What you resist persists - why?

[Phil2]

The beginning is, of course, Awareness, this Awareness right here and now. This Awareness is All that really "matters" All "matter" exists within Awareness.

It would be simply impossible for some "form-matter-thing" to be 'first'--- It cannot to that. Awareness, Mind, Intelligence, Consciousness MUST exist First. The First and the Last Is Awareness.

Without Awareness-Intelligence-Mind-Consciousness being First 'matter' would not exist.

The beginning is Awareness---Awareness is "who and what you are"-- Begin with knowing You Exist, You are Here and Now.

Beautiful posting Sandy, thanks.

Yes everything that happens takes place in the space of awareness ... where else ?

And awareness which is formless and timeless is our essential nature ...

[KathleenBrugger]

Kathleen wrote: Reality is a mysterious thing. I think there is one reality, the absolute reality of Oneness. Then there is an objective reality of coffee cups and trees and robots that all life forms (and some robots!) perceive, even though the details of the perceptions may vary. The bee may have different visual abilities than me but we both move around a tree when it's in our path. Then I think there is a reality we create and that is what I call subjective reality. This is a uniquely human creation, and each one of us has our own personal version. We take objective reality and spin it to match the story of our life. For example, when I see a bee (particularly these days when there's fears of their disappearance) I am happy. Yesterday I spent an enjoyable time watching bees crawl over heal-all (Prunella vulgaris) flowers, which are blooming all over my yard. But someone who is allergic to bee stings would have a completely different reaction. She would look at those bees with fear and would have a lot of trouble enjoying my yard right now. My subjective reality: beautiful bee-covered flowers. Her subjective reality: dangerous patch of grass stay away. Same objective reality--a yard with flowers--but two very different subjective realities.

Nice, Kathleen. I agree about the one reality and the subjective reality. Not so convinced about the objective reality. To a large extent it's consensual certainly, but objective--not so sure. But this does not mean that I don't get out of the way when a bee comes flying in front of me in case I get stung!

What fun delving deeper into the nature of reality!

I agree that we could have an interesting conversation about objective reality...ultimately I think anything other than absolute reality is subjective in that it depends upon perception. The "objective reality" of the table that my laptop is sitting on includes the feature of solidity--that's why my computer doesn't hit the floor--but we also know that the solidity is just a matter of perception, it's really more space than matter. But I think it can get really confusing if you just divide reality into absolute/subjective. So when I say "objective reality" I don't mean it in the sense that it's real, just in the sense that there is a shared component to it--you see that tree too. So it's consensual, but that consensus is very deep, it's shared by the most basic of life-forms on this planet.

Immanuel Kant postulated that we are hard-wired for certain basic perceptions, like space, time, causality, substance, quality, and quantity. These “categories of understanding” create the basic scaffolding of reality in our minds, the basic components of what I call objective reality. Perhaps this hard-wiring has been part of the evolution of life on this planet since the beginning. Just a thought...

[ashley72]

I agree about the one reality and the subjective reality. Not so convinced about the objective reality. To a large extent it's consensual certainly, but objective--not so sure. But this does not mean that I don't get out of the way when a bee comes flying in front of me in case I get stung!

What fun delving deeper into the nature of reality!

What part of objective reality are you not convinced about?

The Sun is 149,600,000 km from Earth. Humans have never been there because the Sun is hot really hot. But all of the heat and light coming from the Sun comes from the fusion process happening deep inside the core of the Sun. The core of the Sun extends from the very center... out to about 0.2 solar radii. Inside this zone, pressures are million of times more than the surface of the Earth, and the temperature reaches more than 15 million Kelvin. This is where fusion in the Sun happens. Every second, 600 million tons of hydrogen are being converted into helium. This reaction releases a tremendous amount of heat and energy. The process of fusion in the Sun is known as the proton-proton chain. The Sun starts with protons, and though a series of steps, turns them into helium. Since the total energy of helium is less than the energy of the protons that went into it, this fusion releases energy.

