We Never Really Die: The Science behind Eternal Consciousness

[AugustLeo]

I believed this for years- and was pretty sure I invented it

 

It is the core of LoneMan Pai™, but with different terminology

 

Read more: http://lonemanpai.com/thread/674/never-die-science-eternal-consciousnes#ixzz3gvAh6w43

______________________

 

 

We Never Really Die: The Science behind Eternal Consciousness

July 17, 2015

 

thespiritscience.net/2015/07/17/we-never-really-die-the-science-behind-eternal-consciousness/

 

A book called “Biocentrism: How life and consciousness are the keys to understanding the true nature and the universe” stirred the Internet, stating that life does not end when the body dies, but it lasts forever.

 

The author of this book, scientist Dr. Robert Lanza, who the New York Times pronounced as the third most important living scientist, believes that this is entirely possible.

Beyond time and space

 

Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of the Company for advanced cell technology. Before he became famous for his research on stem cells, he was known for the successful experiments of cloning endangered species.

 

 

However, the scientist has recently started to deal with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This interesting mix created the theory of biocentrism, which the professor now engaged. Biocentrism teaches that life and consciousness are the basis of the universe and that consciousness creates the material universe, and not vice versa.

 

Lanza indicates the structure of the universe and how that the laws and constants of the forces of the universe are tuned for life, suggesting that intelligence existed before matter.

 

He also claims that space and time are not objects or things, but tools of our animal understanding. Lanza says that we actually carry space and time with us as turtles wear their armor, meaning that we exist even outside of time and space.

 

The theory suggests that the death of awareness is not possible, but is only a thought because people identify themselves with their body. They believe that the body will disappear sooner or later and that their consciousness will die with the body.

 

If the body creates awareness, then awareness dies along with the body, but if the body receives consciousness in the same way as cable TV signal reception, it is clear that consciousness continues to exist when it leaves its physical shell. In fact, consciousness exists outside the boundaries of time and space. It can be anywhere: in the body and outside the body. In other words, it is not local in the same manner as quantum structures.

 

Lanza also believes that there are several simultaneous universes. In one universe, the body is dead while in another one it still exists, absorbing the consciousness that moved to this universe. This means that a person who dies does not end up in heaven or hell, but in a similar world that was once inhabited, but is alive again. It so happens again and again.

Multiple Universes

 

This interesting theory has many supporters, including many well-known scientists. These are physicists and astrophysicists who agree about the existence of parallel worlds and that indicate the possible existence of multiple universes. They claim that there are no physical laws that prevent the existence of parallel worlds.multiverse-4

 

Science fiction author, HG Wales in 1895, first presented this idea. 62 years later, Dr. Hugh Everett developed it, and the core assumption is that the universe is divided to countless similar parts at any time, and that this happens with every so incurred universe. In one of these universes you are reading this article and in another one you might be watching TV.

 

The initiating factors of this universe division are our actions, says Everett. If we make a choice, the universe is immediately divided into two universes with different outcomes.

 

Andrei Linde, a scientist with the Lebedev Institute of Physics, developed the theory of multiple universes back in the 80s. He is now a professor at Stanford University. Linde explained that the universe is composed of many blown spheres, which increase similar spheres, which then produce spheres in even greater numbers, and so on to infinity. These spheres are completely separate and independent from each other, but represent different parts of the same physical universe.

 

 

The fact that our universe is not unique is supported by data obtained with the Planck telescope.

 

Scientists are using this data to create the most accurate map of the cosmic radiation that has existed since the foundation of the universe. They also discovered that the universe has a lot of dark holes.

 

Theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina claims that the anomalies in the area are due to the fact that the surrounding universes affect our universe, and that those dark holes are the direct result.

The scientific explanation for the Soul

 

So there are many places or many universes in which our soul can be moved after death, accordinw the theory of neo-biocentrism. Is there a scientific theory of consciousness that supports this claim? According to Dr. Stuart Hameroff, near-death experience occurs when the quantum information that inhabits the nervous system leaves the body and scatters in the universe.

 

He argues that awareness is in the microtubules of the brain cells, which are the primary site of the quantum processing.

 

After death, this information goes out of the body, together with consciousness. He believes that our experience of consciousness result of quantum gravity effects in these microtubules.

 

 

Reference:

 

www.robertlanza.com/biocentrism-how-life-and-consciousness-are-the-keys-to-understanding-the-true-nature-of-the-universe/

Thanks to SotG for sharing this.

 

AugustLeo

[Infolad1]

This "argument", was settled 100 years ago. The greatest scientific minds of this current age said that 

reality isn't "real" In the way that most people think. Einstein said it. Bohr said It. Pauli said it, among others.

