immortal

Before we move on I like to clarify some of my position on this matters which have been misrepresented or misunderstood. This is my thread and I hope I can have my own ideas.

Firstly, when I refer to Penrose I am not talking of his Orch-OR model because Penrose believes in some kind of hidden variable theory and experiments have already abandoned all hidden variable programs and the fact that all approaches to explain consciousness whether it is of microtubules in the axon ultrastructure or any other theory based on neural processing have failed shows that all these approaches are wrong. When I refer to Penrose I only stick with his mathematical arguments just because his Orch-OR model is wrong it doesn't change the fact that strong AI is impossible and human quantum teleportation is impossible and therefore my argument is in support of Penrose's mathematical arguments because our ancients knew what Mind is and they also knew that Intellect exists in platonic realms. I am not using science to prove religion instead I am using religion to correct science.

Secondly, I did not used QM to prove that quantum healing works or mind control works or telepathy works. No I didn't do that, that's again a misrepresentation of my views and I very well know how science works and how religion works. If anyone looks at my post #233 not a single word is talked about Quantum physics or non-locality. I am someone who know that what we learn from science is one thing and what we learn from religion is another. That's wisdom, you can't find that in books. Wisdom traditions know neither about quantum mechanics nor they know about General Relativity and all they do is worship gods and have their own methodologies and its based on their own epistemology.

Thirdly, I very well know that Anton Zielinger is not supporting my views, Anton is not talking of the pleroma of God, is he? Its quite silly to say that I am quoting Anton in support of my views, I very well know that no one supports my radical views except Bernard D'Espagnat perhaps my only saviour who believes that religion can access the noumenon.

The reason why I refer to Anton Zielinger is simply because of this.

What is Reality? Is it out there?

Its a question which has been raised by him and it questions the very basis of Scientific enquiry and the answer to that question from the esoteric religions is an affirmative no, the external world doesn't exist independent of the human mind. I am saying that Religion can answer and solve some of the paradoxes and the thorny philosophical questions and not the other way around where one says that science proves religion. I am applying the methodologies of Esotericism and saying that it can answer or solve some of our problems in science.

And your link confirms what I said. First that this is not essential to quantum mechanics, but only found in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Second, that this is a vague term: "the ability to speak meaningfully about the definiteness of the results of measurements" is not a precise definition by any standard. Your counter-claim reflects, once again, how far you are from physics standards and how ignorant you are of quantum mechanics.

 

Or it reflects your laziness to read the full statement?

counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured),

This is the assumption of realism that an objective reality exists independent of measurements.

Of course QM doesn't require any such assumptions and its quite fine on predicting the outcomes of nature and contrary to what you believe Counterfactual definiteness is quite a common term in the literature of Bell theorems and experiments. The recent experiments have confirmed that it is counterfactual definiteness i.e the assumption of the existence of objects and properties even when they have not been measured that we need to give up. I have doubts that whether you have seriously studied QM or whether you're deliberately trying to misrepresent my credible claims.

I wrote about quantum mechanical realism. You reply with something unrelated about Einstein's mathematical realism.

Its very much related.

Einstein and his co-workers namely Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen in 1935 concluded,

"If, without in any way disturbing the system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity."

This is the notion of Einstein's mathematical realism and this is the kind of realism we need to abandon.

This time you forgot to say something about intellectual honesty...

I don't have to say it, yours posts says it all.

This is your immortal misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

 

It is true that the role of measurement devices was over-hyped in earlier interpretations of quantum mechanics developed when this new stuff was not still completely understood. But our understanding of quantum mechanics has increased a lot of in last 60 years.

 

In modern formulations/interpretations, measuring devices are just quantum systems and measurements just a kind of processes. The modern textbook cited about 100 posts ago explains how our modern understanding of quantum mechanics does not require any special role for measurements and/or observers.

I am not misunderstood.

The truth of the matter is this.

"There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes.

This is the scientific fact. Perhaps you need to read a textbook which teaches QM based on the Copenhagen Interpretation.

D'Espagnat ideas have received the sympathy from an organization known by awarding nonsensical work.

 

You must be well unaware of this, but physicists have the sane tendency to ignore useless hypothesis as the "God hypothesis" by evident reasons to all of us.

 

Yet physicists or even biologists don't have a model to model conscious thought and physicists have got no idea of how to unify a unrealistic theory of QM with GR.

It has been known for 100 years that one has "to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level". After the occasional laugh, I will say you that this is explained in any textbook on quantum mechanics that I know. Moreover, the difference between classical reality and quantum reality has been emphasized dozens of times in this forum. It was made in the same message that you are supposedly replying now.

Yet you were the same guy who earlier argued in favour of realistic interpretations of quantum physics i.e it corresponds to an element of reality, (i.e. an objective attribute that exists before measurement). See your post #131. Your double standards and how you go by authority rather than looking at evidence and what nature is saying is quite evident. Nuf' said.

Saying that material published in Physics Today, by one of the most important physicists alive, is my "personal bias" is one of the most funny jokes that you have written here. :lol:

 

Aren't you doing some personal research and said that the wave-particle duality is a myth? I very well know that you have a personal bias against the Copenhagen interpretation.

Maybe you did dream that. But here, in the real word, the CERN site continues explaining to general public of what is made the world according to what experiments show us, as I said in the previous message.

I don't like to trouble the scientific community but please don't be dogmatic and as Stephen Hawking asks, Is that the final word? Is that a true understanding of nature?

Spin is one of the properties that defines an elementary particle. E.g. photons are particles with spin 1, electrons are particles with spin one-half...

It is for the same property that the Bell Inequality is tested and found to be violated in experiments and such a property doesn't exist independent of the context of measurements.

It is unimportant if religion claims that the world is made of five elements or of 50000. Religion is useless to understand the physical nature of reality and no post in this forum will change this well-known fact.

I still insist that physicists must adopt weak objectivism while describing their scientific models because science as an enterprise has become predictive which was an enterprise to give objective and descriptive explanations of nature and this dissatisfaction is what led the founders of quantum physicists like Schroedinger, Pauli and Bohr to resort into mysticism

P.S.: In the past you gave partial, out of context, quotations by Albert Einstein in an attempt to convince us that he agrees with your nonsense. I gave full quotations that show the contrary.

 

I know what you will like this link as well

 

http://abcnews.go.co...tarting-2165601

If Einstein was alive today he would be really angry with you.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

- Albert Einstein, according to the testimony of Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein; as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

- Albert Einstein.

And what was Spinoza's concept of God?

Comparison to Eastern philosophies

Similarities between Spinoza's philosophy and Eastern philosophical traditions have been discussed by many authorities. The 19th-century German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstücker was one of the early figures to notice the similarities between Spinoza's religious conceptions and the Vedanta tradition of India, writing that Spinoza's thought was "... a western system of philosophy which occupies a foremost rank amongst the philosophies of all nations and ages, and which is so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus, did his biography not satisfy us that he was wholly unacquainted with their doctrines... We mean the philosophy of Spinoza, a man whose very life is a picture of that moral purity and intellectual indifference to the transitory charms of this world, which is the constant longing of the true Vedanta philosopher... comparing the fundamental ideas of both we should have no difficulty in proving that, had Spinoza been a Hindu, his system would in all probability mark a last phase of the Vedanta philosophy."^[86][87]

Max Muller, in his lectures, noted the striking similarities between Vedanta and the system of Spinoza, saying "the Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza's 'Substantia'."^[88] Helena Blavatsky, a founder of the Theosophical Society also compared Spinoza's religious thought to Vedanta, writing in an unfinished essay "As to Spinoza's Deity—natura naturans—conceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the same Deity—as natura naturata or as conceived in the endless series of modifications or correlations, the direct outflowing results from the properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic Deity pure and simple."^[89]

Nuf' said. This is exactly the concept of God which I am espousing here. Your ignorance of religion and personally biased views on QM is quite well known.

Leaving all the other saliently vehement figments aside, this especially quite appears to be, if not an outright lie, an extremely gross instance of blanket statement. At best, you will need to refine your subject class, and then will need to refine your usage range and contextual setting. This is gross error--again. The failure to correct for all the error you have been making all this time, ought, we can more commonly understand through common rationing, make one at least work to present more accurately and clearly. (And optimally correct error once it has been called to the attention of the error maker.)

What error? What lie? I don't speak lies.

"Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between an unchanging, eternal and mysterious Ein Sof (no end) and the mortal and finite universe (his creation)."

Kabbalah is the ancient Jewish mystical tradition that teaches the deepest insights into the essence of God, His interaction with the world, and the purpose of Creation. The Kabbalah and its teachings—no less than the Law—are an integral part of the oral tradition. They are traced back to the revelation to Moses at Sinai, and some even before (one book is said to have been Adam's). The Kabbalah teaches that science will inform spirituality, and spirituality will inform science by the time the Messianic era arrives. Kabbalah means reception, for we cannot physically perceive the Divine; we merely study the mystical truths.

This is correct and accurate usage of English standard rule of thumb. Good job !

What you don't understand is in Vedic terminology there are two kinds of worship to gods one is the Samasthi form and the other one is the Vishrutha form. In the latter worship they worship individual gods by invoking them individually and in the former worship they worship all the gods in a holistic way representing a deity and hence its called the pleroma of gods. He is a person, a God and his body consists of lower gods. This is the concept of the pleroma, its esoteric meaning.

This is incorrect. The English proper noun form cannot, in this specific case, be pluralized. The error here is lazy and careless use (on whomever's part that may be) of the personal name of the Jewish god, or (by extension, though less accurate) the biblical god. In other words, actually the noun form found in the above quote should have been used. Additionally, transliterated Koine Greek serves no purpose without further explanation of what the Greek term means--and of course it simply means 'fullness,' or 'being full of something,' so it will actually prove much better, and academically acceptable, to inform us on what that thing is which is doing the filling of the retainer, or receiver of that which fills it.

I have already explained the concept of this above and what you don't understand is that for these traditional religious scholars pleroma is a locality and has a location and it exists somewhere. However you are right in saying that I should have used it in a singular form like "Pleroma of God". Its just I am trying to convey the clear concept of this and I am finding it hard because there is no single word in English to convey this concept and the only one word which I found best suited and in fact more best suited than the words from the eastern languages is the word pleroma as Carl Jung and the Gnostic Valentinian tradition had an identical conception of it.

Jesus Ben Sira's works are not part of the specific Old Testament library. Those scrolls have been included in some Christian Bible Copies, but do not fall in the specific library. If you had written something along the lines of '[io]a note from the wisdom literature of Second Temple Judaism at large[/i],' you would have created no error. I really reason, as I am sure others do too, that if you were to simply rush less, and expend far more energy on accuracy and correctness, at least your argumentation would be more error free--at least, I repeat (for your position is as useful to human life on earth as the putative water under the frozen surface of... oh well, I forget which moon that was at the moment. Maybe its time to put into practice what you had supposedly learned in school. (That too, might help at getting a job using that background?)

I don't forget the basics. On the other note the wisdom in these wisdom traditions and their ideas are far more important for me than the person or the tradition which it hails from.

Immortal,

 

Religious Traditions are the laws, regulations, beliefs, doctrines, set of customs, usages and practices which are handed down from one generation to another.

 

Nevertheless, the list of seven given by you is the links to information on different religions with glimpses of some customs.

 

However, like you said;

 

 

I had asked for clear-cut Methods, Set of Customs, Practices, and Regulations that would help us

 

• To attain Truth i.e. as defined by you, to know what the world is made of, whether we have free will, where do we come from and understand how nature works to build testable models.
• To attain mastery over nature
• To attain the understanding of the working of the cosmos

To make it more precise;

 

What precisely is the Method by which we would know what the world is made of?

What precisely is the Method by which we would know whether we have free will or not?

What precisely is the Method by which we could know where do we come from?

What precisely is the Method by which we could know the working of the Cosmos?

What precisely is the Method by which we could attain mastery over nature?

Which are the testable models by which we could achieve all the above?

Good questions and its important to emphasize that even I am an outsider and not part of these traditions but I have made a considerable effort in understanding their world-views and practices and I should consider myself as a novice when it comes to the vast amount of knowledge and methodologies available in these wisdom traditions. All I can provide you is the correct insights which I have gained along with my little bit of wisdom which I have gained from traditional and religious scholars. Its very important to understand them in their own milieu.

What precisely is the Method by which we would know what the world is made of?

Its called Panchathma Sankramana Vidya.

"Chapter I—The Sheath of Food

1 Om. May Mitra be propitious unto us! May Varuna be propitious unto us! May Aryaman be propitious unto us! May Indra and Brihaspati be propitious unto us! May Vishnu, of wide strides, be propitious unto us! Salutation to Brahman! Salutation to Thee, O Vayu! Thou indeed art the visible Brahman. Thee indeed, O Vayu, I shall proclaim as the right! Thee indeed, I shall proclaim as the true! May It protect me! May It protect the teacher! May It protect me! May It protect the teacher!

2 Om. May Brahman protect us both! May Brahman bestow upon us both the fruit of Knowledge! May we both obtain the energy to acquire Knowledge! May what we both study reveal the Truth! May we cherish no ill—feeling toward each other! Om. Peace! Peace! Peace!

3 Om. He who knows Brahman attains the Supreme. On the above, the following mantra is recorded: “He who knows Brahman which is Reality, Knowledge and Infinity, hidden in the cave of the heart and in the highest akasa—he, being one with the omniscient Brahman, enjoys simultaneously all desires.” From the Atman was born akasa; from akasa, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth; from earth, herbs; from herbs, food; from food, man. He, that man, verily consists of the essence of food. This indeed is his head, this right arm is the right wing, this left arm is the left wing, this trunk is his body, this support below the navel is his tail.

Chapter II—The Sheath of the Vital Breath

1. “From food, verily, are produced all creatures—whatsoever dwell on earth. By food alone, furthermore, do they live and to food, in the end, do they return; for food alone is the eldest of all beings and therefore, it is called the panacea for all.” “They who worship food as Brahman obtain all food. Food alone is the eldest of all beings and therefore it is called the panacea for all. From food all creatures are born: by food, when born, they grow. Because it is eaten by beings and because it eats beings, therefore it is called food.” Verily, different from this, which consists of the essence of food, but within it, is another self, which consists of the vital breath. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Prana, indeed, is its head; vyana is its right wing; apana is its left wing; akasa is its trunk; the earth is its tail, its support.

Chapter III—The Sheath of the Mind

1 “The gods breathe after the prana, so also do men and cattle; for the prana is the life of creatures. Therefore it is called the life of all. Those who worship the prana as Brahman obtain a full life; for the prana is the life of creatures. Therefore it is called the life of all.”

2 This sheath of the Prana is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, different from this sheath, which consists of the essence of the prana, but within it, is another self, which consists of the mind. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. The Yajur—Veda is its head, the Rig—Veda is its right wing, the Sama—Veda is its left wing, the teaching is its trunk, the hymns of Atharva and Angiras are its tail, its support.

Chapter IV—The Sheath of the Intellect

1 “He who knows the Bliss of Brahman, whence all words together with the mind turn away, unable to reach it—he never fears.”

2 This sheath of the mind is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, the different from this sheath, which consists of the essence of the mind, but within it, is another self, which consists of the intellect. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Faith is it head, what is right is its right wing, what is truth is its left wing, absorption is its trunk, Mahat is its tail, its support.

Chapter V—The Sheath of Bliss

1 “The intellect accomplishes the sacrifice; it also accomplishes all actions. All the gods worship the intellect, who is the eldest, as Brahman.” “If a man knows the intellect as Brahman and if he does not swerve from it, he leaves behind in the body all evils and attains all his desires.”

2 This is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, different from this, which consists of the essence of the intellect, but within it, is another self, which consists of bliss. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Joy is its head, delight is its right wing, great delight is its left, bliss is its trunk. Brahman is its tail, its support. "

- Taittiriya Upanishad

Notice that every sheath is said to have a shape of man which means that these five elements i.e earth, fire, air, space, water along with the mind and intellect are anthropomorphic Gods with whom you can have a dialogue with. Carl Jung has already shown to the western world that these archetypes do exists and in fact his spiritual teacher which he called 'Philemon' was an anthropomorphic God from where he got his idea of Archetypal psychology. Its something which science understand very little about this.

What precisely is the Method by which we would know whether we have free will or not?

Its by Mandala worship where all the phenomena is realized as the activities of the gods and the delusion that you are in control of your life will be demolished. This is what all these traditions have been saying that we are spirits controlled by God as Elaine Pagels has discovered from the Valentinian tradition.

A modern commentary on Karma Lingpa's Zhi-Khro teachings on the Wrathful and Peaceful Deities

What precisely is the Method by which we could know where do we come from?

