|
Post by topology on Jul 5, 2012 18:54:07 GMT -5
You guys just keep repeating what Advaita books say. Be honest with yourself - isn't it your mind pretend to be the awareness and be awaring? Tell me what happens to your "awareness" when you die? I have no idea what advaita books say, i've never read one. I'm speaking from direct experience. You already know the answer you are going to get. If you want to discover its truth or falsity go look for yourself. What remains, if anything when the experience falls away? What exists continually despite all changes?
|
|
|
Post by emptymirror on Jul 5, 2012 19:03:21 GMT -5
You guys just keep repeating what Advaita books say. Be honest with yourself - isn't it your mind pretend to be the awareness and be awaring? In all honesty judge, what we're talking about is an insight into the nature of 'awareness"/"reality"/etc/etc. When this insight is "seen", it's obvious that "this" is how it has always been, and how it only ever could have been. In fact it seems crazy that there was ever any confusion about it in the first place. You ALONE are "this". Something is "here" and something "knows" about it. You are both that which is here, and that which knows about it. Discover what You truly are. Look carefully at the knowing. Ignore what is known and just follow the knowing. It seems to be the knowing that leads you 'home'. When the knowing knows itself all questions evaporate. Tell me what happens to your "awareness" when you die? I just answered almost the same question in this post spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=misc&thread=2252&page=24#68265
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 5, 2012 19:27:09 GMT -5
It figures that science would try to find God in a particle.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 5, 2012 20:05:27 GMT -5
You guys just keep repeating what Advaita books say. Be honest with yourself - isn't it your mind pretend to be the awareness and be awaring? Tell me what happens to your "awareness" when you die? Whatever 'my mind' is doing, I'm apparently watching it do it.
|
|
judge
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by judge on Jul 5, 2012 20:21:03 GMT -5
Whatever 'my mind' is doing, I'm apparently watching it do it. mind watching mind.
|
|
|
Post by emptymirror on Jul 5, 2012 20:49:20 GMT -5
Whatever 'my mind' is doing, I'm apparently watching it do it. mind watching mind. Nope. There is no such thing as "mind". Mind is just an imaginary conceptual construct to try to explain why thoughts are clearly under nobody's control.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 5, 2012 20:59:38 GMT -5
Whatever 'my mind' is doing, I'm apparently watching it do it. mind watching mind. What we mean by mind is the process of thinking, right? A movement of thought. Can a movement know itself or must it be known by that which is not moving?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 5, 2012 22:28:12 GMT -5
Whatever 'my mind' is doing, I'm apparently watching it do it. mind watching mind. Nope. That which is watching mind is not mind. What is it that sees thoughts when they appear? What is aware in the absence of thoughts? Find that.
|
|
|
Post by emptymirror on Jul 5, 2012 22:35:07 GMT -5
Ignore my reply trf, I prefer both Enigma's and Zendancer's replies to my one
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 14, 2012 16:59:43 GMT -5
Nope. That which is watching mind is not mind. What is it that sees thoughts when they appear? What is aware in the absence of thoughts? Find that. A topic which is never off-topic imho.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 14, 2012 17:02:31 GMT -5
The story is quite amazing and has no end. When Son-of-CERN is built and Tev's ten times greater are created, the Higgs Boson will be found to be the manifestation of multiple megamorons related through complex arrays of semiphotospectroheliographical sporotiferous gentalic egglofrostigans. If there were a laughter emoticon here I would have posted a string of at least three. It begins with the idea that there are separately-existing things, and that one of those things is something called "matter." After we assume that something called 'matter" exists, we assume (imagine) that it must be composed of something. We then imagine what that something is, and begin to search for ideas (imagined) that will corroborate our ideas (products of imagination) of its somethingness. We build a lab, do experiments, and conclude that "particles," called "atoms," compose matter. What I find amazing is that phycisists hoisted themselves on their own pitard ages ago ... those assumptions were all broken by way of the collapse of the initial one on your list long before the first partical accelerator was ever built. More on that later but in the mean time, since we're talking science, I simply must do some peanut-gallery style nit-picking. The significance of this particle is that it has real mass. All others are wave. To be more precise, the Higgs provides an explanation for why sub-atomic particles have mass. All the other particles are actually not just waves, but are entities that are defined by wave-type behaviour prior to observation and particle-like behaviour afterward. The only impact on spirituality this discovery will have is one more word and idea to think about, wonder about and imagine about. Life is as it ever was. I agree with you topo' in that if you refine an explanation what you come away with is a refined explanation. I guess it depends on what's meant by spirituality. Some expressions of what the term can be used to refer to are based on explanations. The theory that it confirms is called "The standard model" but this model is known to be an incomplete model of 'physical reality' because it does not fully explain gravity, nor does it address dark matter and dark energy. Yeah, that's why they're excited about it because the seemingly now forgone conclusion of the eventual discovery confirms the previously speculative link