^^ Good! I'm gonna go with the "72 virgins" versions, myself. 
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Stephen Hawking claims a belief of heaven or an after life is a "fairy story"
- Thread starter Dreamwalker
- Start date
SWIMfriend said:^^ Good! I'm gonna go with the "72 virgins" versions, myself.
Nice. Flippantly dismiss my comments and a vast body of knowledge by refering to something that has no relation to what I posted.
^^ I thought it did. The implication is that everybody's ideas about heaven are DIFFERENT--thus they obviously can't all be right.
Here's what I know:
1) I KNOW that MANY people have got things in their heads that are WRONG. Many people's apparatus of perception gives them WRONG information, many people's methods of interpretation and analysis of their perceptions is WRONG. There is simply no doubt about that. (For example, you accuse me of being "wrong" ).
2) ALL talk about heaven has as its source ONLY "ideas" or "internal perceptions" that some people have put forth. There's absolutely no external information available on the issue.
3) One MUST address the QUESTION: should these (various) people or traditions be taken at their word, or NOT? One cannot SIDESTEP the requirement for a DECISION on that issue.
4) An initial problem one confronts in dealing with item #3 is: Once ONE such report is accepted, you have no way whatsoever to differentiate between that report and the zillions of SIMILAR (or very different) reports. Once you open that door, you might as well just accept ANYTHING that ANYBODY wants to say they have "seen in a revelation."
My conclusion: There's no good reason to believe those reports on the (lack of) evidence presented. If one wants to know what can be REVEALED, he simply MUST seek his own revelations.
...and if I were to have a revelation that "there is an objective, external heaven" it would give me SERIOUS PAUSE. How would I know that the "revelation" didn't just "pop into my head" as the very serious and REAL deluded ideas and perceptions pop into the heads of schizophrenics in heavy psychotic states?
What I think? I think lots of people get LOTS of ideas and internal "revelations," and other people like to pick those that appeal to them and believe them. For me such an approach to life is a LOST CAUSE, the very RECIPE to ride the wheel of samsara forever.
Here's what I know:
1) I KNOW that MANY people have got things in their heads that are WRONG. Many people's apparatus of perception gives them WRONG information, many people's methods of interpretation and analysis of their perceptions is WRONG. There is simply no doubt about that. (For example, you accuse me of being "wrong" ).
2) ALL talk about heaven has as its source ONLY "ideas" or "internal perceptions" that some people have put forth. There's absolutely no external information available on the issue.
3) One MUST address the QUESTION: should these (various) people or traditions be taken at their word, or NOT? One cannot SIDESTEP the requirement for a DECISION on that issue.
4) An initial problem one confronts in dealing with item #3 is: Once ONE such report is accepted, you have no way whatsoever to differentiate between that report and the zillions of SIMILAR (or very different) reports. Once you open that door, you might as well just accept ANYTHING that ANYBODY wants to say they have "seen in a revelation."
My conclusion: There's no good reason to believe those reports on the (lack of) evidence presented. If one wants to know what can be REVEALED, he simply MUST seek his own revelations.
...and if I were to have a revelation that "there is an objective, external heaven" it would give me SERIOUS PAUSE. How would I know that the "revelation" didn't just "pop into my head" as the very serious and REAL deluded ideas and perceptions pop into the heads of schizophrenics in heavy psychotic states?
What I think? I think lots of people get LOTS of ideas and internal "revelations," and other people like to pick those that appeal to them and believe them. For me such an approach to life is a LOST CAUSE, the very RECIPE to ride the wheel of samsara forever.
easyrider
Rising Star
There's quite an abundance of profundity in this thread regarding epistemological and metaphysical concerns. I'm partial to gibran2's view on this theme, primarily because materialism is just not enough for me; the limitations of science come to mind. Agnosticism seems more rational/reasonable than theism or atheism. Personally, theism and atheism seem like they're relegated for people who must feed their own proclivities. There's nothing wrong with that of course, man must create his/her own meaning in order to have a peace of mind after all.
SWIMfriend said:
Easy. You test it out with the scientific method. Try to live according to the newly found spiritual truth, and find out whether it actually works. (I say it will, and if it doesn't, it's relatively easy to find an acceptable workaround.)
These beliefs (based on personal spiritual experience) are completely reinforcing and once you have them, you cannot just cast them off. So it's probably better not to have them. Parasites, uh.
What criteria must one have respect in order to follow some or other belief, Saidin?
You are saying that different beliefs in after life have existed since ever, and hence they are "valid", but as SWIMfriend said (and as gibran2's thread on the "marble box" perfectly expresses), they could very well be wrong (optical illusions are a clear example of how our subjective experience can fool us) and they are often in direct contradiction.
If I can follow a belief without any evidence appart from subjective experience, then what makes me believe in Hitler's cosmovision and the necessity to kill a certain group of people any less valid than the Lochness monster, the 72 wives in heaven or the quantum hyperspacial vibrational entities about to save the world through dmt pineal release?
Surely at least IMO, being subjectively convinced of something cant be the only criteria for legitimizing one or another world view otherwise this gives no basis for relating with other humans: each one can think what they want, kill each other if they want, not follow any standards of communication if they want, etc. So if you think subjectivity is enough, then do you think it would be reasonable if I started killing people, as long as it matched my subjective belief? And if not, then what other criteria is important for one to follow regarding which beliefs to be guided by?
You are saying that different beliefs in after life have existed since ever, and hence they are "valid", but as SWIMfriend said (and as gibran2's thread on the "marble box" perfectly expresses), they could very well be wrong (optical illusions are a clear example of how our subjective experience can fool us) and they are often in direct contradiction.
If I can follow a belief without any evidence appart from subjective experience, then what makes me believe in Hitler's cosmovision and the necessity to kill a certain group of people any less valid than the Lochness monster, the 72 wives in heaven or the quantum hyperspacial vibrational entities about to save the world through dmt pineal release?
Surely at least IMO, being subjectively convinced of something cant be the only criteria for legitimizing one or another world view otherwise this gives no basis for relating with other humans: each one can think what they want, kill each other if they want, not follow any standards of communication if they want, etc. So if you think subjectivity is enough, then do you think it would be reasonable if I started killing people, as long as it matched my subjective belief? And if not, then what other criteria is important for one to follow regarding which beliefs to be guided by?
endlessness said:
Perhaps it's not an either or problem? Perhaps in this reality, in this world, we form our world views with science. But the experience of spirituality is by definition a subjective experience. I mean take a religion like Buddhism that has a focus on direct experience. In Buddhism just reading about the path is not enough. Buddha himself admonished his disciples to question everything until they find the truth for themselves. If enlightenment is real doesn't it seem as though it could only be subjective?