We come from a place where all the opposites reconcile into one unity. The Vedic Aryans called it the "Brahman", the Jews called it the "Ein Sof", the Valentinians called it the "Unknowable" and the Buddhists call it the "Sunya". We cannot make a conceptualization of it.

What precisely is the Method by which we could know the working of the Cosmos?

Its called Avastatreya.

"III The first quarter is called Vaisvanara, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, who is conscious of external objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of gross objects.

IV The second quarter is Taijasa, whose sphere of activity is the dream state, who is conscious of internal objects, who is endowed with seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of subtle objects.

V That is the state of deep sleep wherein one asleep neither desires any object nor sees any dream. The third quarter is Prajna, whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all experiences become unified, who is, verily, a mass of consciousness, who is full of bliss and experiences bliss and who is the door leading to the knowledge of dreaming and waking.

1 Visva is all—pervading, the experiencer of external objects. Taijasa is the cognizer of internal objects. Prajna is a mass of consciousness. It is one alone that is thus known in the three states.

2 Visva is the cognizer through the right eye; Taijasa is the cognizer through the mind within; Prajna is the akasa in the heart. Therefore the one Atman is perceived threefold in the same body.

3—4 Visva experiences the gross; Taijasa, the subtle; and Prajna, the blissful. Know these to be the threefold experience. The gross object satisfies Visva; the subtle, Taijasa; and the blissful, Prajna. Know these to be the threefold satisfaction.

5 The experiencer and the objects of experience associated with the three states have been described. He who knows these both does not become attached to objects though enjoying them.

10 Turiya, the changeless Ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All other entities being unreal, the non—dual Turiya alone is known as effulgent and all—pervading.

11 Visva and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect. Prajna is conditioned by cause alone. Neither cause nor effect exists in Turiya.

12 Prajna does not know anything of self or non—self, of truth or untruth. But Turiya is ever existent and all—seeing.

13 Non—cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. But Prajna is associated with sleep in the form of cause and this sleep does not exist in Turiya.

14 The first two, Visva and Taijasa, are associated with dreaming and sleep respectively; Prajna, with Sleep bereft of dreams. Knowers of Brahman see neither sleep nor dreams in Turiya.

15 Dreaming is the wrong cognition and sleep the non—cognition, of Reality. When the erroneous knowledge in these two is destroyed, Turiya is realized. "

- Mandukya Upanishad

One will be baffled to know that the Upanishadic seers are saying the same thing which Bernard D'Espagnat is saying which he arrived at that same conclusion based on the scientific method and his sound rational philosophical analysis that "what we call reality is only a state of mind" and religion including the oral Jewish texts and the Rabbis have been saying the same thing that "What we call reality is only a state of mind" for over a millennia. This is the reason that Erwin Schroedinger argued for 40 years that the writers of the Upanishadic seers knew the truth.

What precisely is the Method by which we could attain mastery over nature?

Its done by invoking the gods and gaining knowledge and wisdom from them.

The hypothesis for that has already been laid out by the esotercists.

The Vedas in the light of Aurobindo

Which are the testable models by which we could achieve all the above?

The whole basic model for all of this is the Agnisoma Mandala also called the pleroma of Gods and one of the precise clear cut methods which I am aware of to achieve all of this is this.

An ancient method to achieve all of this

Finally I like to end this post by a note from the wisdom literature of the Old Testament.

 

How much greater must have been the gulf between the truly educated and the bulk of the population in the past. Jesus ben Sira, writing about 190 B.C. puts it quite blundy, when he says:

 

The wisdom of the wise depends on the opportunity of leisure; and he who has little business may become wise.

 

How can he become wise who handles the plow, and who glories in the shaft of a goad, who drives oxen and is occupied with their work, and whose talk is about bulls?

 

He sets his heart on plowing furrows, and he is careful about fodder for the heifers.

 

So too is every craftsman and master workman who labours by night as well as by day; those who cut the signets of seals, each is diligent in making a great variety; he sets his heart on painting a lifelike image, and he is careful to finish his work.

 

So too is the smith sitting by the anvil, intent upon his handiwork in iron; the breath of the fire melts his flesh, and he wastes away in the heat of the furnace; he inclines his ear to the sound of the hammer, and his eyes are upon the pattern of the object.

 

He sets his heart on finishing his handiwork, and he is careful to complete its decoration.

 

So too is the potter sitting at his work and turning the wheel with his feet; he is always deeply concerned over his work, and all his output is by number.

 

He moulds the clay with his arm and makes it pliable with his feet; he sets his heart to finish the glazing, and he is careful to clean the furnace.

 

All these rely upon their hands, and each is skilful in his own work.

 

Without them a city cannot be established, and men can neither sojourn nor live there.

 

Yet they are not sought out for the council of the people, nor do they attain eminence in the public assembly.

 

They do not sit in the judge's seat, nor do they understand the sentence of judgement; they cannot expound discipline or judgement, and they are not found using proverbs.

 

But they keep stable the fabric of the world, and their prayer is the practice of their trade.

 

On the other hand he who devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High will seek out the wisdom of the ancients, and will be concerned with prophecies;

 

he will preserve the discourse of notable men and penetrate the subtleties of parables;

 

he will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs and be at home with the obscurities of parables.

 

He will serve among great men and appear before rulers; he will travel through the lands of foreign nations, for he tests the good and evil among men.

 

- (Ecclus. xxxviii. 24-xxxix. 5)

You quoted a portion of the explanation backing that up; did you not actually read it? What I know is not true is spelled out there, so, it may be good to back through that again. That you are arguing that it is true, is no surprise to anyone following.

 

 

This is spinning here. Please stay on track!

Its quite clear that you're moving the goal posts and not looking at what the evidence is saying, I am sorry, it might be good for you if you back through what nature is saying rather than correcting an evidence based position.

Speaking of quantum, this is a perfect example of where the cliche 'quantum jump' came from. A jump from one point that falls within a contextual setting of presentative theme, and jumping to a totally irrelevant (once again) point which is in no way supported by the earlier. What you need to do is stop wasting time doing internet searches, and get down the nitty-gritty of logical explanation so as to attempt to clarify what in the world you wish to hold your terms to be at--at least that much. I gave you a bunch of stuff to think about, and you don't. What will fall under realism and what would fall under being in your mind alone and not in mine?

In quantum mechanics the term counterfactual definiteness is a well defined term and it means that objects have well defined values independent of measurements but recent experiments from quantum mechanics have falsified such an assumption and if we cannot in any way assign the value to an attribute of an object then the attribute loses its objective meaning and we cannot say what is it that exists out there in the physical world.

Please don't use fuzzy words in QM because people will laugh at you, only when you put much effort to understand QM you will realize the reasoning behind these arguments.

To put it in Bernard words:

"This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either. "

So this is a different kind of idealism and it leads to Kantian philosophy of the phenomenon and the noumenon.

How is it that a neuron depolarizes with something that does not exist except in my mind? Solipsism is dethroned nonsense.

I know about the action potential. Its done by Na+ and K+ ions and uses ATPase to pump the ions in and out of the neuron and this is what all neural processing is based on. The problem is that even neurons are made of the same particles like protons and electrons and they are subjected to the same QM rules and they lose objective meaning when a quantum measurement is made on them. The states of the brain also do not have elements of physical reality corresponding to their physical quantities. In the absence of measurements i.e without an observation even the neurons exists in a superposition of states and to get an actual reality from the range of possibilities an act of observation is necessary.

A tangent. Go back and read with the intent to fully see the whole picture of what I had written there. What you had written in reply is a different thing from what I had been talking about.

 

Other than the fact that it involves yet much theory, some more secure, some less, and for that reason is largely a different thing from knowing that a 2x6 laying flat will never be as strong in supporting weight as a 2x6 laying on its side, I see no room for disagreement on this much. What you have written here, is disconnected from what you had just written above it. I am aware of the idea of the three dimensions of scientific realism in general, but am also aware that that very blogged down in mire playing field is largely irrelevant to any rounded-out, reasonable pragmatic concern.

 

 

LOL ! Here's another one of those 'quantum jumps.' Going way off on a tangent on non-relationship. Questions, yes; denies, no--and that is the difference.

You have got no idea how successful quantum theory has been in predicting the probability of the outcomes of nature and I go by what nature says and what evidence says. You're talking blindly here.

I have found an error in my text which I will correct for first here. The following should have been the correct read (bold italics below)--I unintentionally omitted a connector:

I am not particularly talking about the results of any of the experiments in physics. I have been trying to correct the error which you have not yet corrected yourself; and have demonstrated the disposition of not be willing to do so. I know that I have plainly told you that before.

You're attitude sucks, its like saying who cares about evidence and what nature is saying I am going to screw someone no matter what. Shall I assume you don't want to discuss about the results of the experiments in physics because as you have admitted its something which you have read less about. Don't go off topic please.

Misguided misconception on the internet of course, among philosophers, it has been well enough shown, among religious scholars, yes, but among scholars of religious knowledge hardly at all ! This is the truth of that matter. Scholars of religious knowledge are fully aware of the proper use of the collective, non-count noun 'religion,' and the countable sense which requires the indefinite article--'a religion.' It is here where you keep making the same mistake again and again--a mistake, which is an error.

I am talking Esoteric religions here and it is a well defined term.

Besides the sidestepping, I have shown in that very post, that actuality of nature at large is not something that is in your mind alone--again, solipsism is dead. The claim that reality (actualities of nature at large in total) cannot exist without a human brain to create them, is in no way a fact. An argument can be valid, without being sound. An argument can be logically correct without being true, or so fully representing all true pertinent and applicable details which could be involved with the matter under discussion. Therefore, to assert an argument's logical coherency as representing its faithfulness to sound knowledge, is really 'the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.'

I am arguing for a sound idealism here and not for solipsism and contrary to what you believe idealism is very much alive and replacing the crude materialism of classical physicists.

"There are many signs that a sound idealism is surely replacing, as a basis for natural philosophy, the crude materialism of the older physicists."

Its not quite far that theists are going to laugh at atheists for holding a flawed position.

As I said, you need to correct your errors and inaccuracies.

 

You are using the word 'religion' here to signify, not any specific theist-involved (or non-theist-involved) religious belief system, but the collective human emotional element by which, and through which, such systems derived. In that there is full incompatibility amongst them, we cannot in any correctly and soundly assert that their individual claims to know, are correct; much less that they represent sound knowledge of external actualities of nature at large. Your usage of the word 'science' is not accurate enough here, in any reasonable pragmatic degree, as something to compare in evaluating against the human emotional element. If you were to compare the sound knowledge and belief which has been pragmatically demonstrated against any theist-based religious system's information source statements and claims, then that is a different story. Will you never correct for that?

Don't try to enforce your self-invented terminologies here like this one "theist involved belief systems" which is a very vague meaningless term.

I am talking about Eosteric religions in this thread and the term Esotericism is a well defined term.

These are the main characteristic features of Esotericism and the first correct definition of Esotericism was given by Antoine Faivre and this is his definition and it is the most agreed one in the academia of Esotericism.

"(1) Correspondences. Correspondences, symbolic or real, are believed to exist between all parts of the visible and invisible universe. "These correspondences are considered more or less veiled at first glance, and they are therefore meant to be read, to be decoded. The entire universe is a great theater of mirrors, a set of hieroglyphs to decipher; everything is a sign, everything harbours and manifests mystery" (Faivre l992b: xv). A distinction may be made between correspondences between visible and invisible levels of nature, and between nature (the cosmos) and history as exemplified in revealed texts.

(2) Living nature. The vision of a complex, plural, hierarchical nature permeated by spiritual force(s) is exemplified most clearly in the Renaissance understanding of magia. The perception of nature as a living milieu - a dynamic network of sympathies and antipathies - furnishes [112] a theoretical foundation for concrete implementation: various kinds of magical practice, "occult" medicine, theosophical soteriologies based on the framework of alchemy, and so on.

(3) Imagination and mediations. The idea of correspondences implies the possibility of mediation between the higher and lower worlds, by way of rituals, symbols, intermediate spirits, etc. The imagination, far from being mere fantasy, is regarded as an " 'organ of the soul' by means of which a person can establish cognitive and visionary rapport with an intermediary world, with a mesocosm" (Faivre 1992b: xvii), or mundus imaginalis. Imaginatio is the main instrument for attaining gnosis; it is "a tool for the knowledge of the self, of the world, of myth; it is the eye of fire penetrating the surface of appearances in order to make meanings, "connections", burst forth, to render the invisible visible ..." (Faivre 1992b: xvii-xviii).

(4) Experience of transmutation. This alchemical terminology is perhaps most appropriate to define the concept of an "initiatic path of development". The esotericist gains insight into the hidden mysteries of cosmos, self and God, and undergoes a process of purification on all levels of his being.

(5) The practice of concordance. The practice of concordance involves "a marked tendency to seek to establish commonalities between two or more different traditions, sometimes even between all traditions, with a view to gaining illumination, a gnosis of superior quality" (Faivre 1992b: xix).

(6) Transmission. Transmission refers to the flow of esoteric teachings"from master to disciple following a channel already dug, abiding by a course already charted" (Faivre 1992b: xix)."

This is the field which studies the truth about religions and it has its own methodologies and its own assumptions about the nature of the cosmos. I have defined what scientific realism is for you and I have also defined what Esoteric religions is for you and there is no confusion in what I am arguing here.

"Counterfactual definiteness" is a rather vague term (it lacks a precise definition) used in some interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Nope, its a well defined term.

Counterfactual definiteness

In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully about the definiteness of the results of measurements, even if they were not performed. (i.e., the ability to assume the existence of objects and properties of objects even when they have not been measured).

Counterfactual definiteness is a basic assumption, which, together with locality, leads to Bell inequalities. In their derivation it is explicitly assumed that every possible measurement, even if not performed, can be included in statistical calculations. Bell's Theorem actually proves that every quantum theory must violateeither locality or CFD.^[2][3]

 

CFD is present in any interpretation of quantum mechanics that regards quantum mechanical measurements to be objective descriptions of a system's state independent of the measuring process. It is not present in interpretations such as the Copenhagen interpretation and its modern refinements which regard the measured values as resulting from both the system and the measuring apparatus without being defined in the absence of an interaction between the two.

 

Experiments have clearly disallowed and rejected the assumption of counterfactual definiteness and I go by evidence.

 

 

Contrary to your immortal misunderstanding, quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with realism.

The Einstein's notion of mathematical realism is wrong and its a proved fact now. Wake up to the truth.

If you were not repeating the same mistake a hundred of times, surely I would not be quoting Weinberg once again. Unlike you, he is well aware of the limitations and weakness of the old Copenhagen interpretation and of how modern interpretations have surpassed it.

 

The popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation is related to being the older of all them and that it still work for a large class of quantum systems and also when one does not look into the details. There are situations where the old Copenhagen interpretation fails and has been surpassed by more general and rigorous interpretations, as explained in the modern literature cited hundred of posts ago.

We cannot speak anything about quantum mechanical reality without in the context of the measuring device and the arrangement of the measuring device and in the absence of such measurements quantum mechanical reality makes no sense at all and this is a fact established from experiments.

Congrats by linking to the typical sensationalist article from New Scientist with such nonsenses as "single photon that exists in three locations at once", "properties of one particle can immediately affect those of another regardless of the distance between them", and so on.

 

Your selection reflects again your immortal inability to differentiate a reliable scientific source (as those given to you by several posters) from popular misinterpretations. Why do not link again to the pseudo-journal with the hidden agenda? Why do not cite again that pseudo-religious Prize awarded to nonsense?

Blame the science reporter and the magazine, don't blame me. Instead of reading what the experimental results have concluded and what the researchers are saying you seem to be very much fond of reading what the science reporter is saying. I am not someone who uses non-scientific terms and I very well know what I am talking here and that's the reason why I changed the title of the article and said "Real experiments confirm Kochen-Specker theorem". I could have easily cited it as "Quantum magic trick says reality is what you make it" as it was there but I didn't said it because I very well know that that's not what the experiments are actually saying. Again its not my fault, one of the reasons I cited it is because it gives some implications as to what the researchers are saying.

Again I am neither the part of John templeton foundation nor the Journal of Scientific Exploration and I definitely don't associate myself with anyone because I know no one holds the kind of radical views which I hold and what's important for me is the correct representation of both religion and science. However for the first time it actually makes sense to show some sympathy towards Bernard D'Espagnat and the ideas of these foundations and they are just holding a logically possible hypothesis which is a God hypothesis which physicists have ignored or rejected such a hypothesis just purely based on their personal taste and just squabbling against other interpretations without realizing that religion can give a solution to it and answer their questions if they look into it.

As the authors correctly note you cannot find a [classical] joint probability distribution allowing "a quantum system to be classically understood". They add: "We provide the first experimental evidence that even for a single three-state system, a qutrit, no such classical model can exist that correctly describes the results of a simple set of pairwise compatible measurements."

