Why Scientific Realism might be false?

[immortal]

You are attacking science with your pretensions that scientists are dishonest and that physicists would be substituted by philosophers.

 

 

So, the “realism” that appears in the abstract of [11] seems to be some sort of philosophical notion of realism (as we will see below, a di?erent notion of “realism” is considered within the article). In fact, the citation above looks like a suggestion that working scientists should take solipsism seriously, or at least that they should consider the possibility that tables, mountains and planets do not exist at all in the absence of a conscious observer of some sort. There is no rational justi?cation for such a radically counter-intuitive statement.

 

- DANIEL V. TAUSK, a critic of Anton Zielinger et al paper.

 

One can indeed give up both realism and locality. But then the rather deep philosophical quation emerges. What remains? What are we doing them when we do science? What are we referring to?

 

- Anton Zienlinger

 

 

The charge of Intellectual dishonesty on scientists is well intended and they deserve it, every literature in quantum mechanics from Ballentine up to Zeilinger, Aspelmeyer et al papers is incomplete without the discussion of solipsism and it has been rubbished away as extremely unlikely but what scientists are missing is that there is an alternative rational explanation possible which implies that the human mind is the product of a divine God, I am definitely not a solipsist, I am a realist and I believe God can give an objective account of reality. All it shows is the personal incredulity of scientists still underestimating God and Religion. This time Religion will indeed correct science and its real and its happening. Just because it contradicts their values, their culture and their beliefs scientists simply hold on to realism and simply discard a theistic view of our existence as extremely unlikely, scientists might find it unlikely but theists definitely don't and scientists might escape and run away from the philosophical implications of recent findings but true philosophers will criticize that the current consensus among scientists is wrong and it should be critcized. For true philosophers the prize, the fame, the person, profession, caste, creed, the profound implications is not important, only the truth is important and nothing else matters. The Scientific consensus is definitely wrong and scientists must withdrew the objectivist language that they use while describing their scientific models.

 

The New Copernican Revolution

 

Immanuel Kant believed his insights into the nature of perception, and the distinction between physical reality and the reality we each experience, would be the basis for "a Copernican Revolution in philosophy." Now, two hundred years later, it seems he may have been close to the mark. In the Copernican Revolution, the key insight was the realization that the earth was spinning through space. Kant’s distinction between the two realities is likewise the key insight which opens the door to a new metaparadigm.

 

In both cases the key insight defied common sense. In Copernicus’ time it seemed absolutely obvious that the Earth was still. Today it seems equally obvious that we are perceiving the physical world directly. Even when we intellectually accept the fact that our entire world of experience is a construction within the mind, as eventually we must, we still see this world "out there," around us.

 

It may be that we will always see it this way. Even now, five centuries after Copernicus, we still see the sun going down, even though we know that it is really the earth spinning round.

 

In this instance, however, it is possible to see it the other way. All you need do is go somewhere where you have a good view of the horizon. Then, rather than thinking of yourself as stationary, see yourself standing on this huge ball of rock we call Earth, which is slowly turning in space from West to East. As it turns new parts of the sky come into view in the East while others disappear from view in the West. Now, instead of seeing the sun setting, you see the horizon moving up and hiding it. In a similar way, the full moon "rises" as the opposite horizon moves down opening up new vistas. Changing your perception in this way, the Copernican shift becomes an experienced reality.

 

It is much more difficult, however, to do a similar exercise with our perception of the world around us. Try as I may, I cannot experience the fact that it is all an image within my mind. But this doesn’t mean it is impossible to see things differently. Some spiritual adepts who have made deep personal investigations into the nature of consciousness, and witnessed the arising of experience, claim to have achieved this new perception.

 

Perhaps one the most succinct and clearest descriptions of this alternative mode of consciousness comes from the contemporary Indian teacher Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, who, describing his own spiritual awakening, said:

 

You realize beyond all trace of doubt that the world is in you, and not you in the world.

 

Swami Muktananda, another contemporary sage, said:

 

You are the entire universe.

You are in all, and all is in you.

Sun, moon, and stars revolve within you.

 

And the Ashtavakra Gita, a highly venerated Indian text, states:

 

The Universe produced phenomenally in me, is pervaded by me…

From me the world is born, in me it exists, in me it dissolves.

 

These people appear to have awoken from the dream of maya–the delusion that we are directly perceiving the physical world. They know as a direct personal experience, not just as some theoretical idea, that their entire world is a manifestation within the mind. These are the ones–the enlightened ones, we sometimes call them–who have personally made the shift to a new metaparadigm.

 

Turning Reality Inside Out

 

In much the same way as Copernicus’ insight turned our model of the cosmos inside out, the distinction between the physical world and our experience of the world turns the relationship of consciousness and the material world inside out. In the current metaparadigm, consciousness is assumed to emerge from the world of space, time and matter. In the new metaparadigm, everything we know, including space, time and matter, manifests from consciousness.

 

We think the world we see around us is composed of matter–that the stuff of the world is, for the want of a better word, matterstuff. As far as the actual physical reality is concerned, this may be so–uncertain though we may be as to the ultimate nature of this matterstuff. But the world we see around us is not the physical world. The world we actually know, is the world that takes form in our mind. And this world is not made of matterstuff, but mindstuff. Everything we know, perceive, and imagine, every color, sound, sensation, thought, and feeling, is a form that consciousness has taken on. As far as this world is concerned, everything is structured in consciousness.

 

Matter is derived from mind or consciousness, and not mind or consciousness from matter.

 

- Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation

 

Kant argued that this was even true of space and time. To us, the reality of space and time seems undeniable. They appear to be fundamental dimensions of the physical world, entirely independent of my or your consciousness. This, said Kant, is because we cannot see the world in any other way. The human mind is so constituted that it is forced to construct its experience within the framework of space and time. Space and time are not, however, fundamental dimensions of the underlying reality. They are fundamental dimensions of consciousness.

 

It was an astonishing claim at the time–and probably still seems astonishing to many of us today–but contemporary physics now lends weight to this extraordinary idea.

 

This pure Mind, the source of everything,

 

Shines forever and on all with the brilliance of its own perfection.

 

But the people of the world do not awake to it,

 

Regarding only that which sees, hears, feels and knows as mind,

 

Blinded by their own sight, hearing, feeling and knowing,

 

of all substance.

 

- Zen Teachings of Huang Po

 

Converging Paradigms

 

The worldviews of science and spirit have not always been as far apart as they are today. Five hundred years ago, there was little difference between them. What science there was existed within the established worldview of the Christian church. Following Copernicus, Descartes and Newton, Western science broke away from the doctrines of monotheistic religion, establishing its own atheistic worldview, which today is now very different indeed from that of traditional religion. But the two can, and I believe eventually will, be reunited. And their meeting point is consciousness. When science sees consciousness to be a fundamental quality of reality, and when religion takes God to be the light of consciousness shining within us all, the two worldviews start to converge.

 

Nothing is lost in this convergence. Mathematics remains the same; so do physics, biology, chemistry. The shift may throw new light on some of the paradoxes of relativity and quantum theory, but the theories themselves do not change. This is a common pattern in paradigm shifts; the new model of reality includes the old as a special case. Einstein’s paradigm shift makes no difference to observers traveling at everyday speeds; as far as we are concerned Newton’s laws of motion still apply. In a parallel way, making consciousness fundamental does not change our understanding of the physical world. It does, however, bring a deeper appreciation of ourselves.

 

The same applies on the spiritual side. Much of the wisdom accumulated over the ages remains unchanged. Forgiveness, kindness, and love are as important as they ever were. Many of the qualities traditionally ascribed to God remain, they being equally applicable to the faculty of consciousness. The difference is that spiritual teachings and scientific knowledge now share a common ground. This too often happens in paradigm shifts. Newton brought terrestrial and celestial mechanics under the same laws. Maxwell integrated electricity, magnetism and light in a single set of equations. With the shift to a consciousness metaparadigm–the paradigm behind the paradigms–the integration goes much further. It is the two halves of humanity’s search for truth that are now brought under the same roof.