between the other three forces and gravity ... doesn't resolve all the questions, doesn't make the Standard Model complete, but makes it less incomplete. Unless scientists discover the awareness/consciousness particle, they won't impress me. Just a few months ago some scientists apparently proved that neutrinos travel a bit faster than photons, and the new age community was already packing up for time travel and teleportation. That blossoming of hope amongst the faithful was funny to watch. Turned out to be a glitch in the equipment by the way. Oh well, there's always Quantum Entanglement. Most of spiritual seekers tend to do wishful thinking only. I wouldn't go that far ... it's just that they've replaced a broken materialist assumption with a spiritual speculation. Actually they would stop at the Planck Length. The physicist is like a dog chasing its own tail and thinking that it is something "out there." I'd say yes and no to this one ZD ... their context hasn't been entirely about "out there" since 1927 when the whole concept of the particle was radically redefined. It's just that they black-boxed what it was that they were wisely silent about back then and just ignore it for the sake of the chase. Hmmm .... that sort'o sounds familiar ... It figures that science would try to find God in a particle. Nah, it's just a way to get people's attention ... I read in an intro by Penrose or Greene or one of those guys that if they put the word "God" or "Miracle" into a popular presentation of scientific ideas that it sells quite a bit better ... I had a laugh when I went back and looked at the titles in my library.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 14, 2012 17:06:10 GMT -5
Now, to circle back around to this: It begins with the idea that there are separately-existing things, and that one of those things is something called "matter." After we assume that something called 'matter" exists, we assume (imagine) that it must be composed of something. We then imagine what that something is, and begin to search for ideas (imagined) that will corroborate our ideas (products of imagination) of its somethingness. We build a lab, do experiments, and conclude that "particles," called "atoms," compose matter. Forget the theories that sprang up around them for just a moment and just consider the implications of the double-slit experiment, first performed with light in 1895 and then finally, as expected, accomplished with electrons in 1973. There is one particular facet of this result, best presented by this guy, that render it singular: whether or not a wave or a scatter pattern is observed on the screen depends on whether or not information is gathered at the slits as to the path traveled to the screen. One important aspect of this is that if the source is slowed down to one photon or electron per interval through the slits with no observation at the slits then the interference pattern still appears – this is the source of the surprising conclusion that an electron can be in two places at once, in that some of the electrons have to have gone through both slits for the pattern to form. It’s also important to stress that the information can be gathered in such a way as to not effect what’s being observed. Campbell makes that point in the video by singling out the case where the detectors are left on but no data is recorded. The singularity of this result is that there is an observed physical phenomenon that can’t be modeled solely by physical means. This breaks the materialist assumption. This breaks the premise laid out by your first two sentences ZD. What physicists did to stay in business from here was to redefine the concept of a “particle” to include the act of observation, and the wave-particle duality was introduced. In the entire history of sub-atomic particle physics, the results have been reported to the public in terms of the familiar atomic-building-block, foundational-material story, but in actuality, what’s being studied here isn’t a purely material phenomenon. Now the metaphysical implications of this are pretty heavy since physicists and chemists and presumably all other disciplines up along the physical scale of affairs model everything that makes up our bodies and what those bodies interact with as being made up in turn of ever more complex aggregations of atoms. Newton made the assumption that we were individual, separate points of consciousness who shared a common reality outside of ourselves, and as a deeply religious man, further assumed that a omnipotent God had set things in motion and somehow was in control of that reality. This might sound like familiar ground around here, but since aggregations of atoms can’t be defined independent of observation, the whole bedrock idea of an independent reality outside of ourselves was blown away by the result of the double-slit experiment. One obvious shift in outlook that followed for many was to conclude that since we seem to be able to agree amongst ourselves on certain physical observations then it follows that if there is no external reality shared out among multiple individualized points of consciousness then perhaps there is instead a singular shared consciousness. The idea is that there aren’t many observers sharing an externally provided reality, there’s only one observer that effectively creates that reality. But how can we speculate based on a system that breaks it’s own foundational assumption? They started with the idea that were all made of stuff, and that if we dug deep enough, peered at smaller and smaller scales, that we’d be able to define what that stuff was. That’s the material assumption. Once they got good enough toys, they found out that no, there is no purely-material atom, atom’s can only be defined in terms of a non-material parameter. The experiment shouldn’t be taken out of context. It was the result of a 400 year search for what we were made of. In the end the search itself had to change as we found that what we’re made of isn’t something that can be defined externally to ourselves. The experiment breaks the materialist assumption. Replacing that with the spiritualist speculation is no better than ignoring the broken materialist assumption.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 14, 2012 18:57:44 GMT -5