 

I have already stated, about 200 posts ago, that quantum mechanics describes quantum reality. Universe is not classical, but quantum in essence, and quantum mechanics describes quantum reality.

 

We know very well that classical reality is only an approximation to a more fundamental quantum reality.

What should be focused and emphasized from the experimental results of that paper is that there is no absolute reality at the level of quantum mechanical reality and we need to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level.

We already know what are the deficiencies of the Copenhagen Interpretation. This is not a secret known only among an elite of researchers, but can be found even in popular magazines as Physics Today (Weinberg's article cited before). You can ignore the facts, but they will not disappear...

That's your personal bias, the experiments are clearly saying that 'there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity'. There is no objective reality independent of the context of the measurements.

Sure, everyone knows that universe is made of elementary particles such as quarks and electrons, and that those particles existed in the universe before the first human was born. Look for "quark epoch" in some cosmology textbook.

 

You hold the very laughable opinion that those elementary aspects of modern physics are only beliefs by CERN scientists and that universe is made of your five pseudo-religious 'elements'; but such collection of nonsense only reflects your ignorance of such matters.

The recent experiments have casted some doubts about our place in the cosmos and we need a radical new revision about our ideas on space and time.

Of course electrons, hadrons, jets, neutrinos and muons all behave quite differently as they pass through the detector and there by allows us to identify each type but experiments done on particles which are stable shows that the attributes or the properties of these particles like spin, polarisation etc cannot have pre-determined values and hence such properties cannot be thought to have any existence or sense independent of measurements and therefore we cannot speak anything about the reality which is out there. It really casts doubts on the kind of reality which we are living in.

Contrary to what you say that is the correct approach to religion and that's what religion is saying that the world is made of five elements and its very important to understand and define reality in the context of esoteric religions and as I said your personal distaste for religion will not turn religion to be false. Be rest assured of that.

This is simply not true, immortal. I know for a fact that it is not something that you will ever be able to get over, so I don't have any pressure to invest much more here. You have very clearly proven on far more than just a few examples, that there are some major errors in some of the finer points which build the ideas behind some terms which you misuse, as well as some fault in being able to reason correctly. Misconstruction is often enough found in your several posts, so as to undermine your very position to a very high degree.

 

Scientific method, in the broadest sense, is what can be understood through the operation of the brain. It is not something that only the H. sapiens exercise. Everything which is discovered through that method, is a discovery about the external actuality of nature at large. There is not a single stitch of evidence which demonstrates that what has been soundly understood (sound knowledge) to date about the world we live in, is not an external or internal reality of this world.

 

Now it is true--as we can see (through the course of dealing with your posts across the boards)--that you may have had some twisted explanation of what you wish to delimit the term 'scientific realism' to actually be defined as. Nevertheless, going by the OP, I do not see how one can escape all sound knowledge as being included in that phrase 'scientific objects.' That sticking your hand in a full-volume of fire will burn it, is an object of sound knowledge learned through the scientific process. That drinking salt water only, for a certain period of time, will cause extreme health problems is sound knowledge learned by the same scientific method process. That the female development track is the default mode, is also, just like the above, an item of sound knowledge. That if one's ascending reticular activating system is totally disabled, that one will absolutely not have the condition of having a state of consciousness, is sound knowledge. The list goes on and on and on, and it is clear that there is not an item of sound knowledge which has been over turned by another--for such theories and hypothesis which have been over turned, altered, adjusted, or so on, do not amount to sound knowledge.

What is simply not true? that experiments which is based on the very notion of scientific method has casted serious doubts on the existence of the empirical reality existing independent of the human mind? that nature disagrees with you? that objects like protons, quarks, electrons are not self-existent independent of the human mind? One can see how you are doing injustice to your own intellectual reasoning by ignoring facts.

What you may well wish to have been presenting, is the fact that in the studies and experiments in quantum physics, it has become evidenced that there is more happening in the external actuality of nature than we have been able to perceive thus far without all the fancy equipment and set ups, and such. (And please do not forget that all that equipment represents sound knowledge; scientific method processing.) No contest there, immortal. When you go applying that to an interpretation of some ancient theist-involved religious text--that is, interpreting the text in light of what is being learned of, or seen, or interpreted from experiments in quantum physics--and then conclude by that misgiven and illicit interpretation that some god exists, and our over-all, objective perception of external reality is a falsehood, your proper sensible rationing has fatally broken down. Your above quoted claim is due to your not being capable of understanding in a rationally developed manner.

This is BS, Bernard is a philosopher of science and we know what scientific realism is and what quantum physics is saying. If you want to be deluded and ignore facts, by all means you can but don't claim that Bernard doesn't understand it in a rationally developed manner. Scientific realism is a well defined term in philosophy of science.

According to scientific realism, an ideal scientific theory has the following features:

• The claims the theory makes are either true or false, depending on whether the entities talked about by the theory exist and are correctly described by the theory. This is the semantic commitment of scientific realism.
• The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently. This is the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism.
• There are reasons to believe some significant portion of what the theory says. This is the epistemological commitment.

It is a well established fact that quantum mechanics is a successful universal theory and that it is complete and its fundamental to the universe and this theory directly questions the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism and forces us to renounce that belief.

This assertion has no value. That the element and portions of what you have been presenting and saying are in fact erroneous--that is, they are not factual, but rather false in their overall setting--is one thing which I fully realize now, you will never be able to handle properly so as to learn from being corrected on them. That your mix of things held in mind is based on some primary errors, and that if you don't fix those, the position you hold will never be correct, may of course make it appear (in that rose-colored setting you hold in mind) that what I have been trying to correct you with, appears to be stupid. That you hold such in mind is now most obvious! That your errors have not been corrected for, is now most obvious as well!

Dude, these are facts established from experiments and I obviously have to state the stupidity of the way you seem to have made up in your mind that my position is erroneous and how you're deluded that Bernard and Penrose ideas have been falsified. No its not, as long as they are not falsified their argument stands and along with my argument stands as well.

Well, I had tried to see if I could get an example going to demonstrate something about this matter of knowing something, but it seems not to have worked. I have of course been down this road before--trust me, it's nothing new on the internet, at all !! Phenomenology is good to a point; but you will always find those that mix it with Mysticism and inaccurate and incorrect renderings and interpretation of ancient (pre-10th century) theist-based religious belief system information sources, and taking it to FAR extremes. It gets so ludicrous that it becomes a sad laugh.

Its because of the amount of misrepresentation of religion that was there not only over the internet but also in the circles of scholars, scientists and philosophers was the main reason to start this thread and this is the correct approach to study religion.

No, immortal, reality is not only a state of mind. This is a fact. The mere fact that you are denying this fact very clearly shows, in fact, that you are hopelessly drunk with this illicit and illegitimate mix of imagination and results from studies in quantum physics. Tell us, therefore, about what it is that I have next to the thing beside my computer here (a relatively fixed, always there item), and, additionally, what that thing is and what my computer model is. These tubes of paint over there across the room, and that canvas, what do they portray in that particular situation that they are presently in? Do you think that if you jump off the downhill side of the roof of my dozo (an old, thick-walled Japanese storage house) which I rebuilt to house my studio, a fall of some 10 meters, that you will land on the ground with the same momentum as would be the case if you jumped off a step ladder? Do you think that any person, elephant, cow, dog, and even cat, would experience the same pressure of sudden stop with the two distances? Do you think moving the two distances to different locations on the face of the globe would result in similar impact forces between them? Do you think the same would be the case on the moon? The real, down-to-earth-like reality that is the same (as can be understood clearly enough) for all who experience, or don't experience it, is real. Can you prove that the certain scars on my forehead are only in your mind, and the historical events, and objects which led to such scars, had only been in my sister's mind? The only way to know of it is through brain, in a scientific method process of trial and error, testing and learning, over a high number of sample space examples, over a long stretch of time, but that in no way at all makes it only an internal actuality of nature. Complexity makes that hard in some areas, and requires a number of special and fancy machines, equipment, and set-ups, but it is still the same single thing--scientific method.

The fact that reality is only a state of mind is not an extraordinary claim as you seem to think. Its a well sort out argument.

Read this: Is it all in the mind?

 

I am clearly not the one deluded here on this thread. The OP makes that pretty obvious. Additionally, if you are not attacking the scientific method in its broadest sense (which I would tend to say that you have not specifically been doing), its because you are not paying any attention to it; that's all. If you had been paying attention to scientific method, then you would not have started this thread, because you would have known (unless your phrase 'scientific realism' has some yet untold meaning for you which the bare words themselves cannot identify for us other readers) that the results of the quantum experiments do not prove that external reality is false, or not there, or is only in our brains as a totally internal alone matter. The scientific consensus is largely built on sound knowledge gained through scientific method--after having set less secure theories and hypothesis of academic and professional fields aside for further sample set testing and more time over which to do so. So, what's the problem? Is some Vedaic author's wild imagination getting in the way in an a priori fashion?

As I said you need a reality check.

The reality tests

Again--and exactly has I have pointed out in this post, and in others here and elsewhere--you are not using your terms nearly accurate enough, and thereby are misleading and confusing your terms and your ideas, and related matters. Religion and science are not converging. To assert that is blatant ignorance of the more accurate and correct, and standard usage of, the definitions of the terms used. Like it or not, one has got to use language as carefully as can be, and you have failed here on more than one account. In that I have (and more than once, this will make it) basically decided not to invest much more in this silly mistaken nonsense of your position--since it is obviously much, much more of an ideology which you have avowed yourself to, rather than part of a process of learning and expanding sound knowledge and sound beliefs--I will only ask you here to please expand fully (as comprehensively and exhaustively as you can) what exactly falls under the word 'science' as you wish to use it, and what exactly falls under the word 'religion' as you wish to use it. Since it is clear that you have ignored my corrections on the better usage of these terms, I want to see just how mixed up you actually are--and thus I ask for you fill them out here.

 

PS: I do not think that there is any value at all in simply quoting a WHOLE post just to answer to a few points therein. It does because clutter more than anything else.

Religion falls under the noumenon and science falls under the phenomenon which is the empirical reality.

I did not even mention "hidden variable theories". I only wrote about quantum mechanics...

.... and quantum mechanics doesn't allow counterfactual definiteness, its the premise of realism that is actually wrong.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is well-known to be inconsistent (with Bohr's ideas just plain wrong), as emphasized in the Physics Today article written by Steven Weinberg. Several improvements of the old Copenhagen Interpretation are under active development in modern research. Of course, none of them relies on nonsensical religious beliefs neither invokes laughable God hypothesis.

Perhaps this is the hundredth time that you have quoted Steven Weinberg and still holding on to a biased position against Copenhagen Interpretation but actually the truth of the matter is that majority of the practising quantum physicists are still Copenhagenists and Anton Zeilinger is one of them to name a few. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quite safe and actually turning out to be the right one with slight modifications. The conclusion is that elements of physical reality or hidden variables that requires non-contextuality (i.e independent of measurement arrangement) is false. "There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes.

Real experiments confirm Kochen-Specker results

Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Original paper

The Copenhagen Interpretation is going well along with other interpretations and its very likely that its going to be the right one for the Quantum theoretical framework.

There is no such vague 'axiom' in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a physical theory with a precise formulation.

Nope, there is such an axiom and it was postulated by Bohr.

P.S: I know that you are going to ignore this advice once again, but I am at least so persistent as you are: No wonder how many times you misunderstand science, or insult others, your mistakes will not disappear, and your pseudo-religious post-modernism will continue being useless for science.

You were the guy who told that there is a well accepted scientific consensus in the scientific community on this topic. Isn't it? Well looking at what all the recent research papers and experimental findings are saying and what several quantum physicists are themselves saying it clearly shows that its the premise realism which should be renounced as we move into the future. So contrary to what you say, there is a philosophical problem in science and it solely falls into the subject of philosophy. Don't say that I am mistaken but instead accept that you were deluded with your pre-conceived notions and beliefs.

This misleading argument was answered before. E.g. in #127:

 

Concretely the textbook explains why there is not paradox, violation of causality, or conflict with relativity in such experiments.

 

As is well-explained in this modern textbook, reality and scientific realism are compatible with this and other experiments.

Selectively quoting a particular passage of my post instead of fully quoting it like you always do to prove your intellectual dishonesty and your biased ignorant position on QM shows that hidden variable theories are highly untenable and that holding on to realism leads to some serious troubles and shows that the Copenhagen Interpretation is right like it always been.

"If one viewed the quantum state as a real physical object, one could get the paradoxical situation that future actions seem to have an influence on past and already irrevocably recorded events. However, there is never a paradox if the quantum state is viewed as no more than a `catalogue of our knowledge'2. Then the state is a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes, the relative temporal order of the three observers' events is irrelevant and no physical interactions whatsoever between these events, especially into the past, are necessary to explain the delayed-choice entanglement swapping."

- Researchers

Your textbook is outdated perhaps it needs a revision, I guess.

The evolution of the universe does not depend in any special way of any human choice: in fact, the universe evolved according to the laws of quantum mechanics before the first human was born.

That's turning out to be seriously wrong.

It is a fundamental axiom of quantum theory that no elementary phenomena is a phenomena until it is a registered one. People like John Wheeler becomes a sceptic and ponders: "Who has observed the big bang? Who has observed the early universe? How has the past of the universe actualized?"

Of course not.

 

Compile a list of real investigations and it will affect your argument by nothing. This is my point, again. It's not a game about how much you can cite or how much investigation there is into a certain aspect of your belief, such as "psychology." This is my point: it's called fanaticism.

 

Citation is not considered evidence at all... You obviously misunderstand the purpose of citation: "then try to refute it by citing." That's crazy. You may use citation to affirm refutation, but things don't work by throwing various sources against each other.

These scientific papers are not simple Citations but facts established from experiments. What? facts established from experiments. This is the way Nature is and what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind and this is a scientific fact. Do I have to go your way and say "get that through your head", I hope not.

Obviously... and that's the problem.

That's the reason why we have philosophers in science and religion to understand what the implications of the experiments are and that's exactly what I have cited in my OP.

You can say that as much as you would like, but it's extremely far from being absolutely evident.

You can't run away from the truth. Its quite self evident.

Oh my, you silly little girl. It's not funny at all, how you keep casting your line in a different spot each time. No, no goal posts have been moved at all. Look over all my recent posts that have anything to do the fundimentals of the argument and position you are coming from (even on another thread about 'If Science Could One day...'). I have never been using any loose, overly collective term like 'science' as far too many folks, on both sides of the table, even, far too often tend to do. That word will never be able to function so precisely as its users wish it to because a collective, non-count noun will never function in such a manner. No, immortal, you silly little girl, from post one I have been talking about external and internal reality via the only way to know of anything about it at all, and that method, or processes of thinking, is called 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Its the method you use to know whether it's too cold outside to wear a T-shirt and be comfortable. It's the same you use to know whether your tea is too hot to drink in gulps without burning your tongue. It's exactly the scientific method in its broadest sense (which is how I always use it unless other specified) that allows us to know that the earth has a core, is quite solid, revolves around a star (our sun), is ever so slowly slowing down; to know that concrete and steel have very, very similar expansion rates, that sugar poured into very hot coffee with milk in it causes a spillover, that the described and prescribed deity of the Tanakh is a figment of the authorship of the documents of that library, and so forth and so on, and on...

 

In continuation, and referencing back to so as to build on, the general outline of scientific method as found in the post quoted here (linking is possible I believe through the time stamp):

 

 

 

 

II. The science in scientific method--relations among pragmatic experience, sound knowledge, and sound beliefs.

 

There is an exact and accurate reason for the classifications stone age, bronze age, and iron age. There is plenty of secure enough evidence to realize that at a period of time in the long course of the Homo genus, the process of forging hard metals out of rock types, had not been discovered, whereas softer metal works (bronze, copper, possibly lead) had been. That exactly means that the materials, heating requirements, and processes had come about through a slow trial and error method. It is the same process that is strongly inferred from the evidences of stone tooling. While this all is far, far before the entry of the more specific SM in its more narrow definition range within the academic and professional fields in our more recent point in time, it reflects, nevertheless, scientific method in its broader range. All the evidence and information I have come across clearly demonstrates (so far) that we cannot find the instrument used by any Homo species which has not gone through this very process; either directly, or indirectly. (if any may request reference material citation, I can do it, but it is troublesome, and time consuming, to pull all that out again. I ask for trust in my honest, and fair reporting here, and my memory content accuracy.)