 

This meeting of science and spirit is crucial, not just for a more comprehensive understanding of the cosmos, but also for the future of our species. Today, more than ever, we need a worldview that validates spiritual inquiry, for it is the spiritual aridity of our current times that lies behind so many of our crises.

 

- Peter Russell

From Science to God: A Physicist's Journey into the Mystery of Consciousness.

 

These men know only know half the story and what they don't know about is the pleroma of God.

 

 

 

kÓrvanneveha karmÀÍi jijÈviØecchataÌ samÀÕ,

evaÌ tvayi nÀnyatheto'sti na karma lipyate nare (Isha Upanishad, verse 2)

 

2. Doing verily works in this world one should wish to live a hundred years. Thus it is in thee and not otherwise than this; action cleaves not to a man.

 

Just because the empirical reality doesn't exist independent of the human mind the message is definitely not to renounce everything, the message is to work.

 

"Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15).

 

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing."

(Gospel of Philip)

 

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

 

And obviously do research into the pleroma of God. Enough calling the Abrahamic God an evil smuck and ridiculing religion, try arguing with us.

[juanrga]

The charge of Intellectual dishonesty on scientists is well intended and they deserve it, every literature in quantum mechanics from Ballentine up to Zeilinger, Aspelmeyer et al papers is incomplete without the discussion of solipsism and it has been rubbished away as extremely unlikely but what scientists are missing is that there is an alternative rational explanation possible which implies that the human mind is the product of a divine God, I am definitely not a solipsist, I am a realist and I believe God can give an objective account of reality. All it shows is the personal incredulity of scientists still underestimating God and Religion. This time Religion will indeed correct science and its real and its happening. Just because it contradicts their values, their culture and their beliefs scientists simply hold on to realism and simply discard a theistic view of our existence as extremely unlikely, scientists might find it unlikely but theists definitely don't and scientists might escape and run away from the philosophical implications of recent findings but true philosophers will criticize that the current consensus among scientists is wrong and it should be critcized. For true philosophers the prize, the fame, the person, profession, caste, creed, the profound implications is not important, only the truth is important and nothing else matters. The Scientific consensus is definitely wrong and scientists must withdrew the objectivist language that they use while describing their scientific models.

 

This is a repetition [*] of the same unfounded accusations, nonsensical claims, and misinterpretations corrected in the last hundred of posts.

 

 

[*] More correctly it is the repetition of the repetition of the repetition of the repetition...

[immortal]

This is a repetition [*] of the same unfounded accusations, nonsensical claims, and misinterpretations corrected in the last hundred of posts.

 

 

[*] More correctly it is the repetition of the repetition of the repetition of the repetition...

 

 

All it shows is that you're not taking the arguments from the theists side in good faith and going on believing in your falsified beliefs. Have anyone arguing in this thread ever seen things from the perspective of a theist?

 

I have to go the Daniel Dennett's way and be rude with scientists just as he was rude with evolution by Natural selection deniers.

 

“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”

 

- Daniel Dennett

 

"To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that empirical reality is only a state of mind is simply ignorant-inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write."

 

Evolution by Natural Selection is an empirical fact and what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind is also a fact.

 

The Scientific consensus is indeed changing, I hope you can read basic English. When atheists like me and others have changed their minds and become theists implies that there must be a strong reason for it, that we have experimented with ourselves and that we are not talking BS here.

[Ben Banana]

To me, it seems quite apparent that theism is arbitrary and nothing more. Whether theism is arbitrary or not yields a critical truth corresponding to theism as a fact, doesn't it? Do you believe theism is not arbitrary (I suspect you believe so), and if so, could you elaborate in your own argument (please no bogus citations) why?

 

Please read: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arbitrary

 

that we have experimented with ourselves and that we are not talking BS here.

 

Oh, yourself? Not another source? Is it finally time for an argument directly from yourself? Well, then please continue...

 

All it shows is that you're not taking the arguments from the theists side in good faith and going on believing in your falsified beliefs.

I think another remark like this would just be wild. How does it show that at all? Buddy, that's just called your feelings, they're not absolute. In conclusion -- holding away delusion -- you've lost. Now read yourself. Really, you're pulling a dead argument. Could you stop now?

 

The entire nature of this discussion has prominently involved you pulling script-cards ('citations') out of a bag, running out, scratching your head and restarting the cycle. Not only do your sources suck, but also the way you use them doesn't build your argument very well. This is my perspective projected onto the essence of your responses: "Oh, I see you've brought another thing up. I don't have any time to address that myself, so try reading stuff from this webpage and maybe you'll even realize why it's relevant (reading tip: 'oughta be a deluded theist first): <flying spaghetti monster>. That's my counter-argument. Well, um, I'm going to eat some donuts in my laundry room, for some reason, so I'll see you later."

Edited September 16, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[juanrga]

All it shows is that you're not taking the arguments from the theists side in good faith and going on believing in your falsified beliefs. Have anyone arguing in this thread ever seen things from the perspective of a theist?

 

I have to go the Daniel Dennett's way and be rude with scientists just as he was rude with evolution by Natural selection deniers.

 

"To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write."

 

- Daniel Dennett

 

"To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that empirical reality is only a state of mind is simply ignorant-inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write."

 

Evolution by Natural Selection is an empirical fact and what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind is also a fact.

 

The Scientific consensus is indeed changing, I hope you can read basic English. When atheists like me and others have changed their minds and become theists implies that there must be a strong reason for it, that we have experimented with ourselves and that we are not talking BS here.

 

Your repetitive insults are not going to change the facts. You can be all your life calling dishonest to scientists, but the reality is that your fantasies about religion taking the place of science will remain a mere fantasy.

 

At the same time it has been shown that all your 'facts' are a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method and of quantum mechanics, complemented with laughable citations to low quality sources, including pseudo journals with hidden agendas and winners of religious prizes awarded by discredited foundations to nonsensical work.

 

Your misunderstandings of quantum mechanics are not new. A modern textbook on quantum theory was cited and it contains a section where all your nonsenses are corrected. This textbook is written by one of worldwide experts in modern quantum mechanics. You decided to ignore his work. You ignore anyone with serious credentials including Nobel laureates.

 

Many modern papers in top journals such as Nature were cited. Them all show why you are plain wrong. You ignored that too.

 

You pretended that some authors was suporting your point. But they said the contrary in blogs explaining his own work.

 

You can be posting the same nonsense, insults, and insinuations forever. You can be repeating the same mistakes for other 150 posts. Nothing will change. Science has been receiving irrational attacks from religious zealots for several centuries now. But science always win.

Edited September 16, 2012 by juanrga

[immortal]

Your repetitive insults are not going to change the facts. You can be all your life calling dishonest to scientists, but the reality is that your fantasies about religion taking the place of science will remain a mere fantasy.

 

At the same time it has been shown that all your 'facts' are a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method and of quantum mechanics, complemented with laughable citations to low quality sources, including pseudo journals with hidden agendas and winners of religious prizes awarded by discredited foundations to nonsensical work.

 

No I have maintained transparency through out this thread, I have not hidden anything, in fact I have even cared for the emotional concerns of Christians and told them that Yoga is highly religious and its really Blasphemy to their religion and to those Christians who practice it. I think they have been misled by many to practice that which is highly incompatible with their religious doctrine. I have clearly explained my position as to where I stand and the position of Scientists and their positivism. We know now who stands where and which religions say what.

 

And also you accuse the John Templeton Foundation and that's again its your misconceptions.

