Mental Universe

[David Quinn]

Here is an interesting article from the science journal, Nature:

The Mental Universe

Richard Conn Henry

Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.

--

Abstract

The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.

Historically, we have looked to our religious leaders to understand the meaning of our lives; the nature of our world. With Galileo Galilei, this changed. In establishing that the Earth goes around the Sun, Galileo not only succeeded in believing the unbelievable himself, but also convinced almost everyone else to do the same. This was a stunning accomplishment in 'physics outreach' and, with the subsequent work of Isaac Newton, physics joined religion in seeking to explain our place in the Universe.

The more recent physics revolution of the past 80 years has yet to transform general public understanding in a similar way. And yet a correct understanding of physics was accessible even to Pythagoras. According to Pythagoras, "number is all things", and numbers are mental, not mechanical. Likewise, Newton called light "particles", knowing the concept to be an 'effective theory' — useful, not true. As noted by Newton's biographer Richard Westfall: "The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.'" Newton knew of Newton's rings and was untroubled by what is shallowly called 'wave/particle duality'.

The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe's nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe the unbelievable — this time, that the Universe is mental. According to Sir James Jeans: "the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter." But physicists have not yet followed Galileo's example, and convinced everyone of the wonders of quantum mechanics. As Sir Arthur Eddington explained: "It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character."

In his play Copenhagen, which brings quantum mechanics to a wider audience, Michael Frayn gives these word to Niels Bohr: "we discover that... the Universe exists... only through the understanding lodged inside the human head." Bohr's wife replies, "this man you've put at the centre of the Universe — is it you, or is it Heisenberg?" This is what sticks in the craw of Eddington's "matter-of-fact" physicists.

Discussing the play, John H. Marburger III, President George W. Bush's science adviser, observes that "in the Copenhagen interpretation of microscopic nature, there are neither waves nor particles", but then frames his remarks in terms of a non-existent "underlying stuff". He points out that it is not true that matter "sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle... The wave is not in the underlying stuff; it is in the spatial pattern of detector clicks... We cannot help but think of the clicks as caused by little localized pieces of stuff that we might as well call particles. This is where the particle language comes from. It does not come from the underlying stuff, but from our psychological predisposition to associate localized phenomena with particles."

In place of "underlying stuff" there have been serious attempts to preserve a material world — but they produce no new physics, and serve only to preserve an illusion. Scientists have sadly left it to non-physicist Frayn to note the Emperor's lack of clothes: "it seems to me that the view which [Murray] Gell-Mann favours, and which involves what he calls alternative 'histories' or 'narratives', is precisely as anthropocentric as Bohr's, since histories and narratives are not freestanding elements of the Universe, but human constructs, as subjective and as restricted in their viewpoint as the act of observation."

Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke 'decoherence' — the notion that 'the physical environment' is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type' experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental.

In the tenth century, Ibn al-Haytham initiated the view that light proceeds from a source, enters the eye, and is perceived. This picture is incorrect but is still what most people think occurs, including, unless pressed, most physicists. To come to terms with the Universe, we must abandon such views. The world is quantum mechanical: we must learn to perceive it as such.

One benefit of switching humanity to a correct perception of the world is the resulting joy of discovering the mental nature of the Universe. We have no idea what this mental nature implies, but — the great thing is — it is true. Beyond the acquisition of this perception, physics can no longer help. You may descend into solipsism, expand to deism, or something else if you can justify it — just don't ask physics for help.

There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out 'what things are'. If we can 'pull a Galileo,' and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze.

The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.

--

FURTHER READING

Marburger, J. On the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics http://www.ostp.gov/html/Copenhagentalk.pdf (2002).

Henry, R. C. Am. J. Phys. 58, 1087−1100 (1990).

Steiner, M. The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998).

--

Originally printed in Nature, 436, 7 July 2005, p.29.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't really explore the philosophical ramifications of the truth that all things are mentally created. Rather, the author seems content merely to have his belief in mentalism confirmed (or so he thinks) by quantum physics, just as a Christian might be content to have his belief in God confirmed by the love showing in a mother's eyes. It's all rather tenuous and emotional, at bottom.

-

[Matt Gregory]

Oh well. Even if everybody decided things were ultimately mental, they would take it to mean that things were collectively mental, so that everyone would still have to agree together about what exists and what doesn't.

[Jamesh]

This is why I define material as anything with a recognisable property, which has the effect of making everything exist, which is a correct interpretation of the universe as it allows for the invisible but real forces of creation and destruction. Namely,
my old friends the expansionary and contractive forces, or fundamental causes of nature, which are invisible because they only have single property that cannot be altered, which means they cannot be observed as observation requires the thing being observed to be altered. (for example - when we view the light of a galaxy that emanates 1 million light years away, the light we see is part of the totality of the galaxy, not separate to it. To consider it separate is an incomplete definition of the thing that we call the galaxy. We alter that light, so that its pattern fits into the pattern required for our observational tools, so this means we alter the galaxy).

To say nothing exists is mistaken. That no thing exists separately or independently, and that things are just the defining of patterns by observers (form), is true, but this does not prevent the existence of everything.

I think the writer is looking for reasons to support a belief in god -it kind of reads similar to article about intelligent design.