Now, to circle back around to this: It begins with the idea that there are separately-existing things, and that one of those things is something called "matter." After we assume that something called 'matter" exists, we assume (imagine) that it must be composed of something. We then imagine what that something is, and begin to search for ideas (imagined) that will corroborate our ideas (products of imagination) of its somethingness. We build a lab, do experiments, and conclude that "particles," called "atoms," compose matter. Forget the theories that sprang up around them for just a moment and just consider the implications of the double-slit experiment, first performed with light in 1895 and then finally, as expected, accomplished with electrons in 1973. There is one particular facet of this result, best presented by this guy, that render it singular: whether or not a wave or a scatter pattern is observed on the screen depends on whether or not information is gathered at the slits as to the path traveled to the screen. One important aspect of this is that if the source is slowed down to one photon or electron per interval through the slits with no observation at the slits then the interference pattern still appears – this is the source of the surprising conclusion that an electron can be in two places at once, in that some of the electrons have to have gone through both slits for the pattern to form. It’s also important to stress that the information can be gathered in such a way as to not effect what’s being observed. Campbell makes that point in the video by singling out the case where the detectors are left on but no data is recorded. The singularity of this result is that there is an observed physical phenomenon that can’t be modeled solely by physical means. This breaks the materialist assumption. This breaks the premise laid out by your first two sentences ZD. What physicists did to stay in business from here was to redefine the concept of a “particle” to include the act of observation, and the wave-particle duality was introduced. In the entire history of sub-atomic particle physics, the results have been reported to the public in terms of the familiar atomic-building-block, foundational-material story, but in actuality, what’s being studied here isn’t a purely material phenomenon. Now the metaphysical implications of this are pretty heavy since physicists and chemists and presumably all other disciplines up along the physical scale of affairs model everything that makes up our bodies and what those bodies interact with as being made up in turn of ever more complex aggregations of atoms. Newton made the assumption that we were individual, separate points of consciousness who shared a common reality outside of ourselves, and as a deeply religious man, further assumed that a omnipotent God had set things in motion and somehow was in control of that reality. This might sound like familiar ground around here, but since aggregations of atoms can’t be defined independent of observation, the whole bedrock idea of an independent reality outside of ourselves was blown away by the result of the double-slit experiment. One obvious shift in outlook that followed for many was to conclude that since we seem to be able to agree amongst ourselves on certain physical observations then it follows that if there is no external reality shared out among multiple individualized points of consciousness then perhaps there is instead a singular shared consciousness. The idea is that there aren’t many observers sharing an externally provided reality, there’s only one observer that effectively creates that reality. But how can we speculate based on a system that breaks it’s own foundational assumption? They started with the idea that were all made of stuff, and that if we dug deep enough, peered at smaller and smaller scales, that we’d be able to define what that stuff was. That’s the material assumption. Once they got good enough toys, they found out that no, there is no purely-material atom, atom’s can only be defined in terms of a non-material parameter. The experiment shouldn’t be taken out of context. It was the result of a 400 year search for what we were made of. In the end the search itself had to change as we found that what we’re made of isn’t something that can be defined externally to ourselves. The experiment breaks the materialist assumption. Replacing that with the spiritualist speculation is no better than ignoring the broken materialist assumption. Well stated! However, very few scientists will admit that the materialist model is fully broken or, if they will, they don't know what it means. It's a case of "Yes, but......" LOL Most physicists accept the math and the weirdness of the experimental results, but without the direct experience of oneness, they lack the one thing that would put the experimental results in context. At our local university I only found one person, a nuclear engineer, who realized how thought is involved in the process of model building, but he had not yet realized that there is only one observer, nor who that observer IS. Bell's Theorem points to the same underlying connectedness, but if you read an explanation of what it implies, you will find the same "Yes, but......." repeated, and then followed by complex theories about what it means. The observer is one-with what is observed, but the average physicist doesn't really know what that means. If we ask a dozen particle physicists what they are looking at in a cloud chamber, how many will answer, "Me?" ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2012 19:51:29 GMT -5
