Thread: Reality Is Stranger Than You Can Imagine

It is at the end of that search for realization that one would come to realize the horrible mistake...ultimate knowledge corrupts.

Live a good life, enjoy it to the most and be yourself. That is the kind of advice that fits such thought lines. Seeking ultimate knowledge and power is the same as wanting to give up one's own life and character. It is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Merlock

It is at the end of that search for realization that one would come to realize the horrible mistake...ultimate knowledge corrupts.

Live a good life, enjoy it to the most and be yourself. That is the kind of advice that fits such thought lines. Seeking ultimate knowledge and power is the same as wanting to give up one's own life and character. It is meaningless.
[/b]

Hi Merlock,

There is no 'end' to the search for 'Self realisation' in the terms discussed in my original posting. The true 'Self' exists outside of time and space and therefore there are no ends and beginnings.

Knowledge in itself does not corrupt, it is how we choose to use that knowledge that is important. It is the choices you make, as pointed out in your quote by Albus Dumbledore.

The posting is not about seeking ultimate personal knowledge and personal power; it is about exploring the true nature of reality, which has been the goal of all the ancient wisdom systems and is continued today by many people of good intent.

Best regards
NoR

Science and religion have been at loggerheads for hundreds of years in their attempts to prove their worldview as the correct one. Despite each gaining the upper hand from time to time, they both divide reality into two, the ‘physical’ and the ‘spiritual’. In truth, neither of them has provided a satisfactory explanation of the human experience, nor have they been able to unite to form a single, all-encompassing worldview.[/b]

Your first sentence is inspired by an anthropological myth, I'm afraid. The worldviews of scientists, and by scientists I'm referring chiefly to hard scientists such as mathematicians and natural scientists and not so much social scientists who tend to be less religious, are often very closely linked to their faith. Christianity inspired the development of science, and man sought to understand God through nature. (I mentioned this in another topic which promptly died.) Science doesn't make the distinction between physical and spiritual, there's only the "actual". Or, you could say, the "empirical"--and "non-empirical" doesn't make any sense to a scientist, probably, so that's not an opposing concept. Scientists don't attempt to explain consciousness as it relates to "sense experience", because that's still a matter of philosophy. Last time I checked, Nature didn't have articles discussing qualia. (Not to nitpick on the issue of what science is and isn't, but I really feel you should become aware of how things really are.)

This just makes me realize more and more how we need to teach philosophy courses in philosophy of science (and, unrelated to this discussion, analytic logic) as part of mandatory public education. Lol, if we introduced that into the curriculum, all of a sudden all the philosophy Ph.D's would have jobs.

The mechanical view of the universe held by classical science fails to include and explain non-mechanical phenomena such as telepathy, remote viewing or out of body experiences, to name just a few. These phenomena are far too well tested and documented to be dismissed, so they must be incorporated into whatever scientists propose as a plausible worldview.[/b]

Please visit http://www.csicop.org/ and read a couple articles . There are many people who willingly approach claims of the paranormal scientifically, but virtually all of these cases (there was 1 article in a recent issue which described how they still haven't figured out exactly how this sword got embedded in this stone, since all their testing places it as authentic, but that's the first time I can recall a situation in which a claim wasn't disproven or invalidated when they were able to investigate directly a phenomenon) are not what they're reported to be. I'm not trying to directly deny your beliefs, but when you say that you thought these phenomena are well-tested and documented, that's something which you're definitely mistaken about, and CSICOP is a good link which would introduce you to the true state of things.

Similarly, religions have failed to explain how, in a universe presided over by a loving and peaceful, almighty ‘God’, immense human suffering can be seen or experienced. This suffering can be on an individual basis through hideous diseases such as cancer or AIDS, or the staggering loss of life in such disasters as a tsunami, earthquake or volcanic eruption. We inevitably have to ask the fundamental question, is ‘God’ unable or unwilling to prevent this suffering? Whichever way this question is answered has to create serious doubts about the religious worldview and what ‘God’ is supposed to be.[/b]