 

There were many events in early human history which scientific method (SM) (keep in mind that unless otherwise pointed out, I use this in the broadest definition range sense) most certainly had direct, or nearly direct involvement, and participation in things such as finally understanding the wheel, controlling fire, agricultural techniques, fermentation control, social in-group building techniques, or astronomical knowledge building . In the same breath, however, I fully agree (as it too, is most rational and realistic) there were those which it did not, such as migration patterns, inter-breeding patterns, and in-group ritual development. We can yet conclude, however, that there is every reason to understand that SM involvement had had an indirect influence on those to varying degrees, while not participating in them. (Also for example, in boat building, in large game hunting tactics, in searches for natural resource materials, in tool development for artistic expression, and so on)

 

 

A. Science in the broadest sense, as a minimum, pertains to knowing of a matter (I.A. & I.B.).

 

1.

When giving consideration of what the

science

in SM might mean, we could first check the aggregate average of the more comprehensive dictionaries, to find the primary definition/prescription for the non-count noun

science

. We will find that generally given as follows:

 

1.

orig., the state or fact of knowing; knowledge

2.

systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

3.

a branch of knowledge or study, esp. one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and methods, as by experiements and hypotheses [the

science

of mathematics].

 

While we all know that the etymology of a word will more often than not, have very little bearing on the senses that it is used in at the moment, we may still benefit in some way by understanding where the concept came from. I will suggest that the single occurrence of the noun '

science

' be held to be number 3, above; unless context makes it more clearly understood to be number 2. I would, at the same time, suggest that number 2 be that of SM in the more specific, most narrowly defined sense.

At any rate

, I reason that it is reasonably clear enough, that the base intersecting point between the most narrow definition range of SM, and that of the broadest, as they relate to the word

science

in general, is the matter of knowing (I.A. & I.B.)

 

2. There is the case of the soundness of knowledge, and there are items of sound knowledge which are not due to SM.

 

a. As it specifically relates to

science

and

SM

, to be '

sound

,' is to state that an item which is known in a sound manner, is that which has gone through (1.A. & 1.B.) over a large enough sample space and time space, to conclude it as being sound. That a certain mushroom will cause extreme illness, or, beyond a certain volume of intake, will absolutely result in death, is an example of an item of sound knowledge. That physical bodies amount to the substrates for relative degrees of the attractive force called gravity, is an item of sound knowledge. That all normal brains '

fill in

' the gap of actual visual input due to the optic nerve's exit from the back of the retina, is an item of sound knowledge.

 

b. There are items of sound knowledge which are not due to, or related to,

science

and

SM

. The item of knowledge that the capital of the USA is Washington D.C. is sound knowledge, but is not derived from SM; rather it is pure definition. The item of knowledge that the earliest Christian movement arose within, and as an extension of, Judaism, is sound, but is not a matter of

SM

, nor related to

science

. It is, instead, rather specifically by mere definition and accurate and sound historical record, an item of sound knowledge.

 

 

 

B. Knowledge and pragmatic experience, as they relate to SM, are strongly related over a continuum of relativeness and scale of inquiry.

 

1. I reason that it would be more accurate to take pragmatic experience into account first. I always hold (unless other wise mentioned) pragmatic to consists of the matters of efficiency, first-hand practicality, logically correct relative to a closeness of cause and effect concerns as they relate to the circumstance of maintaining a relatively normal range of lifestyle, and that which can be worked on, and with, through knowledge of them.

 

a. the foremost basic essential of pragmatic circumstances, or affairs, is that of the ability to have sensation from sensory input. Being able to feel pain is a good example of a pragmatic matter, as is that of being able to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel or physically sense so as to know of a circumstance, situation, process, or state of affairs (1.A.). It is most easily and reasonably enough understood, for example, that if vision were not a sensed effect of visual sensory input by all human beings (as a basic body/brain build), then it would by no means be a pragmatic concern to any human being under such 'normal' conditions. It is for this reason, therefore, that the absence of vision's pragmatic value is made up for by an increase in the pragmatic value of another sensory input sensing.

 

b. having a knowledge of certain plants and substances which have been demonstrated (1.A. & 1.B.) to have effects on health, is pragmatic knowledge. Likewise, the same can be said about knowing that heating certain wood items under a certain condition of heat, pressure, and time, will produce a product of wood which can then burn at a higher heat (collectively per volume), and for a longer period of time, than raw wood itself, that through a certain cut and shaped piece of glass, concentrated light can ignite organic substances in given situations, or that knowing certain head movements can relieve certain disturbances of the vestibular system.

 

c. the pragmatic concerns and relative relationship for knowing what is needed to insure robust agricultural output, is one point on the continuum of pragmatic application range, knowing how much of what materials to smelt together to produce a stronger steel, is another one, and knowing what equipment and operating processes would most likely be needed to observe a 'Higgs' particle, another.

 

2. The accumulation of pragmatic experience results in a bank of knowledge which, relative to the entire definition range of SM reciprocally, mostly amounts to sound knowledge (

giving room here for (I.B.2) theories which are yet to be placed in the 'sound' grouping

).

 

a. knowing that certain locations on the open seas will result in very little sailing movement is an example. The knowledge that smoking or storage in salt would better preserve meat is another. The knowledge accumulated that resulted in human built and operated airships being sent beyond the confines of earth's atmosphere, is another.

 

b. soundness in this regards is the same as (II.A.2.) above.

 

c. there is a soundness of pragmatic knowledge which does not depend so nearly directly on SM, nor which (for any material [i.e. relevant and participating] degree ) SM does not participate in. For example, that Monday follows Sunday is a matter of pragmatic knowledge based on experience, but that is mere definition; for the far most part. The same is true for the pragmatic experience of time, as well;

we know that it never has 'flowed,' as we can only know of it in any practical sense (see above), in an opposing manner

.

 

3. There is the case of the soundness of a belief, and it is possible to consider that there may be the item of sound belief which is not due to SM.

a. the sound belief as it relates to SM will be that of (I.B.2.b., c.). A sound belief can be applied in both directions in some cases--

that is down-stream in some cases (I.B.2.b.), and up-stream in some

. An example of an up-stream case, is that of the prediction that in most cases, certain exercises of functional mappings in the brain will lead to plastic strengthening by which many stroke patients can almost fully retake normal lifestyles. An example of an up-stream case, is that there was an interbreeding between the H.

sapiens

and the H.

neanderthalensis

up to some 4%.

 

b. the possibility of a sound belief which SM does not directly participate in, nor indirectly have involvement with, is a matter to consider, but must be tested against pragmatic experience, sound knowledge, and sound belief. In other words, statements or propositions classified as, or claimed as being,

sound beliefs in which SM neither participates in, nor is directly or indirectly involved with

cannot contradict any knowledge or belief founded in (I.- II.B.3.a.). For the purpose at hand, I leave this open due to lack of example.

 

 

 

The previous post, with the above, identifies the key points of relation between

science

(as it is better used in a careful manner), SM,

and

, pragmatic experience, sound knowledge, and sound belief. It identifies my usage of the term '

pragmatic

,' and points out that the understanding of there being a range/continuum of pragmatic experience application, relative to SM, is a better understanding. It argues for a definition of the term

sound

based on the relation of the items listed in (II)over all, and as supported by them in the manner of SM. Furthermore, this post leaves room for examples of possible sound beliefs not due to SM, and in which SM neither participates, nor is directly or indirectly involved in. It stipulates at the same time, nevertheless, that such examples cannot contradict the understandings and better knowledge and experience demonstrated in (I.) through (II.B.2.b.).

 

 

 

Nope. No deluding is occurring at all--

that which has been demonstrated to be incorrect, is thus incorrect, and the demonstrated results have held

. Again, please, I am only pointing to the portions of statements and claims which have been shown to be incorrect, or which have since been corrected. The proposition of Idealism as expounded on in the silly link you had provided, is incorrect. Again, error upon error, a correct will not make.

 

Additionally, '

sound idealism

' is an incoherent misnomer. The thing which you have been positing from post one,

immortal

is incorrect--

that means it is not factual, is wrong, false,

etc.

. Only the hopless fail to be able to emotionally relinquish that failed notion. There is so extremely little pragmatic value at all in expecting any '

reduced-beyond-all-possible-practical-application-and-use

,' and unexperiencable element of nature in its wholeness, to be made use of, that we might as well go ahead and call it a fact that external actuality of nature at large, in no way at all demands either my brain's being relatively active enough to have the condition of having consciousness, nor yours, nor any other human being who lives on the face of the planet today, or who ever has.

 

Now, to put it in words which you may be more likely to be able to give any degree of attention so as to comprehend them, what we call reality is nature at large. Nature at large includes the make of of the neuronal and glia cell types which make brain (the tissue). Brain (the tissue) forms into a particular organ (

[the

brain) within a biological system (CNS; brain-as-an-organ housing organism). It is a fact that

THE

prime substrate for the processing which is acknowledged cognition (mind in consciousness condition) is brain. It is a fact that nature at large has elements of, and within, its make up and circumstance which do not require a single brain to be in an alive state. A single brain (organ) which is nothing more than a clump of somatically dead (not processing at all) tissue, is the remains of the substrate in processing which amounted to a mind. Realtiy does not require a functioning brain to be as it is, therefore other actualities of nature at large (reality) do not need a mind (a living human brain) to exist. This is a fact which is without any reasonable, pragmatic, and sound questioning

at all !!

And that,

immortal

, is the final answer--the truth of the matter--

like it or not

.

 

Now,

Ben Bowen

has a good idea; one well worth following up on. I'm go out and see if I can find a good baking oven. The truth of the matter here has been settled, and perpaps (one may have room to imagine) some who tend to work as though dropping so many lines in various spots, may be better off moving on to other puddles to drop lines into.

 

(ps I do not have to proof read further, and there may yet be some typos and errors. I apologize. If I do come back to check, I'll fix them if I can then. I'm sorry.)

I see that some of them still have not grasped my arguments and I will try to explain my arguments once again.

The same Anton Zeilinger and Caslav Brukner et al team have made recent experiments known as 'Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping'. This is an very important paper for physics.

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping

Please kindly try to understand this paper because it is very essential to understand the current problem in physics and in further understanding my solution to it.

In this experiment two pairs of photons 1, 2 and 3, 4 are entangled and the photons 2 and 3 are given to Victor for him to measure and the photons 1 and 4 are given to Alice and Bob respectively.

First Alice and Bob makes respective measurements on their photons but they cannot know whether the correlations observed are either of entangled photons or of well separated photons.

Now at some later time say 485ns after Alice and Bob's measurement, Victor makes a choice as to which type of measurement to make i.e a separable-state measurement (SSM) or a Bell-state measurement (BSM).

"According to Victor's choice of measurement (that is, entangled or separable state) and his results, Alice and Bob can sort their already recorded data into 4 subsets. They can now verify that when Victor projected his photons onto an entangled state, each of their joint subsets behaves as if it consisted of entangled pairs of distant photons. When Victor projected his photons onto a separable state, Alice's and Bob's joint subsets behave as if they consisted of separable pairs of photons. In neither case Alice's and Bob's photons have communicated or interacted in the past. This indicates that quantum mechanical predictions are completely indifferent to the temporal order of Victor's choice and measurement with respect to Alice's and Bob's measurements. Whether Alice's and Bob's earlier measurement outcomes indicate entanglement of photons 1 and 4 strictly depends on which measurements Victor performs at a later time on photons 2 and 3."

This is highly unacceptable because it seems as if Victor's choice was pre-determined or fixed or that the future is affecting the past. Its highly unacceptable because it directly clashes with General theory of Relativity which says that future cannot affect the past.

Therefore if one chooses to believe that the polarisation of a photon exists out there in the physical world prior to measurements or the idea of hidden variables(counterfactual definiteness or realism) then it leads to a serious paradox and its highly unacceptable and hence any realistic interpretation of QM which argue for hidden variables which correspond to elements of reality is in direct conflict with General Relativity.

"If one viewed the quantum state as a real physical object, one could get the paradoxical situation that future actions seem to have an influence on past and already irrevocably recorded events. However, there is never a paradox if the quantum state is viewed as no more than a `catalogue of our knowledge'2. Then the state is a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes, the relative temporal order of the three observers' events is irrelevant and no physical interactions whatsoever between these events, especially into the past, are necessary to explain the delayed-choice entanglement swapping."

One indeed need to give up or renounce the notion of scientific realism in order to avoid a serious paradox and giving up realism is not enough what we actually need is a sound idealism because as Michael Brooks says, "To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we're looking at it" . I am no sure how physicists can sleep without figuring out this first. As Anton Zeilinger says relativity has been there for 100 years and quantum physics has been there for 100 years and we need a new breakthrough.

Everyone knows that poor Schroedinger spent forty years of his life arguing that the writers of the Upanishads knew the truth but the scientific community never took him seriously. We all know how his book What is Life? was the building stone for the discovery of the genetic code and the DNA which revolutionized the field of biology and in the same way his other books, 'Mind and Matter' and 'My view of the World' is going to revolutionize the way we see the world around us.

Erwin Schroedinger: Wiki quote

The sound idealism which Schroedinger was arguing was this.

Idealism in Ancient philosophy

The oldest reference to Idealism in Hindu texts is in Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda. This sukta espouses panentheism by presenting cosmic being Purusha as both pervading all universe and yet being transcendent to it.^[1] Absolute idealism can be seen in Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where things of the objective world like the five elements and the subjective world such as will, hope, memory etc. are seen to be emanations from the Self.

That's the the world existing independently of the human mind not the empirical reality.

Now some might ask what this has got to do with Carl Jung and the Gnostics and the answer is even their doctrine was identical. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads which Schroedinger was arguing and its going to correct the scientific consensus, that's for sure.

 

The reason I made this remark was exactly my understanding of why the idea will not die out. You can continue investigating, but apparently you aren't. You're becoming an expert at quoting other people's investigations, who are no more capable of analyzing truth in any spectacular way than any mere person.

Its my job to cite evidence for my claims and I just don't quote scientists and philosophers, I also understand their reasonable arguments and if you got some problem with my ideas then try to refute it by citing sources I'll be more than happy to address them, if not accept that you were wrong, don't tell me that it has shown to be wrong already, show some intellectual honesty for god sake.

I think this means you're a reasonless fanatic.

Its not my beliefs which have been shattered, actually its the beliefs of atheistic scientists which has been shattered. All this live and let live philosophy is not going to go on for too long, the time has come to show intolerance towards atheism and atheistic scientists who say that there is no need for a God hypothesis and who hold on to their fanatical position when all evidence are against their false preconceived notions.

We already know the answer: bullshit. Where does this answer come from? Try to answer that. So far, your answer has been: "They're unwilling, closed-minded jerks!" Okay, fine... but why would you suppose? It's human nature? Judging by what you've said specifically, you believe so indeed yourself.

 

 

And that's good. Oh hey... wouldn't you say my conclusion corresponds to some other certain special peoples' responses to you?

 

Actually there is no excuse for still holding on to the belief that the empirical reality exists out there independent of the human mind and its an experimental scientific fact and its not going to change what some special people say what. I go by facts not by group thinking.

This is exactly the difference between you and I. You've only had an orgasm. You've discontinued your real investigation, and now you're just massaging the parts you liked most.. So, why is it right for us to call bullshit now? Doesn't that mean a discontinuation of our investigation? No, it's a conclusion. How can I say this, that you have merely discontinued real investigation, and we have concluded it?

Actually Depth psychology is also a real investigation.

Depth Psychology

 

Summary of primary elements

• Depth psychology states that psyche is a process that is partly conscious and partly unconscious and partly semi-conscious. The unconscious in turn contains repressed experiences and other personal-level issues in its "upper" layers and "transpersonal" (e.g. collective, non-I, archetypal) forces in its depths. The semi-conscious contains or is, an aware pattern of personality, including everything in a spectrum from individual vanity to the personality of the workplace.
• The psyche spontaneously generates mythico-religious symbolism or themes, and is therefore spiritual or metaphysical, as well as instinctive, in nature. An implication of this is that the choice of whether to be a spiritual person may be beyond the individual, whether and how we apply it, including to nonspiritual aspirations.
• All minds, all lives, are ultimately embedded in some sort of myth-making in the form of themes or patterns. Mythology is therefore not a series of old explanations for natural events, but rather the richness and wonder of humanity played out in a symbolical, thematic, and patterned storytelling.

If you want to know how relevant Carl Jung's ideas are for our present age and time in which we are living and how much the notion of scientific realism is discussed and criticized then you should read these works.

Recasting Reality: Wolfgang Pauli’s Philosophical Ideas and Contemporary Science, Dr. Harald Atmanspacher

What most people don't know is that the Carl Jung's idea of the archetypes leads only to one thing: to Abraxas, the Holy Father of the Gnostics which is the pleroma of God and most people actually don't know about this. Isn't it fair to give the credit to the right person? i.e. to God, I am accused for speaking the truth or stating the facts, Carl Jung's ideas ultimately leads to the pleroma of God and I am just being way ahead of everyone and stating the truth. I am going to investigate the pleroma of God like I always have and perhaps you are going to do laundry like you always have.

This topic is 11 pages. 11 pages. Does that number matter? Doesn't it require great effort to share brilliant but very controversial ideas with others? 'Depends. I've already addressed how. You didn't answer.