What I don't understand is why people have the need to make comments about spirituality from a science perspective. That's just shallow and intentionally confrontational. Science has no business commenting on what it can't measure. And yes I find New Age spiritual people making comments as though they are scientific facts is just as irritating in reverse.
When Hawking say's heaven doesn't exist the burden is on him to prove that statement just as that burden falls on all who make bold claims. If however he say's, the data that I have seen does not support the hypothesis that heaven is real...well that's a perfectly fine and correct thing to say. This however is not what Hawking did. He did little more than pull a publicity stunt. IMHO.
endlessness said:
While I can only speculate about the nature of thought, as I am defining my own cosmology with every passing idea, I believe that mind SHAPES the content of perception (or perhaps TRANSLATES the perceptual input received from outside of self), as reality. I wholly agree with the gibran2 Marbles in a Box Principle. We can never know if what we comprehend is RIGHT or WRONG, true or illusory, relative to subjectivity or founded in an objective law, which makes any assertions about the past, present and future a moot conjecture.
So, the essential criteria are relative to the mind which is witnessing the dynamic play of energy, which we refer to as "existence", or at least that small sliver of the totality of existence, that we are able to receive through our 5 senses, comprehend with our intellect and so recognize in direct relation to our learned behavior and encoded mental associations. Yet, never can we be 100% certain that we are getting an accurate picture of said reality, so to speak. Is it not an undeniable fact, that stripped of all of our accumulated data, stored files and complex system or making order out of this collective consensus... the universe expresses itself without needing our observation or definitions of it's nature?
I mean, consider how many of us have come to the point, while interacting with psychedelics/entheogens, whereby we suddenly find ourselves witnessing all of the convenient lines of separation and definition disappear? I have had this occur to my central self-awareness or inner pilot, on many epic journeys with what I prefer to call, Sacred Medicines. That moment when my mind is stopped, as the Zen concept defines this state, and I am brought right back to the consciousness I would imagine I had as an infant. My reasoning mind becomes hogtied or locked into some kind of chemical stasis and in such moments of no mind, I cannot locate the switch in my mind that flips on the head-set that has taken me over 50 years to encode within my physical brain.
Where am I going with all of this? frankly, this is where we come to a new understanding of criteria. Howe is it that even though the conditioning which we base our organic existence on, is taken out of cognitive reach... we are still aware? I suggest that awareness is symbiotic to existence. Existence is relative to incarnation and that incarnation is the by-product of a consciousness that is an objective CONSCIOUS BEING. Why do I assert that this awareness is conscious? If the individuated witness is temporarily frozen/stopped/dissociated, due to periods of intensive spiritual sadhana or the powerful encounter with an entheogen, what aspect of self is aware and WHAT is it aware of... EXISTING? :idea:
Now this is the very most pivotal point in such an experience, for we find ourselves awake, alert and conscious... despite the cessation of perceptual data derived form the 5 senses or the mind. We become witness to the ISNESS of consciousness. We have been stopped, if we are so blessed and the subjective ego is without data to interpret/translate. So what is left? Just who is experiencing this scenario? Logically, there is no answer to this question, as some states of mind are outside of the loop. Some levels of awareness persist when all meaning and sense of reality is caught in said stasis.
In my own journeys of psychedelia and in many of my deepest, sober meditative adventures, I am undone as it were, empty of my extensive conditioning. Just enough, so as to perceive something else. After all, beyond this point is quite the state of amnesia. I have likened this state to a whiteout. That is, something other than what I ordinarily see and routinely translate through the filter of my mentality. I won't go into any wildly complex metaphysical gymnastics here. Let me just say that while I am in such moments of silent observation, a few characteristics have be noted by that part of myself, which does exist freely of the incarnational data programming. Mind becomes a transparency through which the light shines.
Firstly, I see light. A blinding light which is so great and undeniably INTELLIGENT, that I am convinced that this light is a primary aspect of consciousness. Coupled with this light, is the oscillating vibration of the sound current. The Word. That sonic vibration which has been called, "AUM". Initiatives of the Spirit Molecule describe this vibratory tone as, "the carrier wave". Then, I FEEL a void of form. It's too hard to describe that which exists without parameter, so I will leave this an empty mystery to contemplate upon. This is, however, not just limited to those who are undergoing a psychedelic voyage. Sages have been expounding upon these subtle realizations about the tenant of consciousness for millenniums. To those who routinely access these levels/states/planes of awareness, there are no words which properly define this type of consciousness. For lack of a better term, GOD has been fashioned by the mentality of these individuals. Although the word is relative to the linguistics of the participant in the observations. I have penchant for Omniself but that's just me.
I guess I am stressing that when all else is stripped away from the dramatic stage of the human mind and all conditioned response to data reception is briefly stopped, awareness finds new data to observe. Deeply interior data but noticeable to the witness of said data. Is this not a scientific discovery? As joedirt clearly suggests, should we not approach the Divine with the same degree of pragmatic inquiry that we approach the study of bacterial growth, quantum fluctuations or contemporary astronomy? Meaning? Are we not, as explorers of consciousness, justified when we accept this challenge and move into new territories? Is this not enough criteria to validate the quest?
Saiden makes a valid point about such subjective experiences, in that they have been recorded by countless travelers, passing through the existential earthly plane of material manifestation. this weaves a collective tapestry, if you will, so much so, that it implies an interpersonal continuity. This transcendental awareness is not an isolated phenomenon and this is recorded in all the scriptures on this planetary body. Sadly, something vital gets lost in the translation...
Even as our cherished rationale does, our intuitive translating capacity seeks to hit the proverbial nail directly on the head. this is far easier said than done. Many a consensus has been drawn but through the variation of linguistics and the semantics of individuals, the message is subject to interpretation. Mores the pity that religions have sprouted to dogmatize these revelations. But such is the nature of humanity. I present the hypothesis that BOTH, scientific and spiritual individuals search for new ways to use their limited understanding of what is happening beneath the illusion of temporal appearances. Both camps encode their ideologies with their mental faculties and both camps may be completely WRONG. Still, in regard to the question of Divinity or life beyond the material plane of existential consciousness, this consensus draws some to conclude that there IS something happening beyond reason and logical quantification.
Awareness does exist independently from relative viewpoints and personal conditioning. Yes? And how is this? Because the characteristics of this supra consciousness are universal. Like the hub in the center of the Buddhist Wheel. We all interrelate to the whole. This is most clearly shown by visions of the Grid. I have come to firmly believe that there is an objective reality, which lies at the heart of every subjective observation. It is paradoxical to say so but there you have it... existence is fraught with dichotomies. There is a some innate sense which (I believe) I have discovered, that exists as a unified field of energy and everything is interconnected within this field. I have come to extend this conception to a modified degree, as my understanding of these things has seemed to evolve (although honestly, I may be incorrect). I propose the reiteration of a truth about consciousness. Consciousness is aware of being conscious, despite sensory or intellectual interaction.