Fusion is how the Sun produces all the periodic elements up to Iron (Fe). Now scientists have never been to the Sun yet they know this happens. On top of that, they have already simulated fusion reactions on Earth, but are yet to simulate the conditions to allow the fusion reaction to persist longer than about 6 mins. They hope to overcome these limitations with technology advances in the near future. Theses fusion generators will ultimately produce 6 times the input energy... which would solve humans reliance on resource driven energy sources like coal, oil, gas & Uranium. Fusion only produces Helium from Sea water and has no radioactive by-products. Humans would no longer need to generate energy using carbon based fuels that cause global warming due to CO2 production.

Is there any part of this objective reality you question?



It's smart folk like Michel Laberge, who obviously don't question objective reality... And it's great men like him that will solve global warming and secure the worlds energy needs for millions of years.

If you want to delve deeper I suggest people watch this video.

http://www.generalfusion.com

This video was only posted on TED one month ago and it's already been watched 300,000 times. What Dr Laberge is trying to do is the most important technology step in human history right now.

His "test" fusion generator will produce about a Megawatt/hour of energy.. Enough energy to power 1000 modern homes. The cost per kilowatt/hr will be about .001 (1/1000) cents for fusion generator. Compared to about 12 cents in the US currently... About 120,000 times cheaper than current electricity prices in the US.

[Onceler]

Onceler wrote:
It's interesting that we immediately hold some ideas to a different standard......if it's in the empirical realm, which is simply a way of categorizing info, we hold the idea to research and truth, if it's an ancient spiritual construct from thousands of years ago which probably has been so changed and distorted from the original that it might be unrecognizable, we argue it's validity fervently without regard for some empirical evidence. We can't even operationalize the terms; enlightenment, ego, etc.

Good stuff Onceler.

In my case, I apply the same standards to science and spirituality. Science is the external evaluation of a testable hypothesis. Spirituality (imo) is the internal evaluation of a testable hypothesis. For example, if you take yoga (and I don't mean asanas but yoga for stilling the mind), meditation or vedanta, I would say that they are still around after centuries because of one simple fact: they work.

On the other hand, intelligent people seem to be leaving organized religion because it does not appear work very well. I wouldn't know though, since I've never been a religious type.

I would agree at face value. I also believe that I test internal hypothesis, however we both know this is rife with misinterpretation and qualitative distortion. For the last 2-3 years I have felt better, calmer, more emotionally stable, etc. I ascribe it to inquiry work I have done, but I don't know if this is the cause of a more positive internal state. It might be the Qi Gong I am doing. It might be the running. It might be my much improved, whole foods diet. It could be a combination of these......or it could simply be a by-product of aging; a developmental shift that would have occurred with none of these factors in place. What we attribute to spiritual practice could simply be the rock tumbling effect of life that polishes our surfaces to the same sheen others experience without any strongly held belief system.

How am I to know there is not a placebo effect which makes me ascribe changes to what I am doing....that is only a fragile cognitive filter that sees change where perhaps there is none......the practices are incidental, we could be stuffing pickles up our noses and experiencing spiritual benefit if we believed hard enough. It all may be an elaborate defense mechanism that, let down, would uncover pain and confusion deeper than suspected. In fact, I feel this veneer is the last thing to go before an authentic view of life as it is, without the filters and structures, the dulling/sedative effects of our pet beliefs.

Obviously, personal perspective is the conundrum of science and getting a true bead on where we are.

[runstrails]

Onceler wrote: How am I to know there is not a placebo effect which makes me ascribe changes to what I am doing

So a randomized controlled, double blind clinical trial of spirituality would be useful . But heck, if placebo works to give you a better life, take it. Ultimately, it's all placebo of course, since 'there is nothing really to do' to find your true nature.

I do hear you about the aging business, I've often wondered if we all simply awaken as part of growing old. But I also see so many youngsters on the forum that are pretty awakened. Ananda comes to mind especially.

Ashley wrote: Is there any part of this objective reality you question?

When I contemplate deeply, I question all of it. Everything one knows is simply filtered through a homosapien brain which is primed to interpret a version of reality.
Of course, in everyday life, I go about enjoying consensual reality and my place in it effortlessly. I'm glad and grateful for people to solve global warming, cure cancer, prevent famines etc..