 

Some of them didn't like saying it, but they had to admit that the experiment that led to this conclusion were accurate.

 

People have attempted to refute the double slit, and we now having various splinter versions of quantum theory due to this.

 

It is a fact that we can only perceive a very small piece of the electromagnetic spectrum, without instrumentation.

 

So common sense should tell you, that most people don't have a complete picture of reality.

 

The empirical belief system only holds up under the classical physics model.

 

We've been way beyond that model for quite some time. A number of people (some of which are scientists) just refuse to admit to the fact.

 

As such, you have scientists still disagreeing amongst themselves as to what's actually happening, as you can see below:

 

Brian Greene: Quantum Physics And Reality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbCl4p5TDPc

 

Tom Campbell: The Key to Understanding Our Reality (from Spokane)

 

Richard Dawkins and Brian Greene: Do We Live in a Simulated Universe?

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson makes fun of Brian Greene's String Theory (Must Watch!!!!)

 

Computer Code Discovered In Superstring Equations

 

So it really just comes down to which reality box you decide to utilize for your explanation.

 

The other thing that empiricists/materialists don't get, is that if this is a simulation, then all of your arguments are based upon

just knowledge of the physics engine that you've "discovered". Are there other physics engines? We've discovered two so far (classical, and modern), so it's possible. What is the programmer? Some say consciousness, some say you can never know. 

 

So as they drill down deeper, and deeper into the physics engine, they see that reality is made up of molecules, which, are 

made up of atoms, which are made up of sub-atomic particles, which the further you go down into their structure, are composed of more, and more nothing.

 

So then you end up with books like this:

 

The 4 Percent Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

http://www.amazon.com/The-Percent-Universe-Discover-Reality/dp/B007K4QADA

 

Book Description:

 

"In recent years, a handful of scientists has been racing to explain a disturbing aspect of our universe: only 4 percent of it consists of the matter that makes up you, me, and every star and planet. The rest is completely unknown.

 

Richard Panek tells the dramatic story of how scientists reached this cosmos-shattering conclusion. In vivid detail, he narrates the quest to find the “dark” matter and an even more bizarre substance called dark energy that make up 96 percent of the universe. This is perhaps the greatest mystery in all of science, and solving it will bring fame, funding, and certainly a Nobel Prize. Based on hundreds of interviews and in-depth, on-site reporting, the book offers an intimate portrait of the bitter rivalries and fruitful collaborations, the eureka moments and blind alleys, that have redefined science and reinvented the universe."

 

So "matter" only makes up 4 percent of the structure of the known universe.

 

This is current scientific theory, not the older "laws" of Newton, and Maxwell, among others.

 

Getting into arguments with hardcore empiricists/materialists is a waste of time, and energy. Their reasoning

is usually excellent. their premises however have been proven to be built upon quicksand, by the very hard science

priesthood that they worship, and whose older dogma they espouse.

 

Their knowledge base of current scientific discovery tends to be dated as well. They haven't usually heard of Information theory, Digital Physics, and other cutting edge proposals. They tend to live in the relative safety of classical physics.

 

This "New Physics" stuff is downright scary to them.

 

So they proceed to throw tantrums, screaming "Idealism", or whatever other "ism", to whomever chooses to listen to them.

 

If you frequent this forum, then you're pursuing practices related to Eastern Philosophy, Science, & Cosmology.

 

This is what some Western Intellectual gatekeeprs think of Eastern Sciences of Knowing:

 

"Some Western thinkers claim that philosophy as such is only characteristic of Western cultures. Martin Heidegger is even reported to have said that only Greek and German languages are suitable for philosophizing[citation needed].

 

On the other hand, Arab and Jewish philosophy, which have been in dialogue with the Greek tradition and, in the case of leading Islamic philosophers such as Ibn Sina or Ibn Rushd, rely heavily on it, are not specifically Eastern philosophies at all.

 

It is still commonplace in Western universities to teach only Western philosophy and to ignore Asian philosophy altogether, or consider only newer Western-influenced Asian thought properly "philosophy". Carine Defoort, herself a specialist in Chinese thought, has offered support for such a "family" view of philosophy,while Rein Raud has presented an argument against it and offered a more flexible definition of philosophy that would include both Western and Asian thought on equal terms.

 

In response, OuYang Min argues that philosophy proper is a Western cultural practice and essentially different from zhexue, which is what the Chinese have, even though zhexue (originally tetsugaku) is actually a neologism coined in 1873 by Nishi Amane for describing Western philosophy as opposed to traditional Asian thought."