 

Concept of 'hypercosmic God' wins Templeton Prize

 

 

The "veiled reality", then, can in no way help Christians or Muslims or Jews or anyone else rationalise their specific beliefs. The Templeton Foundation – despite being headed up by John Templeton Jr, an evangelical Christian – claims to afford no bias to any particular religion, and by awarding their prize to d'Espagnat, I think they've proven that to be true.

 

Only you're finding this research offensive but its a hot topic of discussion carried out by scholars, scientists and philosophers worldwide and I really think that some of the religious discussions in this forum is outdated and they are not incorporating new perspectives. Its always the old debate of problem of evil, abiogenesis, Intelligent Design, creation out of nothing, God is the first cause of Big Bang, all this reasoning of combining religion with science is fundamentally flawed. The correct way to approach religion is as outlined in this very thread. You really need to start seeing things from a different perspective.

 

Your misunderstandings of quantum mechanics are not new. A modern textbook on quantum theory was cited and it contains a section where all your nonsenses are corrected. This textbook is written by one of worldwide experts in modern quantum mechanics. You decided to ignore his work. You ignore anyone with serious credentials including Nobel laureates.

 

I did not ignored Griffith's work. Griffith himself says that the belief that the external reality exists independent of the human mind is just a matter of faith and this is the positivist philosophy and I have shown that this positivism of science is flawed and it can be questioned and as Bernard D'Espagnat says its a welcome illumination.

 

Many modern papers in top journals such as Nature were cited. Them all show why you are plain wrong. You ignored that too.

 

Even I cited from Nature, Sciencedirect etc and you were personally biased and made sweeping statements with no arguments that those researchers are wrong. What's ironic here is how you're denying a serious line of research, take all the research funding you want for your scientific research, build as large particle accelerators you want but what you're not understanding is that quantum entanglement is at the very heart of reconciling QM with gravity and you scientists still don't have a clear picture on that.

 

You pretended that some authors was suporting your point. But they said the contrary in blogs explaining his own work.

 

Its true that Matt Leifer supports Bernard, Anton Zielinger's position and that paper no where a threat to this interpretation of QM.

 

You can be posting the same nonsense, insults, and insinuations forever. You can be repeating the same mistakes for other 150 posts. Nothing will change. Science has been receiving irrational attacks from religious zealots for several centuries now. But science always win.

 

As I always said you're pushing science as an ideology, as a religion and more properly to say as an atheistic religion, science is unbiased towards the existence of God and your personal opinions don't matter. I don't need to attack science because science and religion are converging at one point.

 

To me, it seems quite apparent that theism is arbitrary and nothing more. Whether theism is arbitrary or not yields a critical truth corresponding to theism as a fact, doesn't it? Do you believe theism is not arbitrary (I suspect you believe so), and if so, could you elaborate in your own argument (please no bogus citations) why?

 

Please read: http://en.wiktionary.../wiki/arbitrary

 

 

 

Oh, yourself? Not another source? Is it finally time for an argument directly from yourself? Well, then please continue...

 

 

I think another remark like this would just be wild. How does it show that at all? Buddy, that's just called your feelings, they're not absolute. In conclusion -- holding away delusion -- you've lost. Now read yourself. Really, you're pulling a dead argument. Could you stop now?

 

The entire nature of this discussion has prominently involved you pulling script-cards ('citations') out of a bag, running out, scratching your head and restarting the cycle. Not only do your sources suck, but also the way you use them doesn't build your argument very well. This is my perspective projected onto the essence of your responses: "Oh, I see you've brought another thing up. I don't have any time to address that myself, so try reading stuff from this webpage and maybe you'll even realize why it's relevant (reading tip: 'oughta be a deluded theist first): <flying spaghetti monster>. That's my counter-argument. Well, um, I'm going to eat some donuts in my laundry room, for some reason, so I'll see you later."

 

All those links and sources where posted to show that this is not a pseudo-religious claim. Its based on genuine religions and there are religions out there backing up these arguments and obviously you don't want to read those links and think in their perspective and you still haven't seen things from the perspective of a theist or from a religious scholar. As I said I am not the one to blame if people cannot figure out genuine religions from pseudo-religions and genuine Science from pseudo-science.

 

Religion is concerned with the noumenon and obviously one needs to have non-positivist methods to access the noumenon and therefore it cannot be based on the scientific method. This is not science but that doesn't mean its all bogus and that we don't need to research it. All I want is that you acknowledge this line of research and at least allow us to make you aware that we exist and investigating the pleroma of God is an active research and it can be as fruitful as anything else. I obviously don't need any followers for this, just leave us alone but for god sake don't ridicule it because there are genuine scientific arguments backing up this research.

 

 

Gospel of Thomas says, "The kingdom of heaven is spread out upon the earth, but men don't see it."

Its true that men don't see it, wow, what an affirmative claim on the nature of reality and your attitude shows that you really doesn't want to see it but sorry I want to see it and I want to do research on it because I am a theist.

 

I really don't care who wrote the Gospel of Thomas or who taught them to whom, its definitely sounds like Neoplatonic thought, the religion of the Greeks and what I find undeniable is the similarities between every single ontological statements made by Elaine Pagels on the heretical religion of the Greeks and the Smarthas view of religion of the South Indians and its undeniable. Is this coincidence or where they were able to access a reality which we have not yet made an effort to access to. I hold one of the most liberal thoughts between religion and science. I am definitely not a religious zealot. I guess just leave me alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[juanrga]

No I have maintained transparency through out this thread, I have not hidden anything, in fact I have even cared for the emotional concerns of Christians and told them that Yoga is highly religious and its really Blasphemy to their religion and to those Christians who practice it. I think they have been misled by many to practice that which is highly incompatible with their religious doctrine. I have clearly explained my position as to where I stand and the position of Scientists and their positivism. We know now who stands where and which religions say what.

 

And also you accuse the John Templeton Foundation and that's again its your misconceptions.

 

Concept of 'hypercosmic God' wins Templeton Prize

 

Only you're finding this research offensive but its a hot topic of discussion carried out by scholars, scientists and philosophers worldwide and I really think that some of the religious discussions in this forum is outdated and they are not incorporating new perspectives. Its always the old debate of problem of evil, abiogenesis, Intelligent Design, creation out of nothing, God is the first cause of Big Bang, all this reasoning of combining religion with science is fundamentally flawed. The correct way to approach religion is as outlined in this very thread. You really need to start seeing things from a different perspective.

 

 

 

I did not ignored Griffith's work. Griffith himself says that the belief that the external reality exists independent of the human mind is just a matter of faith and this is the positivist philosophy and I have shown that this positivism of science is flawed and it can be questioned and as Bernard D'Espagnat says its a welcome illumination.

 

 

 

Even I cited from Nature, Sciencedirect etc and you were personally biased and made sweeping statements with no arguments that those researchers are wrong. What's ironic here is how you're denying a serious line of research, take all the research funding you want for your scientific research, build as large particle accelerators you want but what you're not understanding is that quantum entanglement is at the very heart of reconciling QM with gravity and you scientists still don't have a clear picture on that.

 

 

 

Its true that Matt Leifer supports Bernard, Anton Zielinger's position and that paper no where a threat to this interpretation of QM.

 

 

 

As I always said you're pushing science as an ideology, as a religion and more properly to say as an atheistic religion, science is unbiased towards the existence of God and your personal opinions don't matter. I don't need to attack science because science and religion are converging at one point.

 

 

 

All those links and sources where posted to show that this is not a pseudo-religious claim. Its based on genuine religions and there are religions out there backing up these arguments and obviously you don't want to read those links and think in their perspective and you still haven't seen things from the perspective of a theist or from a religious scholar. As I said I am not the one to blame if people cannot figure out genuine religions from pseudo-religions and genuine Science from pseudo-science.