"The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe's nature" - Rubbish

"According to Pythagoras, "number is all things", and numbers are mental, not mechanical." Rubbish - that which is mental is still mechanical. Mental is jsut a term, a thing, that is the summarised layer of the physical cause of the consciousness

"According to Sir James Jeans: "the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter." Lol, what a load of crap

"The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy." Wanker

[Beingof1]

David:

Unfortunately, the article doesn't really explore the philosophical ramifications of the truth that all things are mentally created. Rather, the author seems content merely to have his belief in mentalism confirmed (or so he thinks) by quantum physics, just as a Christian might be content to have his belief in God confirmed by the love showing in a mother's eyes. It's all rather tenuous and emotional, at bottom.

I agree, this would be why if I wanted to explore this idea from someone else I would pick the finest thinker in the field on the subject. It is easy to tear apart the logic of someone who believes rather than thinks.

It is true that the ideas from the older scientific view that ultimate reality is "fundamental particles" is certainly not accurate. Many anomalous phenomenon challenges all of these outdated theories.

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

-- unknown

The question is whether consciousness is caused (by physiological processes in the brain, which in turn are consequences of the long evolutionary process) or causal (in the sense that consciousness is not only a causal factor in present phenomena, but also a causal factor throughout the entire evolutionary process). Western scientific method urges toward the former choice in both cases, whereas the phenomena of consciousness suggest the latter choice in both cases.

Modern Western science fundamentally entails three important metaphysical assumptions: a. Realism (ontological-leads to epistemological conclusion). There is a real world which is, in essence, physically measurable (positivism). We are embedded in that world, follow its laws, and have evolved from an ancient origin. Mind or consciousness evolved within that world; the world pre-existed before its appearance, and continues to exist and persist independent of consciousness. b. Objectivism (epistemological and ontological) That real world exists independently of mind, and can be studied as object. That is, it is accessible to sense perception and can be intersubjectively observed and validated. c. Reductionism (epistemological). That real world is described by the laws of physics, which apply everywhere. The essence of the scientific endeavor is to provide explanations for complex phenomena in terms of the characteristics of, and interactions among, their component parts.

The fundamental reason for this difficulty appears to be that Western science has been caught in a basic dualistic trap - that of considering the subject doing the mapping as separate from the map.Getting a more accurate map (more based on modern physics, more "holistic", more "systems") will not solve this problem. Rather, we must realize that thoughts are not merely a reflection on reality, but are also a movement of that reality itself. The mapmaker, the self, the thinking and knowing subject, is actually a product and a performance of that which it seeks to know and represent.

A step toward resolving this long-standing impasse may be the recognition that it is, in a sense, a historical accident that physics was taken to be the root science. That led naturally enough to such ideas as seeking objectivity through separating observer and observed; taking reality to be essentially that which can be physically measured; and seeking explanations of the whole in terms of understanding the parts.

But what if the study of living systems had been taken to be the root science, rather than physics? Had this been the case, science would undoubtedly have taken a more holistic turn. It would have recognized that wholes are self-evidently more than the sum of their parts, and would have adopted an epistemology more congenial to living organisms. It might well have adopted a different ontological stance in viewing reality.

Thus, consciousness is not a "thing" to be studied by an observer who is somehow apart from it; research on consciousness involves the interaction of the observer and the observed, or more accurately, the experience of observing.

-- Willis Harman

Matt Gregory:

Oh well. Even if everybody decided things were ultimately mental, they would take it to mean that things were collectively mental, so that everyone would still have to agree together about what exists and what doesn't.

Not at all sir, that is just one of many conclusions you can come to.

If you want to find a physicist who had thought deeply about this subject, try David Bohm.

If [man] thinks of the totality as constituted of independent fragments, then that is how his mind will tend to operate, but if he can include everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole that is undivided, unbroken, and without a border then his mind will tend to move in a similar way, and from this will flow an orderly action within the whole.

[Thought] seems to have some inertia, a tendency to continue. It seems to have a necessity that we keep on doing it. However ... we often find that we cannot easily give up the tendency to hold rigidly to patterns of thought built up over a long time. We are then caught up in what may be called absolute necessity. This kind of thought leaves no room at all intellectually for any other possibility, while emotionally and physically, it means we take a stance in our feelings, in our bodies, and indeed, in our whole culture, of holding back or resisting. This stance implies that under no circumstances whatsoever can we allow ourselves to give up certain things or change them.

Then there is the further question of what is the relationship of thinking to reality. As careful attention shows, thought itself is in an actual process of movement. That is to say, one can feel a sense of flow in the stream of consciousness not dissimilar to the sense of flow in the movement of matter in general. May not thought itself thus be a part of reality as a whole? But then, what could it mean for one part of reality to 'know' another, and to what extent would this be possible?

If I am right in saying that thought is the ultimate origin or source, it follows that if we don't do anything about thought, we won't get anywhere. We may momentarily relieve the population problem, the ecological problem, and so on, but they will come back in another way.

[Matt Gregory]

That quote only confirms what I was saying:

If I am right in saying that thought is the ultimate origin or source, it follows that if we don't do anything about thought, we won't get anywhere.