 

Biocentrism is a familiar theory to students of both Eastern Philosophy, & Science. Folks with materialist based reality boxes will strongly oppose these views. There IS no changing of their minds. It's literally how they see the world, until THEY choose to see it otherwise.

 

So don't waste valuable time, or energy debating them.

 

Nothing to see here folks. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Carry on.  

 

Cheers!

Edited July 27, 2015 by Infolad1

[Nikolai1]

The moment we say 'we once thought the world was that way but know we know it is this way' we are still basically indulging in materialism. This is still the case even if we start saying that 'living consciousness creates the reality as we know it.' We reify consciousness and turn it into a thing which can have causal influence in the world of time, space and matter.

 

What biocentrism basically does is reintroduce conscious purpose. Before we had accidental physical laws and organisms evolve pd through random genetic mutation; now we have consciousness creating the laws and creating the appearance of the species.

 

It makes no sense to turn this creative consciousness into a personal consciousness: no one is contented by solipsism. The consciousness must become cosmic...the consciousness must become God's.

 

What Lanza is doing is reintroducing God, though he never really went away. God merely withdrew into the millions of individual creative consciousnesses. God became many egos, Lanza wishes him to become cosmic again.

 

Every given pendulum swing towards or away from God is hailed as an exciting shift of paradigm. But to the wise it's simply boring. The truth we all seek is above all the talk, it is itself the talk.

[Karl]

@ infolad1

 

Your haven't presented a coherent valid argument. In a nutshell your argument rests on the basis of an appeal to authority. Einstein was frequently wrong, but he was a scientist and could determine theoretical statement from scientific proof. It appears you cannot. You have taken a bit of discussion by notable scientists ( nothing like a good bit of theoretical argumentation, but that isn't proof ).

 

Finally you try and shut down the argument by the use of a sideways ad hominem. Old physics, those that don't get the 'new' ways etc and then marginalise them.

 

If you think the world is not reality, then let me dangle you over a 300 meter high cliff by a rope. I will hold a knife to the rope and you can decide if reality is really real, or not. I'm guessing you will conclude that classical physics is perhaps a better option than testing out your subjective world view. ;-)

 

That's what the monks used to do to 'the enlightened'. When they said they had transcended pain and attachment, then the monks would beat them with sticks until they came to their senses.

 

 

[Silent Answers]

@ infolad1Your haven't presented a coherent valid argument. In a nutshell your argument rests on the basis of an appeal to authority. Einstein was frequently wrong, but he was a scientist and could determine theoretical statement from scientific proof. It appears you cannot. You have taken a bit of discussion by notable scientists ( nothing like a good bit of theoretical argumentation, but that isn't proof ).Finally you try and shut down the argument by the use of a sideways ad hominem. Old physics, those that don't get the 'new' ways etc and then marginalise them. If you think the world is not reality, then let me dangle you over a 300 meter high cliff by a rope. I will hold a knife to the rope and you can decide if reality is really real, or not. I'm guessing you will conclude that classical physics is perhaps a better option than testing out your subjective world view. ;-)That's what the monks used to do to 'the enlightened'. When they said they had transcended pain and attachment, then the monks would beat them with sticks until they came to their senses.

Your view of the world is valid to your current experience, which goes as far as what you've heard from other sources. The reality is, as proven by scientists actually doing the studies, that matter is empty...Like the blades on a fan spinning to give the appearance of a solid disc, so too matter is vibrating to give the appearance of solidity, yet its constantly moving.

 

The truth here is that you're too stuck in your ways to see through the illusion, because you've already decided to close yourself off from an aspect of reality that you personally cannot touch. You're welcome to do so, but I feel inclined to add another side to your opinion.

 

Can you see the air with only your eyes?

Can you see/feel the Earth spin?

Can you feel us hurtling through space?

 

These things happen, yet they would all have been quite out of the box, before someone with the right mind and technology came along to prove it. In your eyes, it's not true until it's been accepted by a majority, or can be reproduced personally. However, there will always be those that just "knew" it. They didn't need acceptance of others, or even a scientific background. That doesn't mean they were wrong.

 

It's a bit hypocritical to deny others of their beliefs, which you deem as not real science, when the science you do believe in is just as theoretical and unproven. Your view of what it is to die, is obviously not the same as the OP (and my own).

 

When it comes to topics like these... there (currently) isn't a way to measure it with a ruler. It requires experience, personal experimentation and a little faith in the grandness of the infinite.

[Karl]

Your view of the world is valid to your current experience, which goes as far as what you've heard from other sources. The reality is, as proven by scientists actually doing the studies, that matter is empty...Like the blades on a fan spinning to give the appearance of a solid disc, so too matter is vibrating to give the appearance of solidity, yet its constantly moving.

