Debunking New World Creationism 201 (Intermediate) -1

[treat2]

(Note: The existence of a deity is fundamental to a belief in
New World Creationism. This post is for New World Creationists, only!)

(A Note for Theistic Evolutionists:
I do not engage in debating Theistic Evolutionists about
the existence of any deity, unless an invitation is extended.
Below are a few reasons why I choose not to do this:
I’ve no beef with Theistic Evolutionists.
Theistic Evolutionists are not religious extremists.
In general, Theistic Evolutionists are not known
to me as typically being social or political fanatics,
they do not seek to ban Evolution, nor Science either.
I DO debate Theistic Evolutionists,
where their social and political view differ from my own.
For these and additional reasons,
this post is not targetted for a debate with Theistic Evolutionists.
Accept this “Note” as true, “on faith”, from an Athiest.)
----------------------------------------------------------
It is illogical to conclude that Atheism existed prior to Theism.

For that reason, two “conditions” apply to the Theist.
1) The Theist asserted the existence of "god(s)".
2) The Theist’s assertion was made prior to the existence of Atheism.

Logically, these conditions designate the BURDEN OF PROOF to the Theist. For that reason, it is not the responsibility of the Atheist to disprove the Theist’s assertion.

The Theist can not provide any empirical evidence to scientifically prove the existence of “god(s)”. For that reason, the result of the “Scientific Method” is the conclusion that the Theist’s assertion is baseless and false.

The Universe or life itself is not empirical evidence from which the existence of "god(s)" can be concluded, as these are only evidence of a tangible reality.

What I know exists, does not lead me to conclude what does not exist, does exist.

To the Creationist: Please provide empirical evidence of the existence of any deity (upon which creationism depends).

[Royce]

How can empirical evidence be supplied about a non empirical but spiritual entity or subjective belief.
I ask you to provide empirical evidence that such and entity does not exist.
I don't try to use a sledge hammer to fine tune a swiss watch. You may; but, I don't. While your at it prove intelligence and consciousness exist using empirical evidence only.
What yard stick are you going to use to measure subjective reasoning and/or logic?.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
How can empirical evidence be supplied about a non empirical but spiritual entity or subjective belief.
I ask you to provide empirical evidence that such and entity does not exist.
I don't try to use a sledge hammer to fine tune a swiss watch. You may; but, I don't. While your at it prove intelligence and consciousness exist using empirical evidence only.
What yard stick are you going to use to measure subjective reasoning and/or logic?. Here we go again...[g)]

How can you claim the objective existance of something which only has a (purported)subjective reality?

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Here we go again...[g)]

How can you claim the objective existance of something which only has a (purported)subjective reality?

Yeah, I know. My thoughts exactly. To answer you question, I can't; nor, can anyone else. Its the wrong tool. All that I can say is that there is more to reality than objective reality, but then, I have said that before, haven't I? Oh well its a beautiful day in Georgia and I have to be at work (for 4 hours at least). What else to pass the time?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Here we go again...[g)]

How can you claim the objective existance of something which only has a (purported)subjective reality?

First of all, the only thing you are anyone else knows is subjective experience, so setting up this debate to be between subjective and objective is wrong. When it comes to human knowledge, it's all subjective. I say the real issue is whether or not the physical senses are the only avenue to legitimate experience.

I'll try an analogy. Imagine you exist in an infinite medium, say light, which extends both infinitely outward (or divergently) from your position, and infintely inward ( convergently) from your position. Let's say you are yourself light housed in a human body. If you want to look outward from your position, you must rely on the senses. But if you wish to explore the convergent direction, you have to actually withdraw from the senses and turn inward.

With the outward view one sees everything that is aggregate, compound, and distinct from other things; with the inner view, one experiences the unity of things.

Now, let's say that on this planet, almost everyone is taken with the outward view. For thousands years outer view skills are developed, methods for studying aggregate stuff are perfected, social and political systems are based on outer view understanding, those who master outer view skills become the most financially successful, people in power champion the outer view, etc.

Meanwhile, there are those few who undertake developing inner view skills. Individuals who actually do it report information that is unavailable to the outer view. Now, what do you think all those outer view experts say about such reports? They say, show us outer proof that the inner world exists! And if someone experienced in the inner view says check out the real experts on this subject, rather than looking into it like scholars, they continue to demand that external proof be given for what can only be known from inner experience.

It is one thing to say one is not interested in exploring the inner experience, but it is entirely different to claim the reports of those who practice turning inward can't be right because it doesn't fit into one's world view, or to use one's own experiences as the absolute standard for evaluating that with which one is inexperienced.

[Royce]

Les, its good to see you back participating. I've missed you and your comments.
I think you analogy is one of the best that I have read on the subject. I almost want to say that it is not an analogy but truth.

[Zero]

LOL, you guys are funny!!

Wrong, deeply wrong, but humorous nonetheless. When you look inside yourself, all you can comment on is yourself. The rest of the universe appears to be outside of yourself.

[FZ+]

I'll try an analogy. Imagine you exist in an infinite medium, say light, which extends both infinitely outward (or divergently) from your position, and infintely inward ( convergently) from your position. Let's say you are yourself light housed in a human body. If you want to look outward from your position, you must rely on the senses. But if you wish to explore the convergent direction, you have to actually withdraw from the senses and turn inward.
But as far as materialism is concerned, looking inward and outward both involve senses. If the light converges infinitely, then it must be parallel, which means that the unity of all things is untrue. I do not believe that the body is a barrier - I think most materialists here agree that there is no difference between inwards, and outwards. To materialists, looking inwards means either disguising looking outwards - or not looking at all. Historically, the "outer view" people have not triumphed at all. Historically, almost no one has looked.

What information has been gleaned from this inner view, without leaving at least the possibility of being simply a transformation of instinct, or "outer" experience?

[Royce]

In my view, materialist view only one part of reality, the objective physical part which is the effect not the cause of reality. Spiritual or inner reality is the cause of and reason for being of the rest of reality which is simply different aspects of the One reality. I realize that this is nonsense to a materialist, but to believe in only the material is nonsense to those who have experience both the material and non material reality.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, you guys are funny!!

Wrong, deeply wrong, but humorous nonetheless. When you look inside yourself, all you can comment on is yourself. The rest of the universe appears to be outside of yourself.

You are pretty funny too Zero. You make the same mistake every single time when you try to evaluate something you know nothing about. What exactly do you know about looking inside the way I am talking about?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
But as far as materialism is concerned, looking inward and outward both involve senses. If the light converges infinitely, then it must be parallel, which means that the unity of all things is untrue. I do not believe that the body is a barrier - I think most materialists here agree that there is no difference between inwards, and outwards. To materialists, looking inwards means either disguising looking outwards - or not looking at all. Historically, the "outer view" people have not triumphed at all. Historically, almost no one has looked.

I find it pointless to debate someone who is determined to argue an intellectual position. I say that because if your first priority is to maintain your position, then you are obligated to do everything in your power to discredit any information which might undermine, in this case, materialism. When you do that I know from the outset you are not going to objectively look at what I say, so why bother? If my goal is to trade ideas hoping to learn or teach something true, then there isn't the slightest motivation for me to participate in such a debate.

Originally posted by FZ+
What information has been gleaned from this inner view, without leaving at least the possibility of being simply a transformation of instinct, or "outer" experience?

How do you come to know things FZ? To you try to figure it out cloistered in your room? Or do you actually try to acquire experience with that you want to know and understand?

You are not required to understand the inner experience to live your life. My objection is that you and others speculate about it without feeling the slightest need to seriously look into it. I find it amazing that there exists a 3000 year history of people living for decades in every situation from caves in the deserts to monasteries just so they could develop turning inward skills, and yet someone thinks they are going to understand about that from information they casually pick up skipping through life. Ha, some scholarship and, consequently, the crappy opinions derived from it.

[FZ+]

My objection is that you and others speculate about it without feeling the slightest need to seriously look into it.
Please, please, don't say that, because it is simply not true. You don't know anything about me, and you have no justification to throw such stereotypes around. I know you are reasonable, but I find your attitude patronising and perhaps offensive.

I was an atheist. Then I was a christian. Then I was a buddhist. Now I am an atheist. I do know what you are talking about. I even - and you may be surprised - meditate. I did not skip my way through life, I did not fail to understand. You have no right, as another human being to presume I do not. I simply perceived that it is senseless to maintain the belief that one "knowledge" has to be obtained at the expense of the other. I simply perceived that it is senseless to maintain a difference between my internal self-examination, and the experiences around me, for I am made by these experiences.

What did 3000 years of self denial acheive? Nothing, but the imposition of dogma on others. They were made with the whip of authority behind them, fed untruths and untruths extracted. They saw only what they expected, because there was nothing new. To draw on an anecdote, it was only when the buddha walked out of his little compound that he could start to see, see how we are part of the world, and we can understand ourselves only by understanding the world. We have only recently become aware of those 3000 years. I see no reason to excuse them, or to make their same mistakes again.