[Beingof1]

Matt Gregory, I think David Bohm would agree. I was simply saying there are other interpretations as well.

[Cory Duchesne]

DQ: Unfortunately, the article doesn't really explore the
philosophical ramifications of the truth that all things are mentally created. Rather, the author seems content merely to have his belief in mentalism confirmed (or so he thinks) by quantum physics, just as a Christian might be content to have his belief in God confirmed by the love showing in a mother's eyes. It's all rather tenuous and emotional, at bottom.

Being of one responded:

Bof1: I agree, this would be why if I wanted to explore this idea from someone else I would pick the finest thinker in the field on the subject. It is easy to tear apart the logic of someone who believes rather than thinks.

This is a good point. It's just like the newage, sentimental religious people who condemn the whole of science by revealing examples of its worst aspects. They do this to bolster and maintain their self esteem.

The intelligent criticism of the hubris of science is benificial, while the frightened irrational condemnation of all science and the justificaton of flakey beliefs (that usually accompanies this sort of criticism) is ultimately pernicious.

Quinn, are you pointing out the weaknesses of a few individuals in order to protect yourself from exploring the thoughts of greater individuals? And are you unconsciously doing this to protect your ridgid conditioning from being undermined or radically reorganized?

Even if you are, your ability to crticize with refinement is in part benificial, even if you are unconsciously employing your intellect to justify and protect your precious conditioning (your self-esteem) that you fear to have disturbed.

I'm not saying that this is or is not the case. But I notice some people on this forum have come to some strong conclusions about matters (mostly pertaining to consciousness and evolution) that are not at all resolved and in the mean-time investigations into physics are producing some mind-boggling data. I guess people protect themselves from new discoveries to preserve their sense of self-esteem which is based on a conditoning that the new discoveries threaten. It feels good to come to conclusions. It makes one feel superior and orientated. Whereas good questions produce the contrary effect.

It's just like what we agreed on a few weeks ago David. People fear uncertainty more than certainty. To be enlightened fundamentally demands a risk, a gamble, a leap of faith. Because peopl fear this the most, they wallow in false certainty. True certainty is to be aware of the fact of ones uncertainty. You can't have one without the other. Was what I just said a conclusion, or a fact?

Is it neccesary to come to conclusions?

"To believe is to be superstitious"
-Jiddu Krishnamurti

[Matt Gregory]

Matt Gregory, I think David Bohm would agree. I was simply saying there are other interpretations as well.

I feel into it too, didn't I. What a mess I make of things!

[David Quinn]

Beingof1 wrote:

DQ: Unfortunately, the article doesn't really explore the philosophical ramifications of the truth that all things are mentally created. Rather, the author seems content merely to have his belief in mentalism confirmed (or so he thinks) by quantum physics, just as a Christian might be content to have his belief in God confirmed by the love showing in a mother's eyes. It's all rather tenuous and emotional, at bottom.

B1: I agree, this would be why if I wanted to explore this idea from someone else I would pick the finest thinker in the field on the subject. It is easy to tear apart the logic of someone who believes rather than thinks.

The trouble is, I don't really see Bohm, or the other two people you quoted, as being any more rational than Richard Henry. They are all equally flakey in their thinking. They all mentally crumble when it really counts. They all shy away from becoming aware of the Infinite.

For example, Bohm states:

Then there is the further question of what is the relationship of thinking to reality. As careful attention shows, thought itself is in an actual process of movement. That is to say, one can feel a sense of flow in the stream of consciousness not dissimilar to the sense of flow in the movement of matter in general. May not thought itself thus be a part of reality as a whole? But then, what could it mean for one part of reality to 'know' another, and to what extent would this be possible?

If I am right in saying that thought is the ultimate origin or source, it follows that if we don't do anything about thought, we won't get anywhere.

It's hard to know exactly what he is trying to say here. Is he saying that thought is merely a part of reality, or is he saying that it is the ultimate source of reality? These are two very different points of view.

In any case, I hope it's not the latter. To pinpoint a particular finite phenomenon, such as thought, as being the ultimate source of all things, is to make the mistake of confusing the finite with the Infinite. It's a case of not being able to recognize A=A in this situation - which as Kevin pointed out recently, is a sign of insanity.

I don't know if Bohm has what it takes to realize there is no source to anything at all. Aside from any psychological resistence he might have, he would have to go completely beyond science in order to make this connection. It would be a very big sacrifice for him to make.

I also don't buy into the whole "reductionism vs holism" framework that Willis Harman tries to foster:

A step toward resolving this long-standing impasse may be the recognition that it is, in a sense, a historical accident that physics was taken to be the root science. That led naturally enough to such ideas as seeking objectivity through separating observer and observed; taking reality to be essentially that which can be physically measured; and seeking explanations of the whole in terms of understanding the parts.

But what if the study of living systems had been taken to be the root science, rather than physics? Had this been the case, science would undoubtedly have taken a more holistic turn. It would have recognized that wholes are self-evidently more than the sum of their parts, and would have adopted an epistemology more congenial to living organisms. It might well have adopted a different ontological stance in viewing reality.