Or a maybe it would be better to completely discard the word "truth" in preference of "tenant"? The quintessential tenant, related to the nature of conscious awareness, if you will? Such a tenant does not utilize reason for it's central interpretive lens, it uses intuition. It is neither deduction nor blind faith. It is a knowing which is so profound, it supersedes all the data-oriented knowledge. admittedly, it can be argued that this is subjective and susceptible to error. It is, however, the observation of my core awareness and the conclusion that there is something which exists free of human thought and it is certainly not random chaos. Some cosmic accident... merely the product of quantum fluctuations? What force cause these quantum fluctuations? Out of which nothingness did this action primordially emanate? I suggest that is its of Spiritual intent. Just look up at the the night sky or gaze closely at the intricate structure of a flower and random chaos becomes an absurd conceptual projection to entertain. The Spirit appears to be a living presence and it is unquestionably very, very, very intelligent.
I admit that this is why my "raging" against Dr. Hawking was so enthusiastic. I also agree with joedirt , he is being a tool to publicly proclaim that he is so smart that he can dismiss the One. How can anyone dismiss that which is outside of their cognitive awareness? He might to better to speak of that which he has become famous for and I respect his brilliance and the body of his work.
Someone jokingly mentioned that Stephen should smoke DMT, in another thread, several months ago. No one can say he has not tried entheogens... but I can see why our fellow member said such a tongue-in-cheek thing. There is undoubtedly more than meets the eye or the logical function of the physical brain. There is arguably something truly mysterious and Infinite which will forevermore eludes our rational grasp. jbark's recent thread, Of ENlightENMENT is aimed at many of these intensely subtle conceptual issues. He, in his own extremely brilliant way, brings us to face the idea of enlightenment and what this implies and what our very existence is born of. LIGHT. I recommend it for it's honesty and clarity of intent: Welcome to the DMT-Nexus
"Show me your original face, the face that you had before you were born." A face composed of limitless light?
The 20th century Indian sage, Ramana Maharshi, chose to label this tenant as "Self". Why he chose to refer to a heightened level of awareness as synonymous with individual ego mechanics, is not my concern. He was a master of awareness and his terminology was his own. So we can see a parallel with the Biblical proclamation: "I am that I am".
How is it that the self would be thought of with such a paradoxical double meaning? I have given this many decades of contemplation and I have come to one conclusion, conscious awareness is both, individuated and Indivisible. If God created mankind in "his image", then there's a symbiosis taking place. Who is seeing through the self of all? just like the Zen koan I brought up a while back, "Show me your original face, the face that you had before you were born". What central tenant most characterizes awareness? Being. Like MooshiPeahces has encapsulated this sentiment:
MooshiePeaches said:
Short and sweet. No anthropomorphising, no intellectual elaboration, just an admission that certain aspects of universal existence or universal mind, are forever beyond our comprehension. It is an extremely abbreviated parallel to the gibran2 Marbles in a Box Principle. Just streamlined down to a handful of profound words.
As Saidin's signature quotation, from the 20th genius and mystic Sri Aurobindo, speculates and theorizes about the Divine intent:
Sri Aurobindo said:
I propose the idea that we are in the threshold of a new frontier of human thought. As fractal enchantment once suggested to me, we CAN and should conjoin the objective inquisitiveness of modern science, with the spiritual phenomenon which changes our understanding of reality. We can conjoin the left and right hemispheres of our brains and pierce through many of the barriers which have thus far, produced a polarity between scientific procedure and intuitive insight. Only a fool or a madman would think that we can continue to project these dichotomies by way of our collective mind. I have this innate sense that we will do just that in the coming span of time, as an organic earth species. while this may have it's source in the 6th sense, extra sensory perception, it is also grounded in the knowledge that All is One and awareness is central to all being.
BTW, moderators out there, is it possible to change a user name, after 231 posts? If this can be done, without loosing the aforementioned prior posts, my user name should probably be switched to Long Wind, the artist formerly known of as Rising Spirit. Without even meaning to, at all, I am the living antithesis of a fine character like MooshiPeaches, with all my extrapolations. But in my own defense, were I to need one, it is not easy to say with words, that which I am alluding to. And since human linguists are so subject to personal semantics and subjective interpretation... what's a poor boy to do?
Peace, love & light
^^^ Very nice post.
Oftentimes when discussing beliefs, we divide people into categories or camps, usually into the “scientist/atheist” camp, and the “non-scientist/theist” camp. These divisions are artificial, false, and serve to do what exactly what they do – divide us.
My “marble” analogy was intended to show that none of us can really know the way things are. Not only can’t we know, but whatever we believe, and this includes scientific beliefs - whatever we believe is almost certainly wrong.
For this reason, the most important characteristics to have are humility and a sense of wonder and awe. This goes for scientists and non-scientists alike, believers and non-believers. When I hear religious fundamentalists proclaim their beliefs as facts I’m neither upset nor surprised. They’re a lost cause.
But when I hear supposedly intelligent, rational people arrogantly proclaiming that they know it all, it’s somewhat upsetting. I wrongly think that they are above such nonsense, but time and time again their public statements tell me that they’re just like the rest of us – they’re just as subject to pride and arrogance and fear and anger and hatred as everyone else. They’re just as human as the religious fundamentalists they so often ridicule.
Here’s a thought I had last night:
Historical evidence shows that scientific knowledge has been growing at an accelerating rate for as far back as we can look. So I wondered what scientific knowledge will tell us in the future. Assuming we don’t destroy ourselves or the Earth (or more likely, both), what will scientists know in 50,000 years?
There are two general possibilities –
#1 --- Man’s understanding of how things actually are – the nature of reality – will be so far beyond our current understanding that by comparison, our current understanding will be viewed as almost entirely in error. Just as we can look back at past ideas, such as geocentrism, which intuitively made sense when looking at available evidence (geocentrism still makes intuitive sense when looking only at our bodily sensations and general observations – we still describe things such as “sunrise” and “sunset” even though we know the sun is doing neither), there are certainly many very fundamental scientific ideas that are currently accepted – accepted based on current evidence and current understanding – that will be shown to be entirely wrong in 50,000 years.
#2 --- Man’s understanding of how things are will not be radically different than our own. Our current ideas will still be supported and in vogue. However, there’s a problem with this possibility – it implies that scientific advancement will slow or stop in the very near future. It also makes a rather egotistical implication – “We know, right now, just about everything that can be known about the nature of reality. Sure, future scientists will make new discoveries, but those discoveries will just support and refine what we already know. Don’t expect to see any major paradigm shifts in the future, not even 50,000 years from now.”