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You are pretty funny too Zero. You make the same mistake every single time when you try to evaluate something you know nothing about. What exactly do you know about looking inside the way I am talking about? Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and never found anything magical about it. I know LOTS about it, I just don't come to the same conclusions that you do.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Please, please, don't say that, because it is simply not true. You don't know anything about me, and you have no justification to throw such stereotypes around. I know you are reasonable, but I find your attitude patronising and perhaps offensive.

I apologize.

Originally posted by FZ+
I simply perceived that it is senseless to maintain the belief that one "knowledge" has to be obtained at the expense of the other.

Why would you think 'one "knowledge' has to be obtained at the expense of the other"? I don't have the slightest problem understanding the difference between external and internal knowledge.

Originally posted by FZ+
I simply perceived that it is senseless to maintain a difference between my internal self-examination, and the experiences around me, for I am made by these experiences

When a baby is born he or she can experience joy immediately. Exactly what "experiences around" made him/her that way? That potential for joy is already in there.

Originally posted by FZ+
What did 3000 years of self denial acheive? Nothing, but the imposition of dogma on others. They were made with the whip of authority behind them, fed untruths and untruths extracted. They saw only what they expected, because there was nothing new.

You are talking about religion, not the inner experience. This is exactly what I mean by not being informed. You may have been a Christian and a Buddhist, but if you accepted the religion that developed around Jesus and the Buddha then you also accepted the millenia of interpretation by others that is stuck in between you and Jesus or the Buddha.

In my opinion, you will never understand the experience Jesus and the Buddha were having through religion. In fact, I think the whole purpose of religion is to be a sort of metaphorical substitute for the inner experience. That's the problem with these discussions . . . people judging the inner experience using religion as the standard.

If you had been alive when Jesus was teaching, exactly what religion would you have heard him teach? I say it wouldn't have been some way of behaving, believing or thinking that you'd have gotten from him, but rather a way of feeling and being conscious. In other words, his message was experiential. You find religion the instant you start reading what others have to say about him; then you can clearly see they are translating the experience Jesus was having into a way of thinking.

Originally posted by FZ+
To draw on an anecdote, it was only when the buddha walked out of his little compound that he could start to see, see how we are part of the world, and we can understand ourselves only by understanding the world. We have only recently become aware of those 3000 years. I see no reason to excuse them, or to make their same mistakes again.

Nonesense. Using only the Buddha's words, I challenge you to show me him teaching that "we can understand ourselves only by understanding the world." In fact, that is exactly opposite of what he taught, which was the "self" is an illusion. The self, he said, is a mere aggregate of traits acquired from our biology and conditioning. Our true nature lies within, beyond all apparent attributes, including that which we know as "self."

It seems you, like the majority of people (Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike), assume that what the Buddha attained was some kind of mental understanding. But if one undertakes a careful study of the experience of enlightement, one finds that view is thoroughly contradicted by the 3000 year history of enlightenment on our planet, and not just in India.

What the Buddha attained occurred after many years of work that culminated under the Bodhi tree sitting in uninterrupted meditation for a few days. To characterize his achievment as intellectual insight represents the constant watering down of religious interpretation done for the masses, it is the translation of seriously practicing samadhi meditation (or "union" by inner practitioners who followed Jesus) into some philosophical outlook. I say it was the power of the "enlightenment" experience that attracted people to the Buddha (and Jesus), not his ideas.

And why can't people figure this out so easily today? I believe it is because we lack the living example of enlightenment that masters like Jesus and the Buddha provided for followers.

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I find it pointless to debate someone who is determined to argue an intellectual position. I say that because if your first priority is to maintain your position, then you are obligated to do everything in your power to discredit any information which might undermine, in this case, materialism. When you do that I know from the outset you are not going to objectively look at what I say, so why bother? If my goal is to trade ideas hoping to learn or teach something true, then there isn't the slightest motivation for me to participate in such a debate.



How do you come to know things FZ? To you try to figure it out cloistered in your room? Or do you actually try to acquire experience with that you want to know and understand?

You are not required to understand the inner experience to live your life. My objection is that you and others speculate about it without feeling the slightest need to seriously look into it. I find it amazing that there exists a 3000 year history of people living for decades in every situation from caves in the deserts to monasteries just so they could develop turning inward skills, and yet someone thinks they are going to understand about that from information they casually pick up skipping through life. Ha, some scholarship and, consequently, the crappy opinions derived from it.

Why does this argument remind me of when I was pre-school and I was embroiled in a "intellectual argument" responding to "Your dumb" with the ever classic "Your dumber".

I find this post and many of your others reminiscent of these times of blissful ignorance. I don't know wether or not I should even attempt to respond to your posts, or just admire your ability to stay in happy land......

Ok, I guess its just in my nature to argue.

Your statement of:
I find it pointless to debate someone who is determined to argue an intellectual position. I say that because if your first priority is to maintain your position, then you are obligated to do everything in your power to discredit any information which might undermine, in this case, materialism.

is utter garbage.


Let me back this claim up with both your logic and my logic, first with yours..

(your logic)Obviously, you have not the capability of comprehending what actually is, so it is a waste of my and your time to even attempt to explain it to you.


(my logic) The whole point of the scientific method is to reduce the amount of influence one's personal beliefs has on the conclusions one makes. By definition intellectual people(people that use the scientific method as a problem solving tool) are more objective than somebody that believes whatever they feel must be actual truth.

You know, in the history of humanity, I'm sure there has been one or two people that have been wrong. It would be hard to know if your wrong if you don't bother to go through a process in which you seperate your feelings from ideas and objectively evaluate them.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and never found anything magical about it. I know LOTS about it, I just don't come to the same conclusions that you do.

Who said anything about it being magical? Got the T-shirt, eh? Sounds like religion to me.

The monk Joshu practiced samadhi for forty years. Now about him I might say he knew "LOTS."

Part of the problem in discussing this here is you don't know what I am referring to, and I don't know what you tried that taught you "LOTS." I know from previous statements you (and FZ) have made, it doesn't appear you know anything at all about what I am talking about. If what you tried didn't work out, it might have been because there wasn't anything real there to work out.

Just like there is real science and pseudoscience, there is also real inner practice, and tons of pop pseudo-stuff to try out these days. If you were to undertake a serious study of the history of successes with enlightenment, you would find certain charactieristics common to all the efforts. So far, I've not heard you or anyone else here who talks against the inner experience who also seems to know anything about this. It all sounds like pop culture/religion knowledge to me, not the understanding that comes from conscientious scholarship.

Now, if you don't care to do that kind of research, that is fine with me. As I have said many times, what I object to is all the truly shallow representation of what is inner by people who don't care enough about it to either seriously research or practice it.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Why does this argument remind me of when I was pre-school and I was embroiled in a "intellectual argument" responding to "Your dumb" with the ever classic "Your dumber".

Well, it could be that your interpreting skills need some work, but let’s find out.

Originally posted by Deeviant Your statement . . . is utter garbage.

But first, let me commend you on the above excellent example of how stop that “your dumber” thing.

Originally posted by Deeviant Let me back this claim up with both your logic and my logic, first with yours... (your logic)Obviously, you have not the capability of comprehending what actually is, so it is a waste of my and your time to even attempt to explain it to you.

This must be some new-fangled logic because all I see is your assertion that I lack comprehension of actuality, not evidence and logic used together to make a valid point. In fact, it again sounds remarkably like “your dumber” to me, but then if I am really dumber and lack comprehension, then I probably just don’t understand the new genius on the block. Let me read on and see if I can get your meaning.

Originally posted by Deeviant (my logic) The whole point of the scientific method is to reduce the amount of influence one's personal beliefs has on the conclusions one makes. By definition intellectual people(people that use the scientific method as a problem solving tool) are more objective than somebody that believes whatever they feel must be actual truth.

True, one of the objectives of the scientific method is to reduce. Being in a liberal mood to day, I might grant you that intellectual people think more scientifically than non-intellectual people, and even your conclusion they are more likely to be objective. But what does any of that have to do with my point to FZ?

Here is what I said: “I find it pointless to debate someone who is determined to argue an intellectual position. I say that because if your first priority is to maintain your position, then you are obligated to do everything in your power to discredit any information which might undermine, in this case, materialism. When you do that I know from the outset you are not going to objectively look at what I say, so why bother? If my goal is to trade ideas hoping to learn or teach something true, then there isn't the slightest motivation for me to participate in such a debate.”

I said that in response to FZ’s statement that he was going to argue as a materialist (I'll grant you that I could have been more clear that this is what I was talking about; this is an old debate between FZ and myself, so I didn't elaborate much). When I enter a discussion, I enter it to get at the truth. I couldn’t care less what the truth turns out to be. It is what it is. If reality is purely physical, that is fine with me. If consciousness has had something to do with forming our universe, that is fine with me too.

