Why Scientific Realism might be false?

[immortal]

Before we had zombies, now angels and phantasms. What will be your next 'empirical evidence'? Elfs?

 

I am afraid, yes all empirical evidence i.e. facts established from experiments have shown us that what we call reality is only a state of mind and the next question to ask is if what we call reality is only a state of mind then what is mind? and yoga and consciousness studies show that the mind is the product of a divine god. This is what I am arguing from the beginning of this thread. There is no conflict between science and religion. Don't try to become a modern Pope denying the basic facts of the world. You better change your perception of the world like this.

 

Yep.... and still no zombies. I would have thought that would be easy enough to put up as proof.

 

Actually its easy enough to find the Lord residing in you than finding a zombie.

 

îsHâ vâsyamidaM sarvaM yat kiñca jagatyâM jagat,

tena tyaktena bhuñjîthâ mâ gRidhaH kasya sviddhanam. 1.

 

ॐ ईशा वास्यमिदँ सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् ।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनम् ।। १ ।।

 

The Lord is enshrined in the hearts of all.

The Lord is the supreme Reality.

Rejoice in him through renunciation.

Covet nothing. All belongs to the Lord.

 

- Isha Upanishad (Yajnavalkya), verse 1

[juanrga]

Actually its easy enough to find the Lord residing in you than finding a zombie.

 

Does this statement also apply to the rest of your 'empirical evidence' against science: aka angels, phantasms, and Elfs?

 

And how easy is that "easy"? From a scale 1-10: [math]\sqrt{2}[/math]? 3.1416? 9.9999999999?

[Ben Banana]

I am afraid

False. You're annoying. Go away.

 

yoga and consciousness studies show that the mind is the product of a divine god.

Impressive ludicrosity. I think you beat my 'Twin Rabbits in Two Cups' video there. Nice job.

 

This is what I am arguing from the beginning of this thread.

Well, you lost and you're proving to be seriously insane.

 

Don't try to become a modern Pope denying the basic facts of the world.

Too late for me, Halloween was about a week ago. I was neither a zombie, ghost, angel, vampire Lord Dracula or the Pope. Perhaps I shall declare a new holiday derived from Paganistic religions for the sake of wearing a weird hat, like the things the Pope does and also like the stupid hat the Pope wears.

 

I assure you however, I am trying very hard! I WILL BECOME THE POPE!

 

Actually its easy enough to find the Lord residing in you than finding a zombie.

Personally, I feel like the Lord of All Delicious-Foods resides within me. Definitely correct. No zombies in my stomach at all! Now why does that matter? Don't answer me please. I don't care. That's just rhetoric.

 

ॐ ईशा वास्यमिदँ सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् ।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनम् ।। १ ।।

Butt squeaks?

Edited November 7, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[akh]

Don't try to become a modern immortal denying the basic facts of the world.

 

Yes, I will heed this wisdom.

 

Actually its easy enough to find the Lord residing in you than finding a zombie.

 

No zombies huh. I think maybe you will have better luck finding a troll. You seem to have similar traits, they would take to you easily.

Edited November 8, 2012 by akh

[immortal]

False. You're annoying. Go away.

 

Oh yes so that you can preach your flawed atheistic position. This is not your personal preaching forum, this is a discussion forum. Don't like your position being challenged by someone? This is not the right place for you. Please go away.

 

There are still people who preach that the earth is flat you are worse than them.

 

Impressive ludicrosity. I think you beat my 'Twin Rabbits in Two Cups' video there. Nice job.

 

What's impressive is the demonstrations of mystics of their mastery over the different states of consciousness.

 

Well, you lost and you're proving to be seriously insane.

 

Nope, this is what they call the New Copernican Revolution, the new paradigm shift and more and more intellectual people are starting to question the existence of the universe independent of us.

 

"A new Scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

 

- Max Planck

 

Too late for me, Halloween was about a week ago. I was neither a zombie, ghost, angel, vampire Lord Dracula or the Pope. Perhaps I shall declare a new holiday derived from Paganistic religions for the sake of wearing a weird hat, like the things the Pope does and also like the stupid hat the Pope wears.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">I assure you however, I am trying very hard! I WILL BECOME THE POPE!

I was talking about the history of science and religion. Galileo's trial.

Butt squeaks?

 

Speaks volumes of our current education system. Isn't it?

 

 

 

No zombies huh.

