immortal

Then why are you pushing a supernatural agenda?

 

Scripture? Really? you are going to go there? name anything about scripture that has reveled something we couldn't have already known, scripture is horse feathers with a side of chicken lips...

 

So now an appeal to authority? So because these people weren't, according to you at least, satisfied with the evidence we have god must be in those gaps in our knowledge?

 

Tres juicy said,

 

Why not? This seems like your opinion rather than an objective argument

 

Moontanman said,

Horse feathers, there is no reason, no evidence that god is necessarily at all, none except your need to believe....

 

 

Really? There is no reason? If we have to simulate or model this universe then its inevitable that we have to model consciousness, If we have to model consciousness we need non-computable physics because consciousness is non-computable. Science will never be able to find that non-computable physics without bringing God into the picture because I think God holds the key to non-computable physics and therefore our hope of a single fundamental model might never be realized. So what's wrong if I go and explore a new world looking for non-computable physics. There is certainly a need for that, I see it and I think that it might come from God and this is the reason why I want to dedicate my life and explore new worlds and I want to speculate on them. I definitely doesn't want to fall to pseudoscience neither I want to promote or push any false belief systems here. I hope I have answered your questions.

 

I have to quote Roger Penrose on this. Roger Penrose on Non-Computability.

 

There's a connection between this area of physics and consciousness, in my opinion, but it's a bit roundabout; the arguments are negative. I argue that we shall need to find some noncomputational physical process if we're ever to explain the effects of consciousness. But I don't see it in any existing theory. It seems to me that the only place where noncomputability can possibly enter is in what is called "quantum measurement." But we need a new theory of quantum measurement. It must be a noncomputable new theory. There is scope for this, if the new theory involves changes in the very structure of quantum theory, of the kind that could arise when it's appropriately united with general relativity. But this is something for the distant future.

 

The way you treat this nowadays, in standard quantum theory, is to introduce randomness. Since randomness comes in, quantum theory is called a probabilistic theory. But randomness only comes in when you go from the quantum to the classical level. If you stay down at the quantum level, there's no randomness. It's only when you magnify something up, and you do what people call "make a measurement." This consists of taking a small-scale quantum effect and magnifying it out to a level where you can see it. It's only in that process of magnification that probabilities come in. What I'm claiming is that whatever it is that's really happening in that process of magnification is different from our present understanding of physics, and it is not just random. It is noncomputational; it's something essentially different.

 

This idea grew from the time when I was a graduate student, and I felt that there must be something noncomputational going on in our thought processes. I've always had a scientific attitude, so I believed that you have to understand our thinking processes in terms of science in some way. It doesn't have to be a science that we understand now. There doesn't seem to be any place for conscious phenomena in the science that we understand today. On the other hand, people nowadays often seem to believe that if you can't put something on a computer, it's not science.

 

I suppose this is because so much of science is done that way these days; you simulate physical activity computationally. People don't realize that something can be noncomputational and yet perfectly scientific, perfectly mathematically describable. The fact that I'm coming into all this from a mathematical background makes it easier for me to appreciate that there are things that aren't computational but are perfectly good mathematics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are intellectually honest theists, many of them.

 

There are also intellectually honest atheists. But as you have so clearly demonstrated, not all atheists are intellectually honest.

 

 

Excuse me!!! I very much agree with you and INow that the only way to progress humanity is to have real quality meme pool in our brains and to achieve that it is very much important to have that scientific attitude and it should be exercized often so that we won't fall into pseudoscience and start dedicating our lives and start believing in anything we want. The scientific community has a huge responsibility on its shoulders to suppress pseudoscience, fraudulents and make sure that only testified real data is passed on and if its real, the meme will be automatically passed on we don't have to make it look real, it will survive on its own.

 

I started this thread to disprove the existence of God with the same scientific rigour and attitude as we apply for other arguments and Moontanman requested for theistic models and I gave one but because of how those models work such a model can be scientifically or universally testified only when a theist brings such phenomena to the scientific method of enquiry and I have requested a few days to demonstrate such a phenomena and I very well know it is on my head to show that such an idea is real. I also explained why such a phenomena is so rare and why it is difficult to gain such knowledge.