But how can one be objective if one enters a discussion prioritizing some point over discovering the truth? It those who are attached to reality being a certain way who cannot bring themselves to consider evidence objectively or comprehensively. If you think empirical thinkers are immune to such attachment, you have a lot to learn.

Originally posted by Deeviant You know, in the history of humanity, I'm sure there has been one or two people that have been wrong. It would be hard to know if your wrong if you don't bother to go through a process in which you separate your feelings from ideas and objectively evaluate them. . . . I find this post and many of your others reminiscent of these times of blissful ignorance. I don't know whether or not I should even attempt to respond to your posts, or just admire your ability to stay in happy land......

I hardly need a lecture from you about the history of humanity, about distinguishing feeling and ideas, or about objectivity. As for my ignorance compared to your apparent infatuation with your own abilities and opinions, I think we need to observe you in debate for awhile to judge just how much you really know and how well you reason.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Deeviant
I find this post and many of your others reminiscent of these times of blissful ignorance. I don't know wether or not I should even attempt to respond to your posts, or just admire your ability to stay in happy land......

Your statement of:


is utter garbage.


Deeviant,

I happen to know that alot of the attitude that you see in this post is based on many past discussions and resulting attitudes with the same people. Many times, when people engage in discussion with one another in different threads the tone/attitude continues throughout. So to make opinions the way you have is taking alot out of context. You might want to remember that before you eagerly start to argue again.



Ok, I guess its just in my nature to argue.

It is in my nature to learn. I have learned alot from particpating in this forum. This means, at some point I've had to stop arguing and start acknowleding that someone knows more than I do about some things and start asking questions. Hope you find what you're after.

[Deeviant]

Flip, if you care to analyse my post a little more you will see it as a satire copying sleeth's tone. And for your information I am not completely new to debating with sleeth as he has been a active and vocal opponent in one of other threads.

As far as the statement of my like of arguing, it was used more as a transition then a statement. I have no problem admitting that someone else has more knowledge than me on a subject and if you saw my other post's in the hard science portions of PF you would see this.

It is in everybodies nature to learn. It is only the decree of success that seperates us in this respect.

[FZ+]

Why would you think 'one "knowledge' has to be obtained at the expense of the other"? I don't have the slightest problem understanding the difference between external and internal knowledge.
Well, I do. When you talk of turning inwards or outwards, you imply that by looking "inwards", you must turn your back on the "outwards". I cannot remotely see why that must be true, or why that sort of dualism is right.

When a baby is born he or she can experience joy immediately. Exactly what "experiences around" made him/her that way? That potential for joy is already in there.
Instinct. The part of the external universe that makes up his brain. The experiences he has whilst copying his zygote, in his mother's womb.

In my opinion, you will never understand the experience Jesus and the Buddha were having through religion.
Au contraire. It was through looking through our millenias of gibberish that I came to understand, and came to a very different understanding from you.

What the Buddha attained occurred after many years of work that culminated under the Bodhi tree sitting in uninterrupted meditation for a few days.
Precisely. Many years of hard work. He could not have just sat down, and seen "the truth within". He worked, and absorbed the truth. That is the way it works. Jesus again - his Passion was at the end of a journey. He was probably not born enlightened, but enlightenment came to him through action, even temptation. Who said anything about intellectual understanding?

I say it was the power of the "enlightenment" experience that attracted people to the Buddha (and Jesus), not his ideas.
Yes, excuse my spurious examples. I do not think it was the power of the enlightenment experience that drew peace, but a simple and facile lure. Happiness, paradise, an end. That's why people deluded themselves with. They went there, because they thought it would be easy to copy someone who has already done it. And that is not true, is it?

it is the translation of seriously practicing samadhi meditation
Samadhi, yes, samadhi. Tell me, do you still close your eyes when you practice samadhi meditation? The point of samadhi is oneness, an awakening of one sort of consciousness. Maybe it's BS, maybe it isn't. But samadhi is not about closing down one avenue, about switching lanes. It is about realisation of the oneness of reality, of the oneness of the self with the universe. It is not about looking inwards, or outwards, or whatever, but seeing not two, or many, but one. That is my interpretation, at least.

I think the experience of samadhi is more prevalent that you think. Einstein's god is a manifestation of that, for example. He did not look inward. I don't think most of them cared. They simply looked.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Flip, if you care to analyse my post a little more you will see it as a satire copying sleeth's tone. And for your information I am not completely new to debating with sleeth as he has been a active and vocal opponent in one of other threads.

As far as the statement of my like of arguing, it was used more as a transition then a statement. I have no problem admitting that someone else has more knowledge than me on a subject and if you saw my other post's in the hard science portions of PF you would see this.

It is in everybodies nature to learn. It is only the decree of success that seperates us in this respect.

Yes I understood the satire. Just didn't think it was fair in context. Perhaps your discussions with sleeth were after he felt he was casting his pearls before swine. Because there was a time when he was very patient and descriptive with this topic.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
When you talk of turning inwards or outwards, you imply that by looking "inwards", you must turn your back on the "outwards". I cannot remotely see why that must be true, or why that sort of dualism is right.

I feel deep pleasure when I listen to music, but I can also analyze the technical aspects of good music. The intellect is a great tool for analyzing, but quite inadequate for feeling deeply. So tell me, is there a duality there?

If you wanted to practice a musical instrument, and to eliminate all distractions you lock yourself in your room, is that turning your back on the rest of your potentials? Don't people who practice a skill normally focus on the skill they are trying to develop, and exclude other things while they do so?

So what are you talking about? Everything you say demonstrates how little you know about samadhi. Why speak authoritatively on a subject that is mostly theory on your part?

Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely. Many years of hard work. He could not have just sat down, and seen "the truth within". He worked, and absorbed the truth. That is the way it works.

Your statement that "He could not have just sat down, and seen the truth within" is exactly what the Buddha claimed he did, as well as a great many subsequent Buddhist masters. Why don't you know that, and why are you arguing with me if you don't knowt?

Originally posted by FZ+
Tell me, do you still close your eyes when you practice samadhi meditation? The point of samadhi is oneness, an awakening of one sort of consciousness. Maybe it's BS, maybe it isn't. But samadhi is not about closing down one avenue, about switching lanes. It is about realisation of the oneness of reality, of the oneness of the self with the universe. It is not about looking inwards, or outwards, or whatever, but seeing not two, or many, but one. That is my interpretation, at least.

Sometimes this site can be incredibly frustrating, with young know-it-alls lecturing about samadhi, for example, to someone who has practiced samadhi an hour or so a day for over 30 years. With life all figured out who needs humility, openness, or acknowledgement of the role of experience in actually knowing versus theorizing.[b(]

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+
Well, I do. When you talk of turning inwards or outwards, you imply that by looking "inwards", you must turn your back on the "outwards". I cannot remotely see why that must be true, or why that sort of dualism is right.

All that I can do is tell you of my personal experiences. When I do not understand something especially concerning cosmology and physics I look inward to find that understanding. I usually do find it and it is usually an 'Aha! Of course! Now I see!' type of experience. One does not turn their back on on external phenomena or experience when one looks inward but finds their place and their relationship with the universe, with reality in all of its aspects. One becomes one with the One. It is the marriage of inter and outer rather than the exclusion of one to look at the other.

Precisely. Many years of hard work. He could not have just sat down, and seen "the truth within". He worked, and absorbed the truth. That is the way it works. Jesus again - his Passion was at the end of a journey. He was probably not born enlightened, but enlightenment came to him through action, even temptation. Who said anything about intellectual understanding?

It is my understanding that the Buddha did not teach religion at all and that true Buddhism is a way of living and thinking not a religion at all. Buddha when asked about God and the the spiritual reality said to let the gods and heaven take care of themselves. We are concerned with living life here on this world. Jesus' teaching where much the same far more concerned with how we live our lives here on earth rather than getting into heaven or being saved. This similarity is what drew me to Buddhism in the first place and then back to Christianity. I consider myself a Christian Zen Buddhist.

Yet I still study science, physics, cosmology, philosophy as well as meditate and study my inner self in relation with my outer reality. There is no conflict nor does one study exclude any other study.

I think the experience of samadhi is more prevalent that you think. Einstein's god is a manifestation of that, for example. He did not look inward. I don't think most of them cared. They simply looked.

I'm sure that your right, though I don't know that you are. The point is that they looked with an open, unbiased mind willing to see whatever they saw not determined only to see what they wanted to see or believed that they would see. If we can look that way it doesn't matter where we look for it is all one reality.