Kathleen wrote: I agree that we could have an interesting conversation about objective reality...ultimately I think anything other than absolute reality is subjective in that it depends upon perception. The "objective reality" of the table that my laptop is sitting on includes the feature of solidity--that's why my computer doesn't hit the floor--but we also know that the solidity is just a matter of perception, it's really more space than matter. But I think it can get really confusing if you just divide reality into absolute/subjective. So when I say "objective reality" I don't mean it in the sense that it's real, just in the sense that there is a shared component to it--you see that tree too. So it's consensual, but that consensus is very deep, it's shared by the most basic of life-forms on this planet.

Immanuel Kant postulated that we are hard-wired for certain basic perceptions, like space, time, causality, substance, quality, and quantity. These “categories of understanding” create the basic scaffolding of reality in our minds, the basic components of what I call objective reality. Perhaps this hard-wiring has been part of the evolution of life on this planet since the beginning. Just a thought...

Lovely post, Kathleen. I think Kant says it nicely that we are hard wired for certain perceptions (like space, time) and that describes (perhaps in a limited way or perhaps in an extraordinary way) our understanding of reality.

[peas]

Faith in science is one of the hardest faiths to shake, because it is predicated on the mental doctrine of infallible recordable proof.

The fly in the ointment is that proof is perceived through our limited senses and then recorded and interpreted with our limited brain. Every scientist should really look into that. But chances are most of them won't.

You see, scientists are also humans, and all humans have lots of fear. Basically we are dealing with fear of exploring what science misses. Fear of the unrecordable and potentially fallible mysteries of the universe.

In other words, science for most becomes a type of agoraphobia - instead of fear of vast open spaces, there is a deep fear of vast open mysteries.

Many scientists are dogmatic and unshakable because they have to hold on to certainty and avoid facing their fears.

[ashley72]

Faith in science is one of the hardest faiths to shake, because it is predicated on the mental doctrine of infallible recordable proof.

Spirituality and religions are faith-based.

Spiritual folk are not concerned with proving or testing objectively whether consciousness can be simulated in machines. They want you to have blind faith in spiritual teachings - gleaned from subjective experiences.

The fly in the ointment is that proof is perceived through our limited senses and then recorded and interpreted with our limited brain. Every scientist should really look into that. But chances are most of them won't.

You see, scientists are also humans, and all humans have lots of fear. Basically we are dealing with fear of exploring what science misses. Fear of the unrecordable and potentially fallible mysteries of the universe.

In other words, science for most becomes a type of agoraphobia - instead of fear of vast open spaces, there is a deep fear of vast open mysteries.

Many scientists are dogmatic and unshakable because they have to hold on to certainty and avoid facing their fears.

Science is not limited by biological senses. Science harnesses physical laws & systems independent of purely biological systems to make technological advances. On the other hand, spirituality allows no objective knowledge, it's completely limited to human senses and subjective experiences. It has no hope of solving any mystery.

Unfortunately, you seem like one of the blind followers who just can't see past the standard spiritual doctrine. Opening yourself up to objective science can do you no harm... It will only balance your subjective and objective pools.

Currently scientist are building the next generation of computer which taps into quantum mechanics which will make computer architecture more synaptic like human brains... This will allow machine learning algorithms to answer questions and predict events more profoundly than even humans can.

"We could map the whole Universe — all of the information that has existed since the Big Bang — onto 300 qubits,"

Classical computers aren’t well suited to these types of creative problems. Solving such problems can be imagined as trying to find the lowest point on a surface covered in hills and valleys. Classical computing might use what’s called “gradient descent”: start at a random spot on the surface, look around for a lower spot to walk down to, and repeat until you can’t walk downhill anymore. But all too often that gets you stuck in a “local minimum” -- a valley that isn’t the very lowest point on the surface.

That’s where quantum computing comes in. It lets you cheat a little, giving you some chance to “tunnel” through a ridge to see if there’s a lower valley hidden beyond it. This gives you a much better shot at finding the true lowest point -- the optimal solution.

