God

[Sriram]

And why does 'Consciousness influencing events' remind you of Deepak Chopra rather than of 'Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser' that we have discussed already......?! 

[Outrider]

Science is about the objective understanding of external (natural) phenomena.

In principle, yes.

Spirituality is about identifying the ultimate inner reality that is independent of the natural world and which outlives our temporal lives.

Science is looking at that; science is inspecting the activity of the brain to see what our 'ultimate inner reality' might be.  Of course, if you're going to presume, with no obvious basis, that something about our existence is inherently beyond the purview of science - 'independent of the natural world' somehow - then you're probably going to need to justify why you presume that, and what presumptions your 'spirituality' operates on, how it can be checked or validated in any way.

Quite obviously the latter is seen by most people as more important to our individual lives than any sort of understanding of the external world.

I'm not sure I'd say most - undoubtedly some, perhaps many, some will be split between the two, some will not give tuppence for claims of 'spiritual' in the light of centuries of continual and increasing success from science in the face of a 'spiritual' understanding that's never shown any demonstrable improvement in understanding or achievement since... ever.
 

Normally these two (science and spirituality) can carry on without necessarily impinging on one another.  Scientists could continue to investigate natural phenomena without worrying about the inner reality and spiritual people (within or without religion) can continue their practices to seek inner fulfillment.

Not really, spiritually continually impinges on science's remit, when it makes claims about reality whilst purporting to be about things 'beyond'.  We are part of the natural world; even if there were some sort of spiritual element beyond physicality, the fact that for it to matter at all it has to interact with us brings it within science's remit to investigate.

There should not be any problem.

If people with spiritual claims would stop trying to exempt them from rational discourse without justification there wouldn't be any problem.  You can't say 'this is real' then at the same time allege that it's beyond the remit of the study of reality.  It might be, conceivably, that there is something that's totally beyond the remit of science, but I'm not sure what it might be, and I've  certainly not heard a reliable justification for any individual claim of it yet.

Problem arises when firstly, Science conflicts with religious mythology and secondly, tries to explain all aspects of life including subjective fulfillment, in purely natural terms.

Why is that a problem? What justification is there for thinking that any part of that is somehow supranatural?  If it were, why can science not study the interaction of that with the natural (i.e. us). If there is no measurable interaction for science to work with, how can we in any way think that it's a thing given that it has no effect?

This makes spirituality seem like  an ignorant and foolish attempt at seeking something that is not really there.  This is where it becomes necessary to attempt to bridge the gap and seek a common ground where both scientific discoveries and spiritual experiences merge.

If two answers disagree the correct answer is not necessarily half-way between - some answers are just wrong.
 

This is to establish that there really is something important and worthwhile that spirituality offers and which science does not seem to be able to grasp.

It's for 'spiritual' to establish this, not merely to claim it - it's something that needs to be justified, not just asserted.

This is  not just by way of winning arguments with scientists but more importantly to give the general public hope and encouragement in their spiritual attempts and help them shed self doubt.

There's only a reason to do that if spiritual is real, that has to be demonstrated first.

Attempts at understanding consciousness and its influence on the external world is one major area where this is possible.

On what basis do you suggest that consciousness is something more than a physical phenomenon?

Once this attempt succeeds and it becomes apparent even to science that there is more to our lives than what can be explained by external objective methods, then, once again science and spirituality can go about their business independently......but with respect for one another rather than contempt.

If it could be shown... if.  How would that happen? How would something affect the real world, but not be within the remit of science to investigate?

That is my point.

That wasn't a point, that was special pleading - my claim should be treated specially because I really want it to be.  The fact that a few billion other people share that special pleading desire doesn't change the nature of it, it's still special pleading.

O.

[ekim]

I was puzzled by your claim that yogic methods sought to reveal the subject 'I' by transcending subjectivity. Wouldn't transcending subjectivity by definition remove the subject 'I' altogether? Buddhist yogas, of course, deliberately seek to expose the voidness of any foundational self. In such pursuit 'inner stillness' is generally seen as a necessary but not sufficient tool. Maybe it's different in Hinduism.

Yes, I do tend to puzzle people probably because some of the words I use relate to their original meanings.  'Reveal' for instance meant removal of a veil and 'transcend' to climb across, each is a way of portraying the relationship of the subject 'I' or conscious observer to the subjective contents of the mind i.e. thoughts, concepts, emotions etc. which tend to go towards making up the 'self' which many identify with.  Revelation and transcendence are just two of the inadequate words that have been used to give a sense of method.  The problem with words is that they take the consciousness into the mind rather than freeing it from its contents.  I believe the Buddhist word 'nirvana' means 'blown away' and is a way of presenting the situation and in Hinduism there is use made of the word 'kosha' meaning 'sheath' of which there are 5 which have to be negotiated.  Inner stillness tends to be presented as a helpful way as opposed to inner activity which is the distractive way of the mind.