This is a common point of view, based on a belief that there is a sharp division between reductionism and holism, and it is entirely wrong. Anyone with a spark of intelligence in them can easily oscilliate between reductionism and holism, and integrate the two together, without any problem at all. It isn't the case that we have to ditch one in favour of the other.

Indeed, the very desire of physicists to reduce everything down to a single principle or formula is motivated by the holistic urge to comprehend the whole. And they are right to think this. When the philosopher intelligently reduces everything down to the principle of cause and effect, he succeeds in understanding the essence of everything. His pushing of reductionism to its very limit has successfully led him to the greatest holistic understanding open to humankind.

-

[David Quinn]

Cory wrote:

Quinn, are you pointing out the weaknesses of a few individuals in order to protect yourself from exploring the thoughts of greater individuals? And are you unconsciously doing this to protect your ridgid conditioning from being undermined or radically reorganized?

I can tear apart any scientist you care to name. It's not hard - they are all tremendously naive and unskilled in philosophic thought, it would seem. Disturbingly, I have yet to come across any scientist who values the Truth, let alone understands it.

I'm not saying that this is or is not the case. But I notice some people on this forum have come to some strong conclusions about matters (mostly pertaining to consciousness and evolution) that are not at all resolved and in the mean-time investigations into physics are producing some mind-boggling data. I guess people protect themselves from new discoveries to preserve their sense of self-esteem which is based on a conditoning that the new discoveries threaten. It feels good to come to conclusions. It makes one feel superior and orientated. Whereas good questions produce the contrary effect.

You misunderstand the nature of wisdom, and also science. The understanding wisdom engenders transcends science in every way.

It is literally beyond the capacity of science to overturn the timeless knowledge and wisdom that I currently enjoy, and others have before me have enjoyed. Even if science were to continue progressing for the next 10 billion years, it still wouldn't throw up anything of interest in a philosophic sense. It wouldn't be any closer to the Truth, nor would it be any closer to undermining it. It is entirely neutral when it comes to Truth.

So it should come as no surprise, then, that I never feel threatened by science. On the contrary, I always watch what it does with amusement and interest. I agree that there are some interesting theories coming out of modern science, but it is still kid's stuff when compared to the greatness of a sage's understanding.

Is it neccesary to come to conclusions?

It is, if you want to realize Truth.

-

[Beingof1]

DavidQuinn000:

The trouble is, I don't really see Bohm, or the other two people you quoted, as being any more rational than Richard Henry. They are all equally flakey in their thinking. They all mentally crumble when it really counts. They all shy away from becoming aware of the Infinite.

I think Bohm was on the right track and I do see what you mean.
Bohm to me, was still wrestling with the infinite and had tasted its fruit yet could not make the ultimate leap.

It's hard to know exactly what he is trying to say here. Is he saying that thought is merely a part of reality, or is he saying that it is the ultimate source of reality? These are two very different points of view.

I agree, I do not think he ever completely resolved the question unless it was after his writings were complete. The conversations he had after his career as a scientist shows more solidarity of thought.

In any case, I hope it's not the latter. To pinpoint a particular finite phenomenon, such as thought, as being the ultimate source of all things, is to make the mistake of confusing the finite with the Infinite. It's a case of not being able to recognize A=A in this situation - which as Kevin pointed out recently, is a sign of insanity.

He might have chose a better word for definitions sake but regardless your point is well made. He still lacked cohesion but to me, he was tearing it apart with ferver just never could quite bring it all together.

I don't know if Bohm has what it takes to realize there is no source to anything at all. Aside from any psychological resistence he might have, he would have to go completely beyond science in order to make this connection. It would be a very big sacrifice for him to make.

1993 was his last year with us. He did eventually go beyond science and was responsible for resounding breakthroughs in nuerophysiology and resulted in new methods of brain surgery.

Consider this thought;

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

-- unknown

As you can see he was very, very close and so gained my respect.

This is a common point of view, based on a belief that there is a sharp division between reductionism and holism, and it is entirely wrong. Anyone with a spark of intelligence in them can easily oscilliate between reductionism and holism, and integrate the two together, without any problem at all. It isn't the case that we have to ditch one in favour of the other.

I agree, if you make one or the other an absolute that would be in denial of reality.
I only listed these guys because their thought is superior to the source you quoted.

Indeed, the very desire of physicists to reduce everything down to a single principle or formula is motivated by the holistic urge to comprehend the whole. And they are right to think this. When the philosopher intelligently reduces everything down to the principle of cause and effect, he succeeds in understanding the essence of everything. His pushing of reductionism to its very limit has successfully led him to the greatest holistic understanding open to humankind.

Indeed sir

[Kelly Jones]

[Bohm] argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.....And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

Eidolon: 1. A phantom; an apparition. 2. An image of an ideal.

The flaw with this hologram analogy is the same flaw of any analogy purported to be an accurate description of the universe. That is, it gives the Universe a nature of some kind.

In this case, it reckons there are truly two realms, one being illusory, made up of physical phantoms, and the other being real, made up of an underlying unified phantom realm, called The Universe.

But both are equally mere abstractions, and both are really just one, no segregation implied. It's another of countless cases of being precariously perched, tunnelling down into dark fox-holes so to ignore one's own face.