A quantum computer taps directly into the fundamental fabric of reality – the strange and counterintuitive world of quantum mechanics – to speed computation. Quantum computers are not deterministic (like classical computers), but return probabilistic results. The processor considers all the possibilities simultaneously to determine the lowest energy required to form those relationships. Because a quantum computer is probabilistic rather than deterministic, the computer returns many very good answers in a short amount of time - 10,000 answers in one second. This gives the user not only the optimal solution or a single answer, but also other alternatives to choose from.

[Phil2]

Faith in science is one of the hardest faiths to shake, because it is predicated on the mental doctrine of infallible recordable proof.

Spirituality and religions are faith-based.

Spiritual folk are not concerned with proving or testing objectively whether consciousness can be simulated in machines. They want you to have blind faith in spiritual teachings - gleaned from subjective experiences.

Not necessarily, for example J.Krishnamurti always said "Please, do not believe what I say ... see it yourself ... be a light unto yourself ... do not be a second-hand person etc.". He also said "if you understand what I say, don't repeat, say it in your own words ..."

K did not want 'followers' or 'believers' ... he wanted to set mankind totally and unconditionally free, not create any dependency from a 'guru' or a 'master' or a 'teacher'.

This is true spirituality, and also true religion. There is nothing to be 'accepted' blindly. I would even say it is more 'scientific' than science itself which starts from some postulates, like an observer independant of the observed ...

[ashley72]

I would even say it is more 'scientific' than science itself which starts from some postulates, like an observer independant of the observed ...

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe, whilst philosophy/spirituality is meta-knowledge, meaning it is about knowledge.

J Krishnamurti was a philosopher and Mystic.... This is what he said about religion & science.

Religious mind is free of all authority. And it is extremely difficult to be free from authority not only the authority imposed by another but also the authority of the experience that one has gathered, which is of the past, which is tradition. And the religious mind has no beliefs; it has no dogmas; it moves from fact to fact, and therefore the religious mind is the scientific mind. But the scientific mind is not the religious mind. The religious mind includes the scientific mind, but the mind that is trained in the knowledge of science is not a religious mind.
A religious mind is concerned with the totality not with a particular function, but with the total functioning of human existence. The brain is concerned with a particular function; it specializes. It functions in specialization as a scientist, a doctor, an engineer, a musician, an artist, a writer. It is these specialized, narrowed-down techniques that create division, not only inwardly but outwardly. The scientist is probably regarded as the most important man required by society just now, as is the doctor. So function becomes all-important; and with it goes status, status being prestige. So where there is specialization there must be contradiction and a narrowing-down, and that is the function of the brain.

Sadly, his ideas didn't add any new or novel knowledge, he merely talked about knowledge itself, and pigeon-holed science & religion to suit his own dogma.

Runstrails was doing it earlier in the thread, declaring human knowledge & science is limited by the brain... It's not adding new knowledge, its just talking about knowledge itself. Spiritual types do a lot of posturing about knowledge to hide the fact they don't bring anything new to the table!

[Phil2]

I would even say it is more 'scientific' than science itself which starts from some postulates, like an observer independant of the observed ...

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe, whilst philosophy/spirituality is meta-knowledge, meaning it is about knowledge.

J Krishnamurti was a philosopher and Mystic.... This is what he said about religion & science.

Religious mind is free of all authority. And it is extremely difficult to be free from authority not only the authority imposed by another but also the authority of the experience that one has gathered, which is of the past, which is tradition. And the religious mind has no beliefs; it has no dogmas; it moves from fact to fact, and therefore the religious mind is the scientific mind. But the scientific mind is not the religious mind. The religious mind includes the scientific mind, but the mind that is trained in the knowledge of science is not a religious mind.
A religious mind is concerned with the totality not with a particular function, but with the total functioning of human existence. The brain is concerned with a particular function; it specializes. It functions in specialization as a scientist, a doctor, an engineer, a musician, an artist, a writer. It is these specialized, narrowed-down techniques that create division, not only inwardly but outwardly. The scientist is probably regarded as the most important man required by society just now, as is the doctor. So function becomes all-important; and with it goes status, status being prestige. So where there is specialization there must be contradiction and a narrowing-down, and that is the function of the brain.