The truth here is that you're too stuck in your ways to see through the illusion, because you've already decided to close yourself off from an aspect of reality that you personally cannot touch. You're welcome to do so, but I feel inclined to add another side to your opinion.

Can you see the air with only your eyes?

Can you see/feel the Earth spin?

Can you feel us hurtling through space?

These things happen, yet they would all have been quite out of the box, before someone with the right mind and technology came along to prove it. In your eyes, it's not true until it's been accepted by a majority, or can be reproduced personally. However, there will always be those that just "knew" it. They didn't need acceptance of others, or even a scientific background. That doesn't mean they were wrong.

It's a bit hypocritical to deny others of their beliefs, which you deem as not real science, when the science you do believe in is just as theoretical and unproven. Your view of what it is to die, is obviously not the same as the OP (and my own).

When it comes to topics like these... there (currently) isn't a way to measure it with a ruler. It requires experience, personal experimentation and a little faith in the grandness of the infinite.

 

None of that information is new to me, neither do I dispute it in any way, sense or form. I can directly know what is subjective bullshit and what is scientific reality. I already said the material aspects of the universe are nodal. It is the result of energetic vibration, harmonics and syntheses. However this does not make them subjective bundles. They are reality. Drive into a wall and see if it feels like a subjective reality.

 

What is being said here is not the product of of science. It is subjective, superstitious voodoo masquerading as science. Well regarded scientists are just as much a victim of their minds as everyone else. They are as fallible as any other man. The only sense in which they differ is the employment of logical deduction or inductive assessment. That's the only tool we have in the pack and if you aren't going to use it, then the result will be fuzzy, subjectivist delusions. That way leads to burning witches and sacrificing virgins.

 

I despair when I hear 'old fashioned hard science' being given as a reason for ignoring it. There isn't any ' old fashioned science', science is science and the rest of us have stood on the shoulders of great men and women who have worked tirelessly to expose objective reality.

[Silent Answers]

None of that information is new to me, neither do I dispute it in any way, sense or form. I can directly know what is subjective bullshit and what is scientific reality. I already said the material aspects of the universe are nodal. It is the result of energetic vibration, harmonics and syntheses. However this does not make them subjective bundles. They are reality. Drive into a wall and see if it feels like a subjective reality. What is being said here is not the product of of science. It is subjective, superstitious voodoo masquerading as science. Well regarded scientists are just as much a victim of their minds as everyone else. They are as fallible as any other man. The only sense in which they differ is the employment of logical deduction or inductive assessment. That's the only tool we have in the pack and if you aren't going to use it, then the result will be fuzzy, subjectivist delusions. That way leads to burning witches and sacrificing virgins.I despair when I hear 'old fashioned hard science' being given as a reason for ignoring it. There isn't any ' old fashioned science', science is science and the rest of us have stood on the shoulders of great men and women who have worked tirelessly to expose objective reality.

Well, before the burning of witches, there were the times of healers. When we put our faith into the nature and were a little more connected, we also built pyramids and great monuments. This requires some serious thought to do. However they did it, these mystics were far from stupid.

 

Belief in the cycle of death and rebirth is a truly ancient one, and is still felt/experienced today, in its many forms.

 

Do you honestly believe that this (self/consciousness) is nothing but a side effect, a madness of biology? What would be the point in such a life? Clinging to insane thought forms, trying to make sense of the non-sense... Why would anyone continue that?

 

I hope you rediscover the part of yourself that knows there's more to it than that.

[Karl]

Well, before the burning of witches, there were the times of healers. When we put our faith into the nature and were a little more connected, we also built pyramids and great monuments. This requires some serious thought to do. However they did it, these mystics were far from stupid.

Belief in the cycle of death and rebirth is a truly ancient one, and is still felt/experienced today, in its many forms.

Do you honestly believe that this (self/consciousness) is nothing but a side effect, a madness of biology? What would be the point in such a life? Clinging to insane thought forms, trying to make sense of the non-sense... Why would anyone continue that?

I hope you rediscover the part of yourself that knows there's more to it than that.

 

We put our faith in nature today. Who can heal without nature ?

Pyramids and monuments were not a great value to all. They were misguided appropriations of the wealth of others to build mausoleums in sand. Osimandius could have told you that.

A madness of biology ? Does it seem like a madness ? If you don't know what the point is brother, then you should discover it quickly, time is ticking.

There is no discovering. There is conscious self. It is far more than I deserve and I have enough humility to consider it a great blessing, gift enough. I tell you that you should not squander it looking for, or living in illusions. Bathe in the clear waters of reality and wash away the dirt you are accumulating.