 

Its because you said mysticism deals with entirely subjective things and I gave you examples contrary to your claim about these rituals on zombies to show you that mysticism actually deals with the real noumenon world and has many empirical consequences which can be tested.

 

I think maybe you will have better luck finding a troll. You seem to have similar traits, they would take to you easily.

 

Sorry even I can't let you get away by making a series of group thinking posts.

 

Don't try to become a modern immortal denying the basic facts of the world.

 

Yes, I will heed this wisdom.

 

We are all immortals, my nick too was from the wisdom of the east.

 

Mandukya Upanishad, Chapter II — Vaitathya Prakarana (The Chapter on Illusion)

 

1 Harih Aum. The wise declare the unreality of all entities seen in dreams, because they are located within the body and the space therein is confined.

 

2 The dreamer, on account of the shortness of the time involved, cannot go out of the body and see the dream objects. Nor does he, when awakened, find himself in the places seen in the dream.

 

3 Scripture, on rational grounds, declares the non—existence of the chariots etc. perceived in dreams. Therefore the wise say that the unreality established by reason is proclaimed by scripture.

 

4 The different objects seen in the confined space of dreams are unreal on account of their being perceived. For the same reason i.e. on account of their being perceived, the objects seen in the waking state are also unreal. The same condition i.e. the state of being perceived exists in both waking and dreaming. The only difference is the limitation of space associated with dream objects.

 

5 Thoughtful persons speak of the sameness of the waking and dream states on account of the similarity of the objects perceived in both states on the grounds already mentioned.

 

6 If a thing is non—existent both in the beginning and in the end, it is necessarily non—existent in the present. The objects that we see are really like illusions; still they are regarded as real.

 

7 The utility of the objects of waking experience is contradicted in dreams; therefore they are certainly unreal. Thus both experiences, having a beginning and an end, are unreal.

 

8 The objects perceived by the dreamer, not usually seen in the waking state, owe their existence to the peculiar conditions under which the cognizer i.e. the mind functions for the time being, as with those residing in heaven. The dreamer, associating himself with the dream conditions, perceives those objects, even as a man, well instructed here, goes from one place to another and sees the peculiar objects belonging to those places.

 

9—10 In dreams, what is imagined within the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside by the mind, real; but truly, both are known to be unreal. Similarly, in the waking state, what is imagined within by the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside by the mind, real; but both should be held, on rational grounds, to be unreal.

 

11 If the objects perceived in both waking and dreaming are illusory, who perceives all these objects and who, again, imagines them?

 

12 It is the self—luminous Atman who, through the power of Its own maya, imagines in Itself by Itself all the objects that the subject experiences within and without. It alone is the cognizer of objects. This is the decision of Vedanta.

 

13 The Lord (Atman), with His mind turned outward, imagines in diverse forms various objects either permanent, such as the earth, or impermanent, such as lightning, which are already in His mind in the form of vasanas, or desires. Again, He turns His mind within and imagines various ideas.

 

14 Those that are cognized internally only as long as the thought of them lasts and those that are perceived outside and relate to two points in time, are all mere objects of the imagination. There is no ground for differentiating the one from the other.

 

15 Those that exist within the mind as subjective ideas and are known as unmanifested and those that are perceived to exist outside in a manifested form, both are mere objects of the imagination. Their difference lies only in the difference of the organs by means of which they are perceived.

 

16 First of all is imagined the jiva, the embodied individual and then are imagined the various entities, both external such as sounds, forms, etc. and internal such as the pranas, sense— organs, etc., that are perceived to exist. As is one's knowledge so is one's memory.

 

17 As a rope lying in darkness, about whose nature one remains uncertain, is imagined to be a snake or a line of water, so Atman is imagined in various ways.

 

18 When the real nature of the rope is ascertained, all misconceptions about it disappear and there arises the conviction that it is nothing but a rope. Even so is the true nature of Atman determined.

 

19 Atman is imagined as prana and other numberless ideas. All this is due to maya, belonging to the effulgent Atman, by which It appears, Itself, to be deluded.

 

20 Those conversant with prana describe Atman as prana; those conversant with the elements, as the elements; those conversant with the gunas, as the gunas; and those conversant with the tattvas, as the tattvas.

 

21 Those acquainted with the padas call It the padas; those acquainted with objects, the objects; those acquainted with the lokas, the lokas; those acquainted with the gods, the gods.