Actually, this ideas is completely unfounded, in the case of the Judeo-Christian God, though I can't say the same for certain about other things people decide to call God. It's a question which will never die, but it's one which someone who is very familiar with Christianity (such as myself) or even just studiously familiar should understand. First off, God is loving, but he's not peaceful necessarily--he'll do things in the Old Testament like direct the Israelites to declare war on a certain nation and ensure their victory, and in the New Testament in the form of the Son he got riled up against the money-changers who were defiling God's temple (Google it if you're not familiar with it, basically he condemned scripturally immoral merchants and overturned their tables). Yes, he's very capable of righteous anger. It's not a sin to not cure somebody of illness, nor it is a sin to not prevent somebody from getting victimized. Just because he sustains the world doesn't mean he's "responsible" for everything that happens. So he chooses not to interfere--you're going to wax philosophical and call him a bad guy for not doing everything in his power to make it right? Feel free, but realize that what you're condemning him for isn't a sin by any account. God didn't create the world* for sin, but man brought sin into the world by his own will. Man fell. Basically, with this argument people are applying a morality that isn't at all Biblical, but is just something they felt was right which was probably just culturally inspired and which they blindly assumed would relate to God.

I don't really have a response to the rest of what you said other than that I definitely think it's not correct, and is just a willfull assocation of ideas. Anyway, it's really cool that you desire to explore the nature of reality, whatever your beliefs. Most serious philosophers follow some form of monism, and like you describe, dualism is indeed incorrect, and unfounded at that. I'm a neutral monist, by the way.

*If you wanted to say that why didn't he create the world such that man never sinned, or that by creating man he's responsible for creating sin, my response is that he gave man free will, which is either something he choose not to control or which if he were to take control over he would change the nature of it in any case, though that's a circumstance best left to the musing of theologians. When man sin, his heart was darkened, and he became lost in his futile thinking (as it's termed in Romans)--only by accepting God into that very same heart can man begin to make decisions free from sin. That's sanctification.

Edit: Also, Merlock, I completely agree with your second paragraph about the meaninglessness of pursuing knowledge and power, 100%, although ultimate wisdom is still something which should be theoretically worthy of pursuit, if it exists and if it's possible to obtain (two very big IFs&#33.

M.D.

It is obvious from your reply that you have not studied quantum physics to any degree. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the work of such physicists as Dr. Amit Goswami, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, Dr. Jude Currivan and Dr. David Bohm to mention but a few. I also suggest that you study the research done into psychic phenomena by the respected scientific institutions of SRI and PEAR and the physicists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ.

When you have done this you will realise that everything I have said in my original posting is supported by sound scientific evidence.

You may then be able to make an informed response to my posting rather than the ill-informed and ill-mannered response that you have produced so far.

NoR

You make far too many assumptions based on authority figures, leaving me with something I cannot attack because everything that's vital has been omitted.

Originally posted by NoR+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NoR)</div>

The ‘physical’ world that we have taken for granted to be solid and separate from us can be shown to be a trick of the senses, which in themselves are aspects of consciousness. The apparent ‘materiality’ of the world is no more and no less ‘real’ than a dream-image.[/b]

Oh really? While I agree to the conclusion in the last sentence, if tweaked a little (I&#39;d say we have no reason to assume the outside world is any realer then a dream-image, instead of going ahead and saying it IS no realer then a dream-image), how is it that this can be &#39;shown&#39;, exactly? I need much more explaining before I can begin to assume something so fundamental about the world has been proven.

<!--QuoteBegin-NoR
This could all sound like the old idea of ‘mind over matter’, but it is vastly more than that. The implications start to become a little clearer when we consider the words of physicist Professor Amit Goswami who states that “Energy, Consciousness and Matter are the same thing”.

And this is backed up how, exactly? It&#39;s great that this professor said that, but I can say &#39;Energy, Matter and Cheese Worship are the same thing.&#39;, to the same effect. I&#39;d like to see how this professor equated these three concepts. Otherwise, there&#39;s nothing for me to criticize here.

If you&#39;d link me to the info, I&#39;d be glad to read it.

Information about what we call the &#39;physical&#39; world comes to us via our senses, but quantum physics shows that &#39;atoms&#39; are not made of anything &#39;physical&#39; at all, their basic &#39;nature&#39; exists outside time and space. So our senses of touch &#39;tricks&#39; us into thinking that objects are &#39;solid&#39;. It is the way we experience this &#39;reality&#39;.

However, if you want some interesting reading try http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/goswam1.htm for starters.