 

This is the reason I posted this in the speculation forums and I am working on to come up with an argument and I will post it soon so that we can speculate it on common grounds. I don't know what made INow to say this and I quote.

 

Really, what's the point of carrying on the conversation? I'm talking to children who think Puff the Magic dragon is a fucking historical creature that actually existed, and that anyone who claims otherwise just hasn't "surrendered" enough or is being rude for not accepting that this is a different "magisteria" equally worthy of respect

 

It wasn't required and I have said that I didn't started this thread to beg respect for such an idea with out earning it first. I was just speculating.

 

Just because you don't have the right insight to understand the idea doesn't in any way make the idea less credible and deserve dismissal.

 

Yes the Aryas were Gnostic theists so the argument here is not that whether we require a God in our model or not, the argument here is that we can not model or simulate this world without bringing God into the picture. Its not whether science requires God or not.

 

So when the situation is like this and since science has not yet found a fundamental model explaining all things from the origin to till now why is an argument that a God exists and is currently interfering with human affairs is not a feasible and a possible argument.

 

Most people here hold a default position and doesn't really allow a model of the world involving God, this is the attitude of a gnostic atheist, if you really want to be that guy why do you allow the argument of God to creep in, I mean if this is the scientific attitude then why don't science be so gnostic and say that the probability and the possibility of the existence of God is absolutely zero. It has not shown that and yet some are unwilling to accept or speculate on an argument which has a huge collection of data called as scriptures or the word of God which also gives a method to know god.

 

Many people here talk of unicorns, puff the magic dragons and other funny things or whatever and they might even have a scripture of their own and they are asking to worship them. These are all may be great ideas but what they don't understand is that if someone worships them and gains some knowledge and demonstrates it in public then that idea will survive and it will be found out to be very real. This may sound silly but it works doesn't it.

 

Talking of intellectual honesty. I don't deny evolution by Natural selection, I don't deny Quantum physics or relativity but I have serious doubts about our full understanding as to how evolution happens you may say random mutations followed by cumulative selection but it doesn't satisfy me.

 

Einstein was never satisfied with the copenhagen interpretation of QM, it doesn't satisfy Roger Penrose, it doesn't satisfy me too. You may be good at math and know something about statistical probability and it might have led to some amazing technological advancements but it has not yet answered those philosophical questions and this is the reason why guys like me pop in holding the argument of a God. I am a theist and I am trying to be a genuine gnostic theist so I am speculating on whether my argument makes me a gnostic theist or not. I want to put my belief systems to test and see whether it bears any truth in reality so what's wrong with that, how I am termed to be intellectually dishonest? If I rationalize irrespective of what the outcome of the test is and still hold on to my beliefs then it would be a dishonesty on my part isn't it?

 

 

I think people should read this. When Epilepsy goes by a other name

 

Q: How has writing this story affected your life?

 

The important part for me wasn't writing the book and having it published. It was the opportunity to meet the Lees and spend a number of years thinking about Hmong culture. I became a different sort of mother as a result (basing my care of my children on Foua's). The importance the Hmong place on the extended family undoubtedly has made me spend more time with my own parents and expend more effort trying to persuade relatives to move nearby. And although my own thinking has become neither less rational nor more spiritual, my respect for nonintellectual ways of looking at the world increased a thousandfold.

 

-Anne Fadiman

Author of the book The Spirit Catches you and you Fall down

 

 

I didn't started this thread to beg respect for thiestic beliefs without earning it first, I think both INow, Moontanman and Appolinaria have a point. INow and Moontanman think that something deserves respect only if substantiate evidence is been provided in favour of it where as Appolinaria thinks that such an argument has to be tolerated and respected and a credence should be given until it is reduced to the scientific method of enquiry and fully disproved. I either want to be a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist and I don't want to be that crackpottery guy moving goal posts and making fallacies. I am someone who makes things work and talk less. Give me one or two days I'll come up with an argument so that we can discuss it on common grounds without any bias or any dishonesty.