-

[sue hindmarsh]

Beingof1 wrote:

I think Bohm was on the right track and I do see what you mean.
Bohm to me, was still wrestling with the infinite and had tasted its fruit yet could not make the ultimate leap.

Bohm spent his whole life doing science. Because of this, it is very doubtful that he was ever “on the right track”. My point is: if he had had any insights into the Infinite he mustn’t have been very impressed by them, since he continued to do science instead of becoming a philosopher.

I do not think he (Bohm) ever completely resolved the question unless it was after his writings were complete. The conversations he had after his career as a scientist shows more solidarity of thought.

Do you mean that after a lifetime of doing science, he finally came to see that it was a horrible waste of a life?

He might have chose a better word for definitions sake but regardless your point is well made. He still lacked cohesion but to me, he was tearing it apart with ferver just never could quite bring it all together.

For scientist’s to introduce more elaborate models either to tear apart or glue together the Universe in their quest to explain it, doesn’t take any “ferver”; they just do it because its fun.

Happily for them, if they never have any insight into the simple, yet significant truth of cause and effect, they can go on playing silly-buggers for the rest of eternity, assured that they’ll never understand anything at all about the Infinite.

Bohm:The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

As you can see he was very, very close and so gained my respect.

He would have gained my respect if he’d admitted that after a life spent in science he didn’t understand anything about Reality and recommended young people not do science until they first understood Reality.

DQ wrote: This is a common point of view, based on a belief that there is a sharp division between reductionism and holism, and it is entirely wrong. Anyone with a spark of intelligence in them can easily oscilliate between reductionism and holism, and integrate the two together, without any problem at all. It isn't the case that we have to ditch one in favour of the other.

I agree, if you make one or the other an absolute that would be in denial of reality.

Beingof1, I’ve read a few of your posts on other threads and see that you value highly an understanding of “who you are”. How does that idea fit in with anything said by David above?

Sue

[Beingof1]

Kelly Jones:

The flaw with this hologram analogy is the same flaw of any analogy purported to be an accurate description of the universe. That is, it gives the Universe a nature of some kind.

And this will be another example of you trying to compete with me, and when I offer to give you a helping hand, you bite it.

You take what I shared with you here:

Any fractal you conceive is still a construct of the mind and so it is a model at its best. The model cannot take the place of reality, reality can only be experienced not duplicated.

After completely ignoring this statement while debating with me, you now turn it around (after learning it from me) and try to 'bite' me with it.
Grrr - bark

I would say you really need to work on discerning who are your friend and foe before swinging the sword. You could regret cutting a friends head off.

But both are equally mere abstractions, and both are really just one, no segregation implied. It's another of countless cases of being precariously perched, tunnelling down into dark fox-holes so to ignore one's own face.

Because 'winning the debate' is what proves one wise, ergo I am wise when I win in comparison to all others.

Flawless wisdom is pointless and not of any value if you must compare it to others to prove it is sound.


sue hindmarsh:

Bohm spent his whole life doing science. Because of this, it is very doubtful that he was ever “on the right track”. My point is: if he had had any insights into the Infinite he mustn’t have been very impressed by them, since he continued to do science instead of becoming a philosopher.

I suppose in the sense - "once a scientist always a scientist". Titles do not describe the reality of anything if one is using broad general terms.

I did not bring up Bohm to say he was 'all that and a bag of chips' - my point was to find the best thinker on an idea and examine his thoughts.

Do you mean that after a lifetime of doing science, he finally came to see that it was a horrible waste of a life?

The same could be said of philosophers, bakers, bus drivers or whatever if we use a job description or title to judge what value is by categories we like and don`t like.

For scientist’s to introduce more elaborate models either to tear apart or glue together the Universe in their quest to explain it, doesn’t take any “ferver”; they just do it because its fun.

Same could be applied to philosophy if that is how you decide to use a value system.

Of course we could say a 'true' philosopher is not motivated by fun, the same could be said of anyone. It depends on what one would want to emphasize and thereby creating broad generalization as if it were true of anyone under that 'title'.

He would have gained my respect if he’d admitted that after a life spent in science he didn’t understand anything about Reality and recommended young people not do science until they first understood Reality.

He did, he continued his conversations with Jiddu Krishnamurti, resulting in a series of publications. He also spoke to audiences across Europe and North America on the importance of dialogue as a form of sociotherapy.

But regardless, I find it interesting that an entire philosophy can be structered on a scientific hypothesis 'abiogenesis' and then disdained as if it is not related at all.

That is disengenuis in that if you have conclusions about Ultimate Reality and do not 'prop it up' with scientific guesstimates it would be closer to the reality of what is.

The truth in and of itself does not require outside validation. It appeals to nothing but what is self - evident and can be tested by and through experience and logic.

Beingof1, I’ve read a few of your posts on other threads and see that you value highly an understanding of “who you are”. How does that idea fit in with anything said by David above?

Consciousness is the basis of all life and the field of all possibilities. Its nature is to expand and unfold its full potential. The impulse to evolve is thus inherent in the very nature of life.

All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become.

-- Buddha

[sue hindmarsh]

Beingof1 wrote:

I suppose in the sense - "once a scientist always a scientist". Titles do not describe the reality of anything if one is using broad general terms.