 

Religion is concerned with the noumenon and obviously one needs to have non-positivist methods to access the noumenon and therefore it cannot be based on the scientific method. This is not science but that doesn't mean its all bogus and that we don't need to research it. All I want is that you acknowledge this line of research and at least allow us to make you aware that we exist and investigating the pleroma of God is an active research and it can be as fruitful as anything else. I obviously don't need any followers for this, just leave us alone but for god sake don't ridicule it because there are genuine scientific arguments backing up this research.

 

 

Gospel of Thomas says, "The kingdom of heaven is spread out upon the earth, but men don't see it."

Its true that men don't see it, wow, what an affirmative claim on the nature of reality and your attitude shows that you really doesn't want to see it but sorry I want to see it and I want to do research on it because I am a theist.

 

I really don't care who wrote the Gospel of Thomas or who taught them to whom, its definitely sounds like Neoplatonic thought, the religion of the Greeks and what I find undeniable is the similarities between every single ontological statements made by Elaine Pagels on the heretical religion of the Greeks and the Smarthas view of religion of the South Indians and its undeniable. Is this coincidence or where they were able to access a reality which we have not yet made an effort to access to. I hold one of the most liberal thoughts between religion and science. I am definitely not a religious zealot. I guess just leave me alone.

 

And you re-start the cycle again with exactly the same misunderstandings, the same unfounded claims, the same misreadings, the same insinuations and personal attacks, ignoring the questions made to you, ignoring the advice given to you, and ignoring the same corrections given to you in the last nth cycle.

[immortal]

Will you and others ever try to learn what different cultures of the world are saying or now will you deny the histories too and the esoteric knowledge hidden in the scriptures.?

 

Both the philosopher Plato and the philosophy of the Upanishads have been saying the same thing.

 

Chariot Allegory - Plato

 

 

Katha Upanishad

 

 

Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism are not the only religions in this world. There is an another religion called as the Vedic Aryan religion. Which religion in this 21st century world provides a clear cut methodology to access the noumenon of the world? Esotercism is as valid a discipline as anything else.

 

My link

 

 

These explanations are provided here to illustrate how our ancient masters have, by their insight, study and research, understood how the various organs of the body can be kept in optimal and strong functioning levels. Their knowledge and understanding of the externals and the internals are amazing. Modern science is only gradually scratching the surface of the vast knowledge hidden in our hoary scriptures and in the practices of our Rishis.

 

The Lucas-Penrose Argument about Gödel’s Theorem

 

 

I don't think anyone can simulate human conscious thought ever, Science has found God, Our traditional scholars have been arguing for centuries that there is a metaphysical mind and that Intelligence exists in Platonic realms. Its time we take Plato's thoughts as he literally took it i.e his Platonic realism. Either come up with a machine capable of strong AI simulating human conscious thought or I will never give up unless you accept that this God hypothesis is a competing hypothesis from a different philosophical discipline along side other scientific hypotheses which gives a rational explanation for the origin of cosmos. Philosophy is not dead and neither is God.

 

índra? várdhanto aptúra? k??vánto vísvam âryam apaghnánto árav?a?

"[the Soma-drops], performing every noble work, active, augmenting Indra's strength, driving away the godless ones." (trans. Griffith)

 

Or else I have to go with my old ways and drive away the godless ones from this earth and Aryas exists solely for this purpose.

 

Its true that the Upanishads is filled with esoteric knowledge. C'mon you guys are intelligent and matured enough to understand this.

 

Chāndogya Upaniṣad

 

 

The fifth chapter starts with a fable proclaiming the superiority of life breath over other senses. An esoteric knowledge of Five Fires (Panchangi Vidya) is also described. The concept of Vaishvanara Atman is also elucidated in this chapter.[4]

 

 

Why don't you consider this advice instead?

[Ben Banana]

I really don't care who wrote the Gospel of Thomas or who taught them to whom

 

What do you care about the Gospel of Thomas? Tell me precisely.

 

Read this after you respond with a good answer:

 

You are in fact not supporting your argument at all. You're retaining a self-affirming feedback loop.

 

[juanrga]

Will you and others ever try to learn what different cultures of the world are saying or now will you deny the histories too and the esoteric knowledge hidden in the scriptures.?

 

Both the philosopher Plato and the philosophy of the Upanishads have been saying the same thing.

 

Chariot Allegory - Plato

 

 

Katha Upanishad

 

 

Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism are not the only religions in this world. There is an another religion called as the Vedic Aryan religion. Which religion in this 21st century world provides a clear cut methodology to access the noumenon of the world? Esotercism is as valid a discipline as anything else.

 

My link

 

 

 

 

The Lucas-Penrose Argument about Gödel's Theorem

 

 

I don't think anyone can simulate human conscious thought ever, Science has found God, Our traditional scholars have been arguing for centuries that there is a metaphysical mind and that Intelligence exists in Platonic realms. Its time we take Plato's thoughts as he literally took it i.e his Platonic realism. Either come up with a machine capable of strong AI simulating human conscious thought or I will never give up unless you accept that this God hypothesis is a competing hypothesis from a different philosophical discipline along side other scientific hypotheses which gives a rational explanation for the origin of cosmos. Philosophy is not dead and neither is God.

 

índra? várdhanto aptúra? k??vánto vísvam âryam apaghnánto árav?a?

"[the Soma-drops], performing every noble work, active, augmenting Indra's strength, driving away the godless ones." (trans. Griffith)

 

Or else I have to go with my old ways and drive away the godless ones from this earth and Aryas exists solely for this purpose.

 

Its true that the Upanishads is filled with esoteric knowledge. C'mon you guys are intelligent and matured enough to understand this.

 

Chāndogya Upaniṣad

 

Why don't you consider this advice instead?

 

The same misunderstandings. The same insinuations. You restart the cycle once again.

[immortal]

What do you care about the Gospel of Thomas? Tell me precisely.

 

Read this after you respond with a good answer:

 

You are in fact not supporting your argument at all. You're retaining a self-affirming feedback loop.

 

 

 

I care for the whole Gnostic thought, not just the Gospel of Thomas, the whole Gnostic thought is based on "Pleroma". If you want to know more about as to what Pleroma is then read these links, Pleroma - Wikipedia, Seven Sermons to the Dead.

 

 

You guys should really listen to this three part interview with Dr. Roger Woolger. Please see all the three parts of it.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=kY-STjNnHRQ&NR=1

 

 

The Holy Grail of the Unconscious - The New York times.

 

 

The family members of Carl Jung might have kept it secret for these many years from the outside public but the family members of Devudu Narasimha Shastry have published his works long time ago and only one of his works is translated into English and his other works are not yet translated into English yet.

 

What I am showing and arguing here is that the Pleroma of the Gnostics is equivalent to the Agnisoma Mandala of the Vedic Aryan Religion.

 

We must, therefore, distinguish the qualities of the pleroma. The qualities are pairs of opposites, such as—

 

The Effective and the Ineffective.

Fullness and Emptiness.

Living and Dead.

Difference and Sameness.

Light and Darkness.

The Hot and the Cold.

Force and Matter.

Time and Space.

Good and Evil.

Beauty and Ugliness.

The One and the Many. etc.

The pairs of opposites are qualities of the pleroma which are not, because each balanceth each. As we are the pleroma itself, we also have all these qualities in us. Because the very ground of our nature is distinctiveness, therefore we have these qualities in the name and sign of distinctiveness, which meaneth—

 

1. These qualities are distinct and separate in us one from the other; therefore they are not balanced and void, but are effective. Thus are we the victims of the pairs of opposites. The pleroma is rent in us.

2. The qualities belong to the pleroma, and only in the name and sign of distinctiveness can and must we possess or live them. We must distinguish ourselves from qualities. In the pleroma they are balanced and void; in us not. Being distinguished from them delivereth us.

 

- Seven Sermons to the Dead, the Summary of the Red Book.