Given those two possibilities, it seems to me that possibility #1 is more likely. And if that’s the case, we must acknowledge that many, maybe even most of our ideas about the nature of reality, although perfectly consistent with available evidence, are simply wrong. Scientists in 50,000 years will laugh at most of the ideas held by scientists of today. Why do scientists of today find it so hard to laugh at themselves?
Oftentimes when discussing beliefs, we divide people into categories or camps, usually into the “scientist/atheist” camp, and the “non-scientist/theist” camp. These divisions are artificial, false, and serve to do what exactly what they do – divide us.
My “marble” analogy was intended to show that none of us can really know the way things are. Not only can’t we know, but whatever we believe, and this includes scientific beliefs - whatever we believe is almost certainly wrong.
For this reason, the most important characteristics to have are humility and a sense of wonder and awe. This goes for scientists and non-scientists alike, believers and non-believers. When I hear religious fundamentalists proclaim their beliefs as facts I’m neither upset nor surprised. They’re a lost cause.
But when I hear supposedly intelligent, rational people arrogantly proclaiming that they know it all, it’s somewhat upsetting. I wrongly think that they are above such nonsense, but time and time again their public statements tell me that they’re just like the rest of us – they’re just as subject to pride and arrogance and fear and anger and hatred as everyone else. They’re just as human as the religious fundamentalists they so often ridicule.
Here’s a thought I had last night:
Historical evidence shows that scientific knowledge has been growing at an accelerating rate for as far back as we can look. So I wondered what scientific knowledge will tell us in the future. Assuming we don’t destroy ourselves or the Earth (or more likely, both), what will scientists know in 50,000 years?
There are two general possibilities –
#1 --- Man’s understanding of how things actually are – the nature of reality – will be so far beyond our current understanding that by comparison, our current understanding will be viewed as almost entirely in error. Just as we can look back at past ideas, such as geocentrism, which intuitively made sense when looking at available evidence (geocentrism still makes intuitive sense when looking only at our bodily sensations and general observations – we still describe things such as “sunrise” and “sunset” even though we know the sun is doing neither), there are certainly many very fundamental scientific ideas that are currently accepted – accepted based on current evidence and current understanding – that will be shown to be entirely wrong in 50,000 years.
#2 --- Man’s understanding of how things are will not be radically different than our own. Our current ideas will still be supported and in vogue. However, there’s a problem with this possibility – it implies that scientific advancement will slow or stop in the very near future. It also makes a rather egotistical implication – “We know, right now, just about everything that can be known about the nature of reality. Sure, future scientists will make new discoveries, but those discoveries will just support and refine what we already know. Don’t expect to see any major paradigm shifts in the future, not even 50,000 years from now.”
Given those two possibilities, it seems to me that possibility #1 is more likely. And if that’s the case, we must acknowledge that many, maybe even most of our ideas about the nature of reality, although perfectly consistent with available evidence, are simply wrong. Scientists in 50,000 years will laugh at most of the ideas held by scientists of today. Why do scientists of today find it so hard to laugh at themselves?
Rising Spirit said:endlessness said:
While I can only speculate about the nature of thought, as I am defining my own cosmology with every passing idea, I believe that mind SHAPES the content of perception (or perhaps TRANSLATES the perceptual input received from outside of self), as []reality[/i]. I wholly agree with the gibran2 Marbles in a Box Principle. We can never know if what we comprehend is RIGHT or WRONG, true or illusory, relative to subjectivity or founded in an objective law, which makes any assertions about the past,present and future a moot conjecture.
So, the essential criteria are relative to the mind which is witnessing the dynamic play of energy, which we refer to as "existence", or at least that small sliver of the totality of existence, that we are able to receive through our 5 senses, comprehend with our intellect and so recognize in direct relation to our learned behavior and encoded mental associations. Yet, never can we be 100% certain that we are getting an accurate picture of said reality, so to speak. Is it not an undeniable fact, that stripped of all of our accumulated data, stored files and complex system or making order out of this collective consensus... the universe expresses itself without needing our observation or definitions of it's nature?
I mean, consider how many of us have come to the point, while interacting with psychedelics/entheogens, whereby we suddenly find ourselves witnessing all of the convenient lines of separation and definition disappear? I have had this occur to my central self-awareness or inner pilot, on many epic journeys with what i prefer to call, Sacred Medicines. That moment when my mind is stopped, as the Zen concept defines the state and I am brought right back to the consciousness I would imagine, which I had as an infant. My reasoning mind becomes hogtied or locked into some kind of chemical stasis and in such moments of no mind, I cannot locate the switch in my head that flips on the head-set that has taken me over 50 years to encode within my physical brain.
Where am I going with all of this? frankly, this is where we come to a new understanding of criteria. Howe is it that even though the conditioning which we base our organic existence on, is taken out of cognitive reach... we are still aware? I suggest that awareness is symbiotic to existence. Existence is relative to incarnation and that incarnation is the by-product of a consciousness that is an objective CONSCIOUS. Why do I assert that this awareness is conscious? If the individuated witness is temporarily frozen/stopped/dissociated, due to periods of intensive spiritual sadhana or the powerful encounter with an entheogen, what aspect of self is aware and WHAT is it aware of? Existing?
Now this is the very most pivotal point in such an experience, for we find ourselves awake, alert and conscious... despite the cessation of perceptual data derived form the 5 senses or the mind. we become witness to the ISNESS of consciousness. We have been stopped, if we are so blessed, and the subjective ego is without data to interpret/translate. what is left? who is experiencing this scenario? Logically, there is no answer to this question, as some states of mind are outside of the loop. Some levels of awareness persist when all meaning and sense of reality is caught in said stasis.
In my own journeys of psychedelia and in many of my deepest, sober meditative adventures, I am undone, as it were, empty of my extensive conditioning. Just enough, so as to perceive something else. After all, beyond this point is quite the state of amnesia. I have likened this state to a whiteout. that is, something other than what I ordinarily see and routinely translate through the filter of my mentality. I won't go into any wildly complex metaphysical gymnastics here. Let me just say that while I am in such moments of silent observation, a few characteristics have be noted by that part of myself, which does exist freely of the incarnational data programming. Mind becomes a transparency through which the light shines.