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth


Sometimes this site can be incredibly frustrating, with young know-it-alls lecturing about samadhi, for example, to someone who has practiced samadhi a couple of hours a day for over 30 years. What a pain it is to have to continuously respond to relatively inexperienced people who talk like they have life all figured out. No humility, not much openness, no acknowledgement of the role of experience in actually knowing versus theorizing, but plenty of trying to stand on equal ground with people who have significantly more experience in the subject they are lecturing about. [b(]

Maybe my inexperience(or my intelligence?) is clouding my vision. Perhaps its is not just the intensified fear of oblivion the causes many older people to accept some sort of spirtuality, but for all my attempts, I can not see what you are referencing to when you talk about your intangible reality.

I am not closed minded, I am willing to accept evidence and examine other people's ideas. Can you show me anything from your self-proclaimed phenomenal experience.

Anything at all that I can relate to, to explain to me what your speak of with your inner self. Something that somebody outside yourself can grasp? I can't even tell what you are arguing for or about anymore, perhaps you could enlightening me.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Maybe my inexperience(or my intelligence?) is clouding my vision. Perhaps its is not just the intensified fear of oblivion the causes many older people to accept some sort of spirtuality, but for all my attempts, I can not see what you are referencing to when you talk about your intangible reality. I am not closed minded, I am willing to accept evidence and examine other people's ideas. Can you show me anything from your self-proclaimed phenomenal experience. Anything at all that I can relate to, to explain to me what your speak of with your inner self. Something that somebody outside yourself can grasp? I can't even tell what you are arguing for or about anymore, perhaps you could enlightening me.

A big part of the problem discussing this is that your mind (like most) is already full of concepts that are difficult to get around. For instance, in the statement “perhaps its is not just the intensified fear of oblivion that causes many older people to accept some sort of spirituality” are ideas I have to talk through when I attempt to explain myself to you. A great deal of the many layers of concepts about inner exploration have been built up from the popularization of inner stuff, from religious interpretation, from negative reactions to religious interpretation, and from just plain ignorance.

What does “spirituality” mean, for example? Does that include voodoo, crystal therapy, psychics, alchemy, ghost hunters, Subud, astrology . . . ? Personally I avoid that word like the plague just because it can mean so many things; but that doesn’t stop people from thinking all the things they believe or suspect about spirituality when I try to talk about an inner practice. That is why most conversations about an inner experience at this site end up never getting past skeptics’ myriad of concepts. Often those concepts are really just a way of saying, “my mind is closed.” On the other hand, it seems ironic to me that most people are atheists because of the beliefs of religion and spirituality, so where does that leave us?

Let’s try an analogy. What if science still hadn’t established itself as effective? Instead, after a few developments and discoveries, the people in power put a stop to real science and began promoting pseudoscience (although still calling it science). Now, centuries later, when reasonable people hear the word science they associate it with all the practices of pseudoscience, and consequently reject science as nonsense. Yet among the advocates of science are a few who have taken the time to understand what it was originally, and what it can become if done correctly. Still, the vast majority of people who are devotees of science (in this story) are really believing in pseudoscience, and it their beliefs which reasonable people react to, and it is because of the majority view that they also reject those who try to recommend the original meaning of science.

Getting back to inner practices, is there anything real there or is it all hocus pocus? I am in the minority when I say that there is something real there but it has nothing to do with religion/spirituality because now I have no allies either among the science devotees or the religion/spirituality devotees. I came to this conclusion after many years of study. What I found was that certain individuals appear to have attained a new level of consciousness through a specific sort of meditation called samadhi, a practice that the Buddha first proved could be perfected as “enlightenment.”

As I investigated it, I also discovered that this meditation was extensively practiced outside of India as well. In Christianity it took place primarily in Christian monasteries before the 18th century and was called union or prayer of the heart. It was also practiced in elements of Islam and early Hasidism, in China as Chan and in Japan as Zen. Back in India the practice was central to raja yoga, infiltrated certain Hindu lines, was the heart of what the originating Sikh masters taught, and is still taught today (though somewhat secretly). There are more examples too.

The word “samadhi” means union in English. In samadhi one learns to merge one’s mind with something inside. This “something” is quite still, absolutely still actually, so that in merging the mind attains a stillness unavailable to it before the merging. With practice the length of time the stillness lasts is for longer and longer periods, and endures through more and more difficult living situations. One also discovers that in union and over time, an awareness grows of something that is a complete contrast to what the compound, complex operations of the intellect reveal. It seems to rest silently behind the many manifestations of reality, and in fact seems to be that which all those manifestations emerge out of. The Buddha described it by saying, “There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

Now, for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that undifferentiated background really does exist. If in order to perceive the undifferentiated background it takes many years of dedicated practice, as well as practicing the precise methods that lead to union, then exactly how is the person who experiences it going to convince the person who doesn’t that it exists? It is impossible!

Does that mean we are forever doomed to disagree? Well, we are if those who know nothing or very little about this consciousness potential insist on viewing it as the nonsensicalness of religion/spirituality, refuse to study the rich history of achievement through union practice, and continue to evaluate inner work and achievement using outer standards.

The truth is, the only way one can evaluate is to develop union skill. Therefore, I think the most any of us who have gone to the trouble to develop merging skill can recommend is “try it, see if you like it.” We cannot expect the non-experienced to accept as true what we say we experience. I do, however, think we should be able to expect the non-experienced to be open, to have done their homework when they speak about the inner thing, and to admit when they don’t know what they are talking about.

[FZ+]

LWS:
Sometimes this site can be incredibly frustrating, with young know-it-alls lecturing about samadhi, for example, to someone who has practiced samadhi an hour or so a day for over 30 years. With life all figured out who needs humility, openness, or acknowledgement of the role of experience in actually knowing versus theorizing.
Again, the funny little age thing comes up. When did I say I had life all figured out? I say that you should not practice that superior attitude, and speak of your opinions as anything more than opinions.

Your statement that "He could not have just sat down, and seen the truth within" is exactly what the Buddha claimed he did, as well as a great many subsequent Buddhist masters. Why don't you know that, and why are you arguing with me if you don't knowt?
Because that is wrong, as you yourself have admitted. Why do we care about your 30 years at all, if it was not true that slow gaining of experience did not have an effect. The Buddha did not say that only the last step was neccessary - it was simply the culmination of a journey, and in this journey, there are no shortcuts.

I feel deep pleasure when I listen to music, but I can also analyze the technical aspects of good music. The intellect is a great tool for analyzing, but quite inadequate for feeling deeply. So tell me, is there a duality there?
No, because you are doing both, and seeing with both, not that there are two things to see.

If you wanted to practice a musical instrument, and to eliminate all distractions you lock yourself in your room, is that turning your back on the rest of your potentials? Don't people who practice a skill normally focus on the skill they are trying to develop, and exclude other things while they do so?
When you practise an instrument, you still need the sheet music. You cannot do it in isolation.

So what are you talking about? Everything you say demonstrates how little you know about samadhi. Why speak authoritatively on a subject that is mostly theory on your part?
It is not mostly theory, and that is my realisation. Look at it from my side - what would you say in response to that statement?

Royce:
One does not turn their back on on external phenomena or experience when one looks inward but finds their place and their relationship with the universe, with reality in all of its aspects.
Thank you. That is precisely what I mean. It is not a matter of competition between inner and outer. It is a matter of turning the outer into the inner and vice versa, so there is really no difference between the two.

It is my understanding that the Buddha did not teach religion at all and that true Buddhism is a way of living and thinking not a religion at all.
Well, there is an inherent danger in talking about "true Buddhism", but I agree with you here. Hopefully it wouldn't be too over the top to say that I feel science is a combination of buddhism and taoism. Buddhist in recognising the value of knowledge, understanding and experience, and emphasising individual endeavor and skepticism, and taoist in emphasising balance and a belief in the fundamental logicalness of the universe. Or maybe that is going too far...

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+ Because that is wrong, as you yourself have admitted. Why do we care about your 30 years at all, if it was not true that slow gaining of experience did not have an effect. The Buddha did not say that only the last step was neccessary - it was simply the culmination of a journey, and in this journey, there are no shortcuts.

You are not addressing the the issue as you originally said it. Of course I believe one needs experience to learn. But what you said was that the Buddha needed to go out into the world and acquire external life experience to attain enlightenment. You said he couldn't do it just sitting and practicing samadhi. It was with that that I emphatically disagreed. Life experience is one thing, the practice which leads to enlightenment is another.

Originally posted by FZ+
No, because you are doing both, and seeing with both, not that there are two things to see. When you practise an instrument, you still need the sheet music. You cannot do it in isolation.

?????? You might want to reread what I said, you've missed my point.

Originally posted by FZ+
Again, the funny little age thing comes up. When did I say I had life all figured out? I say that you should not practice that superior attitude, and speak of your opinions as anything more than opinions.

You say I act superior, I say I act more experienced. I cannot bring myself to listen much to someone who acts certain about things with which they are relatively inexperienced. Why? Well, because I have learned that except for the rare intuitive insight, the only people who know what they are doing are the experienced. I would also grant more credibility to a well-trained person with good instincts; but see, even then, although they might be personally inexperienced, they have been taught what others have learned through experience.