[Enki]

And why does 'Consciousness influencing events' remind you of Deepak Chopra rather than of 'Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser' that we have discussed already......?! 

Possibly because there is no evidence whatever of consciousness having any part to play in quantum measurements. The observer effect can be just as easily be an electronic detector as a human being.

[Robbie]

I know you are used to thinking of God as a supernatural individual sitting up in the clouds....even though you might be an atheist.  The idea of our own inner Consciousness being God must be new to you (though it is thousands of years old).

God is within us, in our unconscious, I certainly believe that. It's the doctrine of immanence.

[Sriram]

God is within us, in our unconscious, I certainly believe that. It's the doctrine of immanence.

Yes..Robbie. That is the point.

Some eminent scientists have in fact said that Consciousness is fundamental to creation.  Max Planck (the father of QM) has said so explicitly.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness."

It all adds up very well. But people with microscopic vision cannot see similarities. They always see differences and segregation.   

[SusanDoris]

#30 'Eminent scientists? Which ones? Eminent in what? Where is their objective evidence?

#26 Outrider
A satisfyingly interesting post to read to start the day!

[Stranger]

Some eminent scientists have in fact said that Consciousness is fundamental to creation.  Max Planck (the father of QM) has said so explicitly.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness."

What Max Planck believed in the 1930s doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely no actual evidence for this view.

[Outrider]

Some eminent scientists have in fact said that Consciousness is fundamental to creation.  Max Planck (the father of QM) has said so explicitly.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness."

I'd suggest, though, that when Max Planck said that it wasn't in a peer-reviewed paper?  Scientists can have feelings beyond their science, but at that point they are just opinions - much like anyone else's opinion you might lend more or less weight to it depending upon who they are but ultimately it has to stand or fall based upon the nature of the claim itself, and the claim has no basis, even when Max Planck makes it.

It all adds up very well.

If you ignore the basics of maths.  The thing is, if you're going to ignore the material evidence and accept anything with an internally consistent logic then so do the 9/11 conspiracies, the idea that aliens are the source of the Atlantis legends and the Lord of the Rings trilogy...

But people with microscopic vision cannot see similarities.

The thing you need to remember is that a microscope helps you see some detailed thing very, very clearly.  There is no intrinsic problem with 'microscopic vision', there could be a problem with when you choose to use it.  I would suggest that 'scale' isn't the reason why I, and many others, can't see this overarching spiritual 'god' concept - it's not a 'can't see the wood for the trees' issue, it's a 'can't see the unicorn because it isn't there' issue.

They always see differences and segregation.   

Like the difference between reality and spiritual claim?

O.

[Sriram]

It is not just Max Planck. Neils Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Schrodinger and many other pioneers of QM accepted mystical possibilities.  John wheeler is responsible for the Delayed Choice experiments...and Participatory anthropic principle.   

https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html

*********

“Becoming aware of this subject would help general audiences realize that there are many other alternatives besides the ones offered by the disjunction between science and religion,” Marin told PhysOrg.com. “Science vs. religion is a very recent forced choice that the founders of quantum mechanics would have never recognized, much less accepted.”

*********

[Outrider]

It is not just Max Planck. Neils Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Schrodinger and many other pioneers of QM accepted mystical possibilities.

And, the plural of 'Max Planck had no evidence to support his belief' is 'neither did any of these people'.

John wheeler is responsible for the Delayed Choice experiments...and Participatory anthropic principle.

https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html

*********

“Becoming aware of this subject would help general audiences realize that there are many other alternatives besides the ones offered by the disjunction between science and religion,” Marin told PhysOrg.com. “Science vs. religion is a very recent forced choice that the founders of quantum mechanics would have never recognized, much less accepted.”

*********

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment showed that quanta were neither wholly particle nor wholly wave in formation; that's not what he set out to establish, but that's what it showed.  The participatory anthropic principle, as has been stated already here, falls over in light of the fact that waveform collapse regardless of the nature of the 'observer' - inanimate measuring equipment, other quantum effects reliant upon the output, all cause the waveform to collapse.  Logically, the concept of a collapsing waveform could be entirely a result of the mathematical methods by which we're modelling these effects, there is nothing in our actual measurements which shows collapse occurring - which their wouldn't be, with our current methods of measurement.  It may be that someone comes up with a sufficiently cunning experiment to establish this with some degree of certainty, but I suspect it won't be Deepak Chopra.