Firstly, I see light. A blinding light which is so great and undeniably INTELLIGENT, that I am convinced that this light is a primary aspect of consciousness. Coupled with this light, is the oscillating vibration of the sound current. The Word. That sonic vibration which has been called, "AUM". Initiatives of the Spirit Molecule describe this vibratory tone as, "the carrier wave". then, i feel a void of form. It's too hard to describe that which exists without parameter, so I will leave this an empty mystey to contemplate upon. This is, however, not just limited to those who are undergoing a psychedelic voyage. Sages have been expounding upon these subtle realizations about the tenant of consciousness for millenniums. To those who routinely access these levels/states/planes of awareness, there are no words which properly define this type of consciousness. For lack of a better term, GOD has been fashioned by the mentality of these individuals. Although the word is relative to the linguistics of the participant in the observations. i have penchant for Omniself but that's just me.
I guess I am stressing that when all else is stripped away from the dramatic stage of the human mind and all conditioned response to data reception is briefly stopped, awareness finds new data to observe. Deeply interior data but noticeable to the witness of said data. Is this not a scientific discovery? As joedirt clearly suggests, should we not approach the Divine with the same degree of pragmatic inquiry that we approach the study of bacterial growth, quantum fluctuations or contemporary astronomy? Meaning? Are we not, as explorers of consciousness, justified when we accept this challenge and move into new territories? Is this not enough criteria to validate the quest?
Saiden makes a valid point about such subjective experiences, in that they have been recorded by countless travelers, passing through the existential earthly plane of material manifestation. this weaves a collective tapestry, if you will, so much so, that it implies an interpersonal continuity. This transcendental awareness is not an isolated phenomenon and this is recorded in all the scriptures on this planetary body. Sadly, something vital gets lost in the translation...
Even as our cherished rationale does, our intuitive translating capacity seeks to hit the proverbial nail directly on the head. this is far easier said than done. Many a consensus has been drawn but through the variation of linguistics and the semantics of individuals, the message is subject to interpretation. Mores the pity that religions have sprouted to dogmatize these revelations. But such is the nature of humanity. I present the hypothesis that BOTH, scientific and spiritual individuals search for new ways to use their limited understanding of what is happening beneath the illusion of temporal appearances. Both camps encode their ideologies with their mental faculties and both camps may be completely WRONG. Still, in regard to the question of Divinity or life beyond the material plane of existential consciousness, this consensus draws some to conclude that there IS something happening beyond reason and logical quantification.
Awareness does exist independently from relative viewpoints and personal conditioning. Yes? And how is this? Because the characteristics of this supra consciousness are universal. Like the hub in the center of the Buddhist Wheel. We all interrelate to the whole. This is most clearly shown by visions of the Grid. I have come to firmly believe that there is an objective reality, which lies at the heart of every subjective observation. It is paradoxical to say do bu thee you have it, existence is fraught with dichotomies. There is a some innate sense which I believe I have discovered, that exists as a unified field of energy and everything is interconnected within this field. I have come to extend this conception to a modified degree, as my understanding of these things has seemed to evolved (although I may be incorrect). I propose the reiteration of a truth about consciousness. consciousness is aware of being conscious, despite sensory or intellectual interaction.
Or a maybe it would be better to completely discard the word "truth" in preference of "tenant"? The quintessential tenant, related to the nature of conscious awareness, if you will? Such a tenant does not utilize reason for it's central interpretive lens, it uses intuition. It is neither deduction nor blind faith. It is a knowing which is so profound, it supersedes all the data-oriented knowledge. admittedly, it can be argued that this is subjective and susceptible to error. It is, however, the observation of my core awareness and the conclusion that there is something which exists free of human thought and it is certainly not random chaos. Some cosmic accident? merely the product of quantum fluctuations? What force cause these quantum fluctuations. out of which nothingness did this action emanate? I suggest that is its of Divine intent. Just look up at the the night sky or gaze closely at the intricate structure of a flower and random chaos becomes an absurd conceptual projection to entertain. The Spirit appears to be a living presence and it is unquestionably very, very, very intelligent.
I admit that this is why my "raging" against Dr. Hawking was so enthusiastic. I also agree with joedirt , he is being a tool to publicly proclaim that he is so smart that he can dismiss the One. How can anyone dismiss that which is outside of their cognitive awareness? he might to better to speak of that which he has become famous for and i respect his brilliance and the body of his work.
Someone jokingly mentioned that Stephen should smoke DMT, in another thread, several months ago. No one can say he has not tried entheogens... but I can see why our fellow member said such a tongue-in-cheek thing. There is undoubtedly more than meets the eye or the logical function of the physical brain. There is arguably something truly mysterious and Infinite which will forevermore eludes our rational grasp. jbark's recent thread, Of ENlightENMENT is aimed at many of these intensely subtle conceptual issues. He, in his own extremely brilliant way, brings us to face the idea of enlightenment and what this implies and what our very existence is born of. LIGHT. I recommend it for it's honesty and clarity of intent: Show me your original face, the face that you had before you were born.
The 20th century Indian sage, Ramana Maharshi, chose to label this tenant as "Self". Why he chose to refer to a heightened level of awareness as synonymous with individual ego mechanics, is not my concern. He was a master of awareness and his terminology was his own. so we can asee a parallel with the Biblical proclamation: "I am that I am".
How is it that the self would be thought of with such a paradoxical double meaning? I have given this many decades of contemplation and I have come to one conclusion, conscious awareness is both, individuated and Indivisible. If God created mankind in "his image", then there's a symbiosis taking place. Who is seeing through the self of all? just like the Zen koan I brought up a while back, "Show me your original face, the face that you had before you were born". What central tenant most characterizes awareness? Being. Like MooshiPeahces has encapsulated this sentiment:
MooshiePeaches said:
Short and sweet. No anthropomorphisation, no intellectual elaboration, just an admission that certain aspects of universal existence r universal mind, are forever beyond our comprehension. It is an extremely abbreviated parallel to the gibran2 Marbles in a Box Principle. Just streamlined down to a handful of profound words.
As Saidin's signature quotation, from the 20th genius and mystic Sri Aurobindo, speculates and theorizes about the Divine intent:
Sri Aurobindo said:
I propose the idea that we are in the threshold of a new frontier of human thought. As fractal enchantment once suggested to me, we CAN and should conjoin the objective inquisitiveness of modern science, with the spiritual phenomenon which changes our understanding of reality. We can conjoin the left and right hemispheres of our brains and pierce through many of the barriers which have thus far, produced a polarity between scientific procedure and intuitive insight. only a fool or a madman would think that we can continue to project these dichotomies by way of our collective mind. I have this innate sense that we will do just that in the coming span of time, as an organic earth species. while this may have it's source in the 6th sense, extra sensory perception, it is also grounded in the knowledge that All is One and awareness is central to all being.