 

[Silent Answers]

These aren't questions I'm asking your help with, they are just rhetorical thoughts.

 

The funny thing is, your views don't differ much to mine in the end, but you are (in my opinion) denying yourself so much more of the true existence you seek /have found.

 

As a little unimportant sidenote, my view of history and purpose of the pyramids differs to yours, too...but let's not even go there, haha.

 

It's been fun, good night.

[Nikolai1]

Karl - you are in dire need of intellectual humility. You should read what is being offered more carefully.

[Karl]

These aren't questions I'm asking your help with, they are just rhetorical thoughts.

The funny thing is, your views don't differ much to mine in the end, but you are (in my opinion) denying yourself so much more of the true existence you seek /have found.

As a little unimportant sidenote, my view of history and purpose of the pyramids differs to yours, too...but let's not even go there, haha.

It's been fun, good night.

 

I gave up seeking any more than I have :-) then I discovered I had much more than I had. I cannot deny myself, because there is only self and not two of us.

 

It doesn't surprise me that they differ from mine :-) mind you I spent many years glued to Von Danikin and a mother merrily building and sitting under pyramids in our front room. If we weren't practising astral projection, out of body experiences, ghost hunting we really weren't trying. My mother is still at it. Battery powered something or other sits beneath her bed, crystals and energy eggs everywhere. If it isn't water vortexes it's drinking distilled water from a special stills she bought. I'm not above people getting their kicks this way and if it does them good then I can't see a reason to discourage it. Where I draw the line is when this stuff becomes main stream, is paid for by tax payers and inserted into the states list of 'must do' or 'get shot' policies.

[Karl]

Karl - you are in dire need of intellectual humility. You should read what is being offered more carefully.

 

Oh I know, I know. If only I could just accept this wisdom without vomiting over my tablet the world would be a much more beautiful place.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

[...]You would have to die, to provide the proof that there is no eternal consciousness.[...]

I am the reincarnation of Julius Caesar. I know I'm right because you can't prove me wrong. See the problem? Any hypothesis has to be considered untrue until it's proved to be true or false. You can't treat a hypothesis as true by default, especially if it's unfalsifiable. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that there IS an eternal consciousness, not on Karl to prove that there ISN'T.

 

As for the whole 'objective' thing - some things are subjective, some things are objective. Anything that's not a matter of opinion is objective. If anyone observes particles, they affect them - this is objective because all people have this effect. It isn't a matter of opinion whether observers influence particles, so this is an objective truth. People had differing opinions on what causes lightning, but it was always static, not Thor or Zeus. People believing lightning is caused by static doesn't cause it to be so - it just is.

 

Similarly, whether or not biocentrism is true is an objective truth. It's either true or false. If you disagree on this, then there is no point debating whether or not biocentrism is true because the word 'truth' is meaningless.

[Nikolai1]

Karl - the placebo effect is a good place to start when pondering the influence our state of mind has over our health. It is a major component of any healing, medical or crystal. Much of what you call scientific fact has come about by the power of placebo. This of course links back in with the OP.

[Karl]

Karl - the placebo effect is a good place to start when pondering the influence our state of mind has over our health. It is a major component of any healing, medical or crystal. Much of what you call scientific fact has come about by the power of placebo. This of course links back in with the OP.

 

There isn't any doubt that how one thinks, one feels. Nikolai, was it not obvious in my book ? However there is no scientific proof that there was ever anything physically wrong with the patient anyway. I watched one of the women in my practitioner group 'heal' a partially deaf woman who sported double hearing aids that had been worn for ten years. Thing is, she wasn't actually deaf, she just thought she was and the therapy work freed her from the belief.

 

This is exactly where we are at with believing things that are not reality, or scientific fact. It's always possible to overcome subjective illusion with more subjective illusion. That's precisely how NLP works. It's no good telling the deaf woman that she is not deaf-the doctors had done that a thousand times already but it didn't help. What's being hatched here is exactly the same illusion. In some respects it's harmless, but it has the potential to be harmful and so, on a broad scale needs discouraging. It stops people seeing reality - so do drugs- and for personal use its fine, but pushing others to engage in it is not harmless.

[Nikolai1]

Howard Beecher who pioneered the need for placebo control in medical drug trials, was a WWII surgeon who ran out of morphine while on duty in Italy. He successfully performed pain free amputations after injecting salty water. The amputation was real, pain there was not, because of the state of mind of the a patient. The deeper point, and what you need to be careful of, is to not draw a distinction between real and imagined deafness. No difference can be justified. All we know is that there is deafness, which may be healed according to the beliefs of the patient. Some believe in doctors, others in shamans. Both are experts in their own approach.