Carl Jung

 

This union or oneness of two seemingly mutually opposite qualities is the root (or source) of all birth and this exists everywhere and in everything.

 

- Devudu Narasimha Shastry, the Summary of MahaBrahmana.

 

I don't think you will find these insights anywhere where the Pleroma of the Gnostics is identified with the Agnisoma Mandala of the Vedic Aryan Religion. I put forward a powerful argument showing that the Mediteranean religions of the Near east and the Eastern Religions of the far east were able to access the same ultimate reality and that this reality is currently out there right now to be accessed. This is a liberal thought and by studying the view points of different cultures one indeed becomes liberal rather than saying "You'll go to hell if you don't surrender to this A god or B god". The works of both Devudu Narasimha Shastry and Carl Jung are enough to show to this world that -

 

“Gods are real.

And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of

existence, all aspects of human life.”

-James Hillman

 

I think science and orthodox religions of the world will be reshaped and redefined by these recent perspectives and I think Esotericism will be more powerful than Science and orthodox religions. Its time we accept and appreciate this new perspectives from Quantum Mechanics, Molecular Biology, Works of Roger Penrose and Bernard D'Espagnat on the nature of the human mind and Reality, Experiments on Bell Inequality and Scientific Realism, the works of scholars on Gnosticism and the wealth of knowledge which already exists in this matter from the eastern religions. Its not the death of Gods, its the return of the Gods. Just because I am aware of all these recent works and findings I better accept this new perspective and this new consensus which is slowly emerging. As I said more and more scientists, psychologists, scholars and philosophers are leading us to an esoteric worldview. I think this knowledge belongs to the people of the world.

 

"There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments."

 

As I have shown there is indeed an ultimate reality and the world will be no longer the same place again and I think we are seeing a revolution on how we see our world.

 

All these evidences is enough to compel anyone to do research into the Pleroma of God and I will continue to do it.

 

According to the psychologist David Fontana, Mandala's symbolic nature can help one "to access progressively deeper levels of the unconscious, ultimately assisting the meditator to experience a mystical sense of oneness with the ultimate unity from which the cosmos in all its manifold forms arises."

 

Let's see who is deluded and who is not.

[Ben Banana]

I care for the whole Gnostic thought

 

WHY!?

[akh]

I think you offered a zombie as evidence. In fact, I think it is the only empirical evidence you have actually offered. Where's my zombie? I don't care what type of zombie, any will do.

[immortal]

WHY!?

 

 

How many religions do you think I have discussed in this very thread? There is Bhuddhism, Tibetian Vajraism, Hinduism, Christianity, Hellenic Philosophy, Judaism etc. I care for the common esoteric essence hidden in all the major recognized religions of the world. There is no disctinction between the east and the west, our roots come from a common single point where all the mutual opposites meet at a single point, the west called this the Pleroma and the east called it the Mandala.

 

Defining Esotericism- Wiki

 

Among the competing understandings of what unites the various currents designated by "Esotericism" in the scholarly sense, perhaps the most influential has been proposed by Antoine Faivre. His definition is based on the presence in the esoteric currents of four essential characteristics: a theory of correspondences between all parts of the invisible and the visible cosmos, the conviction that nature is a living entity owing to a divine presence or life-force, the need for mediating elements (such as symbols, rituals, angels, visions) in order to access spiritual knowledge, and, fourthly, an experience of personal and spiritual transmutation when arriving at this knowledge. To this are added two non-intrinsic characteristics. Esotericists frequently suggest that there is a concordance between different religious traditions: best example is the belief in prisca theologia (ancient theology) or in philosophia perennis (perennial philosophy). Finally, esotericism sometimes suggests the idea of a secret transmission of spiritual teachings, through initiation from master to disciple.[8] It should, however, be emphasized that Faivre's definition is one of several divergent understandings of the most appropriate use of the term.

 

I think you offered a zombie as evidence. In fact, I think it is the only empirical evidence you have actually offered. Where's my zombie? I don't care what type of zombie, any will do.

 

Find a genuine Buddhist Necromancer or a genuine Tantric. That's rather the dark side of religion.

 

Phowa - There is enough scientific literature available on this.

 

 

But that's not the only evidence that I provided. The existence of life force is at the very heart of the Quantum Mind-Body problem.

[juanrga]

But that's not the only evidence that I provided. The existence of life force is at the very heart of the Quantum Mind-Body problem.

 

That is not scientific evidence, but a philosophical interpretation which (i) makes no sense and (ii) is not compatible with observations/experiments. From your own link:

 

There are other possible solutions to the "Wigner's friend" thought experiment, which do not require consciousness to be different from other physical processes. Moreover, Wigner actually shifted to those interpretations (and away from "consciousness causes collapse") in his later years. This was partly because he was embarrassed that "consciousness causes collapse" can lead to a kind of solipsism, but also because he decided that he had been wrong to try to apply quantum physics at the scale of every day life (specifically, he rejected his initial idea of treating macroscopic objects as isolated systems—as one might microscopic objects).[31] See, Consciousness and Superposition.

 

Recently, it has been argued that the results of delayed choice quantum eraser experiments effectively preclude this interpretation.[32]. Other researchers have expressed similar objections to the introduction of any subjective element in the collapse of the wavefunction. [33][34][35]

 

To many scientists this interpretation fails a priori to compete with other interpretations of quantum mechanics because "consciousness causes collapse" relies upon a dualistic philosophy of mind (in particular, a radical interactionism), which is inconsistent with the materialist monism presupposed by many physicists.[16] The measurement problem not withstanding, they point to a causal closure of physics, suggesting a problem with how consciousness and matter might interact, reminiscent of objections to Descartes' substance dualism. Some physicists conclude that science's success at modeling the world materialistically—without reference to mental properties—vindicates that neglect. Psychology, on the other hand, has benefited from "an intellectual stampede" following Francis Crick and Christof Koch's challenge in 1990, that the time is ripe to tackle consciousness.[16] Wigner accused materialist scientists of "exalting the problem [of the study of physical phenomena]".[5] See also, Orch-OR.

 

Consciousness causes collapse theory does not explain which things have sufficient consciousness to collapse the wave function. A more fundamental issue is that it posits an important role for the conscious mind, and it has been questioned how this could be the case for the earlier universe, before consciousness had evolved or emerged. It has been argued that "[consciousness causes collapse] does not allow sensible discussion of Big Bang cosmology or biological evolution, at least on the assumption of an atheistic universe.[16] For example, as Roger Penrose put it, "[T]he evolution of conscious life on this planet is due to appropriate mutations having taken place at various times. These, presumably, are quantum events, so they would exist only in linearly superposed form until they finally led to the evolution of a conscious being—whose very existence depends on all the right mutations having 'actually' taken place!"[36]

 

Others further suppose a universal mind (see also pantheism and panentheism). To most physicists, including David Bohm and Basil Hiley, this merely pushes the problem back, which some see as a fatal unparsimonious move in a competition with other theories. Physicist Victor Stenger says that the "myth" of quantum consciousness has no scientific basis, nor does "the related belief that the human mind commands special powers—psychic forces—that transcend the material universe".[37]

 

Let me repeat the last part: the "myth" of quantum consciousness has no scientific basis, nor does "the related belief that the human mind commands special powers—psychic forces—that transcend the material universe". This is essentially what I have been demonstrating to you during last hundred of posts.

Edited September 19, 2012 by juanrga

[Ben Banana]

I care for the common esoteric essence hidden in all the major recognized religions of the world.

 

*sigh* WHY SO!? Seriously. Don't expand on what it means. Tell me why you care.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[immortal]

That is not scientific evidence, but a philosophical interpretation which (i) makes no sense and (ii) is not compatible with observations/experiments. From your own link:

 

Yes, this is from Philosophy, especially from Religion. This is what Religion has to offer us and it can be testable.