 

22 Those conversant with the Vedas describe Atman as the Vedas; those conversant with the sacrifices, as the sacrifices; those conversant with the enjoyer, as the enjoyer; and those conversant with the objects of enjoyment call It the objects of enjoyment.

 

23 The knowers of the subtle call It the subtle and the knowers of the gross, the gross. Those that are familiar with the Personal Deity call It the Personal Deity and those that are familiar with the void, the void.

 

24 Those that know time call Atman time and those that know space call It space. Those versed in the art of disputation call It the object of dispute; and those knowing the worlds call It the worlds.

 

25 The knowers of the mind call Atman the mind; the knowers of the buddhi, the buddhi. The knowers of the chitta call It the chitta; and the knowers of righteousness and unrighteousness call It righteousness and unrighteousness.

 

26 Some say that Atman consists of twenty—five cosmic principles; some, of twenty—six principles; some, again, of thirty—one principles; while there are yet others who describe It as consisting of an infinite number of principles.

 

27 Those who know how to gratify others call Atman gratification; those who are conversant with the asramas call It the asramas. The grammarians call It the masculine, feminine and neuter genders; and still others, the Higher Brahman and the Lower Brahman.

 

28 The knowers of creation call It creation; the knowers of dissolution, dissolution; and the knowers of preservation, preservation. In truth, all such ideas are always imagined in Atman.

 

29 The disciple grasps only that idea which is presented to him by his teacher. Atman assumes the form of what is taught and thus protects the disciple. Absorbed in that idea, he realizes it as Atman.

 

30 Atman, though non—separate from all these ideas, appears to he separate. He who truly knows this interprets, without any fear, the meaning of the Vedas.

 

31 As dreams, illusions and castles in the air are viewed, so is the tangible universe viewed by the wise, well versed in Vedanta.

 

32 There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.

 

33 Atman is imagined as the unreal objects that are perceived to exist and as Non—duality as well. The objects, too, are imagined in the non—dual Atman. Therefore Non—duality is Bliss.

 

34 The diversity in the universe does not exist as an entity identical With Atman, nor does it exist by itself. Neither is it separate from Brahman nor is it non—separate. This is the statement of the wise.

 

35 The wise, who are free from attachment, fear and anger and are well versed in the Vedas, have realized Atman as devoid of all phantasms and free from the illusion of the manifold and as non—dual.

 

36 Therefore, knowing Atman as such, fix your attention on Non—duality. Having realized Non—duality, behave in the world like an inert object.

 

37 The illumined sannyasin does not praise any deity, does not salute any superior and does not perform rites to propitiate departed ancestors. Regarding both body and Atman as his abode, he remains satisfied with what comes by chance.

 

38 Having known the truth regarding what exists internally as also the truth regarding what exists externally, he becomes one with Reality, he exults in Reality and never deviates from Reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ben Banana]

Oh yes so that you can preach your flawed atheistic position.

 

Yep.

[juanrga]

"A new Scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

 

- Max Planck

 

Then you have another serious problem here, because you write below:

 

We are all immortals, my nick too was from the wisdom of the east.

[immortal]

Yep.

 

I know atheists don't have self-respect. You don't have to prove that for me.

 

 

"In a recent video interview ( http://www.closertotruth.com/videoprofile/Why-Explore-Consciousness-and-Cosmos-Andrei-Linde-/874 ) Linde tells that his editor suggested he remove the reference to consciousness in his book because he “might lose the respect of his friends.” Linde told her that if he removed it, “I would lose my own self-respect.”"

 

Then you have another serious problem here, because you write below:

 

 

 

"A new Scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

 

- Max Planck

 

 

 

We are all immortals, my nick too was from the wisdom of the east.

 

Both of the above statements are idioms. I don't have any problems.

 

 

 

[juanrga]

Both of the above statements are idioms.

 

(i) A statement is not an idiom and (ii) both statements were made in the same idiom: English.

[Ben Banana]

I know atheists don't have self-respect.

How did you find that out? I would like you to prove it to me.

 

You don't have to prove that for me.

Correct. You're due to prove two things for me.

 

...

 

"In a recent video interview ( http://www.closertot...drei-Linde-/874 ) Linde tells that his editor suggested he remove the reference to consciousness in his book because he “might lose the respect of his friends.” Linde told her that if he removed it, “I would lose my own self-respect.”"

Excellent! This is remarkable.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Ben Bowen