Sadly, his ideas didn't add any new or novel knowledge, he merely talked about knowledge itself, and pigeon-holed science & religion to suit his own dogma.

Runstrails was doing it earlier in the thread, declaring human knowledge & science is limited by the brain... It's not adding new knowledge, its just talking about knowledge itself. Spiritual types do a lot of posturing about knowledge to hide the fact they don't bring anything new to the table!

Thank you for this excellent quote from Krishnamurti, this is exactly what I meant ...

Your objections come mainly from your own ignorance of your own nature ... here is the ancient wisdom taught by many wise teachers like Socrates, Buddha and many others:

Know yourself ... and you will know the universe and the gods ...

[ashley72]

Your objections come mainly from your own ignorance of your own nature ... here is the ancient wisdom taught by many wise teachers like Socrates, Buddha and many others:

Know yourself ... and you will know the universe and the gods ...

I'm interested in ordinary natural processes that are testable.... I have no interest in pure "speculation" about divine agency. Which seems to be the only ancient wisdom your spruiking here.

[Phil2]

Your objections come mainly from your own ignorance of your own nature ... here is the ancient wisdom taught by many wise teachers like Socrates, Buddha and many others:

Know yourself ... and you will know the universe and the gods ...

I'm interested in ordinary natural processes that are testable.... I have no interest in pure "speculation" about divine agency. Which seems to be the only ancient wisdom your spruiking here.

I am wondering what is your interest to post on a forum dedicated to Eckhart Tolle then ? Are you here to explain your scientific theories ?

??

[ashley72]

I am wondering what is your interest to post on a forum dedicated to Eckhart Tolle then ? Are you here to explain your scientific theories ?

One minute you're preaching... don't be a second-hand person... Now you curious as to why I'm not a second-hand Eckhart Tolle.

[Phil2]

I am wondering what is your interest to post on a forum dedicated to Eckhart Tolle then ? Are you here to explain your scientific theories ?

One minute you're preaching... don't be a second-hand person... Now you curious as to why I'm not a second-hand Eckhart Tolle.

Well it seems more and more clear you are here to contradict and debunk what Eckhart Tolle teaches ... probably you must find this funny and entertaining ... don't you ?

[Enlightened2B]

Can I interject something here without being vilified (hopefully)?

Why does this debate need to go on? That is....spirituality VERSUS science?

Why can't we accept both in our lives? Or merely accept neither without these silly debates that end up going no where?

Spirituality as Ashley said will NOT bring 'answers' to existence. He's right about that. We might THINK we have found the answers, but there is no way to prove that it is utter 'truth' because the mind that is being utilized is the same product of this physical universe.

At the same time, material science while incredibly sufficient in providing answers to the physical universe, has not brought answers to subjective existence either. Ashley mentions often about Conscious Robots (which is quite scary!). However, even if this is ever so, this still does not prove that Consciousness is an actual by-product of the brain. There is simply NOTHING in neuro science today that is even CLOSE to accepting this as an absolute truth. I've done a little reading on this. Consciousness is a COMPLETE mystery still. Yes, there are MANY 'theories' in material science that consciousness could be a product of the brain including the 'prefrontal cortex region' and perhaps they ARE true, but they haven't come close to being accepted as utter 'truth' because they haven't been actually proven yet.

Has anyone read Tom Campbell's work on HIS version of the unified field theory? Has anyone read John Hagelin's work? These are two well renowned Physicists who have come up to the same theory that the Universe is essentially a simulation of sorts with Consciousness as the essence of all of life? They're not alone in their research. Leonard Suskind has also flat out stated that the physical universe is a hologram. No one is suggesting to accept this as an utter 'truth' either, but why not be open to it? After all, it's no different than what material science is doing by creating 'theories'.

Has material science 100 percent found the 'truth' to Consciousness? I'm not talking about 'theories', I'm talking about 'truth'. If they have, I'd love to see the research on it.