 

Let me repeat the last part: the "myth" of quantum consciousness has no scientific basis, nor does "the related belief that the human mind commands special powers—psychic forces—that transcend the material universe". This is essentially what I have been demonstrating to you during last hundred of posts.

 

My argument is not from quantum consciousness, I know that's rubbish but my argument is from serious Religion. See how things change when seen from my perspective. I am going to reveal the crux of my argument.

 

Crux - The crux of a problem or argument is the most important or difficult part of it which affects everything else.

 

 

In other words, measuring those properties is what brings them into existence. "Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality," says quantum researcher Vlatko Vedral of the University of Leeds, UK.

 

This idea may not be new, but the evidence for it is, and it could have serious implications for a theory of everything: it tells us that what we think of as real is not necessarily so. "We know from our experience that there is a 'real' world with 'real' physical events, starting from clicks in a detector in the laboratory to experiencing a headache after too many beers," Aspelmeyer says. But that doesn't mean our physical theories ought to slavishly follow that experience, he points out – perhaps they need to dig deeper.

 

While quantum researchers may find this satisfying, it raises deep concerns for anyone attempting to unify the universe. Genera relativity, Einstein's theory of gravity, is fully realistic – it relies on things existing independent of measurements. So the search for a theory of everything, which involves uniting quantum physics with general relativity, may be even more difficult than we thought. "It is not at all clear how to construct a theory of gravity that is not real, which is what we need to do if we want to quantise gravity," Vedral says.

 

Atheistic Scientists no longer have any right to criticize the beliefs of theists as irrational any more when they themselves have no clue as to what the nature of reality actually is.

 

What is Intelligence? Does Intelligence exist in platonic realms? Are strong Platonists like Roger Penrose correct in saying that strong AI is impossible?

 

We all are aware of the metaphor of the Sun and the allegory of the cave of Plato in his dialectic work 'The Republic' where he espouses his theory of forms that the highest form of eternal knowledge exists in a different realm and that we can grasp these abstract forms which are eternal and unchanging to describe a world which is always changing.

 

"Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine."

 

– Kurt Gödel

 

"Gödel's Theorem shows that human thought is more complex and less mechanical than anyone had ever believed"

 

- Rudy Rucker

 

 

 

Gödel through his Incompleteness theorems showed that there were Gödel statements for which we could know the truth value of these statements even though they were un-provable using the same axiomatic systems which those statements were derived from. This showed that mathematics can never be both complete as well as consistent.

 

This basic fact which showed that human beings can solve problems or answer questions for which no algorithm exists to prove the truth value of such statements led to the conclusion that human thought was in no way identical to the mechanical computations carried on such computational machines like the Turing machines.

 

Roger Penrose developed Gödel's ideas and put forward a more substantial argument to show that strong AI is impossible and asserted that there is an element ofnon-computability in human thought which the current physics cannot in any way explain. So what does the eastern traditional school of thought have to say about this? This is what is discussed in the next section.

 

"See Yajnavalkya, first we take up Panchathma Sankramana and Avastatraya techniques. Before going to Avastatraya there is much to know about it. Liberated men can go from one state to another using divine knowledge. The knower of this knowledge should be an eye-witness to this process, for him different states like dream, sleep should be like entering and leaving different rooms. This is impossible without knowing that divine knowledge and as long as this cannot happen one cannot be a knower."

 

Acharya continued, "During the ending of the state of awareness and in the beginning of the dream state this new state should be experienced. When the mind disentangles itself with the sense organs and when it is not yet entangled with the organs of the dream this should be seen. When the mind is entangled with the sense organs and with the casket of intelligence it will look like a stretched tied rope. If not, if the mind is disentangled with the sense organs and is only in entanglement with the casket of intelligence then it will be like a hanging untied rope and becomes non-functional even though it exists. In this new state which is not the dream, sleep or the aware state one will have revelation. When it happens it is not awareness; it is not dream; it is not deep sleep either. The one who has mastered the art of intuitive access to the numinous in this state will be a true philosopher knowing the thing in itself and not how it appears to us. Like this when both the awake and the sleep state does not seem to exist even though it exist then one can have the great revelations, did you understood Yajnavalkya.

 

Yajnvalkya who was born for a divine purpose, influenced by the words of Acharya went into such a state of experience immediately, then Acharya said,

 

"See, Yajnavalkya, see when you are in that state see who is holding you from falling down? See who is pulling you up?"

 

Yajnvalkya saw, "The thing which is pulling me up is Sun's rays. I am not on earth or the sky, I am in outer space. A goddess is holding me from falling down with her arms stretched. If I ask she says "I am from the pantheon of Sun, know this much for now" and diverts my awareness and as my awareness is diverted the Sun's rays begin to disappear but the feeling of someone pulling me up and holding me from falling down has not gone".

 

"What all you saw Yajnavalkya?

 

What shall I say Acharya? I have no words to describe what I saw therefore if I say something wrong please forgive me. First some lucky object rolled over and fell from the Broomadhya(one of the places where Jiva resides) then the head was about to fall forward but someone becalmed it as it was dropping down and held it there. Someone took the object which was dropping inside and held it there. I felt like the place where I stood was not the earth, not the sky but soon I realized that it was outside space. There your speech was not like the way we speak with each other instead it was like actions stimulated by someone. On one side Aditya's rays on the other side a goddess belonging to the pantheon of Aditya. Both of them were holding a luminous system. I felt like I myself am that lustrous system. On beside me as you said a rope-like object was hanging down and that lustrous system was equipped with a casket. As though I am light itself there was light everywhere.

 

"That casket is called Intelligence (Buddhi),yajnavalkya and that hanging rope-like object is the mind (Manas) and the goddess who held you from falling down is Ushadevi. Here she came, give your sacrifices to her with the Ushasukta of the Rig Veda." said Acharya.

 

Both Acharya and his wife were standing there praying until Yajnavalkya's experience was completely over.

 

After everything finished Acharya said, "Yajnavalkya, today you experienced the truth, from here you have earned the authority to study the philosophical scriptures, what happened now was a true revelation. If you clearly understand the philosophy behind it then it will become a Great Revelation."

 

-Devudu (Mahadarshana)

 

Devudu Narasimha Shastry. Mahadarshana in Kannada (English version not available).Bangalore: Devudu Press.

 

 

Since the positivism of science has spread across all fields of our investigation there is not only confusion as to what is real and what is not but other eastern traditions having a different epistemology are rarely taught or taken seriously by anyone in the academic.

 

The eastern traditions have non-positivist methods based on a different epistemology which give us the actual nature of the physical world and positively assert that these things do exist in a Platonic realm and the fundamental principle of the Aryans says that it is God who stimulates and direct our thoughts (Buddhi).

 

Conclusion

 

According to these esoteric religions it is very unlikely that God had used the Big Bang or the DNA to create the universe or the Humans in it and these religions enforce upon us to abandon such form of thinking at least when one is arguing based on these esoteric religions. It should be emphasized that there can be only one reality in the external physical world and if the objects of modern science like quarks, protons, electrons exist independent of the mind i.e. if scientific realism turns out to be true then the metaphysical world of the esotericists will be falsified. As one of the necessary postulates required for the existence of the metaphysical worlds of the above mentioned esoteric religions is that scientific realism must be false and such a test will guide us whether to abandon this form of esoteric thinking and move an alternative way forward or to move in the direction of our ancients.

 

---

 

I am with Bernard D'Espagnat and Roger Penrose.

 

 

The second phowa is known as thephowa of the sambhogakaya. The sambhogakaya phowa involves seeing everything as the mandala of the deities, wrathful and peaceful, as in the zhi-khro practice itself.