This topic is in the current events and its not surprising that this topic has been rigorously discussed here at great depth. If you happen to notice some of the papers which I have cited are from 2009-2012 and the beauty of discussing it in an open forum is that it helps one to question their preconceived misconceptions and start to see things from a different perspective. If some scholars, scientists and amateurs had not misrepresented pagan ideas and beliefs then there was no point in starting this thread in the first place, I hope as a member of this forum I can start a thread without hijacking other threads.

If I am not allowed to discuss this topic in this sub-forum which is the "Forum for the discussion and examination of rational foundations of religion" as defined by this forum then where should I discuss this. Yes, some of these ideas have been ignored or been pushed under the carpet or seriously misunderstood and it takes much effort to change that attitude among people and make people aware as to what the evidence is actually saying.

 

Prior log:

 

...

 

...

 

Where we left off:

I think by now you should have understood how the Gnostic idea of the pleroma of God is turning out to be right and in the future more and more scientists and philosophers are going to investigate the pleroma of god, its just that not many have realized what the recent findings have been saying.

And at the god fucking damn core of it all, we've repeatedly shown you why the "evidence" you assert is completely wrong, and your responses have only been inadequate counters!

Actually the evidences which I have asserted all lead to the conclusion that the empirical reality is only a state of mind and there by directly leads to the existence of the pleroma of God. Whatever it is, one thing is for sure there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity and scientific realism is dead. The quantum state doesn't represent anything physical out there in the physical world and its just a mathematical tool to predict the outcomes of a system or the experiences of the physicist.

No problem: both D'Espagnat and Penrose are wrong as is well-known.

Thanks for proving your dishonety again. Penrose argument of non-computability of human thought might be wrong from your perspective but not from the perspective of Esoteric religions. I am not talking of his Orch-OR model instead I am talking of his pure mathematical arguments which lead to mathematical Platonism.

Roger Penrose: A Knight on the tiles

“A majority of contemporary mathematicians (a typical, though disputed, estimate is about two-thirds) believe in a kind of heaven – not a heaven of angels and saints, but one inhabited by the perfect and timeless objects they study: n-dimensional spheres, infinite numbers, the square root of -1, and the like. Moreover, they believe that they commune with this realm of timeless entities through a sort of extra-sensory perception.”

“And today’s mathematical Platonists agree. Among the most distinguished of them is Alain Connes, holder of the Chair of Analysis and Geometry at the College de France, who has averred that “there exists, independently of the human mind, a raw and immutable mathematical reality.”… Platomism is understandably seductive to mathematicians. It means that the entities they study are no mere artifacts of the human mind: these entities are discovered, not invented… Many physicists also feel the allure of Plato’s vision.”

So how does mathematical insight or non-computable or non-alogrithmic thinking is possible?

"Koushika, you remember what I said on an earlier occasion" said Vamadeva, "I told you that the mind is like a pillar of light. Hold on to that pillar. When the light gets scattered its power gets dispersed. But if the light is focused and one-pointed then it is all powerful and quite bright. The same principle holds in respect of the mind. By nature it is fickle. When you intend to hold an object in your hand, use all your fingers to clasp it, don't you? Likewise, if you wish to "hold' your mind, you should have a perfect hold on the sensory organs which are the instruments of the mind. If you wish to achieve or attain anything you should see that your concentrated attention of mind is not led astray by your senses. That concentrated mind should be focused fully on what you wish to achieve. Then, like a top, which spins round a centralized point, your mind remains fully, unswervingly concentrated on the aim or target. It is like a serpent turning its head round to contact the tail. Your mind which begins with a strong question or doubts finds a suitable answer after a concentrated spin round the point. This I would say, is the first or primary step for your tapas".

- Devudu Narasimha Shastry, ritualist and a Sanskrit scholar.

Its quite clear how human understanding is very much different than the way a machine works and mathematical intuition is possible for mathematicians because they directly access already hidden truths existing in its own platonic realm.

I repeat again: Come up with a machine capable of strong AI and simulating conscious thought then the whole doctrine of esoteric religions will be falsified. This is one of the main reasons why I believe in Esotericism.

I'm probably going to make a cake after this topic is closed (if that ever happens)... just waiting for the day... impatiently...

Your personal abhorrence towards a topic is not going to make the ideas just die off, after this discussion of topic I am going to continue investigating the pleroma of god as I always have because for the first time in the intellectual history of mankind esoteric religions are going to correct the scientific consensus.

I am pretty sure I have essentially and substantially enough pointed out, that I am not talking about this 'science' some folks can never outgrow. The usage is so misleading that it's pathetic. As for scientific method, in the broadest sense, why of course it is the only way to know of anything at all. In that I have amply enough provided an example of what the required action to subtantiate and demonstrate the claims of immortal would be, the fact that no one of the face of the earth has to date been able to execute that consistently over large sample space and length of time, fully demonstrates that the claim is false. In that it has been shown to have been false (and I have not provided all the data and results which do so, on this thread, of course), it has been falsified. That some will never wish to come to terms with the cold-world realities of nature, is, in an almost paradoxical way, a natural event.

Its funny how you move goal posts and delude yourself of falsifying Bernard and Penrose arguments and also the ideas of ancient wisdom.

The truth is that facts established from experiments have led to a sound idealism in the philosophy of science.

"There are many signs that a sound idealism is surely replacing, as a basis for natural philosophy, the crude materialism of the older physicists."

My argument is quite simple and it logically follows like this, Bernard's life time work in the philosophy of science has led him to conclude that "What we call reality is only a state of mind".

Someone in the guardian asked this question and it was a very good question.

Gramlin23 March 2009 12:20PM

If what we call 'reality' is just a state of mind, what is mind?

This is where Esotericism comes in and explains what Mind is and what Intellect is. This is the reason for the need of a god hypothesis. Science will never be able to know what Mind is and hence the reason to adopt non-positivistic methods of our ancients.

Actually much of the information is kept confidential and hardly a few people are genuinely interested in these kinds of esoteric knowledge. So I am not sure your time length and your life span is enough to conclude that the ancient wisdom traditions are false.

 

Tibetan Buddhism: Esotericism

 

 

 

Esotericism

A sand mandala

In Vajrayāna particularly, Tibetan Buddhists subscribe to a voluntary code of self-censorship, whereby the uninitiated do not seek and are not provided with information about it. This self-censorship may be applied more or less strictly depending on circumstances such as the material involved. A depiction of a mandala may be less public than that of a deity. That of a higher tantric deity may be less public than that of a lower. The degree to which information on Vajrayāna is now public in western languages is controversial among Tibetan Buddhists.

 

Buddhism has always had a taste for esotericism since its earliest period in India.^[25] Tibetans today maintain greater or lesser degrees of confidentiality also with information on the vinaya and emptiness specifically. In Buddhist teachings generally, too, there is caution about revealing information to people who may be unready for it. Esoteric values in Buddhism have made it at odds with the values of Christian missionary activity, for example in contemporary Mongolia.

 

 

 

The correct methodology to study our ancients is based on mandala of the east or the pleroma of the west. Mandala or Pleroma have a local existence, they exist in its own realm.

Mandala

According to the psychologist David Fontana, its symbolic nature can help one "to access progressively deeper levels of the unconscious, ultimately assisting the meditator to experience a mystical sense of oneness with the ultimate unity from which the cosmos in all its manifold forms arises."

Even you need to come to terms on understanding what reality really is.

It is well-known that science is one of many disciplines. In my European country any 15-year-old student is taught the differences between science, religion, history, philosophy... their respective goals and their respective methods.

 

Anyone would know that scientific knowledge provides an objective description of reality, whereas religion and philosophy do not. All our technology/medicine... is based in science although you continue ignoring such facts despite being mentioned very often.

In my country, philosophers are masters of nature and not its slaves and they deal with the real physical world as it exists out there and they enter and exit a dead person's body(not the empirical body) on their own will. Welcome to the real world.

 

Adi Shankara, the reviver of Advaita doctrine of philosophy.

 

After debating for over fifteen days, with Maṇḍana Miśra's wife Ubhaya Bhāratī acting as referee, Maṇḍana Miśra accepted defeat.^[21] Ubhaya Bhāratīthen challenged Adi Shankara to have a debate with her in order to 'complete' the victory. She asked him questions related to sexual congress between man and woman - a subject in which Shankaracharya had no knowledge, since he was a true celibate and sannyasi. Sri Shankracharya asked for a "recess" of 15 days. As per legend, he used the art of "para-kaya pravesa" (the spirit leaving one's own body and entering another's) and exited his own body, which he asked his disciples to look after, and psychically entered the dead body of a king. The story goes that from the King's two wives, he acquired all knowledge of "art of love". The queens, thrilled at the keen intellect and robust love-making of the "revived" King, deduced that he was not their husband, as of old. The story continues that they sent their factotums to "look for the lifeless body of a young sadhu and to cremate it immediately" so that their "king" (Shankracharya in the king's body) would continue to live with them. Just as the retainers piled Shankracharaya's lifeless corpse upon a pyre and were about to set fire to it, Shankara entered his own body and regained consciousness. Finally, he answered all questions put to him byUbhaya Bhāratī; and she allowed Maṇḍana Miśra to accept sannyasa with the monastic name Sureśvarācārya, as per the agreed-upon rules of the debate.

We already know the "Truth" about religion. We already know that Penrose and Bernard are plain wrong.

Oh really? say it again. People know now who is intellectually honest and who isn't.

Science is not all there is and the scientific method is not the only method that is out there for gaining valid means of knowledge. Science cannot get beyond mere appearances of phenomena.

cience can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and ... non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so ... Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science... In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.

 

— Feyerabend, Against Method, p.viii

 

 

 

 

Paul Feyerabend argued that no description of scientific method could possibly be broad enough to encompass all the approaches and methods used by scientists. Feyerabend objected to prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would stifle and cramp scientific progress. Feyerabend claimed, "the only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."^[

I am not going to make the same mistake of applying western scientific methodology which is solely based on basic observation for investigating religious traditions.

If anyone wants to know the truth about religion then one should adopt the methodologies of Esotericism. The arguments of Penrose and Bernard have not been falsified and they can be falsified with in science and testified by methodologies in Esotericism. I and Bernard firmly believe that Esotericism can know the noumenon.

@LimbicLoser desparately tried to falsify these ideas and he failed terribly

LimbicLoser, on 27 September 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

 

Thank you for getting back, immortal, and spending the time to put forth your arguments. I see a major problem at the root, nevertheless, and wish to look that over some--investigate it, attempt to falsify it, and see it there is actually anything pragmatic worth keeping and propagating. I would greatly appreciate your care and concern--and level-headed reasonableness and fairness--in doing so.

and now he is resorting into censorship of ancient wisdom with his misunderstanding as it always happens that the scientific method is the only way to know the truth without being aware of the fact that there are methodologies in esotericism which takes a top-down approach of reality and tries to access knowledge hidden already in nature, we don't invent anything, we just discover it.

Extra Credit Assignment: The Nature of Things

No wonder why I have respect for physicists who adopt the positivistic philosophy of science than those who are dogmatic that scientific models are the only way of understanding and describing nature.

"If it can get someone to look at the problem from a different angle and it leads to a different description of nature, that’s great."

The next breakthrough is going to come from Esotericism and it is going to redefine and reshape both the orthodox religions as well as Science. The empirical world isn't out there independent of the human mind as Anton Zeilinger clearly casts doubts and explicitly says that we create reality rather than passively observing it.

Everything what I am saying is logically connected and very relevant.

I see we have a major defect within your logical analysis processing flowchart--either that, or intellectually willful disingenuous tactics. Let me see if I can draw out your true colors here. I will take it that English is as much one of your mother tongues--if not the only one--as any other language may possibly be. I will take it that you actually hail from the Western hemispheric area of the globe, as per common usage. You have still failed to answer the question I had asked in a rational, honest, and fair way. Let me run it through one more time, please follow through on the facts of the verbatim statements and the chronological order, as well as the logical connectivity between it all.

I am not a chameleon to change colours, I have only one true colour and the quotes from the Gospel of Philip in my OP clears tells as to where I am coming from. Those are the mystical texts of Christianity and its a legitimate interpretation of Christianity.

'Gnostic' Texts vs. the New Testament

Two scholars debate whether texts like the Gospel of Thomas are incompatible with traditional Christianity.

Scholarly Smackdown: Did Paul Distort Christianity?

BY: With Elaine Pagels & Ben Witherington III

I have nothing to hide.

It is a fact that there is an error in your statement made in that post in question. It is not in relation to the transliteration you had provided. (And this is a big hint) Do you see where the fault lies? Do you understand that you have made an incorrect statement?

That's how one reads that verse in Greek and it clearly specifies the term pleroma as used many times in the Pauline Epistles.

I am not being unnecessarily rude with you at all. It may well be the case that you might tend to have some emotional activity which leads to such internal interpretation, but I am simply trying to correct your errors.

For the Valentinians the term pleroma represents a locality, it exists somewhere in its own realm. This is something you need to understand before trying to correct my errors.

BUT see :

 

You have essentially contradicted yourself. One point in the falure I have mentioned at the beginning of this post. Or, you have either corrected yourself--a display of cognitive plasticity function at work. (A very good and important thing.) I have earlier on in the thread provided the correct methodology and reasons for transliteration within the English translation of a text, and I do suggest that you pay attention to it--there is learning within.

 

Here, you demonstrate the inablity to cognitively express plasticity in a functioning manner. What I have said is true. Your statement above is completely incorrect--amounting to the value of hardly more than mere 'garbage can-bound' waste.

A casual reader who is not aware of early Christianity and the historical and the theological context of the usage of the term pleroma will not know that fullness (pleroma) should be interpreted as something which has a locality and its something which exists in its own realm and if you don't clearly specify what fullness (pleroma) is then its definitely not a good translation of the original meaning of the text and I stand by this.

While I am fully aware of an amount of Dr. Lightfoot's work, this is the first time to see it be taken out of contextual and purpose rendered reasoning, to be twisted into an example for some immature nonsense. Anyway, I am waiting for a reasonable, honest, and fair response to the question I had asked some time ago. Thanks !

As Dr. Lightfoot clearly demonstrates that in early Christianity the term pleroma actually represented a locality and it exists in its own realm, its just not a substance which fills or a receptacle which is being filled. This meaning of the term pleroma as the totality of divine powers (Aeons) which forms the Mystical body of Christ is the correct meaning of the term pleroma in a theological context, what is nonsense to you it is gold for Valentinus.

All very well, but it doesn't address the problem. A whole lot of people will "receive nothing" through no fault of their own.

Having done nothing deliberately wrong- but simply because they were unaware of what was "right" they are punished by God.

Bit of a bastard isn't He?

I don't think God is being unfair or has done injustice to anyone. Everyone is being treated equally and everyone is made into fullness whether one is poor or rich, black or white, whore or nun, ignorant or knowledgeable, everyone is truly made in the image of God and everyone can become the Father or by default has the potential to become the father.

The one who knows this its his strength, his divinity, his pleroma, no one can take this knowing from him.

John 10:28

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

John 10:29

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

John 10:30

I and the Father are one.”

"The scriptures are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."

So, what are the scriptures for? Is it to feed hour of debate on internet fora?

 

Or is that just an example of; exactly what a preacher would say in order to maintain mystique and power?

Neither solely relying on the scriptures alone or on the oral traditions is the way to go, the right way to go is by scriptures + oral traditions and the main reason for the downfall of religion for all these years is because we have ignored the oral traditions and interpreted them the way you want without understand in its own milieu the way the oral traditions understood it.

Actually, immortal, I have good reason to say, among other points, that the parts which you have presented regarding quantum mechanics having anything to do with consciousness, for example, has been fully demonstrated to be incorrect; false.⁽¹⁾ Some other applications which you wish to make, also, are false, as well as a number of things you have said regarding the pragmatic world we live in. Penrose, as A.N. Whitehead, also, is just as guilty of misleading folks in kind of similar ways; as are a good number of others who tend to wish to hold some 'status quo' as it relates to the theist-based religious belief systems we have inherited from the ancients. (Who were very uninformed on such things. ) I am not talking about quantum theory, per se, or all the studies and such done in that area, and the progress that is slowing being made. I am not talking about mathematics. (and I know folks can take that to meaningless (trivial) planes as well.) I'm talking about the corrections which you need to make regarding the best understanding of cognitive neuroscience and consciousness science to date, the better and more correct usage of certain English terms, and the matter of more precisely and clearly presenting.