This will provide you with an idea of Dr Goswami&#39;s work as he discusses his book, The Self Aware Universe, in this interview.

I was not after criticism, although it seems to be how &#39;discussions&#39; are conducted on this forum.

NoR

Originally posted by NoR
I was not after criticism, although it seems to be how &#39;discussions&#39; are conducted on this forum.

I&#39;ll be the first to admit I&#39;m very critical. I take the counterposition in every discussion, sometimes switching sides multiple times just to be able to critize more points. But, it&#39;s also in the nature of the thread that this happens. I mean, you can&#39;t just say there has to be a mechanism in which people can control the real world just like dreams, and expect to get that accepted by everyone. There will be other people who like your theory and will start adding to it, but expect a fair amount to pick it apart. That&#39;s not because we&#39;re spiteful, just skeptical. There are a lot of theories in here, it is only logical that we&#39;re trying to examine them to see how valuable they are. I&#39;m sorry if that&#39;s not what you wanted out of this thread, I didn&#39;t know that you didn&#39;t appriciate criticism, but it&#39;s inevitable that you are going to get it.

Originally Posted by NoR

M.D.

It is obvious from your reply that you have not studied quantum physics to any degree. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the work of such physicists as Dr. Amit Goswami, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, Dr. Jude Currivan and Dr. David Bohm to mention but a few. I also suggest that you study the research done into psychic phenomena by the respected scientific institutions of SRI and PEAR and the physicists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ.

When you have done this you will realise that everything I have said in my original posting is supported by sound scientific evidence.
[/b]

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair to expect me to acquaint myself with the work of several people or to study quantum physics in some other capacity in order to participate in this discussion when the discussion doesn&#39;t explore quantum physics in any detail; you&#39;ve just mentioned what you believe quantum physics has deduced about reality&#39;s substance. I hadn&#39;t heard of any of those people until this paragraph, I&#39;m afraid, although I have heard of the PEAR organization, since I read a recent article in Skeptical Inquirer about it, in which the author concludes after analyzing the history, practices, and specific case experiments of the organization, that they have failed to produce compelling evidence (can&#39;t reproduce results, used their own criteria for nonrandom behavior which is considered questionable). I could provide you with a quote, but it would sidetrack the topic. Instead of taking many hours to read books by physicists, which would only qualify me to repeat what the physicists themselves believe since I don&#39;t have the scientific expertise (as you say) to formulate my own differing opinion on the issue, I will similarly reference something written by someone else, which I don&#39;t really have the scientific ability to critique but which I judge to be scientifically sound as it&#39;s been published in CSICOP (a scientific publication whose reputation should at least be on par with Tarcher&#39;s): http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/r...uackery_vic.htm . You should be aware that the first section is very hostile towards Dr. Goswami&#39;s book, so you may want to skip past it and to the technical expanations. I would be interested to hear an in-depth explanation of where Victor Stenger went wrong.

This way of communicating may seem a bit awkward, but since I&#39;m not qualified to discuss quantum mechanics but that&#39;s been determined by you to be the subject of this topic, the only people qualified to post would be quantum physics or people who believe what a quantum physicist said or wrote, so I&#39;ll be the latter. If we were to restrict it to the former, I&#39;m afraid that this discussion would not go very far, since I don&#39;t think anyone else is a quantum physicist on this forum (or at least, they&#39;re taking their time to post for dramatic effect), and so this topic would just turn into a failed discussion. Of course, the decision is yours for how you want the topic to proceed, and perhaps it&#39;s better to have not discussed anything at all than to have discussed it poorly.

There will be other people who like your theory and will start adding to it, but expect a fair amount to pick it apart. That&#39;s not because we&#39;re spiteful, just skeptical. There are a lot of theories in here, it is only logical that we&#39;re trying to examine them to see how valuable they are. I&#39;m sorry if that&#39;s not what you wanted out of this thread, I didn&#39;t know that you didn&#39;t appriciate criticism, but it&#39;s inevitable that you are going to get it.


Hi Jalexxi

I believe there is a difference between scepticism and criticism but I do not intend to get into semantics. However, equating energy, matter and cheese worship????

I also appreciate that this is a challenging topic, however it is based on sound evidence both from modern science and ancient wisdom.

I look forward to hearing from people who like the theory......................

Just for the record did you have a look at the link? If so, did it help?

NoR