Now, to circle back around to this: Forget the theories that sprang up around them for just a moment and just consider the implications of the double-slit experiment, first performed with light in 1895 and then finally, as expected, accomplished with electrons in 1973. There is one particular facet of this result, best presented by this guy, that render it singular: whether or not a wave or a scatter pattern is observed on the screen depends on whether or not information is gathered at the slits as to the path traveled to the screen. One important aspect of this is that if the source is slowed down to one photon or electron per interval through the slits with no observation at the slits then the interference pattern still appears – this is the source of the surprising conclusion that an electron can be in two places at once, in that some of the electrons have to have gone through both slits for the pattern to form. It’s also important to stress that the information can be gathered in such a way as to not effect what’s being observed. Campbell makes that point in the video by singling out the case where the detectors are left on but no data is recorded. The singularity of this result is that there is an observed physical phenomenon that can’t be modeled solely by physical means. This breaks the materialist assumption. This breaks the premise laid out by your first two sentences ZD. What physicists did to stay in business from here was to redefine the concept of a “particle” to include the act of observation, and the wave-particle duality was introduced. In the entire history of sub-atomic particle physics, the results have been reported to the public in terms of the familiar atomic-building-block, foundational-material story, but in actuality, what’s being studied here isn’t a purely material phenomenon. Now the metaphysical implications of this are pretty heavy since physicists and chemists and presumably all other disciplines up along the physical scale of affairs model everything that makes up our bodies and what those bodies interact with as being made up in turn of ever more complex aggregations of atoms. Newton made the assumption that we were individual, separate points of consciousness who shared a common reality outside of ourselves, and as a deeply religious man, further assumed that a omnipotent God had set things in motion and somehow was in control of that reality. This might sound like familiar ground around here, but since aggregations of atoms can’t be defined independent of observation, the whole bedrock idea of an independent reality outside of ourselves was blown away by the result of the double-slit experiment. One obvious shift in outlook that followed for many was to conclude that since we seem to be able to agree amongst ourselves on certain physical observations then it follows that if there is no external reality shared out among multiple individualized points of consciousness then perhaps there is instead a singular shared consciousness. The idea is that there aren’t many observers sharing an externally provided reality, there’s only one observer that effectively creates that reality. But how can we speculate based on a system that breaks it’s own foundational assumption? They started with the idea that were all made of stuff, and that if we dug deep enough, peered at smaller and smaller scales, that we’d be able to define what that stuff was. That’s the material assumption. Once they got good enough toys, they found out that no, there is no purely-material atom, atom’s can only be defined in terms of a non-material parameter. The experiment shouldn’t be taken out of context. It was the result of a 400 year search for what we were made of. In the end the search itself had to change as we found that what we’re made of isn’t something that can be defined externally to ourselves. The experiment breaks the materialist assumption. Replacing that with the spiritualist speculation is no better than ignoring the broken materialist assumption. Well stated! However, very few scientists will admit that the materialist model is fully broken or, if they will, they don't know what it means. It's a case of "Yes, but......" LOL Most physicists accept the math and the weirdness of the experimental results, but without the direct experience of oneness, they lack the one thing that would put the experimental results in context. At our local university I only found one person, a nuclear engineer, who realized how thought is involved in the process of model building, but he had not yet realized that there is only one observer, nor who that observer IS. Bell's Theorem points to the same underlying connectedness, but if you read an explanation of what it implies, you will find the same "Yes, but......." repeated, and then followed by complex theories about what it means. The observer is one-with what is observed, but the average physicist doesn't really know what that means. If we ask a dozen particle physicists what they are looking at in a cloud chamber, how many will answer, "Me?" ;D I'm not the scientist you's guys are, though I have a passing familiarity with all this stuff, but I'm quite familiar with the "yes but" syndrome. Hehe. Seems to me the dilemma is analogous to the problem of self realization in that what is at stake is the objective foundation on which the entire exploration is based, similar to the threat that the seeker faces in the dissillution of that which apparently seeks. There's an interesting process in which the seeking energy itself acheives zero potential at the precise moment of realization, and so that point becomes theoretical and is never actually reached. The seeker never realizes it's illusory nature, and neither does the objective scientist, since they both vanish into a black hole at the event horizon of realization. The energy, therefore, is redirected to the "Yes, but....".
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Jul 16, 2012 14:36:53 GMT -5
I heard that there is a chance that while slamming these particles together these scientists could create a black hole. That might settle a few arguments.........
|
|