If you are a scientist, your mind is focused on science; if you are a baker, your mind is focused on bread making; if you are a mechanic, your mind is focused on car engines; if you are a philosopher, your mind is focused on Truth, etc. “Titles” describe quite clearly what a persons mind is like.

I did not bring up Bohm to say he was 'all that and a bag of chips' - my point was to find the best thinker on an idea and examine his thoughts.

If you are interested in understanding the Ultimate, then Bohm’s ideas wouldn’t even warrant a glance. If you want to fill your mind with more distractions to keep you safely away from understanding Reality, then he is definitely the best man for the job.

SH: Do you mean that after a lifetime of doing science, he finally came to see that it was a horrible waste of a life?

Bof1:The same could be said of philosophers, bakers, bus drivers or whatever if we use a job description or title to judge what value is by categories we like and don`t like.

If you spend your life doing a job without knowing anything about Truth, you are living a wasted life. Each moment lived in ignorance is a wasted moment. The only person who is not wasting his life is the Philosopher: since he alone understands all there is to understand about life, and thereby lives his life according to that understanding.

SH: For scientist’s to introduce more elaborate models either to tear apart or glue together the Universe in their quest to explain it, doesn’t take any “ferver”; they just do it because its fun.

Bof1: Same could be applied to philosophy if that is how you decide to use a value system.

‘Having fun’ is how foolish people describe their mindless, untruthful, ugly lives. If you value consciousness, you don’t value ‘fun’.

Of course we could say a 'true' philosopher is not motivated by fun, the same could be said of anyone. It depends on what one would want to emphasize and thereby creating broad generalization as if it were true of anyone under that 'title'.

The Truth loving philosopher is motivated by Truth alone. All other men are putrid cowards who need ‘fun’ to get them through each day.

He did, he continued his conversations with Jiddu Krishnamurti, resulting in a series of publications. He also spoke to audiences across Europe and North America on the importance of dialogue as a form of sociotherapy.

So he didn’t say anything about Reality, just more babble to keep his groupies hanging round.

Consciousness is the basis of all life and the field of all possibilities. Its nature is to expand and unfold its full potential. The impulse to evolve is thus inherent in the very nature of life.

Consciousness does not exist.

Buddha: All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become.

If you know the Ultimate, then that is what you are. If you do not know the Ultimate and instead believe in foolish things like love and the self - then you are nothing but a fool.

Sue

[Beingof1]

sue hindmarsh:

If you are a scientist, your mind is focused on science; if you are a baker, your mind is focused on bread making; if you are a mechanic, your mind is focused on car engines; if you are a philosopher, your mind is focused on Truth, etc. “Titles” describe quite clearly what a persons mind is like.

And if you are a mother your mind is focused on motherhood and if you are cooking dinner your mind is focused on cooking and if you are fishing your mind is focused on fishing ad redundant infinitum.

"What do you do before enlightenment?" asked the sage.
"Chop wood carry water" answered the student.
"What do you do after enlightenment?" asked the student.
"Chop wood carry water" said the sage.

If you are interested in understanding the Ultimate, then Bohm’s ideas wouldn’t even warrant a glance. If you want to fill your mind with more distractions to keep you safely away from understanding Reality, then he is definitely the best man for the job.

Then why the need to appeal to any science or scientist whatsoever?
Its easy to pick and choose the science we like and then dismiss all others as "distractions" when one is engaged in preserving beliefs.

If you spend your life doing a job without knowing anything about Truth, you are living a wasted life. Each moment lived in ignorance is a wasted moment. The only person who is not wasting his life is the Philosopher: since he alone understands all there is to understand about life, and thereby lives his life according to that understanding.

Does a beggar qualify without the title? How about ascetic? How about a former prince?

It is easy to attach meaning to a description and then idealize the word as a catalyst to some goal that is unattainable. If the description is an image in the mind then the goal post can always conveniently be moved. Meaning you can always retreat behind the title and thereby excluding anyone without the title you have chosen not to bestow upon.

For example; if I told you I was a sage and enlightened you would probably doubt that because it does not 'fit' the image in your mind.

How about saviour, sage, wise man, messiah, prophet, carpenter, beggar, monk, teacher, slave, baker, bus driver or hunter gatherer.

While you are chopping wood, can you contemplate the infinite? Is this man a wood chopper or philosopher?

A man is not a title and truth cannot be confined to preconceived ideas . A man defies all titles. Anyone trapped in delusion is defined by job description or hides behind a title.

‘Having fun’ is how foolish people describe their mindless, untruthful, ugly lives. If you value consciousness, you don’t value ‘fun’.

And when asked "Lord, what is the purpose of enlightenment?"
The Buddha smiled.

The Truth loving philosopher is motivated by Truth alone. All other men are putrid cowards who need ‘fun’ to get them through each day.

Can I chop wood and carry water while motivated by truth?

Fun, for the most part, is a stimulation of the senses designed to keep one from confronting truth. I think we agree here.

My point was, if you make a sweeping statement about a certain group as all motivated by fun you miss reality and are trying to tie it up into a box.

I could say all philosophers are motivated by fun - that does not make it so at all.

So he didn’t say anything about Reality, just more babble to keep his groupies hanging round.