To be honest, I can't see how it will be fruitful for us to discuss things as long as we are so far apart on agreeing about the importance of being experienced before expressing certainty. I mean, that's okay, we can agree to disagree. But if you are determined to have that sort of certainty, I will continue to resist your opinions.

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+

Well, there is an inherent danger in talking about "true Buddhism", but I agree with you here. Hopefully it wouldn't be too over the top to say that I feel science is a combination of buddhism and taoism. Buddhist in recognising the value of knowledge, understanding and experience, and emphasising individual endeavor and skepticism, and taoist in emphasising balance and a belief in the fundamental logicalness of the universe. Or maybe that is going too far...
I may be wrong and I am sure there will be many who disagree with me; never the less, I think that the combination of Tao and Buddhism is Zen Buddhism. At least I see a number of simularities.

Looking inward is only a tool, a way to come in touch with our selves and our reality, a way to clear our minds and see what is, a way to quiten our mind so that we can hear what is constantly being told to us, a way to see both that which is within and that which is without and see that, as you said, that there is ultimately no difference. The reason that there is no dofference is that there is only one reality and is contains all that is, physical objective ,mental subjective and spiritual or if you have problems with that term that which is outside of spacetime, without physical form and is the source of all that is.
It is all one and all is one and it is all real. This is why I have referred to myself as a realist rather than a dualist. IMHO dualism is still only looking at part of reality just as materialism is.

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by b11ngoo
Ok. I being a creationist will answer your request.

- I postulate the big bang clock started iintelligence. This when viewed as A.I. is transferrable to a view of God.

- A.I. or Intelligence can exist digitally. The clock that began this was started with the big bang.

- I postulate this clock driven intelligence can create wisdom. It created wisdom with humanity, it's said. So wisdom can create itself under the conditions of digital intelligence that's processed by the big bang clock, if our processors, our mind, can have wisdom.

- So. How much intelligence. And how much of a processor. Is needed to create a powerful cosmic life called, powerful one(God).

If you still believe that kind of condition can't form intelligence. Huh ? What more imperical evidence do you need ?

hmm, imperical evidence...

I'm sorry, I normally don't attack spelling, but if you can not spell empirical, I doubt you have the ability to actually gather empirical evidence. Which would be strongly supported by the fact the you state hypotheses that, in the words of one of the pf mentors "sounds suspiciously like nonsense" and claim them to be "imperical" evidence.

To save you the time of looking up empirical, I will do it for you:

1.
Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

a.
Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.



Hmm, What expirment have you done or observations have you made that you base your statement: "the big bang clock started iintelligence."

Or more importantly, what is "the big bang clock started iintelligence" supposed to mean?

[Polly]

[:D] And is this supposed to be a comic relief from the tension between disillusioned and accomplished buddhists?

Just joking, no offence intended.[6)]

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by b11ngoo
And that post was bad manners. Did you look at my point's you quoted ? Or is this the grammer forum. (;(-

Like I said in my post, I normally don't attack spelling, but I made a special case in this instance. I've never seen somebody attack spelling in these forums, so I think it's safe to say this is not the grammer forum. It was funny because your misppelling simply added irony(Imperical evidence, hehe) to your post.

I did look at the points of that you pointed out, and I even spent enough time to look at your "theory of every". I politely decline to address any points of your "Theory of Everything" and I would not care to spend to time debunking it, as no doubt you, as am I, are firm in your beliefs.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
I'm sorry, I normally don't attack spelling, but if you can not spell empirical, I doubt you have the ability to actually gather empirical evidence. . . .

Hmm, What expirment have you done. . .

Polly might say it's bad karma.[o)]

However, if you are correct, what should we conclude about your ability to experiment?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Polly might say it's bad karma.[o)]

However, if you are correct, what should we conclude about your ability to experiment?

Uhh I think the word is actually expirment LW. The ultimate in irony.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
Uhh I think the word is actually expirment LW. The ultimate in irony.

The act of expiring? [:)]

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The act of expiring? [:)]

exactely so. As in his logic is quickly expiring[t)]

[Deeviant]

You have to admit. Imperical evidence sounds funny.

[Polly]

Hello FZ+ and Zero,

How are you? Although you and I must be very different, I have always enjoyed your posts in the forum. As I always say to myself, intelligent, very intelligent men these are.

And don't get me wrong, I am a fan of science and technology and I believe science will have everything figured out in the future. The biggest question for us in the forum though, is will we ever live to see that day.

This is where I must beg to differ from your view. Now in the study of the law, we know that general rules, exceptions to the general rules and exceptions to the exceptions of the general rules are always made in every area of the law to cater for every eventuality in human lives for justice (or its watered down notion of fairness and reasonableness) to be done. My view is, shouldn't science, if it is serious about the quest for truth, in the like spirit make certain exception to the general rule of objective and "empirical" evidence in some special cases? The initial stage of exploring another faith or discipline seems to me to be a perfect candidate in all fairness. For how can anybody judge the veracity of anything before he has a good grasp of it?

In fact this is the very approach that both the group of neuroscientists and psychiatrists and His Holiness the Dalai Lama have been taking in their every two year Mind and Life Conference. His Holiness would listen to the presentation of the speakers on evolution, cognitive psychology, developmental neurobiology, cosmology, AI, QM etc just as the scientists would listen to His Holiness' explanation of "subtle consciouness" and "chakra". Though I dare say the scientists must be mystified and His Holiness completely dumbfound at times by each other, they listen on. This is, in my view, the true spirit of science - the unbiased and objective attempt to understand something completely before pre-empting it, and perhaps the best way to go about finding out the truth about life if we ever aspire to know the answer in our life time.

On a personal level, I have never done well in maths, use to have to memorise all the steps for exams and tests. But I have always thought it is my problem, not the problem of the subject itself or of the mathematicians.

Let us keep talking with and listening to each other.

Warm regards,
Polly

[Polly]

It is my understanding that there is at least one major difference between Taoism and Buddhism. Taoism believes men can live forever and as such alchemy was historically a feature of its practice. Buddhism on the other hand aims at liberation from the six realms.

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello FZ+ and Zero,


This is where I must beg to differ from your view. Now in the study of the law, we know that general rules, exceptions to the general rules and exceptions to the exceptions of the general rules are always made in every area of the law to cater for every eventuality in human lives for justice (or its watered down notion of fairness and reasonableness) to be done. My view is, shouldn't science, if it is serious about the quest for truth, in the like spirit make certain exception to the general rule of objective and "empirical" evidence in some special cases? The initial stage of exploring another faith or discipline seems to me to be a perfect candidate in all fairness. For how can anybody judge the veracity of anything before he has a good grasp of it?

Polly

As soon as science ceases to require theories to be validated by observation empirical evidence, it ceases to be science.

So yes, there are situations in which it would be right to do exactely as you say, however, doing so would not be considered an application of science but of philosophy.

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by b11ngoo
I gave empirical evidence. It was a postulate. The postulate was the geometric point, and how it was created. In turn made it a digit.

This digit is the basis for a post big bang.
Because the digit is processed by the clock that the big bang started.

I stated that since this is considered true. As a postulate. Intelligence that is formed with digits and run by that powerful a processor, can create a life like man. If we evolved by the sea. It makes as much sense to see it happening with the intelligence made by digits, run by a powerful processor, too.

If this intelligence was made and run by the clock of the big bang. It is everywhere the clock is. And can use the clock to create intellectual stimulation, or create stuff.

And since this big bang only needs 4 dimensions to run. The use for infinite space and string theory is useless. And this life the big bang started and is. Is the only God(powerful one). And we are his creation.

This intelligence can hone itself to perfection. It would seem, since it's like A.I. by the use of digits being it's life.

God said he first made wisdom. He's called wisdom by the woman wisdom.
So he made his wisdom, then the woman wisdom. Then they planned and measured the way the digits would be used in the big bang. So we see the moon and sun water food, etc...

I think your just being stubborn. Look at my theory of everything. I redid a few bits. It explains what I'm saying exactly.

To put it quite simply, a postulate is not empirical evidence. I will restrain myself from commenting on your postulate's validity.

[Polly]

Originally posted by Deeviant
As soon as science ceases to require theories to be validated by observation empirical evidence, it ceases to be science.

So yes, there are situations in which it would be right to do exactely as you say, however, doing so would not be considered an application of science but of philosophy.

Hello Deeviant,

Thank you for your reply.

I am not at all asking for any evidence-validating observation to be ruled out. No no no, that would be unfair. In fact one of the things that His Holiness and the scientists agreed to do in the conference was the observation of the energy level of a monk in deep meditation. Having said so however one must also make allowance for the fact that the eastern practice has not been developed to fit into western scientific analysis and experiments do take time to be properly thought out and put together, perhaps more so when data involves "subtle consciousness".