If you notice my posts in this thread I have not used the word consciousness at all or not used it quite often in my posts because I know no one knows what Consciousness is, its a term which is confusing and different people will give different definitions for that. I am clearly using the word "Mind" and separating it from the neural processing of the brain. For me Mind and brain are two different things and this is not just mere speculation because there is much scholarly evidence that our ancients did knew that there is a "Mind" which exists and also an "Intellect" which exists and the English language is clearly poor when it comes to conveying religious terminologies. For example - We have clear precise terms in the east for the Mind and the Intellect called as "Manas" and "Buddhi" respectively and the context of those words clearly specify that they are something different than the brain and that's exactly how the eastern philosophical traditions still see it and will continue to do so.

So I hope you can understand the problem here for me for conveying these ideas in English, I need to change something or introduce a capitalization to convey my ideas so that people don't associate the idea of the Mind (Manas) with the brain because according to eastern philosophical schools Mind is really something different than the brain and its something which science hasn't figured it out yet.

I am shocked by the fact that how you blatantly state that the arguments of Sir Roger Penrose and Bernard D'Epspagnat are false and incorrect, if it is so then why don't you come up with a machine capable of strong AI and there by simulating conscious thought and make machines answer problems with yes or no answers for which no algorithm exists. You're not doing that instead you are simply stating that their arguments are false by holding a personal biased position, if their arguments were falsified I would have packed my stuff up and would have gone by now.

First of all, I will say up front, that if you are by any chance imagining that you are practicing philosophy in what you are doing here, I would suggest checking to make sure there are at least some bushes down below, when you fall. Yes, I know that there are those who think that by claiming to be writing within the discipline of 'philosophy,' they have some license to say anything at all. The 'cold-cash-on-the-barrelhead' truth, if academic circles were approached, would blow those clouds away real fast... resulting in a hard fall into reality. A reality check only hurts those who have not had it yet. I know for a fact that you cannot go out and find anything which you can bring in and set on the table in any realistic way at all, which is not physically subtrated. But again, that is not the real beef here. You have made false claims about the ability to know, the processing which is what the condition of having a state of consciousness is. Quantum has absolutely nothing more to that than the oval window of the ear has to do with color perception acknowledgement.

I don't think there is anyone who does better philosophy than Bernard D'Espagnat and he wasn't afraid to tackle those philosophical issues of Bell experiments where most physicists shy off from giving a proper answer. Please do read the entire thread before making comments like that.

"The thrust of d'Espagnat's work was on experimental tests of Bell's theorem. The theorem states that either quantum mechanics is a complete description of the world or that if there is some reality beneath quantum mechanics, it must be nonlocal – that is, things can influence one another instantaneously regardless of how much space stretches between them, violating Einstein's insistence that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

But what d'Espagnat was really interested in was what all of this meant for discerning the true nature of ultimate reality. Unlike most of his contemporaries, d'Espagnat was one of the brave ones unafraid to tackle the thorny and profound philosophical questions posed by quantum physics."

- NewScientist

From Bernard D'Espagnat's paper Quantum Theory and Reality.

This is the third or the fourth time I am asking the question which one of those three premises are in error? and no one gave me an answer and they simply dodge the question. I know Bernard D'Espagnat is intellectually honest and I know what recent experimental findings are saying and I didn't studied Michael Rae's 'A beginner's guide to Quantum Physics' and understood all the philosophical difficulties over the interpretation of quantum physics and the measurement problem for nothing. I very well know what I am talking here.

Well, please do provide the citations, immortal, if it is in fact true. I mean, you have been making an assertion (a claim to know) all along, and have not presented anything other than textual passages from some Vedic text, or from some writers of Buddhist or Hindu philosophy schools, or maybe a misunderstood, or misconstructed Wiki page. I have told you, and it is correct, that simply quoting someone will not do the trick if they are simply saying, or writing, it without, themselves, presenting some hard evidence for their having reached that conclusion.

"Dr. James G. Garrick, an orthopedic surgeon and director of the Center for Sports Medicine at St. Francis Hospital in San Francisco, said his clinic saw 39 patients with yoga injuries in 2002, up from 11 in 2001. Most of the injuries patients suffered were to the knee, followed by lower back and shoulder. The injuries result from people trying to stretch their bodies into difficult poses that are beyond their physical limitations. "The last couple of years we've been seeing a dramatic increase in the number of people injured doing yoga," Garrick said. "It's frightened us.""

That's just the number of people who visited a hospital, imagine how many are out there who didn't go to the hospital and they know that there is something wrong with this world or its nature of reality just like the Gnostics who differentiated this empirical reality as kenoma and the Platonic reality the Pleroma which is far more real than this empirical reality. This is the reason why I said you guys do need a reality check.

Bernard D'Espagnat is absolutely right when he says that the basic components of objects - the particles, electrons and quarks etc cannot be thought of as self-existent.

Bernard d'Espagnat a French theoretical physicist best known for his work on the nature of reality wrote a paper titled The Quantum Theory and Reality according to the paper: "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."^[60] In an article in the Guardian titled Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind d'Espagnat wrote that:

 

"What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". He further writes that his research in quantum physics has lead him to conclude that an "ultimate reality" exists, which is not embedded in space or time.^[61]

 

Yes, I know that the word religion can be used in that generic sense of the community of all the theist-involved religious belief systems. I am pretty sure I had demonstrated that much. Your usage, nevertheless, is incorrect. First of all, again, there is absolutely no reason at all to capitalize the word. Secondly, when you couch the opening of some claim along the lines of, "... Religion says... , then you had better put something there that each and every system agrees on... otherwise you will be as guilty of ignorance you seemingly wish to cast on others--and without any information, or clues, at all, upon which to back such desired prancing. Do you understand what I mean?

Yes, I do understand what you mean, I better prefix the word religion with esoteric because I am not talking of the exoteric religions but I am talking of Esoteric Religions. Thanks.

I have corrected your understanding faults. You have yet to learn. It is not 'science,' not 'religion.' It is scientific method (in the broadest sense), and theist-involved religious belief systems. Everything that you can learn, is learned through the process of scientific method. It works like this:

 

A. The primary and necessary elements.

 

 

1. There must be an observation primarily involved.

 

a. a matter of a state of circumstance/condition or an operation/process of observational things.

 

b. a means, or access by which, to observe.

 

c. a logically and properly developed process (method) of identifying and classing the distinct and distinguished elements involved with/incurred through, the observation.

 

 

2. There must be an act of testing for further observation.

 

a. an act of application of natural, or non-natural, elements (and/or events) in relation and juxtaposition to those in (A.1.a.)

 

b. a means, or access, by which to act (see A.2.a.) and to observe during and having acted

 

c. a logically and properly developed process (method) of identifying and classing the distinct and distinguished elements and/or events (A.2.b.) as contrasted to the lack of an act of (A.2.a) which leaves on (A.1.)

 

 

B. The secondary and practical elements.

 

 

1. A reason (objective), or cause (mental disposition), for executing (A.).

 

a. a circumstance, condition or predicament of a personal or social nature which needs, or is deemed to need, some alteration, improvement of, or release from, (A.1.)

 

b. an emotion condition, circumstance, or disposition of mind by which a deep desire to know of, and/or understand the matters of, (A.1.a. and A.2.c.)

 

c. a proposition, or understanding obtained of the nature of (A.1.a.) which due to (B.1.a. or B.1.b.) is acted on as per (A.2.) and verified through such by reproduction of the same over sample space and time

 

 

2. A summary and/or interpretation towards a summary/conclusion of (A.1.a., and/or A.2.c.).

 

a. a statement of exact and nearness of exactness of all observations (A.1. and A.2.)

 

b. a proposition (assertion/claim/prediction) of down-stream matters of states of circumstances, conditions, or operations/processes which are thus understood to will have been (established) due to (A.2.c.)

 

c. a statement which identifies a working value (interpretation) which data of (A.2.c.) is understood to involve, represent, or be worthy of relative to other non-involved but operationally, or categorically relative to (A.2.c.) matters. (This will be followed up in another post, for reader-friendliness.)

Before you write an abstract to a paper or even start doing a project on it what one needs to do at first is understand the problem. Understanding the problem is the first basic step and I do understand the problem of the current consensus among the physicists on scientific realism and religious thinkers and scientists turned philosophers who mix modern science with Eastern mysticism without noticing the fact that their epistemology is different. So basically what one needs is to first understand the current problems in various fields and the various competing hypothesis and ideas explaining a particular phenomena and I am quite well aware of the current problems in some of these fields.

Your error is of course clear to me. What you are doing, of course, far too many are guilty of, but, notwithstanding, it is essentially incorrect. Again (and I'll do this elsewhere too), in the English language, when you write the word 'God,' you are doing so to identify a specific god, namely, in the first place YHWH (and in that case, YHWH ONLY) and in the second place, the biblical god of post third century Christianity (basically). In the third place, there is usage of it for the god of the Islamic system. (A usage which I very strongly suggest be dropped.) You are using the written form incorrectly, and I have corrected you on that. The common noun 'god' is not uncountable, and so you cannot write, and be correct in doing so, the following: "... all names corresponding or representing God from different religions are.... This is utter nonsense and silliness. YHWH is not Baal, neither Ra, neither Dagon, neither any of the following:

 

Huitzilopochtli, Tezcatilpoca, Tialoc, Chalchihuitlicue, Xiehtecutli, Centeotl, Omaacatl, Yacatecutli, Mixcoatl, Xipe, Dis, Tarves, Moccos, Epona, Mullo, Damona, Esus, Drunemeton, Silvana, Dervones, Adsallta, Deva, Belisama, Axona, Vintio, Taranuous, Sulis, Cocidius, Adsmerius, Dumiatis, Caletos, Ollovidius, Albiorix, Leucitius, Vitucadrus, Ogmios, Uxellimus, Borvo, Grannos, Mogons, Sutekh, Resheph, Anath, Astarte, Ashtoreth, Hadad, El, Addu, Nergal, Shalem, Nebo, Ninib, Sharrab, Melek, Yau (which may possibly be the link to YHWH's creation), Ahijah, Amon-Re, Isis, Osiris, Horus, Khnum, Montu, Amun, Amun-Ra, Anubis, Molech, Ashimath, Asherah, Bel, Gad, Rephan, Meni,

and so on...

I am not being silly because you don't see what I see.

"Esotericists frequently suggest that there is a concordance between different religious traditions: best example is the belief in prisca theologia (ancient theology) or in philosophia perennis (perennial philosophy)."

- Esotericism (wiki)

There is a common esoteric essence in all the esoteric religions of the world and most people don't see it because of their preconceived notions, cultural and other social issues and they are really myopic and the same is the problem with you.

Gods have names, you know, in almost all cases of human created gods. There are some overlapping attributes, and such, but the given activities and such, by the several information sources we have, do not allow that all these god models equal each other. It just doesn't happen. You have an urgent need to adjust your usage of the English written form, and stick with the lower case form, 'god.' Then, you need to make sure that you use as it actually, is, a countable noun. If you are talking about a certain god, then you use the indefinite article a. If you are talking about plural gods, then be sure to pluralize it properly. If you are talking about a specific god other than the biblical god, or the Islamic god, then please use the personal name of the god you are talking about. If you are talking about the Jewish model, then feel free to use YHWH--it's not going to kill you, or cause you to loose eyesight.

 

It is absolutely false that all theist-based religious belief systems are presenting the same single god concept. That they are all presenting gods, is of course true, the concept of a god, does not amount to the fullness of the descriptive terms they give for their models. Try any way you like, and you will never find any room at all to match the concept provided for YHWH, and that provided by the collected texts describing Horus. Not all theist-involved religious belief systems are talking about the same concept of a single god because all their gods are different. You should have worded that as follows, to be correct: all theist-involved religious belief systems talk about a concept of a god.. Your usage is uninformed, incorrect, and needs to be adjusted. You have not been talking about God, to date. Is that clear to you?

Throughout this thread I have been talking of the Pleroma of the west and the Mandala of the east and showing how common their understanding of the numinous was and that should be quite clear to others as to what concept of God I am talking here about.

Other errors will have to be dealt with in time--some at more proper locations so as to save space here on this thread (although they are very relevant).

 

 

1. For each of the following entries, at least 10 others can be included, as well as personal communications.

 

Alexandrov, Yuri I., and Sams, Mikko E. (2005) Emotion and consciousness: Ends of a continuum. Cognitive Brain Research 25(2), pp 387-405.

 

Baars, Bernard J. (1997) In the Theater of Consciousness. New

York: Oxford University Press.

 

Baars, Bernard J. (2003) Cognitive Theories of Consciousness. IN: Nadel

(ed.) Encylopedia of Cognitive Science, vol 1, pp 738-744. New

York: Nature Publishing Group.

 

Baars, J.., and Gage, N.M. (2010) Consciousness and attention. IN: Baars, and Gage (eds) Cognition, Brain, and Consciousness, 2 Ed. London: Academic Press.

 

Bussche, E.V.d.,et al. (2010) The relation between consciousness

and attention: An empirical study using the priming paradigm. Cons

Cog 19(1), pp 86-97.

 

Block, Ned (1996) How can we find the neural correlate of consciousness?

Trend Neurosci. 19(11), pp 456-459.

 

Block, Ned (2001) Paradox and cross purposes in recent work on

consciousness. Cognition 79 (1, 2), pp 197-219.

 

Bodovitz, Steven (2008) The neural correlate of consciousness. J Theo Bio vol 254, pp 594-598.

 

Clark, Andy (2011)Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Cleeremans, Axel (2011) The radical plasticity thesis: how the brain

learns to be conscious. Front Psy 2(86), pp 1-12 (doi:

10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00086)

 

Cook, N.D. (2008) THE NEURON-LEVEL PHENOMENA UNDERLYING COGNITION AND CONSCIOUSNESS: SYNAPTIC ACTIVITY AND THE ACTION POTENTIAL. Neuroscience vol 153, pp 556-570.

 

Cytowic, Richard E., and Eagleman, David, M. (2009) wednesday is indigo blue--Discovering the brain of synesthesia . MIT Press.

 

Damasio, A., and Meyer, K. (2009) Consciousness: An overview of the

Phenomenon and of its Possible Neural Basis. IN: Laureys, and Tononi

(eds.) The Neurology of Consciousness, pp 3-14. San Diego:

Academic press.

 

Damasio, Antonio (2010) Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain.New York: Pantheon Books.

 

Dietrich, Arne (2003) Functional neuroanatomy of altered states of consciousness: The transient hypofrontality hypothesis. Con Cog 12(3), pp 231-256.

 

Eagleman, David (2011) Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain. New York:Pantheon Books.

 

Edelman G., and Tononi, G. (2000) A Universe of Cosciousness.

New York: Basic Books.

 

Edelman, Gerald (2003) Naturalizing Consciousness: A theoretical

framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100(9), pp 5520-5524.

 

Feinberg, Todd E. (2012) Neuroontology, neurobilogical naturalism, and

consciousness: A challenge to scientific reduction and a solution.

Phys Life Rev (in press)

 

Ganzzaniga, Michael S. (2008) Human--The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique. New York: HarperCollins.

 

Greenfield, Suzan A., and Collins, Toby F.T. (2005) A neuroscientific approach to consciousness. IN: Laureys (ed) Progress in Brain Research Vol 150, pp 11-23. Elsevier

 

Gruberger, Michal, et al. (2011) Towards a neuroscience of mind-wandering. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 5(56), pp 1-11.

 

Hanna, Robert (2011) What is self? Ann. N.Y Acad. Sci Vol 1234, pp 121-123.

 

Hohwy, Jakob (2009) The neural correlates of consciousness: New

experimental approaches needed? Cons Cog. 18(2), pp 428-438.

 

Hutt, Axel, (2009) Sleep and anesthesia. Front. Neurosci. 3(3), pp 408-409.

 

Jennings, Richard (1998) A philosophical consideration of awareness. Applied Animal Behaviour Science57(3, 4), pp 201-211.

 

John, E.R. (2001) A Field Theory of Consciousness. Con Cog 10(2), pp 184-213.

 

Kelz, Max B. et al. (2008) An essential role for orexins in emergence from general anesthesia. Proc. Acad. Natl. Sci. USA 105(4), pp 1309-1314.

 

Kinsbourne, Marcel (2006) From Unilateral Neglect to the Brain Basis of

Consciousness. Cortex 42(6), pp 869-874.

 

Koch, Christof (2004) The Quest for Consciousness--A Neurobiological

approach. Englewood: Roberts & Company Publishers.

 

Koch, Christof (2009) The Neurobiology of Consciousness. IN: Gazzaniga

(ed.) The Cognitive Neurosciences 4th Ed. , pp 1137-1149. MIT

Press.

 

Knight, Justin B., et al. (2010) Neural correlates of attentional and mnemonic processing in event-based prospective memory. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 4(5), pp 1-10.

 

Kouider, Sid (2009) Neurobiological Theories of Consciousness. pp 87-100; IN: Banks (ed.) Encyclopedia of Consciousness Vol 2. Boston: Academic Press.