He said alot about reality, just not the way you like it to be said.

I am not likely to change your opinion on this, it really doesn`t matter as I am not trying to hold him up as an end all.

If these guys have no truth - why bring up scientists or science at all to prove ones philosophy? Do we mix science with philosophy to have fun?

Consciousness does not exist.

I could say truth does not exist.
I could say philosophers do not exist.
I could say this forum does not exist.
I could say ultimate reality does not exist.

Now what do you want to talk about?

If you know the Ultimate, then that is what you are. If you do not know the Ultimate and instead believe in foolish things like love and the self - then you are nothing but a fool.

I know, I hope you pause long enough to realize that.
Love is a word I use but I usually define it as agape/compassion.
Self is a word I use to begin the journey, it is certainly not the end.

David Bohm said the same thing as the Buddha, but because all scientists just wanna have fun it would be rejected post haste.
When the Buddha says the same thing as a scientist it would be received as truth because he was a philosopher and was motivated by truth.

What packages are needed to free the mind from and how many, I am thinking they are countless and come in many shapes and images.

All images of what enlightenment is must perish.

[Kelly Jones]

If you know the Ultimate, then that is what you are. If you do not know the Ultimate and instead believe in foolish things like love and the self - then you are nothing but a fool.

Your honesty is refreshing. The way you tear the facades down to expose the core might be depressingly harsh, but it focusses the mind well.

It's good to tell it as it is, and not rationalise weaknesses and falsehoods out of existence. A weakness exists: at least one can acknowledge that, and have a little bit of clean thinking to start with.


-
[edit: Thanks Sue]

[sue hindmarsh]

Kelly,

“Clean thinking” is a good way to describe Truthful thoughts. The opposite, then, of clean thinking would be ‘dirty thinking’: i.e. thoughts heavy and smothered with the mud of attachments. Therefore, cleaning up the mind with clean thoughts removes the muddy muddled mess.

* * *

When you first begin thinking, Truth appears through cracks in your mud filled mind. As you progress, small areas begin to clear. Then once you’re going along steadily, whole pristine vistas appear. After that, the Infinite is your home.

Whilst the mind is full of mud (attachments) the self is content. Mud is what the self feeds off of. Take away the mud and the self withers and dies.

Knowing this to be true, I find it amusing that most people think that enlightenment is something they will be able to place on top of the self they already hold so dear: like putting on a new coat. They feel that by understanding the Truth they will gain something that will enhance their lives and make them happier and stronger. And though this type of thinking may motivate someone to take up philosophy, if they continue to hang onto that idea it will only clutter up their thinking, making it even harder for them to see what really needs to be done.

To make progress, it is more beneficial to see the self for what it is: a mud feasting monster that can’t be improved, renovated, replaced with a better one, made superior – and most importantly, it cannot be made enlightened. The only way to be free from this monster is to destroy it with Truth.

It’s simple really: if you know the Infinite, you also know that you (the self) only exist causally - a whim of the Infinite – and that the Infinite and you have always, and will always be, one. So there isn’t a self to know Truth, there is only Truth.

Soren Kierkegaard puts it this way: To merely "know" the truth is insufficient – it is an untruth. For knowing the truth is something that follows as a matter of course from being in the truth, not the other way around. Nobody knows more of the truth than what he is of the truth. To properly know the truth is to be in the truth; it is to have the truth for one’s life. This always costs a struggle. Any other kind of knowledge is a falsification.

The “struggle” is between you ‘the self’ and you ‘the Infinite’. In many ways, that struggle is lessened the more “in the truth” you are; but in other ways, the struggle intensifies because the closer you are to Truth, the more desperately the self tries to hang onto its life. Knowing that this period is inevitable, the wise man just rides it out. Which is all anyone, at any stage, can really do: ride out the rough periods until smooth sailing returns once more.

Sue

[Kelly Jones]

Thanks, again. This is directly about where I'm at at the moment: trying to get off the fence, trying to stop being in love with unconsciousness.

I'm still not sure about what you wrote. Surely one must correct intellectual flaws, and that this is a way of clothing the self in its proper appearance (taking away the wrong ideas). It sounds as though you are suggesting that to drop bad karma (intellectual habits), one has to completely abandon the self (intellectual habits), rather than bother to fix the habits.

This seems correct, because correcting an intellectual misunderstanding really doesn't eradicate the ego, not totally. One either has to keep making corrections, which could go on forever, because human instinctive delusion is so deep, or just don't think that these intellectual corrections really achieve anything. They're kind of like turning a wheel of problem-solving, and feeding the intellectual ego its fix of clever twistings.

And yet, the only way to stop believing in the ego is to replace the egotistical thought with a truthful thought. So, this is a continual correction, and "redressing". Recently I wondered whether it was like a neck-and-neck race, with the intellect always 0.5% ahead, to keep feeding the ego just a bit, to keep it fuelling the will to destroy all traces of selfishness. But this seems dangerously like samsara.

The struggle is between you 'the self' and you 'the Infinite' sounds like the decision must be to make an alliance with one or the other. Except that to ever make an alliance means there are two selves, and that is egotism itself. I don't think a thought to drop the selves, NOW, really works, because it's a lie. Nothing happens NOW, that changes anything about the Infinite.