O.

[Sriram]

And that is the problem....you still see it as some sort of a cunning effort by religious minded people to 'prove' their point.  You don't see it as a real possible meeting point where science can try to understand consciousness....and through that, also understand spirituality.   

It is a mind set problem. Comfort zone and all that....! 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

And that is the problem....you still see it as some sort of a cunning effort by religious minded people to 'prove' their point.  You don't see it as a real possible meeting point where science can try to understand consciousness....and through that, also understand spirituality.

It can't be "a real possible meeting point" unless those who claim religious facts also provide some method to investigate their claim. If you think otherwise, then you have no choice but to accept on the same basis that those investigating gravity have a real possible meeting point with pixicologists to explain why stuff doesn't just float around.

You know this already though don't you because it's been explained to you countless times, even though you continue to ignore your problem.   

It is a mind set problem. Comfort zone and all that....!

Wrong again - see above.

[Outrider]

And that is the problem....you still see it as some sort of a cunning effort by religious minded people to 'prove' their point.  You don't see it as a real possible meeting point where science can try to understand consciousness....and through that, also understand spirituality.

Assertions of unmeasurable, unverifiable things can never be a 'meeting point' with science. Science is, by definition, restricted to the demonstrable - phenomenon first, then scientific investigation of the phenomenon.   I don't see it as a 'cunning effort' to prove a point, I see at as a desperately naive and misguided attempt to explain reality with woo - I'm not sure why, I'm fairly confident there probably isn't a single reason.   

It is a mind set problem. Comfort zone and all that....!

It's a mindset, perhaps, yes.  I'm not sure that I see any problem with it, save perhaps that I'm still having to do it.  As to comfort zone, what could be more comfortable than not having to rely on evidence and actual findings, what could be more of a comfort zone than 'spiritual' as a sort of 'get out of jail free' card that exempts you from having to actually demonstrate anything?

O.

[Sriram]

Fundamentally what is important to understand is that spirituality is not about a distant God somewhere.  It is about what 'we' are at the deepest level. We have this impression of objectivity even though everything that we 'know' or 'understand' is essentially subjective.

We should be able to naturally arrive at some  level of understanding where the objective and subjective merge. This meeting point is what seems to be the world of Consciousness. 

The fathers of QM have correctly (and quite obviously) found bizarre aspects of reality that point to a overlapping of the two worlds of objectivity and subjectivity connecting with the enigma of Consciousness.

There is nothing contentious about this. It is a step forward.

 

[Outrider]

Fundamentally what is important to understand is that spirituality is not about a distant God somewhere.  It is about what 'we' are at the deepest level. We have this impression of objectivity even though everything that we 'know' or 'understand' is essentially subjective.

Spirituality is not about 'what we are at the deepest level' it's about avoiding exploring what we are in favour of pat answers which cannot be falsified to avoid the implications of answers to deep questions that we might not like.

We should be able to naturally arrive at some  level of understanding where the objective and subjective merge.

We have.  We've developed a system of enquiry that, so far as we can reasonably manage, attempts to accommodate or remove our subjectivity from the methods of enquiry. It's called, colloquially, 'science'.

This meeting point is what seems to be the world of Consciousness.

No, that's the post hoc subjective rationalisation of a limited cognitive understanding of a  limited sensory appreciation of the objective reality.

The fathers of QM have correctly (and quite obviously) found bizarre aspects of reality that point to a overlapping of the two worlds of objectivity and subjectivity connecting with the enigma of Consciousness.

Well, it appears that they've found phenomena which appear bizarre to a brain evolved to fathom macroscopic physics - it's not inherently bizarre, it's bizarre from our particular subjective understanding.  The evidence subjectively was interpreted as having subjective elements, but the mathematical modelling doesn't actually show that, we just 'feel' that subjectively because of the physics we've evolved to expect.

There is nothing contentious about this. It is a step forward.

You're right, there is nothing contentious about it - pseudo-science, woo and Chopra-waffle aren't part of the accepted science.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Fundamentally what is important to understand is that spirituality is not about a distant God somewhere.

No-one suggests otherwise, but ok.

It is about what 'we' are at the deepest level.

Not yet it isn’t. It (if there even is an “it”) might dress itself in claims of “what we are at the deepest level” but, so far at least, any related claim of fact from any branch of “spirituality” are precisely as (in)valid as any other because no version of it offers something that’s investigable. 