 

Lamme, Victor A.F. (2006) Towards a true neural stance on consciousness.

Trends Cog. Sci. 10(11), pp 494-501.

 

Laureys, S., Perrin, F., and Bredart, S. (2007) Self-consciousness in non-communicative patients. Con Cog 16(3), pp 722-742.

 

LeDoux, Joseph (2002) Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are. New York: Penguin Books.

 

Maruyama, M., and Larkum, M.E. (2009) Enhanced dendritic activity in awake rats. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(48), pp 20482-20486.

 

Morin, Alain (2006) Levels of consciousness and self-awareness: A

comparison and integration of various neurocognitive views. Cons

Cog 15(2), pp 358-371.

 

Noe, Alva (2009) Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.

 

Prichep, John E.R. (2005) The anesthetic cascade: A theory of how anesthesia suppresses consciousness. Anesthesiology vol 102, pp 447-441.

 

Ramachandran, V.S. (2004) A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

 

Ramachandran, V.S. (2011) The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscienist's Quest for What Makes Us Human. New York: W.W. Norton and CompanyLtd.

 

Rosenthal, D.M. (2009) Concepts and Definitions of Consciousness. IN:

Banks (ed.) Encyclopedia of Consciousness, vol 1, pp 157-169.

Boston: Academic Press.

 

Sanberg, Kristian, at el. (2011) Measuring consciousness: Task accuracy and awareness as sigmoid functions of stimulus duration. Cons Cog 20(4), pp 1659-1675.

 

Schiff, Nicholas D. (2010) Recovery of consciousness after brain injury: a mesocircuit hypothesis. Trend Neurosci 33(1), pp 1-9.

 

Searle, John R. (1998) How to study consciousness scientifically.

Brain Res Rev 26(2-3), pp 379-387.

 

Seth, Anil K., et al. (2006) Theories and measures of

consciousness: An extended framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA

103(28), pp 10799-10804.

 

Seth, Anil K., et al. (2008) Measuring consciousness: relating

behavioural and neurophysiological approaches. Trend Cogn Sci

12(8), pp 314-321.

 

Schier, Elizabeth (2009) Identifying phenomenal consciousness. Cons

Cog 18(1), pp 216-222.

 

Song, Xiaolan, and Tang, Xiaowei (2008) An extended theory of global workspace of consciousness. Prog Nat Sci vol 18, pp 789-793.

 

Tononi, G., and Edelman, G. (1998) Consciousness and Complexity.

Science 282(5395). pp 1846-1851.

 

Tononi, G., and Koch, C. (2008) The Neural Correlates of Consciousness:

An update. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., vol 1124, pp 239-261.

 

Tye, Michael (2009) Consciousness Revisited: Materialism without Phenomenal Concepts. IN: Putnam and Block (eds) Representation and Mind (book series) Cambridge: MIT Press.

 

Zahavi, D. (2009) Phenomenology of Consciousness. IN: Banks (ed.)

Encyclopedia of Consciousness, vol 2, pp 175-186. Boston:

Academic Press.

 

Zeman, Adam (2005) What in the world is consciousness? IN: Laureys (ed) Progress in Brain Research Vol 150, pp 1-10. Elsevier.

 

Zopf, Regine, et al. Perfusion imaging of the right perisylvian neural network in acute spatial neglect. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 3(15), pp 1-8.

Thanks for citing all these sources and would love to read them and have a better hold on the recent developments on Consciousness studies and yes this will take time and also a whole specific thread for that and I have studied the basics of Molecular Neurobiology from Cell and Molecular Biology, E.M.F De Robertis jr and E.D.P De Robertis and if we go to the technical arguments that itself takes a whole another thread. However what Bernard D'Espagnat is arguing is that even neurons fall under empirical reality because even they are made of same objects like particles, quarks etc and the quantum rules apply to them and there by even neurons and in fact this whole empirical reality or the phenomenal world cannot be said to self-existent independent of the human mind.

That video does not count even as half-evidence. Scientific realism continues to work. Your "anthropism" plays no special role in nature as science has shown during its entire history: Physics showed that Earth is not the center of Universe, chemistry showed that the living and the non-living are made of the same atoms; biology showed that we are an evolving specie as any other...

 

That doesn't change the fact that there are scientists with in the scientific community who disagree with you as I have shown in this very thread.

His main statement is quoted at the very start: "observations are not things". Apart from being a trivial statement, "things" is a not a scientific term and discussion about such vacuous terms is useless. Contrary to what you believe "quantum fields" is not a precise term. They cannot be rigorously defined even in the free case.

That's what the main tenet of the paper was that science doesn't know what the world is made up of and it should be emphasized that when you quote from the CERN scientists website that its true only from their own perspective and not that its the final word.

You are now dismissing Einstein because I gave a full an extensive quotations where he clearly disagrees with you. You did not dismiss him when you gave a partial quote and pretended that he was supporting your point.

All along I am questioning the assumptions of science and its foundations and therefore your assumption that I see scientists as gods is not true and don't need their quotes to justify my beliefs because I am not making a God of the gaps argument here, I am making an argument which fills a gap in our knowledge and showing that even science can learn from religion and on that particular quote Einstein is indeed supporting my views as you yourself have quoted here.

 

The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist,

This is turning out to be true because science and religion are indeed converging at a common point and there is no conflict between science and religion.

I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with all the other things Einstein said and I definitely don't agree with Einstein's views which is in bold and that's one of the reasons why there is still no common consensus as yet emerged from scientific community from the time of Einstein up to now on the interpretation of the results on Bell Experiments which has important consequences for a Theory of Everything. Its because scientists have ignored a God hypothesis which explains the origin of the cosmos.

The truth of the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution was this.

"Gods are real.

And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of

existence, all aspects of human life."

-James Hillman

In any case, the important point is that recent research supports his point of view about reality and quantum theory. Bohr was wrong, as Weinberg said to you.

As far as I know Weinberg said "neither Bohr nor Einstein knew what the real problem was". That's what he said.

The goal of religion was never that. But let us concede you, for a moment, that this is its goal. The conclusion here is that religion is a poor method to develop that goal because everything said by religion about nature is either not provable (which means it is useless) or has been proven to be plain wrong.

 

During last 1000 years you cannot find a single basic fact about nature that had been predicted/derived/provided by religion. Not a single gadget/device/material/plane/car/treatment... works thanks to knowledge provided by religion. Those are the facts and they are persistent.

The wisdom hidden in the wisdom traditions were showed in this very thread and they didn't made up these ideas on their own, they got that wisdom and knowledge because the methodology of religion works.

I didn't say they are diverging. I said they are on different paths. To conclude whether they CONVERGE ultimately, is subject to the definitions of the Noumena & the Nature of Reality existing independent of the human mind, [which I will not be discussing in any detail here] and subject to the Methodology used to attain the Goals set, which I would like to discuss.

They are based on a different methodology and also on a different epistemology but the goals are the same i.e. to understand the way the nature works.

Define Truth from the Religious point of view.

[if you would like to know the Definition of Truth from the point of view of Science, I could oblige.]

Even Religion is after questions like what is the world made of? Do we have free will? Where do we come from? and therefore ultimately both Religion and Science is after the pursuit of understanding the way the nature works and build testable models of it.

By your stipulation, the Goals of the Religious Traditions are;

 

• Pursuit of Truth
• To become the masters of nature rather than its mere slaves subject to its forces
• To understand the way the cosmos works

But then, that leads eventually to the questions;

 

How do the Religious Traditions hope to attain these Goals? OR in other words,

 

Show; How the Religious Traditions are Efficient to attain these Goals?

They have non-positivistic methods which help them to gain practical useful knowledge just like we have got modern technology by applying the scientific empirical method which is solely based on basic observation.

Please give the List of Religious traditions that can help us attain those goals; separately for each category as follows,

• To attain Truth [After defining it]
• To attain mastery over nature
• To attain the understanding of the working of the cosmos

And show that they can take us to the stipulated goals.

Sure.

1. Valentinian Tradition of the Gnostic Christians.

2. Smartha Tradition of the Vedic Aryans.

3. Jewish Mysticism, Kabbalah

4. Tibetan Buddhism

5. Neoplatonism

6. Proto Indo-Iranian Religions

7. Proto Indo-European Religions

I'd bet that practically all the people in church, the last time I was there, would have had little or no understanding of "the higher teachings of St. Paul and Christianity"

I'm amused as hell to see that they face eternal damnation.

 

They didn't read the right books. God sends them to hell

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing."

(Gospel of Philip)

One doesn't get to enter the Kingdom of God by just reading a different book or by just knowing the higher teachings of St. Paul and Christianity.

"Unlike most religious movements, the Valentinian eschatological myth does not present events that are postponed until the afterlife or the end of the world. They believed that those who had gnosis experienced the restoration to Fullness (pleroma) here and now through visionary experiences and ritual. The orthodox teacher Irenaeus reports with some bewilderment that Valentinians claimed that they were "in the heights beyond every power" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:13:6) and that they were "neither in heaven nor on earth but have passed within the Fullness and have already embraced their angel" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:15:2). They described the experience of gnosis itself in terms of the eschatological myth."

One enters the Kingdom of God by being practical not by having book knowledge or by just keep believing in something.

"Two wrongs doesn't make a right."

Tell God.

"We are spirits controlled by God"

- Elaine Pagels.

Everything will return to fullness, the body of Christ and its inevitable.

"You guys do need a reality check, group thinking is dangerous and it only leads to delusion."

OK, and the next question is "how do you have religion without group thinking?

"On the other hand, we see how here and there a reaction took place against the sacramental rites. A pure piety, rising above mere sacramentalism, breathes in the words of the Gnostics preserved in Excerpta ex Theodoto, 78, 2:

They don't preach the gospels and try to proselytise people and they don't come and knock your doors, if its anything you have to go in search of wisdom and knock their doors because they have nothing to lose.

BTW, am I right in thinking that next weeks topic for discussion will be "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin- with particular focus on the correct Latin/ Greek/ Hebrew translations and transliterations of the word 'pin'?"

"The scriptures are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:2:1).

- A Valentinian.

The above link starts with (emphasis in the original)

 

 

 

I already wrote 94 posts ago:

 

 

 

What is the point on repeating what has been said to you before?

 

 

 

Both statements are untrue as shown in repeated occasions in this thread. You have not even provided a single pseudo-evidence.

Perhaps you didn't watched the David Mermin's video, there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity, the classical notion of scientific realism is dead and the apparent anthropism is quite evident.

 

The author says that observations are not things. "Things" is not a scientific term, but a rather vacuous term. I am not going to debate about such terms because is a waste of time.

 

Precisely, one of the characteristics of scientific method is the precise definition of terms used in the language before debating about them.

If you had read the article fully, he uses precise scientific terms like quantum objects, quantum fields etc. Who sees things only what they want to see? Shying away from the truth doesn't win your position.

The complete quotation is:

 

 

Einstein also defends science:

 

 

 

He gives a definition of religion that contradicts yours:

 

 

 

Explains how religion would not interfere science:

 

 

 

Emphasize how scientific results are independent of religion:

 

 

 

And gives remarks about religious zealots very similar to those remarks I have given:

 

 

A lot of things have changed since Einstein died, no one knows what he was going to say now that the experiments of Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger have gone against his beliefs and the context of his quotations is no longer the same as was then.

“Quantum theory is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. Quantum theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.”

- Albert Einstein

Which was corrected by Stephen Hawking as, "God not only plays dice, but he throws them where we cannot see"

And recently Elitzur said, "Aharonov's view is somewhat Talmudic: everything you're going to do is already known to God, but you still have the choice."

That does not answer the question, please go back to your #7, and see this:In the Greek translation Colossians 2:9 reads as this - hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos,. Then go back to my #23 on page two, and check the question one more time. Also, your using my text to construct your answer has caused a seeming syntactic error, of sorts. I believe you have not read properly, or simply didn't pay attention; for whatever reason. What you have said, again is totally incorrect. I do not understand how you can sit there and be so dogmatic about it. Go out there and count the number of translations into English of the NT, and come back and tell how many times that very noun, as well as the verb form which is its root connexion, is transliterated.

What makes you think that I have not looked out those translations, you are being unnecessarily rude with me.

The original Barnes quote was taken from here - http://bible.cc/colossians/2-9.htm

So I am well aware that the term pleroma is not transliterated but instead "all the fullness" is used instead of it.

You simply will not find it, immortal, and there is a very sound and valid, as well as methodologically correct, reason for that. The fact of the matter is that what I have presented herein is the truth of the matter.

No, the fact of the matter is that the orthodox Church has simply suppressed the clear meaning of the pleroma and even you are arguing blindly without noticing its historical and theological context.

I am waiting for you to proper answer that question !

The term should be understood in a historical and a theological context.

“The term pleroma, we may presume, was common to St. Paul and the Colossian heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it conveyed the same idea, the totality of the divine powers or attributes or agencies or manifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They maintained that a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in our Lord: the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has its abode in Him.”

- Lightfoot, J.B., The Epistles of St. Paul, Colossians and Philemon, 1904, (Macmillan co., New York, NY) pg 265.

J.B. Lightfoot has an excellent commentary on The Epistles of St. Paul, Colossians and Philemon. All your queries will be answered by this chapter named -

On the meaning of Pleroma

That chapter sums it all and dissolves all our confusions. Thanks so much to J.B. Lightfoot for his excellent commentary. He talks both about the Pleroo (verb) and also the Pleroma (noun) and also the Valentinian view of the term Pleroma.

And now, the answer to that first question is ... ? I am still waiting.

Sure, I will address that.

@LimbicLoser said, "One does not (and I guarantee you that such will not be found in scholarly handling of the texts, and translations) mix transliteration forms in with the translated text (of the target language) unless it is a proper noun, or its original meaning (referent) is in some material degree of question and uncertainty. The only instance of any exception to that rule-of-thumb that I am aware of, is when an original language word is held in transliterated form within an otherwise translated textual portion, so as to hold the translation aside for the moment. This tooling is aimed at getting the contextually more accurate translation in the target language, and to avoid misguided, misunderstood, and otherwise simply incorrect traditionally proposed translations, leaking in while translating. It is usually used in papers arguing for a more correct translation. We do have a pressing need to be as correct, and accurate as we can, on as practical a range of points as possible, when doing this kind of work."

I have read books which are translated from the native language to a target language and in majority of the situations to avoid the change in context or the meaning of the word as understood in the native language the transliterated term is kept as it is without introducing a new term from the target language which fails to convey the same meaning which was conveyed by the original term in the native language.

For example:

Collosians 2:9 In Christ all the pleroma ¹ of Deity lives in bodily form.

[1] Pleroma refers to totality of Divine powers.

This is a better translation than using the term "fullness". That's what I think.

There are multiple sources that disagree with your assertion. One of them defines Pleroma as a region of the Abyss, home to demons.

Do you know who Abraxas is? He is the Holy Father of the Gnostics, its the place where all the pairs of opposites reconcile into one unity. Thanks for adding an another source which validates my position.

Add the fact that you're basing this assertion on your own interpretation

This is not my interpretation, this is the interpretation of the Gnostic Christians, a legitimate Christian sect.

and the fact that you're using a Greek word to add vagueness to the meaning and you've got a pointless mix of languages that's worthless as a definitive subject.

The Greek word "Pleroma" is a well defined term and it represents the 'Mystical Body of Christ', there is no ambiguity in it, there is no need to act like kids.

Mystical Body of Christ.

• In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Eph. 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as "Christ" (1 Cor. 12:12).

• This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; "We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17).

G. H. JOYCE

This whole thread is worthless, imo,

Its worthless to those who want be in ignorance and in delusion but its worth it for those who want to learn the higher teachings of St. Paul and Christianity and there by achieve eternal life.

since the first claim you make is that preserving this vague and arguable point will make your religion live forever. Deception can't be fed ad infinitum. I think eventually enough people will see through it.

Valentinus, the Father of the Valentinian tradition is known as the Gnostic for all seasons and therefore whether its spring, summer or the winter Christianity will live forever. Restoration to fullness is inevitable .

Quite well said, Phi for All, the claim and presentation of OP is worse off than mere ignorance; although I would not tend to go so far as to say the 'whole thread' is useless. There is some information herein from which learning can be obtained. Even taking the view that learning just what type of error and misguiding there is out there, and how to avoid and counter it, would be something making the thread worth the while for those still learning.

Two wrongs doesn't make a right. You guys do need a reality check, group thinking is dangerous and it only leads to delusion.

I have been in this field for at least 13 years, and though I am no longer active in the study, I do keep up with it all. It is not the first time to have to work towards protecting the public from the fanatical-like positions which come flooding in, from time to time. I agree that most will by now have understood the error upon error which is rampant in the presentation immortal is giving. It can be argued (at least) that people have the right to be wrong, but it cannot be accepted at all, that people have the right to wrong! The OPP is doing just that, and what is being wronged in the locked-in-time intention of the author of that letter, within the contextual setting therein, which setting was written so as to have the understanding of the direct and immediate audience of that letter. Also, better knowledge, understanding, and methodology of linguistic concerns is being wronged. I will not let that go unattended to.