So you see things are being done. We do want to advance our claim from testimony and anecdote to evidence and we do want to be convincing as a science. All I am saying is, in the mean time, shall we listen to each other with an open mind and give each other the benefit of doubt?

Yours sincerely,
Polly

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello Deeviant,

So you see things are being done. We do want to advance our claim from testimony and anecdote to evidence and we do want to be convincing as a science. All I am saying is, in the mean time, shall we listen to each other with an open mind and give each other the benefit of doubt?

Yours sincerely,
Polly

In this case I would warmly agree.

[Polly]

[:D]

[Les Sleeth]

[zz)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello FZ+ and Zero,

How are you? Although you and I must be very different, I have always enjoyed your posts in the forum. As I always say to myself, intelligent, very intelligent men these are.

And don't get me wrong, I am a fan of science and technology and I believe science will have everything figured out in the future. The biggest question for us in the forum though, is will we ever live to see that day.

This is where I must beg to differ from your view. Now in the study of the law, we know that general rules, exceptions to the general rules and exceptions to the exceptions of the general rules are always made in every area of the law to cater for every eventuality in human lives for justice (or its watered down notion of fairness and reasonableness) to be done. My view is, shouldn't science, if it is serious about the quest for truth, in the like spirit make certain exception to the general rule of objective and "empirical" evidence in some special cases? The initial stage of exploring another faith or discipline seems to me to be a perfect candidate in all fairness. For how can anybody judge the veracity of anything before he has a good grasp of it?

In fact this is the very approach that both the group of neuroscientists and psychiatrists and His Holiness the Dalai Lama have been taking in their every two year Mind and Life Conference. His Holiness would listen to the presentation of the speakers on evolution, cognitive psychology, developmental neurobiology, cosmology, AI, QM etc just as the scientists would listen to His Holiness' explanation of "subtle consciouness" and "chakra". Though I dare say the scientists must be mystified and His Holiness completely dumbfound at times by each other, they listen on. This is, in my view, the true spirit of science - the unbiased and objective attempt to understand something completely before pre-empting it, and perhaps the best way to go about finding out the truth about life if we ever aspire to know the answer in our life time.

On a personal level, I have never done well in maths, use to have to memorise all the steps for exams and tests. But I have always thought it is my problem, not the problem of the subject itself or of the mathematicians.

Let us keep talking with and listening to each other.

Warm regards,
Polly
Hi, thanks for sucking up, now it is time to tear you to shreds, ok? [;)]

You've got the whole idea of science backwards in your head. We never start with an explanation, and then look for signs. We look for signs, measure them, and then try to figure out why those signs occured. I don't have an open mind to "chakras" or "subtle consciousness", and I don't need to ever have an open mind to that sort of thing. What I am open to is evidence, even if that evidence contradicts my preconcieved notions of the world.Show me something based on some "holy" principle that I can measure, and I'll measure it as fairly and accurately as circumstances and equipment allow. For instance, show me someone levitating, and I don't have to believe anything...I'll be able to see it with my own eyes. Show me someone who can generate some sortof previously unknown energy, and can use it to perform an otherwise impossible feat, and it won't matter what I think of his philosophy, his results will speak for him.

Until that time, I am close-minded to teh idea, but always, always open to new evidence that might change my mind.

[Polly]

Ha ha you saw through me. Yes I am beginning to see now science is not unlike a court of law which promises precedural justice rather than substantive justice (no offence intended whatsoever to judges and scientists alike). I guess those of us who want to convince the scientists just have to work harder on the evidence. Thanks.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Polly
Ha ha you saw through me. Yes I am beginning to see now science is not unlike a court of law which promises precedural justice rather than substantive justice (no offence intended whatsoever to judges and scientists alike). I guess those of us who want to convince the scientists just have to work harder on the evidence. Thanks. Hey, no problem...lawyers often have a hard time with the scientific evidenciary standard, versus the legal standard. I guess it is the difference between using data to sue someone, and using data to build a bridge that cars are going to drive on.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
We never start with an explanation, and then look for signs. We look for signs, measure them, and then try to figure out why those signs occured. . . . What I am open to is evidence, even if that evidence contradicts my preconcieved notions of the world.Show me something based on some "holy" principle that I can measure, and I'll measure it as fairly and accurately as circumstances and equipment allow. For instance, show me someone levitating, and I don't have to believe anything...I'll be able to see it with my own eyes. Show me someone who can generate some sortof previously unknown energy, and can use it to perform an otherwise impossible feat, and it won't matter what I think of his philosophy, his results will speak for him.

Until that time, I am close-minded to teh idea, but always, always open to new evidence that might change my mind.

You enter discusions with certain assumptions already in place. One assumption of yours is a common one here at PF, and that is the assumption that everything worthwhile which exists has some observable aspect to it which can be measured. Logically derived from that assumption is that if it can't be measured it isn't worthwhile and probably doesn't exist.

That assumption is why your statement "What I am open to is evidence, even if that evidence contradicts my preconcieved notions of the world" is not true. No one has proven that evidence must be measurable to be evidence; all that's proven is that measureable evidence gives us measurable facts.

When I see a mind with such strong filters in place, I suspect it is for the purpose of rejecting everything which isn't what it wants to hear. So it seems to me that what your "openness" amounts to is a way to keep believing what you want to believe; it is not a true avenue for a two-way discussion about the nature of reality (as you imply).

[Nereid]

LW Sleeth wrote: *SNIP
One assumption of yours [Zero]is a common one here at PF, and that is the assumption that everything worthwhile which exists has some observable aspect to it which can be measured.
*SNAP So, logically, everything else would seem to be EITHER:
1) worthwhile things which are observable but not measurable, OR
2) worthwhile things which are not observable

Taking the second one first, if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?

Then the first one, what sort of things could these be? Do you have examples?

[Zero]

LOL, of course evidence can be measured in some way, shape, or form, or else it isn't evidence. I don't see where the confusion lies. What I do see is that people like to denigrate rational thinking, which is a shame.

Now, if someone says "I believe in X because I feel Y", there is nothing there for me to say, except that I disagree. On the other hand, when someone says "X is a fact about the world which is true for everyone", then they have to back it up with some real measurable evidence. It is just that simple and rational, and I don't understand why people have such a hard time dealing with that.

There is a difference in the quality of certain claims, depending on context. If you make the claim "I feel that there is a guardian angel watching over me", there is no need for evidence(although I might ask anyway) because that is describing a feeling. If you say "Angels absolutely exist", then you have to show evidence beyond your opinion. After all, I feel like the darned traffic lights are out to get me when I am running late for work, but if I claim there is an actual conspiracy of lights against me, I'd be rightly treated like a psychopath.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
So, logically, everything else would seem to be EITHER:
1) worthwhile things which are observable but not measurable, OR
2) worthwhile things which are not observable

Taking the second one first, if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?

Then the first one, what sort of things could these be? Do you have examples? To me, those sorts of discussions have the same value as discussing which flavor of Jello is the best...completely subjective, completely opiniion-based, and fun but mostly worthless.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Zero
To me, those sorts of discussions have the same value as discussing which flavor of Jello is the best...completely subjective, completely opiniion-based, and fun but mostly worthless. Did Zero just agree with what Nereid said (sorta), or is it far too late and Nereid should go get a good night's sleep? [?]

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Nereid
So, logically, everything else would seem to be EITHER:
1) worthwhile things which are observable but not measurable, OR
2) worthwhile things which are not observable

Taking the second one first, if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?

Then the first one, what sort of things could these be? Do you have examples?

The issue was "observable and measurable." The usual meaning of observation is the use of the senses to detect information about something. Measureable is self-explanatory.

Now, we do have an inner life, aspects of which are neither observable by the senses nor measurable. Is it real? Is any of it worthwhile?

My point is, the standard of "observable and measureable" appies to external objects, and normally that which has mass. It has not been shown to be an effective way to evaluate internal qualities of consciousness, for instance, which do not appear to have mass.

Then you ask, "if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?" There is that assumption I was talking about. You have it in place already, it is part of the demand of how to contemplate things. It is my opinion that part of what goes on with the physicalists is they frame every debate in terms that eliminate all non-physical issues. How can that be done? Why, insist all aspects of reality to be discussed be observable and measurable. Also effective is to characterize all human inner sensitivity as hormonal or emotional; that's because the aspects of reality some of us want to consider possible are only known through the sensitivity of one's inner being.

Can one have a sensible discussion about that? Not if external proof is the goal. Personally, I don't consider the internal stuff provable to others. However, with open minds and sensitivity undulled, I do consider it possible show inner stuff is reasonable.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
To me, those sorts of discussions have the same value as discussing which flavor of Jello is the best...completely subjective, completely opiniion-based, and fun but mostly worthless.