BTW, moderators out there, is it possible to change a user name, after 231 posts? If this can be done, without loosing the aforementioned prior posts, my user name should probably be switched to Long Wind, the artist formerly known of as Rising Spirit. Without even meaning to, at all, I am the living antithesis of a fine character like MooshiPeaches, with all my extrapolations. But in my own defense , were I to need one, it is not easy to say with words, what I am alluding to... and since human linguists are so subject to semantics and interpretation... what's a poor boy to do?
Peace, love & light
I'm not even going to try to add anything after this.
Simple put: The spirit in me honors the spirit in you!
Rising Spirit,
Just to make clear, with my questions I just meant to generate reflection, I never thought that the science has the answer to everything. Im just bothered when people defend subjective experiences as if they are all that matters and are necessarily true, because this just leads us into a senseless relativism and gives no basis for human relationship. Im not sure if I can find an answer to this in your post. I mean, sure a lot of people who took psychedelics felt like they were observing The Source with impartiality, but so did a lot of people thought they were being hunted by demons who said they should kill others or that they would hurt themselves or what not. So what criteria do you use appart from 'it being subjective so its important' ? Because if we are to trust every single subjective experience we will just be left with more contradictions than solutions.
Personally I add a few other criterias, defined by these questions: Is it healthy or does it lead to more balanced health (physically, emotionally, mentally)? Does it hurt anybody else? Does it lead to sustainable actions and self development? Can I translate it into benefits not only for myself but for others?
These arent necessarily part of the subjective experiences themselves, but if the experience does not support those questions, I will disregard/not follow them.
I think we get into a dangerous area if we just accept any and all subjective experiences as rightful because it does not take in account that we can also delude ourselves and that our subjective worldview can reinforce actions that have negative consequences to others.
Also, as for science, I think it is a wonderful method of acquiring a certain type of knowledge, but obviously it doesnt concern or explain everything there is. For example I wont only look at science for answers on how to deal with my relationships, I will look at my and the other person's emotions/feelings, what my body tells me, my ethical conscience, etc. But I still will very gratefully research and listen to science on a lot of subjects, and consider it way more reliable in some areas than the most convincing subjective experience. Everything has its place.
And related to the original subject, I agree Stephen Hawking seems to express what he does in quite a non-humble way, but I agree with a lot of SWIMfriend's points, including that Hawking seems to be critical of the more typical "god=bearded father in the sky" kind of idea, which I do think is reasonable to be criticised. Though maybe the way he does it should be reconsidered, as well as he should look at his own beliefs as also passive to criticism, as gibran well pointed out.
Just to make clear, with my questions I just meant to generate reflection, I never thought that the science has the answer to everything. Im just bothered when people defend subjective experiences as if they are all that matters and are necessarily true, because this just leads us into a senseless relativism and gives no basis for human relationship. Im not sure if I can find an answer to this in your post. I mean, sure a lot of people who took psychedelics felt like they were observing The Source with impartiality, but so did a lot of people thought they were being hunted by demons who said they should kill others or that they would hurt themselves or what not. So what criteria do you use appart from 'it being subjective so its important' ? Because if we are to trust every single subjective experience we will just be left with more contradictions than solutions.
Personally I add a few other criterias, defined by these questions: Is it healthy or does it lead to more balanced health (physically, emotionally, mentally)? Does it hurt anybody else? Does it lead to sustainable actions and self development? Can I translate it into benefits not only for myself but for others?
These arent necessarily part of the subjective experiences themselves, but if the experience does not support those questions, I will disregard/not follow them.
I think we get into a dangerous area if we just accept any and all subjective experiences as rightful because it does not take in account that we can also delude ourselves and that our subjective worldview can reinforce actions that have negative consequences to others.
Also, as for science, I think it is a wonderful method of acquiring a certain type of knowledge, but obviously it doesnt concern or explain everything there is. For example I wont only look at science for answers on how to deal with my relationships, I will look at my and the other person's emotions/feelings, what my body tells me, my ethical conscience, etc. But I still will very gratefully research and listen to science on a lot of subjects, and consider it way more reliable in some areas than the most convincing subjective experience. Everything has its place.
And related to the original subject, I agree Stephen Hawking seems to express what he does in quite a non-humble way, but I agree with a lot of SWIMfriend's points, including that Hawking seems to be critical of the more typical "god=bearded father in the sky" kind of idea, which I do think is reasonable to be criticised. Though maybe the way he does it should be reconsidered, as well as he should look at his own beliefs as also passive to criticism, as gibran well pointed out.
IMO subjective experiences are VERY important.
If we have a desire to KNOW things, at the very beginning, we are already talking about TWO things:
1) The thing we want to know.
2) And who/what WE ARE, as knowers.
The topic of "knowing" is an EQUAL INTERPLAY between those TWO THINGS.
My problem arises when people seek to shift their subjective experiences directly to OBJECTIVE reality: A meditator or psychonaut has a direct inner perception that the universe is ONE, and everything is imbued with a creative force that drives all our actions--and so one comes out of it announcing there's a "god" that pervades everything.
But, IMO, a better way to consider that experience is that one has PERCEIVED while one's mind is in--let's take it from a positive perspective--a BETTER state, in which certain areas of the mind that generate "lower" types of consciousness are SHUT DOWN, and perception is more open too ALL things.
But does that mean the perception is correct (i.e., objectively verifiable)? Not necessarily. In ordinary perception, we can "perceive things" incorrectly all the time: just have a look around, the world, on first assessment, is flat.
But is the perception that the world is flat without value? NO! One can go FURTHER--and eventually discover a LOT about the actual structure of the world and the universe (and about the limitations of ordinary perception).
In the same way, perhaps with the other kind of perception I mentioned, ONE CAN ALSO GO FURTHER. Perhaps one can learn as much about the PERCEIVER as about the PERCEPTION--perhaps that's even the MOST fruitful part, and perhaps trying to turn those perceptions into information about the OBJECTIVE world is far less important.
But in any case, just because perception can be modified--or let's say, IMPROVED--doesn't in itself mean that RATIONALITY suddenly becomes USELESS.
I don't think, for example, that the Buddha ever meant to suggest that rationality should be jettisoned. I think he meant that the mind of ORDINARY PERCEPTION can foster ignorance--and CAN BE maintained in its ignorance by "ordinary" modes of thinking and mind action.
I think that those who have new (and better) PERCEPTIONS may be prone to "jumping the gun" in making assumptions about new and better REALITIES.
...and that is where THE DEPTH of integration and reflection on experiences becomes important.
If we have a desire to KNOW things, at the very beginning, we are already talking about TWO things:
1) The thing we want to know.
2) And who/what WE ARE, as knowers.
The topic of "knowing" is an EQUAL INTERPLAY between those TWO THINGS.