I don't believe one has to "do nothing at all" to be enlightened, as that's contrary to consciousness. I think it's more a kind of fundamental re-orientation. Yet it's really hard to describe that, because one never experiences "understanding" or "thought" or "conceptual conversion". There are only these vague and boundless experiences.

I'm struggling with several things: the belief that I have to improve, that there's so much bad karma to be repaired in my character that hinders making progress; and the ability to think dualistically to make the delusion vanish altogether, that dualisms are really there. See, if my thinking was heaps clearer, and I spent far more time in samadhi, then I wouldn't be so uncertain about what has to be done. And that means: corrections...

---

[Jason]

When you first begin thinking, Truth appears through cracks in your mud filled mind. As you progress, small areas begin to clear. Then once you’re going along steadily, whole pristine vistas appear. After that, the Infinite is your home.

Since Truth is everything, mud is no less a part of Truth than pristine vistas are. No progress can be made with Truth because it cannot be lost or gained.

The “struggle” is between you ‘the self’ and you ‘the Infinite’. In many ways, that struggle is lessened the more “in the truth” you are; but in other ways, the struggle intensifies because the closer you are to Truth, the more desperately the self tries to hang onto its life.

You cannot move closer (or further away) to Truth, because it is everywhere.


(Because you used the big "T" in truth, I assume you mean that which is infinite, correct me that's wrong)

[sue hindmarsh]

What's your point, Jason? Are you saying that all people have an equal understanding of the Infinite? Are stages of philosophic development not necessary, or true?

Sue

[Jason]

What's your point, Jason?

What's my point? My point, obviously, is that those things you wrote were incorrect. Maybe you could address those errors?

Are you saying that all people have an equal understanding of the Infinite?

No I'm not saying all people have an equal understanding of the Infinite. Were you talking about understanding? When you use the capital "T" Truth I assume you mean Truth is infinite, and thus the errors I saw in what you wrote. Or should I be interpreting "Truth" to mean "a finite and limited thing" of some sort?

Are stages of philosophic development not necessary, or true?

Necessary or true in what way?

[Kelly Jones]

When you first begin thinking, Truth appears through cracks in your mud filled mind. As you progress, small areas begin to clear. Then once you’re going along steadily, whole pristine vistas appear. After that, the Infinite is your home.

Since Truth is everything, mud is no less a part of Truth than pristine vistas are. No progress can be made with Truth because it cannot be lost or gained.

I think Sue's writing about the consciousness of Truth, ie. enlightenment. The less thoughts there are of self (egotism), the more thoughts are Truthful. As you wrote in the Defence thread, consciousness of Truth is finite, therefore it can be lost or gained, depending on the presence or absence of self.


---

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason,

Sue: When you first begin thinking, Truth appears through cracks in your mud filled mind. As you progress, small areas begin to clear. Then once you’re going along steadily, whole pristine vistas appear. After that, the Infinite is your home.

Jason: Since Truth is everything, mud is no less a part of Truth than pristine vistas are. No progress can be made with Truth because it cannot be lost or gained.

In my paragraph, I’m outlining the intellectual stages of philosophical development. And yes, all of those stages are the Infinite at play, but that doesn’t mean they’re not real.

In your paragraph, you describe how finite things are not the same as the Infinite, i.e. mud, vistas, loss and gain are finite things, whereas Truth is Infinite.

So we are discussing different aspects of the Infinite, which are both correct.

Sue: The “struggle” is between you ‘the self’ and you ‘the Infinite’. In many ways, that struggle is lessened the more “in the truth” you are; but in other ways, the struggle intensifies because the closer you are to Truth, the more desperately the self tries to hang onto its life.

In this paragraph, I’m describing how attachments can cause glitches in ones philosophic development.

Jason: You cannot move closer (or further away) to Truth, because it is everywhere.

(Because you used the big "T" in truth, I assume you mean that which is infinite, correct me that's wrong)

Yes, Truth “is everywhere”. And being ‘everywhere’, you cannot move away from, or closer, to it. But, you can move closer to an intellectual understanding of the Truth - as I wrote of above.

Sue: What's your point, Jason?

Jason: What's my point? My point, obviously, is that those things you wrote were incorrect. Maybe you could address those errors?

They are addressed: though they were not “errors”.

Sue: Are you saying that all people have an equal understanding of the Infinite?

Jason: No I'm not saying all people have an equal understanding of the Infinite. Were you talking about understanding?

Yes. I was describing philosophic development.

Jason: When you use the capital "T" Truth I assume you mean Truth is infinite, and thus the errors I saw in what you wrote. Or should I be interpreting "Truth" to mean "a finite and limited thing" of some sort?

No, ‘Truth’ means ‘the Infinite’, and to be “closer to Truth” refers to understanding it more deeply.

Sue: Are stages of philosophic development not necessary, or true?

Jason: Necessary or true in what way?

Since your original questions dealt with semantics: my use of the capital “T”, I’ll now withdraw my question, as it isn’t related to that matter.

Sue

[Dan Rowden]

Why do I feel Like Jason has become to Genius Forum what "Lobster" was to Genius-L?

i.e. irritating for the sake of it.


Dan Rowden