So by your own definition this is not proof, since it only works if you believe it's going to work.

 

What you're describing is the placebo effect.

 

 

The proof works quite fine for a theist who believes in it and you don't have to believe in it if you think it doesn't deserve such respect, you can believe and take it seriously once a theist gains some knowledge and brings such phenomena to the scientific method of enquiry. In this way it works for all instances even if you don't believe in it.

 

Also, it's very "convenient" that what appear to be simple movements coupled with breathing (something I do very well) can only be done under the supervision of a "master", if thats the case, how did the "master" learn them??

 

Likely a "get out clause" in the event that I try it and fail to reproduce any effect

 

 

The master learned from his master and he learned from his master in this way this knowledge has been passed on for thousands of years and forms a huge collection of data which needs to be investigated, this was just a small step which I showed, the giant leap is yet to come by doing further research. That knowledge came from god because the upanishads and vedas have no author. In other words the God guided their intellect to write such verses.

"had answered all my questions it would have been easy for me to discard it and say they are talking rubbish."

Just because science doesn't have all the answers, that does not make religion any more valid.

No either one is right or the other is wrong. I had earlier made claims which if science proves then this belief system will be abandoned. Both religion and science simultaneously can not show god that would be a contradiction either religion has to show a personal god who is beyond the sense organs or science has to reduce such a phenomena to the brain and show a personal god at request in a laboratory. There is no bias here the challenge is which side of the people will be able to show a personal god is the real issue. It has nothing to do with answers which science has not yet answered.

 

"ensure that its knowledge is valid and genuine"

 

What knowledge are you talking about? Religion has never offered any new information (other than untestable claims of an afterlife).

 

The new information is that there is a method to reveal the personal god and therefore the existence of god can be faslified by repeating that method but unfortunately you have to believe in the method and have faith in him and that faith can be tested so this method is more suited to theists.

 

One has to pray the following verse in the begining of the method.

 

hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham

 

tat tvam pushannya apavrino satya-dharmaya drishtaye (Isopanishad, Verse 15 from the scripture)

 

It means that the truth is hidden behind God's complex geometry of light rays and those light rays are preventing us from seeing him clearly and the ultimate truth so we should plead him to remove those impeding light rays and show us the path of righteousness

 

SURYANAMASKAR

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Stand facing the Sun with palms folded and

 

both the thumbs touching the chest.

 

Breathing: Inhale while raising the hands

 

and exhale as hands are brought down to

 

chest level.

 

 

 

* Om Hraam 'Udhyannadhyamitramahaha' Mitraya Namaha (Mitra - friend)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Raise hands upward, with feet firmly on

 

the ground, bend backwards, stretch arms

 

fully. Breathing: Inhale

 

 

 

* Om Hreem 'Aarohannuththaraamdivamm' Ravaye Namaha (Ravi - radiance)

 

 

 

 

 

3. Slowly bend forward, hands touching the earth

 

with respect, head touching the knees. Breathing:

 

Exhale.

 

* Om Hruum 'Hridrogam mama surya' Suryaya Namaha (Surya dispeller of

 

darkness)

 

 

 

 

 

4. Set both hands with the palms down firmly on the

 

ground, pull the left leg backward, raise the head

 

looking at the Sun, full weight resting on the two

 

palm and ten fingers. Breathing: Inhale

 

* Om Hraim 'Harimaanam cha naashaya' Bhanave Namaha (Bhanu Shining

 

with luster)

 

 

 

 

 

5. Bring right leg back close to left leg, keeping

 

hands and legs straight, bend the body at the hip

 

forming an arch, just like a mountain, known as

 

'parvathasan or mountain pose'. Breathing: Exhale

 

* Om Hroum 'Shukeshu May Harimaanamm' Khagaya Namaha (Khaga all

 

pervading)

 

 

 

 

 

6. Stretch yourself fully on the ground in the

 

Saashtanga Namaskar pose (all eight 'anga' or

 

parts of the body on the ground head, thigh,

 

eyes (sight), mind, word, feet, hands and ears

 

(hearing)). In reality, feet, knees, thighs, chest,

 

forehead touch the ground with the hands

 

stretched out and in folded position, with your

 

mind and thoughts on the full namaskar, then

 

slowly turn the head to the sides first to left and

 

then to right so that each ear touches the ground.