[Karl]

Howard Beecher who pioneered the need for placebo control in medical drug trials, was a WWII surgeon who ran out of morphine while on duty in Italy. He successfully performed pain free amputations after injecting salty water. The amputation was real, pain there was not, because of the state of mind of the a patient. The deeper point, and what you need to be careful of, is to not draw a distinction between real and imagined deafness. No difference can be justified. All we know is that there is deafness, which may be healed according to the beliefs of the patient. Some believe in doctors, others in shamans. Both are experts in their own approach.

 

All these things are well known, I'm not sure what you are arguing ?

 

If I knock the patient unconscious they will be equally unaware of what is happening. Hypnotic blocking does they same thing. We can choose not to consciously feel pain. It does not mean that bone is not being sawn, or blood vessels cut. If the patient was allowed to bleed out on the operating table they would experience permanent unconsciousness and death. You can trick the mind and set the pain switches to off that way, but it won't result in eternal life. Don't confuse the two things. Sometimes people just want to believe.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

There is no line that can be drawn between what a belief state can achieve and what it can't. A person who thinks they've been given a painkiller can have their leg sawn off without pain. That's big. But belief states can literally shape and form major events in our physical existence. As you talk about in your book, the world configures itself in line with our expectations. There is nothing outside our locus of control, unless we consent and believe in their being such things. The iron laws of nature, you could say are delegated by us. We allow them to take over when we wish to relinquish.

[Karl]

There is no line that can be drawn between what a belief state can achieve and what it can't. A person who thinks they've been given a painkiller can have their leg sawn off without pain. That's big. But belief states can literally shape and form major events in our physical existence. As you talk about in your book, the world configures itself in line with our expectations. There is nothing outside our locus of control, unless we consent and believe in their being such things. The iron laws of nature, you could say are delegated by us. We allow them to take over when we wish to relinquish.

 

No, I was completely wrong on that score. That's why I said, it was a milestone of sorts. Didn't you make the connection with Jung in the bibliography ? I lay these bread crumbs and the punch line gets lost. I don't know, I must do better ;-)

 

You see, SRM made it clear. The only way to get rid of the false self is to employ a false self. In other words you must think everything is liquid and subjective first. This is the essence of Self Inquiry. There is no helping this, but at some point a hand must reach in and pull you free. That might be something you see or read or notice. I am one such possibility, but not necessarily the right one for you. I chanced on one-it was chance, though I had always been looking so, eventually it was inevitable-although equally had I not been open I may never have run across it.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

If you're saying you were wrong then but right now, it seems to be like you are still penduluming,intellectually speaking. You are a curious one...you seem all out of balance. Like your brain hasn't caught up with the rest of you. You're a classic mystic, it seems to me. What do you think of that analysis. The philosophy was the weakness of the book, I agree, as spiritual biography it was wonderful, but it doesn't seem like you've got any better since.

[Infolad1]

@ infolad1 Your haven't presented a coherent valid argument. In a nutshell your argument rests on the basis of an appeal to authority. Einstein was frequently wrong, but he was a scientist and could determine theoretical statement from scientific proof. It appears you cannot. You have taken a bit of discussion by notable scientists ( nothing like a good bit of theoretical argumentation, but that isn't proof ). Finally you try and shut down the argument by the use of a sideways ad hominem. Old physics, those that don't get the 'new' ways etc and then marginalise them. If you think the world is not reality, then let me dangle you over a 300 meter high cliff by a rope. I will hold a knife to the rope and you can decide if reality is really real, or not. I'm guessing you will conclude that classical physics is perhaps a better option than testing out your subjective world view. ;-) That's what the monks used to do to 'the enlightened'. When they said they had transcended pain and attachment, then the monks would beat them with sticks until they came to their senses.

 

And as If on cue...

 

Thank you Karl for validating everything I said. You're very helpful.

 

Instead of attempting to put words In others mouths, let's see what these gentlemen said, regarding reality.

I'll let the reader decide if they're talking from theory, are stating conclusions gained through the scientific method:

 

Einstein - "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

 

 

Niels Bohr, "Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)

 

"The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based."

 

"Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems."

 

 

Speech on quantum theory at Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita di Luigi Galvani, Bologna, Italy (October 1937)

 

"For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealizations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence."

 

 

Statements of Bohr after the Solvay Conference of 1927, as quoted in Physics and Beyond (1971) by Werner Heisenberg

 

"I consider those developments in physics during the last decades which have shown how problematical such concepts as "objective" and "subjective" are, a great liberation of thought. The whole thing started with the theory of relativity. In the past, the statement that two events are simultaneous was considered an objective assertion, one that could be communicated quite simply and that was open to verification by any observer. Today we know that 'simultaneity' contains a subjective element, inasmuch as two events that appear simultaneous to an observer at rest are not necessarily simultaneous to an observer in motion. However, the relativistic description is also objective inasmuch as every observer can deduce by calculation what the other observer will perceive or has perceived. For all that, we have come a long way from the classical ideal of objective descriptions.