You continuously forget or refuse to accept that nothing you experience and know is other than subjective. There are no other possibilities for consciousness, humans have no "objective" experience. That is a fact and undisputable, so why not accept it once and for all? The question is, what sorts of subjective experiences are you open to?

Every experience you have is the result of your sensitivity to information. You can say you are only open to that information which comes through your senses, which can made provable to others. Others will say they are also open to information that originates within. Sensitivity is sensitivity, but you seem to insist that that which cannot be extenalized and made provable to others has no validity. That might be the state of your inner life, but it isn't necessarily the case with everyone.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
Did Zero just agree with what Nereid said (sorta), or is it far too late and Nereid should go get a good night's sleep? [?] I dunno, what time is it there? It is 2 in the afternoon here, which means it is almost nap-time...

[Zero]

Last time I checked, nothing originates completely inside of your brain except you. We can discuss "you" all you want, and there's a certain pleasure in it. However, claiming to be able to determine the external without consulting external evidence, simple doesn't make any sense to me.

Why don't you tell me an example of what you consider "internal" that has some sort of existance, and we can discuss that specifically. [:D]

[Iacchus32]

Is consciousness measurable? And in what way is it material? It certainly is aware of that which is physical but, does that make it physical? And where does it go when we sleep? It's certainly not aware of any physical reality at this point. And where do we go when we dream? Why do dreams seem to take on a reality of their own? Are dreams to be considered material as well? Or, is there another possibility that we seemed to have overlooked, that we have an immaterial part of ourselves called "a soul?" And why is it so irrational to even consider such a possibility?

So here it is we have this questionable nature of consciousness and yet, the very thing which allows us to measure anything at all ... Go figure? [6)]

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Last time I checked, nothing originates completely inside of your brain except you. We can discuss "you" all you want, and there's a certain pleasure in it. However, claiming to be able to determine the external without consulting external evidence, simple doesn't make any sense to me.

Why don't you tell me an example of what you consider "internal" that has some sort of existance, and we can discuss that specifically. [:D]

I am trying hard to understand why we can't agree about things that seem very obvious to me. I can't understand why, for instance, you said, "claiming to be able to determine the external without consulting external evidence, simply doesn't make any sense to me." I have consistantly said (in past threads) that I think information about externals must come from externals. So, if you think I am trying to argue one can know external things without reference to the external object/event one is trying to understand, that isn't so.

I am saying that there are a set of internal conditions present inside you that exist independent of what's external. You already know this because those conditions do not cease to exist when you are deprived of external input.

Now, have you ever taken the time to do nothing but pay attention to those basic conditions? I mean, turn your attention away from external input, and then focus on the neutral sensitivity inside you that waits at the ready to respond to stuff? That is a "you" most people know very little about because they are so busy thinking and being stimulated by externals to feel it.

And then, how does it feel to directly experience that sensitivity anyway? Is it worth focusing on? Is there a benefit? Trying to answer that question is where I think our discussion breaks down because you seem convinced only externals are worth experiencing, and there is no possible way for me to "prove" the value of getting to know that unfettered self.

[Deeviant]

What really seperates your internal from external? If they were on a completely different level of existence, then life would be quite hard without a physical world in which to sustain us.

So we know that our inner self, conciousness, soul or whatever the heck you want to call it is similar enough with the physical world to allow them to co-exist, suggesting to two would have similar rules governing them(laws of physics).

Even if there is some sort of untapped aspect of the human psyche, does it really require some sort of mythological power to explain?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
What really seperates your internal from external? If they were on a completely different level of existence, then life would be quite hard without a physical world in which to sustain us.

What separates light from space it travels through? Space does not seem to need light to exist, yet it accommodates light quite well.

Originally posted by Deeviant
So we know that our inner self, conciousness, soul or whatever the heck you want to call it is similar enough with the physical world to allow them to co-exist, suggesting to two would have similar rules governing them(laws of physics).

No, all you know is that consciousness can handle its interaction with physicalness. Anyway, why assume if they do have something in common it will be the laws of physics? Maybe the laws of physics are a concentration of the more subtle thing.

Originally posted by Deeviant
Even if there is some sort of untapped aspect of the human psyche, does it really require some sort of mythological power to explain?

Who said anything about a mythological power? To tell you the truth, I am not really trying to explain the how or why of the untapped thing. I have been trying to say that an untapped thing exists, that it can be directly experienced, and that it can never be investigated by any of the observation/measurement methods used to study the physical world.

[Zero]

Actually, we don't exist without external input; literally, your brain doesn't function without learning from the external world. So, there is no way to claim that anything inside you doesn't come from outside first.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, we don't exist without external input; literally, your brain doesn't function without learning from the external world. So, there is no way to claim that anything inside you doesn't come from outside first.

When you speak of your self as non-existent without external input, it's very alien to my own self experience. Yet I didn't say you don't need external input to learn. I said that if you take away external input, something is still there that has nothing to do with externals, an inborn sensitivity that's present in all animal life. True, mostly we see it when it responds to external input, so maybe that's why you concluded that external input is the source of self.

I say the basis of the self is: the contained sensitivity of an individual, that sensitivity's ability to know it senses (i.e., experience), and that sensitivity's ability to retain/accumulate experience and so learn. We are born with all of that potentiality established, no external input needed. The question is, is there a beneficial reason to delve into the potentiality of that original self, or does an exclusive preoccupation with the external world give us all there is to offer in life?

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
When you speak of your self as non-existent without external input, it's very alien to my own self experience. Yet I didn't say you don't need external input to learn. I said that if you take away external input, something is still there that has nothing to do with externals, an inborn sensitivity that's present in all animal life. True, mostly we see it when it responds to external input, so maybe that's why you concluded that external input is the source of self.

I say the basis of the self is: the contained sensitivity of an individual, that sensitivity's ability to know it senses (i.e., experience), and that sensitivity's ability to retain/accumulate experience and so learn. We are born with all of that potentiality established, no external input needed. The question is, is there a beneficial reason to delve into the potentiality of that original self, or does an exclusive preoccupation with the external world give us all there is to offer in life? Really, AFAIK, that's wrong...a child is born with a mostly undeveloped brain, and without external stimulation nothing happens. With out external stimulus, there IS no person.

Again, while there may be something else, no evidence points to it.

[Polly]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am not really trying to explain the how or why of the untapped thing. I have been trying to say that an untapped thing exists, that it can be directly experienced, and that it can never be investigated by any of the observation/measurement methods used to study the physical world.

Sleeth dear,

Ummmmm, I see, I see, so all you are saying, if I can paraphrase you by way of a very simply example, is that you have seen this DVD called "Inner self", a relatively obscure French production, think very highly of its subtlty and sophistication and would like to invite all of us who have not so much as heard of it, to watch it? Certainly sounds like a very benign invitation to me. Phew, why didn't you say so? For a while I thought you are trying to put down the trilogy of "The Lord of the Rings" and all its cinematic wizardry and technical merits, which to be honest I would resent, it being the epitomy of cinematography to me and is very close to my heart.

Well I see what you mean now, yes yes, how very kind of you to think of me as a friend and recommend to me something you've enjoyed in the hope that I will enjoy it as much. You must have liked "Inner Self" really well to have been arguing so vehemently in its favour. Yes yes I see what you mean now. But you will understand of course whether or when I will be able to watch the DVD will depend on a whole lot of conditions, i.e. my work, review of other movies, whether my other friends are interested etc. And to be honest I do have other DVDs to catch up on, "Chicago", "AI" and "Crouching Tiger and (?)Dragon" to name but a few. But having you, my friend, saying the most agreeable things about "Inner Self" would certainly work in its favour. Until I am able to watch it and compare notes with you, I do hope we remain the best of friends and share our views on movies and many other things, and I shall always be,
Yours sincerely,
Polly[:D]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, we don't exist without external input; literally, your brain doesn't function without learning from the external world. So, there is no way to claim that anything inside you doesn't come from outside first. Yes, but doesn't everything exist within its center? Isn't this how we operate, from the center of who we are? Isn't this in fact how everything else operates? In other words everything that affects us, although it may appear external, is still operating from within its center ...

So, does science have an explanation for the center of existence? Of course now we seem to be speaking about the nature of intent, and a sense of purpose which exists behind it all now don't we? In which case wouldn't it be fair to say that intent was the driving force behind existence?