We have this impression of objectivity even though everything that we 'know' or 'understand' is essentially subjective.

Well yes, but then we make sense of subjective experience by applying tools and methods to sort the probably true from the white noise. The former we call “objective” quite happily with no supplemental claim to the absolute. For all I know the reality I perceive is just a computer simulation, but I must proceed on the basis that it isn’t if I’m to function in the world. For all I know too “spirituality” or gods or leprechauns or auras or whatever else pops into my or your head are objectively true too, but I cannot just assume any of them to be true because then I’d have no basis not to treat all of them as true as they’re epistemically the same: white noise.   

We should be able to naturally arrive at some  level of understanding where the objective and subjective merge.

We already do. That’s why we treat, say, magnetism as probably real and, say, phlogiston as probably not real.

This meeting point is what seems to be the world of Consciousness.

Only to you. In that case though, it must be a “meeting point” for the world of leprechaunology too.   

The fathers of QM have correctly (and quite obviously) found bizarre aspects of reality that point to a overlapping of the two worlds of objectivity and subjectivity connecting with the enigma of Consciousness.

Bullshit Deepak. “The fathers of QM” found things that are counter-intuitive because they jar with the way we ordinarily perceive the world. What they also did though was to investigate the hypothesis to develop working tests that are verifiably correct to exquisite levels of accuracy. By contrast claims of “spirituality” and the like are just that – claims. Worse, they’re claims with no concomitant means of investigation.   

There is nothing contentious about this. It is a step forward.

No it’s a step backward into superstition and ignorance. If you want to make a real step forward though then – finally – you’ll need to come to up with a method to investigate the various clams of fact you make. And that, as you well know, is the point at which you always run away.

Oh well.

[Sriram]

Well, it appears that they've found phenomena which appear bizarre to a brain evolved to fathom macroscopic physics - it's not inherently bizarre, it's bizarre from our particular subjective understanding.  The evidence subjectively was interpreted as having subjective elements, but the mathematical modelling doesn't actually show that, we just 'feel' that subjectively because of the physics we've evolved to expect.


O.

Yes...nothing is bizarre by itself. It only appears bizarre to us because of the scale at which we live. Similarly with the idea of Consciousness being the source of the world.

[Stranger]

Yes...nothing is bizarre by itself. It only appears bizarre to us because of the scale at which we live. Similarly with the idea of Consciousness being the source of the world.

It's not similar at all. There is evidence for the actual "bizarreness" of quantum phenomena and no evidence for consciousness being the "source of the world".

[Outrider]

Yes...nothing is bizarre by itself. It only appears bizarre to us because of the scale at which we live.

There are other reasons for things to appear bizarre or counterintuitive, but it's certainly one of the ways.

Similarly with the idea of Consciousness being the source of the world.

See, to me, that doesn't seem bizarre - bizarre is 'it's there, but it's not what I expected'.  Consciousness as a source of the world isn't apparent, it isn't a phenomenon I can't explain, it's an explanation for phenomenon that I can't see anyone offering a suitable and sufficient justification for.

O.

[Sriram]

God is within us, in our unconscious, I certainly believe that. It's the doctrine of immanence.

Robbie,

My suggestion for those of you who aren't very religious and don't particularly accept any of the principle deities as the only way to salvation.....but nevertheless believe or know that life has a purpose and that there is some sort of a superior intelligence at work in Nature and within us..... think of the inner layers of the  Unconscious mind as connected to this superior Consciousness. 

This will help you to relate and connect to this inner Self....  Try to meditate on that....and you will find fulfillment.

If you prefer the religious path....that is fine too! 

Cheers.

Sriram

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

My suggestion for those of you who aren't very religious and don't particularly accept any of the principle deities as the only way to salvation.....but nevertheless believe or know that life has a purpose and that there is some sort of a superior intelligence at work in Nature and within us..... think of the inner layers of the  Unconscious mind as connected to this superior Consciousness.

This will help you to relate and connect to this inner Self....  Try to meditate on that....and you will find fulfillment.

If you prefer the religious path....that is fine too!

I've taken your advice and meditated on it. Turns out that it's unqualified, non-investigable, white noise bollocks.

Thanks.

[Walter]

Sriram,

I've taken your advice and meditated on it. Turns out that it's unqualified, non-investigable, white noise bollocks.

Thanks.

blue ,
Brilliant ! You should put that on a "T" shirt

I'll take two 👍😂😂😂

[SusanDoris]

blue ,
Brilliant ! You should put that on a "T" shirt

I'll take two 👍😂😂😂

Ditto! I was going to say, 'Thank goodness for common sense!' (D)