 

In quantum mechanics the departure from this ideal has been even more radical. We can still use the objectifying language of classical physics to make statements about observable facts. For instance, we can say that a photographic plate has been blackened, or that cloud droplets have formed. But we can say nothing about the atoms themselves. And what predictions we base on such findings depend on the way we pose our experimental question, and here the observer has freedom of choice.

 

Naturally, it still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, but it is no longer possible to make predictions without reference to the observer or the means of observation. To that extent, every physical process may be said to have objective and subjective features. The objective world of nineteenth-century science was, as we know today, an ideal, limiting case, but not the whole reality. Admittedly, even in our future encounters with reality we shall have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side, to make a division between the two. But the location of the separation may depend on the way things are looked at; to a certain extent it can be chosen at will. Hence I can quite understand why we cannot speak about the content of religion in an objectifying language. The fact that different religions try to express this content in quite distinct spiritual forms is no real objection. Perhaps we ought to look upon these different forms as complementary descriptions which, though they exclude one another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from man's relationship with the central order."

 

 

I could pull up more from others I've mentioned, but I'm sure that readers can see what these men were saying for themselves.

Just Google "quantum mechanics history" for a list of all the players, to get a more nuanced view, than what I can give In a forum post.

 

I don't argue, or debate. Beyond being of educational benefit to people new to a particular topic, so they are aware of differing viewpoints, at this point in my life, it's a waste of both people's time.

 

I present what I know, and leave it for each individual to decide who's "right", or "wrong".

 

Debates tend to devolve into egoistic posturing, by their very nature. Just present your position, and keep it moving.

 

Besides, why should anyone bother to debate with someone who's not even doing any of these practices? Again, a waste of time.

 

By your own admission In other posts, you don't even cultivate.

 

So why are you even here? Just sincerely curious.

 

Using the Trivium and Quadrivium to argue against the Eastern view of reality? Though useful 

In lower level closed systems, when it comes to the Eastern Sciences, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

 

But If it works for you, then have a party.

 

Good fortune to you. I hope you find whatever it is you're looking for.

 

Cheers!

[Karl]

If you're saying you were wrong then but right now, it seems to be like you are still penduluming,intellectually speaking. You are a curious one...you seem all out of balance. Like your brain hasn't caught up with the rest of you. You're a classic mystic, it seems to me. What do you think of that analysis. The philosophy was the weakness of the book, I agree, as spiritual biography it was wonderful, but it doesn't seem like you've got any better since.

 

Can an apple judge it's flavour? It's your analysis, so it is your reality.

 

I can only say what is.

 

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

And as If on cue...

 

Thank you Karl for validating everything I said. You're very helpful.

 

Instead of attempting to put words In others mouths, let's see what these gentlemen said, regarding reality.

I'll let the reader decide if they're talking from theory, are stating conclusions gained through the scientific method:

 

Einstein - "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

 

 

Niels Bohr, "Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)

 

"The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based."

 

"Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems."

 

 

Speech on quantum theory at Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita di Luigi Galvani, Bologna, Italy (October 1937)

 

"For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealizations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence."

 

 

Statements of Bohr after the Solvay Conference of 1927, as quoted in Physics and Beyond (1971) by Werner Heisenberg

 

 

"I consider those developments in physics during the last decades which have shown how problematical such concepts as "objective" and "subjective" are, a great liberation of thought. The whole thing started with the theory of relativity. In the past, the statement that two events are simultaneous was considered an objective assertion, one that could be communicated quite simply and that was open to verification by any observer. Today we know that 'simultaneity' contains a subjective element, inasmuch as two events that appear simultaneous to an observer at rest are not necessarily simultaneous to an observer in motion. However, the relativistic description is also objective inasmuch as every observer can deduce by calculation what the other observer will perceive or has perceived. For all that, we have come a long way from the classical ideal of objective descriptions.

 

In quantum mechanics the departure from this ideal has been even more radical. We can still use the objectifying language of classical physics to make statements about observable facts. For instance, we can say that a photographic plate has been blackened, or that cloud droplets have formed. But we can say nothing about the atoms themselves. And what predictions we base on such findings depend on the way we pose our experimental question, and here the observer has freedom of choice.