Doesn't science understand that everything operates from the inside out? Yes, so what is the nature of intent? Could it be that this is the very immaterial thing that we're looking for?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by treat2
(A Note for Theistic Evolutionists:
I do not engage in debating Theistic Evolutionists about
the existence of any deity, unless an invitation is extended.
Below are a few reasons why I choose not to do this:
I’ve no beef with Theistic Evolutionists.
Theistic Evolutionists are not religious extremists.
In general, Theistic Evolutionists are not known
to me as typically being social or political fanatics,
they do not seek to ban Evolution, nor Science either.
I DO debate Theistic Evolutionists,
where their social and political view differ from my own.
For these and additional reasons,
this post is not targetted for a debate with Theistic Evolutionists.
Accept this “Note” as true, “on faith”, from an Athiest.)Actually I think you're putting the cart before the horse by calling someone a Theistic Evolutionist, because although you may believe God was responsible for evolution, your beliefs are still predicated upon the belief in God, in which case I would call myself an "Evolutionary Theist." [;)] Of course to put it the other way can only suggest I've chosen sides, perhaps because the Theists (Creatoinists) would consider me nothing more than an Ahteist? (or traiter). However, it's Atheists I seem to be most at odds with ... at least when it comes to debating anyway.

And yet when you get to know me, you would understand that I'm more of a realist which, would probably put me more at odds with the Creationists. In which case it's obvious that I don't fit in with either camp, and I pretty much have to choose to go it alone, and experience reality on my "own terms."

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Really, AFAIK, that's wrong...a child is born with a mostly undeveloped brain, and without external stimulation nothing happens. With out external stimulus, there IS no person.

Again, while there may be something else, no evidence points to it.

I am not disputing your points about the brain. We know, for example, that in a newborn a great many neuronal connections are yet to be made, and as they develop so too does the infant's relatively smooth brain acquire gyri and sulci. So clearly brain development happens. (What we don't know is whether a being's use of its brain is what is developing it, or if the being actually is the brain. I am of the former opinion, as you know.)

However, a healthy child is born with the williness to learn, the ability to experience joy, to laugh, to be interested, to acquire wisdom . . . External conditions may stimulate those potentials, but the potentials are not created by the external stimuli. Surely you see that the potential is inborn. That potential, I say, is the original self.

Where is that self now? An analogy one might use to explain it is if we say about a room full of ice scuptures that water is the original self of all those sculptures. The water is still there, and can still be known in it's unsculptured, pure condition if someone wanted to take the time. So too does consciousness take a "shape" which we believe to be our self. It seems to me that most people are taken with the shape, and shaping themselves, and that few go to the trouble to know the original thing.

It doesn't matter to me whether you look "backwards" at that potential or not. I do spend time experiencing it, so I know it is there, and that it is there is what I am trying to argue. I find it adds a dimension to my consciousness I didn't have before I started experiencing that. I like it. You might not.

[Polly]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The water is still there, and can still be known in it's unsculptured, pure condition if someone wanted to take the time. So too does consciousness take a "shape" which we believe to be our self. It seems to me that most people are taken with the shape, and shaping themselves, and that few go to the trouble to know the original thing.

I do spend time experiencing it, so I know it is there, and that it is there is what I am trying to argue. I find it adds a dimension to my consciousness I didn't have before I started experiencing that. I like it.

Hello, would you tell us a bit more about this "water" as you have experienced?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello, would you tell us a bit more about this "water" as you have experienced?

Although you've not suggested anything about my motives, nonetheless first let me make it clear I am not trying to be an all-knowing expert on the subject, and I have nothing "mystical" to say. What I am talking about is something exceedingly simple. I will try to answer your question, and then at the end of this little essay I will also try to explain why I at least might appear frustrated at times in these discussions.

In one of my posts to Zero I said something like the following, "I am saying that there are a set of internal conditions present inside you that exist independent of what's external. . . . turn your attention away from external input, and then focus on the neutral sensitivity inside you that waits at the ready to respond to stuff . . . that is a "you" most people know very little about because they are so busy thinking and being stimulated by externals to feel it."

What is that "neutral sensitivity" I am referring to? To use an analogy, say you sing into a powered microphone so much that you only see a mic as the amplified sounds it makes. Then someone points out that even if you don't sing into it, the mic sustains a field of sensitivity which waits in readiness. They show you that the field has its own internal dynamics, and how if the field is noisy with its own noise, it colors every note of your music.

Similarly, I am suggesting that the foundation of consciousness is sensitivity; in its neutral or pure condtion I've come to refer to it as [i]base sensitivity. On the perception end, much of what stimulates our base sensitivity is information the senses send to it, but we also think and imagine with it. The incessant stimulation of that sensitivity now, combined with all the stimulation from birth that has left it "colored" or condtioned with patterns of the past, means we never get to experience our base sensitivity "clean" of that stimulation or conditioning.

Also significant is the effect of our base sensitivity always being being in some shape or another. If you can imagine that all our non-stop current thought, stimulation, and past conditioning require the use of our base sensitivity's power, then you can see we may never find out what it feels like to experience existence with our base sensitivity functioning at full senstivity.

Can one ever achieve a neutral, still base sensitivity? Well, this is where I've argued here (and at the old PF) that there is a three thousand year old history of individuals who've seen the value of this consciousness potential, and have seriously undertaken a certain type of inner practice to achieve it. Of the many people who achieved skill with it, two are most famous.

In India, the Buddha seems to have been the first to have realized perfect stillness (nirvana) through the practice of samadhi. In the West, devotees of Jesus took up the practice calling it union (the term "samadhi" means union). If you can accept my explanation of base sensivity, then the term union makes a lot of sense. That is, all the thoughts, conditioning and pursuit of external stimulation keeps our base sensivity fragmented; when one achieves the stillness of base sensivity, consciousness integrates (i.e., unifies) into a single experience.

To cite an example, here’s a quote from a Western practitioner of union, Teresa of Avila, a 16th century nun (most practitioners in the West were monastic residents) describing how she worked toward union through three stages of inner prayer: recollection, quiet, and then finally union. In the recollection phase of union Teresa says, “the soul [what I am calling 'base sensitivity'] collects its faculties together and enters within itself . . .” In other words, an individual withdraws his or her attention from the senses and mind and allows it to return to, or be “recollected.” The next stage of union is the “quiet” which Teresa says is, “In it the soul enters into peace . . . The soul understands in another way, very foreign to the way it understands through the exterior senses . . . that not much more would be required for it to become one . . . in union.” Now Teresa says the inner practitioner is ready for the final stage of prayer she calls union where awareness, “neither sees, nor hears, nor understands . . . for the union is always short and seems . . . even much shorter than it probably is. . . . And I say that if this prayer is the union of all the faculties . . . we already know [how union comes about] since it means that two separate things become one. . . .”

Now, are the advantages of union worth the effort? If one does acquire skill with it, might it allow one to become aware of subtleties a "noisy" awareness never detcts? Does the integrated experience (as many pratitioners claim) give us a blissful joy and lasting satisfaction independent of external conditions? Is the deep realization of this experience the source of reports of something some individuals called God? All those questions can only be answered one way, and that is to learn the experience for oneself.

Bringing all this a little closer to discussions which take place here, that experiential standard for unon is exactly the same standard for verifying the truth of an empirical statement. In other words, once I claim some external situation works or is a certain way, the truth of that empirical statement is verified by experience (i.e., observational, or sense experience). The difference between union and sense experience should be obvious because in the former there is no external input needed (or wanted) or externalization possible for "observation." All of it takes place within. Union is not an attempt to experience something "other," it is an attempt to experience one's self more fully.

At this site, if you see me frustrated it is usually because of debating with people who think they know all there is to know about conscious experience. In this thread you can see Zero and Deeviant, for instance, insisting there is no genuine conscious experience besides that derived from the senses and brain. They demand a "proof" of the inner thing that requires sense data and intellectual operations to establish.

When I try to explain to them what a ludicrous proposition that is for union, they simply again demand more external proof. When I site the long history of the practice of union, they refuse to look at it, often characterizing it as some sort of cult or weirdo mystical deluded practice. Do they know the first thing about it? Hell no. Does that stop them from spouting ethnocentrically educated opinions to the whole world. Hell no. Even when I tell them I personally have gone to the trouble to practice and learn the experience, that too is ignored. What am I to conclude from such discussions except that they have already decided reality is a certain way, and they are therefore pre-committed to rejecting out of hand any evidence which doesn't conform to their model of existence. To me, that is not how one participates in a philosophical discussion. Of course, you have not participated this way here, so none of that applies to you.

My interest here at PF is not to get people to try union. I don't think that is appropriate for a forum format. If you were interested in investigating the history of this practice, I might privately suggest reading or some other avenue. But here in the forum, my sole purpose is to confront the narrow empirical claims about what consciousness is and is capable of, and to open minds a bit.

[Rader]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

My interest here at PF is not to get people to try union. I don't think that is appropriate for a forum format. If you were interested in investigating the history of this practice, I might privately suggest reading or some other avenue. But here in the forum, my sole purpose is to confront the narrow empirical claims about what consciousness is and is capable of, and to open minds a bit.

LW Sleeth, Nice post, my very words, do not be frustrated. Its difficult communicating with zombies. Its only important what one thinks to satisfy himself. Although it is right and just to help others understand good things. I most certainly understand you and know of the life of Teresa of Avila.
[8)]