 

ALL PHENOMENA APPEAR AS THE MANDALA OF THE PEACEFUL AND WRATHFUL DEITIES. THESE DEITIES DISSOLVE AS A RAINBOW IN THE SKY. RELAX THE MIND IN THE NATURAL STATE WHICH IS THE UNION OF APPEARANCE AND EMPTINESS, FREE FROM COMPLEXITIES. ALL SOUNDS ARE THE SPEECH OF THE WRATHFUL AND PEACEFUL DEITIES. THIS EMPTINESS SOUND DISSOLVES AS THE DRAGON'S VOICE OF THUNDER DISAPPEARSIN THE SKY

 

This describes the completion stage practice. Learn to merge your mind with Everything in the mandala, just be part of the as-it-is and relax into that nature. This is known as the transference of consciousness through the sambhogakaya.

 

 

- A commentary on KARMA LINGPA'S ZHI-KHRO, Tibetian Buddhism.

 

This is the very soul of Religion and it is in all the religions of the world. Science cannot get beyond mere appearances of the phenomena, only Religion can and this is the need of Religion in this 21st century world. To give us a complete model of the cosmos which we are living in.

 

*sigh* WHY SO!? Seriously. Don't expand on what it means. Tell me why you care.

 

It is because Bernard D'Epsagnat and many others who argue for a God hypothesis are Intellectually honest and I am with them. We have arrived at this conclusion by looking at the amazing available evidence in both Religion and Science.

 

 

"The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in."

 

- Bernard D'Espagnat

 

Its not going change the world in any way as Carl Jung says Good and Evil are rent in us, we have to bear it and get through it but this statement by Bernard D'espagnat that "There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about" is absolutely true.

Edited September 20, 2012 by immortal

[juanrga]

Yes, this is from Philosophy, especially from Religion. This is what Religion has to offer us and it can be testable.

 

It is philosophy, not religion. Religion is not testable. The difference between science and religion was addressed before as well.

 

My argument is not from quantum consciousness, I know that's rubbish

 

But you ignore the second part of the quote. That saying that the belief that the human mind has special powers that trascend the material universe is also rubbish. I already explained to you that, for instance, that the human mind plays absolutely no role in quantum mechanics. Only a small minory of 'mistics' who misunderstand quantum mechanics still believe the contrary.

[immortal]

It is philosophy, not religion. Religion is not testable. The difference between science and religion was addressed before as well.

 

That's a big joke, people are getting hurt and falling unconscious while trying to test religious claims, you need to wake up to this fact. Science is not all there is.

 

But you ignore the second part of the quote. That saying that the belief that the human mind has special powers that trascend the material universe is also rubbish. I already explained to you that, for instance, that the human mind plays absolutely no role in quantum mechanics. Only a small minory of 'mistics' who misunderstand quantum mechanics still believe the contrary.

 

I very well know that the epistemology of science is different from the epistemology of Religion, I doesn't want to mix science and religion based on the same epistemological ground but there is a common point at which they both are converging.

 

 

The real reason we are seeking a complete theory, is that we want to understand the universe, and feel we are not just the victims of dark and mysterious forces.iF we understand the universe, then we control it, in a sense. The standard model is clearly unsatisfactory in this respect. fIrst of all, it is ugly and ad hoc.tHe particles are grouped in an apparently arbitrary way, and the standard model depends on 24 numbers, whose values can not be deduced from first principles, but which have to be chosen to fit the observations. What understanding is there in that?cAn it be Nature's last word.

 

- Stephen Hawking

 

This God hypothesis lies outside of science, it is from Religion and you just cannot decide what's rubbish and what's not, don't think that you completely understand the nature around you and other ways of knowing things should be allowed.

 

Science Cannot Fully Describe Reality, Says Templeton Prize Winner

 

 

As said, there are other philosophical disciplines waiting to explain the nature of our cosmos based on a different epistemology, see above. Nature is fuzzy, its wrong to make concrete perspectives of the nature of reality which we are living in.

 

 

 

 

[Ben Banana]

Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine

 

Are you silly enough to be teased by the thought that he (possibly) preferred the human mind being more than a mere machine? Just from my recollection, he never specified which he believed in most anyway. Also, I think this is a silly prompt of Kurt. A lot of things are too big for the human mind, because otherwise we're omniscient; but the capacity of the human brain is astronomical.

 

Gödel's Theorem shows that human thought is more complex and less mechanical than anyone had ever believed

Or it shows that they don't understand any mechanics relevant to understanding intelligence. Shows... shows... Ahh, Vegas is not the right place for this discussion!

 

This basic fact which showed that human beings can solve problems or answer questions for which no algorithm exists to prove the truth value of such statements led to the conclusion that human thought was in no way identical to the mechanical computations carried on such computational machines like the Turing machines.

No it doesn't. You're making an obvious exploitation of Godel's incompleteness theorems.

 

1. Whoever believes that statement assumes consistency is a principle at the ultimatum of comprehension... which is a very shallow assumption. The ability to "solve problems or answer questions" is extremely distant from Godel's work. What the hell are you thinking!?

2. Those evil "algorithms" are simply better at proving things than humans are. This is irrelevant anyway.

 

"like the Turing machines." The Turing machines? You mean the Turing machine? (it's a theoretical model, not a physical machine)

In my opinion, I think Turing completely misunderstood intelligence.

 

 

It is because Bernard D'Epsagnat and many others who argue for a God hypothesis are Intellectually honest and I am with them. We have arrived at this conclusion by looking at the amazing available evidence in both Religion and Science.

 

 

"The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in."

 

They are intellectually honest? Okay... and there's amazing available evidence? Um... okay then (haha, no). So how the hell does this amazing available evidence correspond to your arbitrary ideas? Are you sure the amazing evidence is not counter-productively proving the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, rather than your cheese cake?

 

In a nutshell: Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

 

or in other-words, we're all about honestly understanding, not about having good ideas. It's incredibly easy to get lost in the possibility that an attractive idea you have is so special that it's worth more than the brains of everyone around you. This doesn't mean you're not 'intellectually honest,' it suggests that you're sincerely misguided.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[immortal]

Are you silly enough to be teased by the thought that he (possibly) preferred the human mind being more than a mere machine? Just from my recollection, he never specified which he believed in most anyway. Also, I think this is a silly prompt of Kurt. A lot of things are too big for the human mind, because otherwise we're omniscient; but the capacity of the human brain is astronomical.

 

In fact Kurt Gödel was the first one to start the argument.

 

 

4. Gödel’s Own View

One interesting question that has not yet been addressed is: what did Gödel think his first incompleteness theorem implied about mechanism and the mind in general? Gödel, who discussed his views on this issue in his famous “Gibbs lecture” in 1951, stated,

 

So the following disjunctive conclusion is inevitable: Either mathematics is incompletable in this sense, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that is to say, the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems of the type specified . . . (Gödel 1995: 310).

 

That is, his result shows that either (i) the human mind is not a Turing machine or (ii) there are certain unsolvable mathematical problems. However, Lucas (1998: paragraph 1) goes even further and argues “it is clear that Gödel thought the second disjunct false,” that is Gödel “was implicitly denying that any Turing machine could emulate the powers of the human mind.” So, perhaps the first thinker to endorse a version of the Lucas-Penrose argument was Gödel himself.

 

 

Or it shows that they don't understand any mechanics relevant to understanding intelligence. Shows... shows... Ahh, Vegas is not the right place for this discussion!

 

 

No it doesn't. You're making an obvious exploitation of Godel's incompleteness theorems.

 

1. Whoever believes that statement assumes consistency is a principle at the ultimatum of comprehension... which is a very shallow assumption. The ability to "solve problems or answer questions" is extremely distant from Godel's work. What the hell are you thinking!?

2. Those evil "algorithms" are simply better at proving things than humans are. This is irrelevant anyway.

 

"like the Turing machines." The Turing machines? You mean the Turing machine? (it's a theoretical model, not a physical machine)

In my opinion, I think Turing completely misunderstood intelligence.