My problem arises when people seek to shift their subjective experiences directly to OBJECTIVE reality: A meditator or psychonaut has a direct inner perception that the universe is ONE, and everything is imbued with a creative force that drives all our actions--and so one comes out of it announcing there's a "god" that pervades everything.
But, IMO, a better way to consider that experience is that one has PERCEIVED while one's mind is in--let's take it from a positive perspective--a BETTER state, in which certain areas of the mind that generate "lower" types of consciousness are SHUT DOWN, and perception is more open too ALL things.
But does that mean the perception is correct (i.e., objectively verifiable)? Not necessarily. In ordinary perception, we can "perceive things" incorrectly all the time: just have a look around, the world, on first assessment, is flat.
But is the perception that the world is flat without value? NO! One can go FURTHER--and eventually discover a LOT about the actual structure of the world and the universe (and about the limitations of ordinary perception).
In the same way, perhaps with the other kind of perception I mentioned, ONE CAN ALSO GO FURTHER. Perhaps one can learn as much about the PERCEIVER as about the PERCEPTION--perhaps that's even the MOST fruitful part, and perhaps trying to turn those perceptions into information about the OBJECTIVE world is far less important.
But in any case, just because perception can be modified--or let's say, IMPROVED--doesn't in itself mean that RATIONALITY suddenly becomes USELESS.
I don't think, for example, that the Buddha ever meant to suggest that rationality should be jettisoned. I think he meant that the mind of ORDINARY PERCEPTION can foster ignorance--and CAN BE maintained in its ignorance by "ordinary" modes of thinking and mind action.
I think that those who have new (and better) PERCEPTIONS may be prone to "jumping the gun" in making assumptions about new and better REALITIES.
...and that is where THE DEPTH of integration and reflection on experiences becomes important.
Dreamwalker
Rising Star
Wow, nice to see this thread is still going strong! I had a feeling after reading that article this would be the perfect place to share it! I knew all you Nexian's out there would have some interesting points of views on the subject.
In my opinion I don't think the human brain is capable of understanding what happens when we die until we actually do die. We're just hard wired that way. No scientist or genius will ever be able to claim otherwise. Its all just speculation because there's no way they can actually prove it.
Just my 2 cents...
Its really interesting reading all the conflicting aspects on the subject though. Lets keep it going! :d
I knew all you Nexian's out there would have some interesting points of views on the subject. In my opinion I don't think the human brain is capable of understanding what happens when we die until we actually do die. We're just hard wired that way. No scientist or genius will ever be able to claim otherwise. Its all just speculation because there's no way they can actually prove it.
Just my 2 cents...
Its really interesting reading all the conflicting aspects on the subject though. Lets keep it going! :d
Why can't I keep myself out of this conversation? What is so fascinating about a conversation that could literally go on for years without a single one of us changing our views in any fashion. LOL....anyway back into the fray one more time.
Just because it is not objectively verifiable does not mean that it isn't correct. It ONLY MEANS IT'S NOT OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE and nothing else.
In the real world of science I agree that it has to be objectively verifiable in order to call it a new law, or correctly classify the discovery into our current scientific framework. In the world of subjective experience it will never be repeatable. BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECTIVE. I'll agree that subjectively has no place in science though and this is precisely why materialist based science will never be able to focus on spiritual things. Perhaps this is a domain that social science is better equipped to deal with since they do deal with subjective experiments? And please don't get me wrong. Science is the best thing going for humanity for the last several hundred years and this is why I chose to make a career as one. But it is confined to the physical domain where it can take measurements that can be reproduced by others. That is why science is successful. Science doesn't waste time trying to determine if God was real because it would either have to change it's methods (Not be good science) or admit that it is ill equipped to comment. Most of the scientists I know and work with take the second stance and admit that we can't really comment on this issue. Hawking, and many others however just like to the stir the pot of emotions.
I'm mean look at Steven Hawking? He is a man that by all accounts God has forsaken. He probably dearly wants to believe in God, but then realizes life is not fair and that their could never be a just and fair God. I understand why he believes that. Perhaps he needs to find a way to reconnect with his inner spirit because he simply will not convince others of his spiritual views and he certainly isn't going to disprove God with mathematics. Christ most of his physics thinking actually points to a God-force behind the scenes...No not a christian man in the sky, but when I see reality shifting black holes on the large scale and quantum tunneling on the small scale I come to the conclusion that life is WAY more fascinating than either science or spirituality has yet determined.
In fact he taught that everything should be questioned and ONLY that which was directly perceived as truth to be considered truth. The entirety of Buddhism and Hinduism depend upon directly having a subjective experience. Without true religious/spiritual experience then God and religion are meaningless concepts written by other men in so called Holy books.
However one immersion in the light that Rising Spirit mentions and it all becomes clear. Sure our experiences are subjective and I'll never be able to convince you or anyone else that has not had the experience that it was real...but to me it redefined my whole belief system. I agree with Rising Spirit...for me God is a living reality and that reality to me is something so great and ineffable that words will never describe it...in fact most of the time our memories can't even contain the experience long enough to come back and write them down....
Peace.
SWIMfriend said:
Just because it is not objectively verifiable does not mean that it isn't correct. It ONLY MEANS IT'S NOT OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE and nothing else.
In the real world of science I agree that it has to be objectively verifiable in order to call it a new law, or correctly classify the discovery into our current scientific framework. In the world of subjective experience it will never be repeatable. BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECTIVE. I'll agree that subjectively has no place in science though and this is precisely why materialist based science will never be able to focus on spiritual things. Perhaps this is a domain that social science is better equipped to deal with since they do deal with subjective experiments? And please don't get me wrong. Science is the best thing going for humanity for the last several hundred years and this is why I chose to make a career as one. But it is confined to the physical domain where it can take measurements that can be reproduced by others. That is why science is successful. Science doesn't waste time trying to determine if God was real because it would either have to change it's methods (Not be good science) or admit that it is ill equipped to comment. Most of the scientists I know and work with take the second stance and admit that we can't really comment on this issue. Hawking, and many others however just like to the stir the pot of emotions.
I'm mean look at Steven Hawking? He is a man that by all accounts God has forsaken. He probably dearly wants to believe in God, but then realizes life is not fair and that their could never be a just and fair God. I understand why he believes that. Perhaps he needs to find a way to reconnect with his inner spirit because he simply will not convince others of his spiritual views and he certainly isn't going to disprove God with mathematics. Christ most of his physics thinking actually points to a God-force behind the scenes...No not a christian man in the sky, but when I see reality shifting black holes on the large scale and quantum tunneling on the small scale I come to the conclusion that life is WAY more fascinating than either science or spirituality has yet determined.