Oh yes, my main concern of starting two threads in this religious forum is the amount of misrepresentation of pagan ideas and beliefs that has manifested all over the internet, people should know what the truth is, they should be made aware of the philosophical and the intellectual beliefs of pagan religions and how much their beliefs are relevant to this 21st century world and how powerful their ideas and knowledge were. Even I will not let that go unattended.

Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture Cambridge University Press 2012

Academics tend to look on "esoteric," "occult," or "magical" beliefs with contempt, but are usually ignorant about the religious and philosophical traditions to which these terms refer, or their relevance to intellectual history. Wouter J. Hanegraaff tells the neglected story of how intellectuals since the Renaissance have tried to come to terms with a cluster of "pagan" ideas from late antiquity that challenged the foundations of biblical religion and Greek rationality. Expelled from the academy on the basis of Protestant and Enlightenment polemics, these traditions have come to be perceived as the Other by which academics define their identity to the present day. Hanegraaff grounds his discussion in a meticulous study of primary and secondary sources, taking the reader on an exciting intellectual voyage from the fifteenth century to the present day, and asking what implications the forgotten history of exclusion has for established textbook narratives of religion, philosophy, and science.

 

- Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected knowledge in Western Culture, 2012

Wouter J. Hanegraff

Its very evident as to how ignorant some of the members here are about pagan ideas and how less it is being discussed in this forum but the time has come to take the highly philosophical and intellectual ideas coming from pagan roots highly seriously. Just because it doesn't suit their values and their culture a whole set of ancient wisdom is seen with contempt eyes and that attitude has to change, its not ancients who spoke nonsense, its your understanding of them that is nonsense. Most people don't know that Esotericism has testable consequences.

Now I know you do have a language problem, immortal. What you are doing (as more than simply what you are verbatim saying in written form here on this thread) is hard to describe in any other way than simply blatant intellectual dishonesty. What that refers to, is the matter of ignoring sound knowledge and facts while cherry picking, and twisting, and spinning things, after they have been removed from context. It is a good example of the immaturity of the less capable, those without the connectivity build which allows progress in learning, and/or those who have nothing better to do in life that run on rampant imaginary scenarios.

I like to speak in very simple words, for me the term "Pleroma" is not a verb, adverb or an adjective, for me its a noun, it represents something, it represents the Mystical Body of Christ. The same is with the Mind, the capitalization is necessary to avoid the common misunderstanding of associating the mind with the brain. Mind and brain are two different things.

You still did not answer the question I had asked you earlier about whether you understood the error in what you had written. You are still doing the same kind of thing over and over again. This is sad. It is the down side of the world wide web--most discussion boards get all kinds of folks. No. What you have said is completely rubbish, and your efforts in presenting what in your eyes can somehow be seen as evidence to support what you have erroneously posited, is very faulty. Wording things incorrectly and misleadingly, so as to pose them as representing what you have written, is something that I will not idly sit by and let go unopposed. You are not being intellectually honest about this. Answer the question I had asked earlier on, then, see below.

 

The silly Wiki page you keep using, and which is nothing to even support the 'way-off-the-wall-out-of-the-blue' interpretation which some had held way before even the internet had been dreamed of, says the following verbatim:

 

Pleroma (Greek πλήρωμα) generally refers to the totality of divine powers. The word means fullness from πληρόω ("I fill") comparable to πλήρης which means "full"

 

If you think conscientiously and introspectively about it--and I do wish you would demonstrate that you are doing more of that, darn it--you will note that this is exactly what I had said in my previous post. The word MEANS fullness! Could you not mentally grasp that in my post? Here is an example of sloppiness seen in your nonsensical position. You have demonstrated the inability to comprehend the difference between the verb phrases 'refer to' and 'mean. Can you not see that? If not, then I very strongly suggest you simply stop talking about something which you cannot understand the language well enough to be in a position to say anything at all about it.

All I am saying is that the Greek word gives some amazing insights into that passage of Collosians 2:9 if one uses the word 'pleroma' instead of fullness. The English word 'fullness' doesn't allow an allegorical interpretation of that passage. This is all what I am saying, hardly a few people would realize the depth of knowledge that can be obtained from that single verse if one uses the word "fullness" instead of "pleroma"

I see error in the lists which you got from ... guess where?! Early Paul was hardly esoteric at all. Additionally, the earliest writings of the authentic documents attributable to Paul, is the first Thessalonian letter. The other information is besides the point, and not worth thinking about (in that it has been demonstrated already to be false assertion on the part of those who had originated those lines of thinking).

Gnosticism is an open question and one is free to interpret the Pauline Epistles in the Gnostic sense and the work of Elaine Pagels put sufficient light on them. Don't be dogmatic and assert that my line of thinking is wrong or incorrect. Do know that your view may be wrong.

So here, you have a few outstanding things to do: You have an outstanding request to answer what I had asked you before. You have to work on grasping the understanding of the accurate and more correct terminology of the language you are using (English) [or any other language, for that matter]. It is demanded that you understand the difference between the collective application of the word 'religion,' and the specific identifying application of it. You need to inform yourself of the more accurate, and proper standard for the origin of the capitalization of the word 'god,' and then you have a need to stick by that. You to pay attention more closely so as to be able to understand, for example, the difference in meaning between the verbs 'refer' and 'mean.' It would only do you good to pay attention, as well, to the difference between the words 'definition' and 'meaning,' and 'sense.'

 

I am waiting for you to prove your honesty here. So far you have not. Get back with me on those questions, and show me that you have learned what is correct.

From now on I will prefix the word religion with Esoteric and will put all the religions into one category called the Esoteric Religions. This will avoid the confusion of using the term religion in a capitalization sense, the Esoteric religions was what ought to be called as serious religion but since orthodox religions have corrupted that term in modern days, I will use the term Esoteric Religions for separating them from orthodox religions and that will help people to see my arguments in a clear light and also from where I am coming from.

I have brought this to your attention again, immortal, because you did not answer it. Please see my post above for the link to your original sentence. It will be of the utmost importance to touch on every detail from the bottom up, correcting the error as we go, in order to help you see this more clearly. At the moment I credit you with the cognitive agility and plasticity, the reasonableness and fairness in your concern, and the character of your being well-balanced. I await the answer to that question, but wish to go on into some detail here which should help out too. I will deal in facts, and work with facts; being sure to give the proper weights of likelihoods and possibilities of any various points which are not as securely supported as one would like. I will respond to your comments above (your#24) later--though a good bit later, probably, once I have cleared out the error which had come first.

 

Words have meaning automatically and simultaneously. Definition and referent is never created for zero, for a word which has been sitting around from some time without meaning, definition, or referent, within a living language. Spoken sounds can become words, but as soon as they have, they have the meanings, definitions, and referents; etc. This is basically how language got started, and is evidenced in the early script forms--Chinese is a good one to study for that, and the character for 'fish' is a nice and easy one, as is that for 'field,' as well. In English, like most all languages, there are various parts of speech, nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. Cutting the chase a bit, we can take the English verb 'fill.' Taking that all will know the literal and figurative imports, I will present the forms--since that has been one error which is basic. (see immortal's #20, pg 1)

 

The verb 'fill,' in the infinitive form, will be just as it is written. It has a meaning (definition and referent act) which is determined by contextual setting and habitual usage (which are sometimes exactly the same things). When the form changes to 'filled,' to demonstrate a past event, the meaning of the verb does not change. When the past participle 'filled' is used as a quasi-adjective, the meaning does not change. Whether we have 'filling, filled, or having been filled,' the meaning does not change. We can then take the related adjective 'full.' When the cup has been filled, the cup is full. What the cup is full of will depend on additional information in the contextual setting of that sentence. When a person has been filled, they will be full. Again, that which is filling them will be determined by the contextual setting, and habitual usage, as mentioned above.

 

One can take other form changes, and see the same thing. Take the Russian demonstrative (and I will simply transliterate to save my time) 'etot' which is assigned the English word 'this.' (That means that the Russian 'etot' is translated 'this' in English.) This form is the nominative, but the dative is 'etogo,' the instrumental 'eteem,' and the prepositional, 'etom' (with an 'ob' before it). All these different forms, and the meaning of the word, the definition, does not change at all. (The above is the masculine attribution, the feminine is 'eta,' and the neutral is 'eto.' ) In English 'this' is always 'this.'

 

In the Koine Greek, there was a certain verb. that verb is (and I will transliterate to save time) 'plerow' (using the 'w' to simulate the Greek omega). The basic meaning is to 'fill,' like our English above. It has a number of forms which English will of course ignore in character terms, but will acknowledge in syntax when translating into good English. There is the adjective function, and there is the noun which comes from it--as fullness is quasi-noun built from the pure adjective 'full.' In all cases, the word must be translated using a proper methodology, and practice. One word assignment (explained earlier on) is the most proper and proved correct translating rule of thumb.

 

The Hebrew word which the Greek LXX most persistently assigned a form of the verb 'pelow' to, and the quasi-noun 'pleroma' to, was a from of 'male.' We can check out the full range of usage, and we can see that the English assignment to the Hebrew word equals that given to the Greek word. The contextually determined definition and meaning of the LXX usage matched the Masoretic text on all counts, and the English translation fits within a very high range of equally assigned terms. (Sometimes it depends on the what is being placed, poured, inserted, injected, etc. to fill, or make something full, and the difference in a verb that points to time limitations has having become full [a deadline met, a particular alloted time zone finished, etc.].)

 

At Gen 6:11, a form of 'plerow' is used which the NRSV (with Apo.) assignes 'filled with.' The 'what' of that which is doing the filling, is violence. The receiver, or receptacle, or that which holds that which fills it, is the earth.

 

At Exodus 16:12, a form of the same is used in an almost noun like fashion. The American Standard (AS) renders that with 'be filled.' The 'what' is bread, the receiver is the people of Israel.

 

At 2 Chron 5:13, 14, a form of the same is used twice. The New World Translation (NWT) assigns both instances 'filled.' The 'what' is the cloud of YHWH, the receiver is the temple.

 

At Mk 2:21 the same form (pleroma) that had become the focus of the OP, is found. The 'what' is strength of a shrinking piece of cloth pulling at old cloth. The receiver is that new piece of cloth. (the strength in it fills up, so to speak... this is a bit of a Hebrewism)

 

At Mt 13:48, a form of the verb (which is the root, by the way) 'plerow' is found. The Diaglott translates that with 'is filled.' The 'what' is fish, and the receiver a fishing drag net.

 

At John 7:8, a form of the same verb is used in a kind of unfulfilled present perfect tense. The New American Standard (NAS) gives it as, 'has not yet fully come.' The 'what' is time passage, and the receiver is a decided period (length).

 

While this could go on and on--going back to the Masoretic text as well--what I have presented will suffice. In all cases, the verb 'plerow,' has the same meaning base, namely, to fill; and only the grammatical differences in translation occur to fit the rules of the language. Likewise, the noun form 'pleroma' always has the meaning 'fullness.' And thus, for example, at Romans 11:25, the full number of gentiles who are destined (as Pauline theology has it) to be taken into the church, is what is being talked about. Speaking of Barnes' Notes, a very bad source for interpretation, he footnotes that the number of gentiles is being talked about. When he writes that the meaning is unknown to him, he is talking about the details (as seen in what he further writes) of just when and how that will be. He is not talking about the meaning of the Greek word, for he gives that right there, as 'fulness. (p 635)

 

There is no mistake at all. The Greek verb 'plerow' has the meaning fill. The Greek word 'pleroma' means fullness; that is, the state or condition of having been filled with something. What that something is, is always to be determined by the contextual setting in which it comes. In proper translating, no one will ever transliterate that word. The person, or party, who does, is doing so out of false pretense, if not pure intellectual dishonesty. It is therefore most important to pay attention to that, and not copy such gross misgiving. (Additionally, that information you had provided from the other forum, immortal, is misleading on a number of points. John 1:16 (pleromatos) is talking about 'undeserved kindness and truth,' having been given from the abundance of all that fill "the word" (or, as is being pointed to by such wording, the Jesus of that document.) It's the same meaning, or course, 'pleroma' always means, and only means, 'fullness.' Like I have clearly demonstrated, the 'what' is to be determined from context. You have been mislead by some, and I hope you can see this more clearly... though it may take some thinking over a bit. The Greek word 'pleroma' carries no other meaning at all, other than the English word 'fullness,' and that is talking about the degree, amount, or quantity of whatever it is that is filling something. It is not saying anything else. What that is, will be given in the contextual setting, and it's not always the same thing.

Oh my gosh, there is no need for all this linguistic mumbo-jumbo, the term "Pleroma" is a well defined term and it means only one thing "the totality of divine powers(Aeons)" which forms the body of Christ. This is as simple a fact as a straight line is the shortest distance between any two points. When Euler was asked to prove his axioms he said the words which I have used in my axioms are everyday words, they are basic intuitive facts that anyone with a rational mind should understand.

Pleroma

"Pleroma (Greek πλήρωμα) generally refers to the totality of divine powers. The word means fullness from πληρόω ("I fill") comparable to πλήρης which means "full",^[1] and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and by St. Paul the Apostle in Colossians Colossians 2:9 KJV ^[2] (the word is used 17 times in the NT)."

Religious traditions have insights which linguistic scholars don't have and the methodology to study the scriptures should be in the context of the way the religious tradition interprets the text and one should understand the text in its own milieu. Take this very example as to how the Valentinian tradition interprets the same Pauline epistles and bring forth so much knowledge, insights and wisdom from the same very text where as modern scholars just sweep through the very text with out finding any kind of soul in them. What you are doing is trying to destroy the very soul of the text.

The Gnostic Paul

"The Gnostic Paul is a book by Elaine Pagels, a scholar of gnosticism and professor of religion at Princeton University. In the work, Pagels considers each of the non-pastoral Pauline Epistles, and questions about their authorship. The core of the book examines how the Pauline epistles were read by 2nd century Valentinian gnostics and demonstrates that Paul could be considered a proto-gnostic as well as a proto-Catholic.

Her treatment involves reading the Pauline corpus as being dual layered between a Pneumatic, esoteric Christianity and a Psychic, exoteric Christianity."

Look at the insights, knowledge and wisdom presented in the left hand side which is the Valentinian interpretation of the same Pauline epistles. I would advice just leave the scriptures to religious or traditional scholars who know how to interpret the scriptures because your methodology of understanding the scriptures truly sucks.

"Hence passages which, when once fathomed, reveal a depth of knowledge & delicacy of subtle thought almost miraculous in its wealth & quality, strike the casual reader today as a mass of childish, obscure & ignorant fancies characteristic of an unformed and immature thinking. Rubbish & babblings of humanity’s nonage an eminent Western scholar has termed them not knowing that it was not the text but his understanding of it that was rubbish & the babblings of ignorance."

- Aurobindo

Its just sheer double standards, just not able to swallow the fact that ancient goat herders were far more intelligent than a 21st century modern Phd holder.

Several of us already said you in this discussion forum that Penrose and D'Espagnat are incorrect. We already gave you literature showing why they are incorrect. Your above reaction as if you had read this criticism of their work by the first time is very funny.

 

I know what you are going to ignore this advice once again but I am rather persistent: No matter how many times you insult others calling them "deluded," "biased scientists", intellectual dishonests or "stubborn", the scientific facts will not change; religion will continue being useless for a fundamental understanding of reality.

This is what they call the biggest scandal of Quantum Mechanics.

THE REAL SCANDAL OF QUANTUM MECHANICS Am. J. Phys. in press 2009

Physicists still holding onto classical notions of realism even though all evidence are against scientific realism.

Concept The mental Universe - Nature

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.

<link removed by moderator>

All they needed was a theory of mind and they have it now. All evidence is pointing to a theistic view of our existence where the mind is a product of a divine God and a God hypothesis is a reasonable hypothesis explaining the origin of our cosmos and all these are compelling enough to investigate the pleroma of God.

Science can learn from Religion and Religion can learn from Science.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

- Albert Einstein

"The church is the body of Christ "

I'm not swallowing that.

http://en.wikipedia....cramental_bread

In higher forms of teachings the church is the mystical body of Christ.

Body of Christ

Mystical Body of Christ

• In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Eph. 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as "Christ" (1 Cor. 12:12).

• This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; "We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17).

G. H. JOYCE

 

"The term Pleroma represents the totality of God's powers which we call the Aeons. Its very clear and precise. That's how the term should be understood."

So, based on the experimental evidence, it is equivalent to this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

 

It would have been much easier if someone had said that in the first place.

I don't think one can quantify the pleroma of God.