 

Naturally, it still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, but it is no longer possible to make predictions without reference to the observer or the means of observation. To that extent, every physical process may be said to have objective and subjective features. The objective world of nineteenth-century science was, as we know today, an ideal, limiting case, but not the whole reality. Admittedly, even in our future encounters with reality we shall have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side, to make a division between the two. But the location of the separation may depend on the way things are looked at; to a certain extent it can be chosen at will. Hence I can quite understand why we cannot speak about the content of religion in an objectifying language. The fact that different religions try to express this content in quite distinct spiritual forms is no real objection. Perhaps we ought to look upon these different forms as complementary descriptions which, though they exclude one another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from man's relationship with the central order."

 

 

I could pull up more from others I've mentioned, but I'm sure that readers can see what these men were saying for themselves.

Just Google "quantum mechanics history" for a list of all the players, to get a more nuanced view, than what I can give In a forum post.

 

 

I don't argue, or debate. Beyond being of educational benefit to people new to a particular topic, so they are aware of differing viewpoints, at this point in my life, it's a waste of both people's time.

 

I present what I know, and leave it for each individual to decide who's "right", or "wrong".

 

Debates tend to devolve into egoistic posturing, by their very nature. Just present your position, and keep it moving.

 

Besides, why should anyone bother to debate with someone who's not even doing any of these practices? Again, a waste of time.

 

By your own admission In other posts, you don't even cultivate.

 

So why are you even here? Just sincerely curious.

 

Using the Trivium and Quadrivium to argue against the Eastern view of reality? Though useful

In lower level closed systems, when it comes to the Eastern Sciences, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

 

But If it works for you, then have a party.

 

Good fortune to you. I hope you find whatever it is you're looking for.

 

Cheers!

It does not matter what others say no matter how celebrated, it only matters what you can unequivocally prove. Find a way.

 

I don't know why I'm here, do you? Why is anyone anywhere ? Why are you here ?

 

Eastern, Western, it doesn't matter, you need to understand the words in context. You might be able to read, it does not mean you can read. Once you can know the unequivocal reality of a thing, you can know the reality of self. First search for the truth within yourself and then know all others by that. It's very difficult to do that in reverse if you cannot yet know what is objective and what is subjective.

 

I shall break a rule I have, because I do not like to prove things by pointing to what was said, but in this case you misinterpreted einsteins words:

 

In an essay entitled The World As I See It, first published 1933, Einstein explained his reverence for God as Eternal Universal Intelligence. But he rejected prevalent religious ideas of individual survival of physical death, reincarnation, or of reward or punishment in heaven or hell after physical death. He said:

 

I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. [The World As I See It]

 

On learning of the death of a lifelong friend, Einstein wrote in a March 1955 letter to his friend’s family:

 

“Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

Edited July 27, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

Very nice - but If that was true you wouldn't bother tub thumping for all your world of objective realities. You simply need to realise that in any given moment we can judge something as either real or ideal. In any given moment, one perspective is in the limelight, but in our heart we know and feel that the other perspective is also there, in the shadow. If something seems real, we still do not let it bother us...we cannot...because in a deep way we know it is a dream. If something seems unimportant and dreamlike, we still attend to it because deep down we know it is also real.

 

This is wisdom. It is folly to set up this biocentrism as some great grand truth, but this guy is only led to do so because the grand truth of a big wide universe of matter is also a folly. It's a shame that you grasped what most find unbelievable, included the ideas in your book, and then scurried back to your original view. You still aren't synthesising. Synthesis IS a moment by moment endeavour, it is true, but the words of those who have achieved it have a characteristic ring.

[Karl]

Very nice - but If that was true you wouldn't bother tub thumping for all your world of objective realities. You simply need to realise that in any given moment we can judge something as either real or ideal. In any given moment, one perspective is in the limelight, but in our heart we know and feel that the other perspective is also there, in the shadow. If something seems real, we still do not let it bother us...we cannot...because in a deep way we know it is a dream. If something seems unimportant and dreamlike, we still attend to it because deep down we know it is also real.

This is wisdom. It is folly to set up this biocentrism as some great grand truth, but this guy is only led to do so because the grand truth of a big wide universe of matter is also a folly. It's a shame that you grasped what most find unbelievable, included the ideas in your book, and then scurried back to your original view. You still aren't synthesising. Synthesis IS a moment by moment endeavour, it is true, but the words of those who have achieved it have a characteristic ring.

 

Who is tub thumping ? I'm simply reacting to things like litmus paper to acid. I do not say this is true, that is true. I only say 'find the truth' . Your reality is your reality. If you dream this or that, then can I say it is not true that you dream it ? No. I cannot. If you say there is a green goblin that I must see, then I shall ask you to prove it. This is all I can do.