate consciousness, or is that really the best you can come with?

 

[Audie]

The point of the fish being born in the sea is NOT a metaphor, it is an analogy. Since fish literally ARE born in the sea, it is not a figure of speech. Therefore, you are making an analogous comparison. A true metaphor would be "reading your post is like drowning in a sea of useless platitudes, and baseless superlatives".

When you make any truth claims, they might sound great to you, but can sound ridiculous to others. Reality, as the name implies are all things that are real to our senses. Those things that exist outside of our empirical reality, may or may not have any relevance to the human condition. But then the burden of proof is not mine.

A true metaphor would be "reading your post is like drowning in a sea of useless platitudes, and baseless superlatives".


The above is a simile. We suggest that those who
would define words for us first consult the dictionary.

Lest, you know, you sound ridiculous.

 

[Audie]

Can someone rename this thread "the great thread of woo" or something?

It has nothing to do with the watchmaker argument ever since godnotgod stole the thread from the original poster.

Oh, is that who is doing it? Nobody is obligated to
respond. I just put him on ig long ago.

 

[Darkstorn]

I just put him on ig long ago.

That seems like the rational thing to do. The same statements have basically been regurgitated for the last 30 or so pages with no progress in any direction. Except whichever direction is the polar opposite of the original point of this thread.

Right now it's about "universal consciousness." Like, to my knowledge, every other thread he hijacks.