 

The arguments against strong AI have been already laid out by Lucas and Penrose.

 

The Lucas-Penrose Argument about Gödel’s Theorem

 

I don't think anyone can simulate conscious thought ever.

 

They are intellectually honest? Okay... and there's amazing available evidence? Um... okay then (haha, no). So how the hell does this amazing available evidence correspond to your arbitrary ideas? Are you sure the amazing evidence is not counter-productively proving the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, rather than your cheese cake?

 

In a nutshell: Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

 

or in other-words, we're all about honestly understanding, not about having good ideas. It's incredibly easy to get lost in the possibility that an attractive idea you have is so special that it's worth more than the brains of everyone around you. This doesn't mean you're not 'intellectually honest,' it suggests that you're sincerely misguided.

 

Or it suggests that you doesn't want to learn anything about religion and what other scientists who argue for a God hypothesis are saying, did you watched the David Mermin video, the recent findings in science and religion are leading us to an anthropomorphic theistic view of our existence.

[Ben Banana]

In fact Kurt Gödel was the first one to start the argument.

Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I was going by my recollection. Unfortunately I'm not completely familiar with all of Kurt's word. My point is unaffected anyway (that's why I didn't care to research what you quoted).

 

I don't think anyone can simulate conscious thought ever.

You probably can't even define "conscious thought" very well, and this is quite irrelevant. By the way, are you a zombie, and how can I be sure? Hahaha... I'm only joking.

 

The arguments against strong AI have been already laid out by Lucas and Penrose.

I'm not going to discuss this.

 

Or it suggests that you doesn't want to learn anything about religion and what other scientists who argue for a God hypothesis are saying

This is also completely arbitrary. I don't see how it suggests that at all. Again, my point was that you're just drawing a circle around your favors. 'Seems like you've demonstrated that just there. Honestly, I have no clue how this coherently fits together:

 

or in other-words, we're all about honestly understanding, not about having good ideas. It's incredibly easy to get lost in the possibility that an attractive idea you have is so special that it's worth more than the brains of everyone around you. This doesn't mean you're not 'intellectually honest,' <it suggests that I don't want to learn anything about religion or what other scientists who argue for a God hypothesis are saying>.

 

Please demonstrate why this is not yet another arbitrary and exploitative mechanism you've senselessly employed to feel better. You're pulling off my reaction to your statement:

 

Gödel's Theorem shows that human thought is more complex and less mechanical than anyone had ever believed

 

My point thereafter was the same thing as above... you're interpreting it. You assert that it shows something correlated to your position as if everything manifests truth which inevitably supports your magically unbeatable argument.

 

Bump of a question you shall answer soon:

So how the hell does this amazing available evidence correspond to your arbitrary ideas?

Edited September 23, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[immortal]

Bump of a question you shall answer soon:

So how the hell does this amazing available evidence correspond to your arbitrary ideas?

 

Once you have understood that the mind is something different from the human brain and that the empirical reality which includes also the brain and that the attributes of particles doesn't exist independent of the mind and realize that mind alone exists out there in the physical world then what's behind the human mind is the "Intellect" and what's behind the Intellect is the "Pleroma of God" representing the totality of divine powers and this is the reason why I insist that science has found God and many are not seeing it. This is what all the religions of the world are saying.

 

 

Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

 

Your repetitive insults are not going to change the facts. You can be all your life calling dishonest to scientists, but the reality is that your fantasies about religion taking the place of science will remain a mere fantasy.

 

You can be posting the same nonsense, insults, and insinuations forever. You can be repeating the same mistakes for other 150 posts. Nothing will change. Science has been receiving irrational attacks from religious zealots for several centuries now. But science always win.

 

Mystics have already laid out the hypothesis and they have already laid out the script, scientists as always are very slow to realize this.

 

 

"I seek not science, not religion, not Theosophy, but Veda, the truth about Brahman, not only about His essentiality, but about His manifestation, not a lamp on the way to the forest, but a light and a guide to joy and action in the world. I. believe that the future of India and the world to depend on its discovery and on its application, not to the renunciation of life, but to life and the world and among men. .. The Veda was the beginning of our spiritual knowledge; the Veda will remain its end. These compositions of an unknown antiquity are as the many breasts of eternal Mother of knowledge from which our succeeding ages have all been fed. The recovery of the perfect truth of the Veda is therefore not merely a desideratum for our modern intellectual curiosity, but a practical necessity for the future of the human race. For I believe firmly that the secret concealed in the Veda, when entirely discovered, will be found to formulate perfectly that knowledge and practice of a divine life to which the march of humanity, after long wanderings in the satisfaction of the intellect and senses, must inevitably return."

 

- Aurobindo

 

Realized Eschatology - Christianity

 

 

 

Valentinians insisted that they described something that is very real. They insisted that what the myth described was in fact MORE real than ordinary reality! As it says in the Treatise on Resurrection, "Do not suppose that the resurrection is an illusion. It is not an illusion; rather it is something real. Instead, one ought to maintain that the world is an illusion, rather than resurrection" (Treatise on Resurrection 48: 12-17).

 

They believed that the experience expressed through the myth was real and that through visionary experiences (gnosis) and ritual one could experience the events it described. Thus the "myth" is not merely a teaching story. It is a metaphorical description of the experience of redemption.

 

Its inevitable.

[akh]

Phowa - There is enough scientific literature available on this.

 

 

Enough scientific evidence for zombies?! Where? No, wiki link does not count and it is not evidence. Nor does ancient manuscripts or any other scripture count as evidence.

 

 

 

 

Mystics have already laid out the hypothesis and they have already laid out the script, scientists as always are very slow to realize this.

 

 

And theist are always quick to deny facts and evidence when it does not match their ideology.

 

 

-You have this theist tree. Its a big tree, it provides shelter from the sun (facts). Its a pretty tree, it has a lot of pretty flowers and it smells good. But there is a problem, it bares no fruit. It has not bared fruit in 10, 100, or even a thousand years. It is barren.

 

-Then there is another tree, the one of sciences, that is shorter, uglier, has dull flowers and it stinks. But it bares fruit, and it bares lots of fruit. You may not like the way it tastes, but that is because it does not agree with your dogma palate.

 

 

So where is your fruit? I have yet to see any, and I have been asking for awhile now. At least you could pick off a low hanging zombie. Remember the zombies you offered? Don't skirt what you offered as proof. Where is my zombie? You can deliver it to my doors step if you like. Once I see it, I can turn to juanrga and Ben and let them know how wrong we are.

 

Where is my zombie?!

Edited September 24, 2012 by akh

[Ben Banana]

Once you have understood that the mind is something different from the human brain and that the empirical reality which includes also the brain and that the attributes of particles doesn't exist independent of the mind and realize that mind alone exists out there in the physical world then what's behind the human mind is the "Intellect" and what's behind the Intellect is the "Pleroma of God" representing the totality of divine powers and this is the reason why I insist that science has found God and many are not seeing it. This is what all the religions of the world are saying.

 

I'm very happy with this response, because it's a lot more rigid than anything you've said before; however, I remain in disagreement. I still see a critical lack of connection between all of your discrete beliefs expressed there.

 

1. "the mind is something different from the human brain and that the empirical reality which includes also the brain and that the attributes of particles doesn't exist independent of the mind"

2. mind alone exists out there in the physical world then what's behind the human mind is the "Intellect"

3. what's behind the Intellect is the "Pleroma of God" representing the totality of divine powers

 

Even if these were appropriately demonstrated to be strongly associated, by the collective manner they do not form a very robust belief. We can conclude the basis of just one of these components to be severely incorrect -- an event which has already occurred -- implying your total belief was weakly designated and nothing more. If these ideas don't logically correspond one-to-one, there's a great likelihood they were merely designated to unnaturally support a select core ideology: that means it's arbitrary.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Ben Bowen