In fact he taught that everything should be questioned and ONLY that which was directly perceived as truth to be considered truth. The entirety of Buddhism and Hinduism depend upon directly having a subjective experience. Without true religious/spiritual experience then God and religion are meaningless concepts written by other men in so called Holy books.
However one immersion in the light that Rising Spirit mentions and it all becomes clear. Sure our experiences are subjective and I'll never be able to convince you or anyone else that has not had the experience that it was real...but to me it redefined my whole belief system. I agree with Rising Spirit...for me God is a living reality and that reality to me is something so great and ineffable that words will never describe it...in fact most of the time our memories can't even contain the experience long enough to come back and write them down....
Peace.
One thing that I hoped to point out in my last post, but didn’t explicitly state (so I’ll make it explicit now) is that objective scientific observation tells us the “what”. It does not and cannot tell us the “why”. It takes human minds, with all of their biases and weaknesses and frailties to figure out the “why”.
Let’s start with geocentrism, which I mentioned in my previous post. By observing the movement of the sun, moon, and stars, and taking note that the ground we stand on is rock solid and not moving (and these are all objective observations by the way) it is natural to conclude that the heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth. It was only the movement of aberrant stars – the “wanderers” – that threw a monkey wrench into the “perfection” of the geocentric model. Scientists could not explain why the planets didn’t revolve in perfect circles around the Earth. For a long time, this was left as an unexplainable mystery – a mystery that had no bearing on the “truth” of geocentrism. To make this long story short: The observations that led to the belief in geocentrism were all valid and, except for the aberrant motion of the planets, the observations were all consistent with a geocentric model. In spite of valid observation and theory consistent with those observations, the theory turned out to be horribly WRONG.
Let’s look at the present. Quantum mechanics is loaded with observations that make no sense. Quantum entanglement is a good example. Scientists can observe quantum entanglement. They can describe it mathematically, and they can actually experimentally cause it – they can cause particles to become entangled. Yet a state change in one entangled particle will cause an instantaneous state change in a distant entangled particle. Science can’t explain why this is possible. It shouldn’t be possible – nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, yet scientific observations show us that instantaneous changes can be made between entangled particles, regardless of the distance between them.
So what does this mean? It means we have something horribly wrong, as was the case with geocentrism. Either particles/waves can move faster than the speed of light (which means much of Einstein’s work is wrong), or there’s an unknown “something” that is not material that allows instantaneous transmission of information (which means there’s a basic constituent of the physical universe that is neither energy nor matter), or “distance” is something that only appears to be a property of space, when in fact there is no distance between objects, or… Or who knows what?
There are many other examples in quantum physics, particle physics, astronomy, and other scientific fields - strange results that are in serious conflict with existing theories.
The point is that our basic understanding of how the universe works – what reality/existence really is – is WRONG. This doesn’t mean our observations are wrong, and it doesn’t mean our theories are inconsistent with our observations. Science is useful because of its predictive capacity, not because of its explanatory capacity. It seems that sometimes scientists, and others, forget this.
So what I’m getting at with all of this is: If scientists don’t really know the nature of the objectively measurable and observable world around them, how can they make claims regarding the validity of subjective experiences which are themselves currently not adequately explained?
Let’s start with geocentrism, which I mentioned in my previous post. By observing the movement of the sun, moon, and stars, and taking note that the ground we stand on is rock solid and not moving (and these are all objective observations by the way) it is natural to conclude that the heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth. It was only the movement of aberrant stars – the “wanderers” – that threw a monkey wrench into the “perfection” of the geocentric model. Scientists could not explain why the planets didn’t revolve in perfect circles around the Earth. For a long time, this was left as an unexplainable mystery – a mystery that had no bearing on the “truth” of geocentrism. To make this long story short: The observations that led to the belief in geocentrism were all valid and, except for the aberrant motion of the planets, the observations were all consistent with a geocentric model. In spite of valid observation and theory consistent with those observations, the theory turned out to be horribly WRONG.
Let’s look at the present. Quantum mechanics is loaded with observations that make no sense. Quantum entanglement is a good example. Scientists can observe quantum entanglement. They can describe it mathematically, and they can actually experimentally cause it – they can cause particles to become entangled. Yet a state change in one entangled particle will cause an instantaneous state change in a distant entangled particle. Science can’t explain why this is possible. It shouldn’t be possible – nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, yet scientific observations show us that instantaneous changes can be made between entangled particles, regardless of the distance between them.
So what does this mean? It means we have something horribly wrong, as was the case with geocentrism. Either particles/waves can move faster than the speed of light (which means much of Einstein’s work is wrong), or there’s an unknown “something” that is not material that allows instantaneous transmission of information (which means there’s a basic constituent of the physical universe that is neither energy nor matter), or “distance” is something that only appears to be a property of space, when in fact there is no distance between objects, or… Or who knows what?
There are many other examples in quantum physics, particle physics, astronomy, and other scientific fields - strange results that are in serious conflict with existing theories.
The point is that our basic understanding of how the universe works – what reality/existence really is – is WRONG. This doesn’t mean our observations are wrong, and it doesn’t mean our theories are inconsistent with our observations. Science is useful because of its predictive capacity, not because of its explanatory capacity. It seems that sometimes scientists, and others, forget this.
So what I’m getting at with all of this is: If scientists don’t really know the nature of the objectively measurable and observable world around them, how can they make claims regarding the validity of subjective experiences which are themselves currently not adequately explained?
Exactly.gibran2 said:
This was where i was refering to when i said that science in a way is like examining a clockwork and knowing everything about it, but having no clue about the concept of time.
To some, the fact that particle physic´s allows universes to pop-up out of thin air is proof that we don´t need a god to explain the existance of the universe and everything in it. To others, it is exactly that, that would make the assumption of a master puppeteer behind it all, not so irrational anymore as it would seem at first.
joedirt said:
So odd that such formulations continue to be confusing to people.
I won't keep arguing; I'll just recommend to anyone with an open mind to consider how EASY IT IS TO BE WRONG...and that if one wishes to align oneself with TRUTH, one must to come to KNOW and to UNDERSTAND the truth.
One can't know something one has never PERCEIVED. But one is reckless indeed to think that anything PERCEIVED is automatically TRULY and ACCURATELY and COMPLETELY perceived at first glance.
One reliable method for BEGINNING to judge the accuracy of a perception is to determine whether the perception stands FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES--and one additional perspective, for example, could be rational examination.
"I won't keep arguing; I'll just recommend to anyone with an open mind to consider how EASY IT IS TO BE WRONG...and that if one wishes to align oneself with TRUTH, one must to come to KNOW and to UNDERSTAND the truth."
That sounds so much like something a religious nut would say.
That sounds so much like something a religious nut would say.