 

Breathing: Inhale first and then Exhale fully.

 

 

 

* Om Hraha 'Ropanaakaasu dhadhmasi' Pooshne Namaha (Pushan mystic

 

fire which gives)

 

 

 

 

 

7. Slowly raise the head, bend backward as much as

 

possible, hands straight, in the cobra pose.

 

Breathing: Inhale

 

* Om Hraam 'Atho Haaridraveshu May' Hiranyagarbhaya Namaha

 

(hiranyagarbha golden colored)

 

 

 

 

 

8. Parvathasan same as Step 5. Breathing: Exhale

 

* Om Hreem 'Harimaanannidhadhmasi' Marichaye Namaha (Marichi Ray of

 

light)

 

 

 

 

 

9. Same as Step 4 with the difference that the right

 

leg is brought forward. Breathing: Inhale

 

* Om Hruum 'Udagaadhayamaadithyah' Adityaya Namaha (Aditya Sun,

 

aspect of Vishnu, Son of Aditi.

 

 

 

 

10. Same as Step 3 Breathing: Exhale

 

* Om Hraim 'Vishwena Sahasaa Saha' Savitre Namaha (Savitru Light of

 

enlightenment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Same as Step 2 Breathing: Inhale

 

* Om Hroum 'Dwishantham Mama Randhayann' Arkaya Namaha (Arkah a ray

 

of light, a flash of lightning, Sun)

 

 

 

 

 

12. Same as Step 1 Breathing: Exhale, Inhale and

 

Exhale.

 

* Om Hraha 'Mo Aham dwishatho Rattham' Bhaskaraya Namaha (Bhaskara

 

Shining Light)

 

( Caution: This exercise has to be performed under the guidance of a master I am not responsible for any side effects on your body if you do not do it correctly and approach it with egoistic mind and the verses given in asterisk should be silently uttered in mind while one is performing the exercise and this has to performed two times in a day morning and evening)

 

 

"You don't deserve such knowledge from god if you think he doesn't deserve to be worshipped of and if you won't dedicate your life and surrender yourself to him."

 

Why should anyone "surrender" to a god with no prior knowledge of him? Respect is mutual and earned.

 

You do not know me, would you surrender yourself to me in return for promises of eternal life? Even without knowing if I would keep my promises?

 

I have the advantage over a god, in that, you know that I exist so I don't even require you to make the leap of faith required for that

 

Yes no one would believe in it blindly and I'm not fooling around here, this method has a history of 5000 years and there are genuine information available about it. You can research on it and decide for yourself whether he deserves to be worshipped or not and again faith is a gift and I can not give you that but I can provide information about it History, Surya Namaskara and its Origins.

 

 

"Science can not show me God, religion can."

 

I suspect there's a good reason science can't show you god, science can't show me unicorns - LSD could. Is that a reason to take it?

 

Google "god spot" research is being done to "show" you god

http://www.google.co...biw=747&bih=420

 

Yes in my OP I had mentioned about the work of Dr.Presinger, I am quite aware of this research and it was this research which forced me to start this thread. The point is if neurologists can show a personal god at request in a lab then this belief system will be destroyed and we can say religious experiences are nothing more than hallucinations happening in the temporal lobe of the brain. This is the challenge.

 

"Science doesn't seem like disproving the existence of god with its current attitude where as religion can prove his existence for the theists atleast...."

 

Define "prove" - This falls short in my opinion

 

"....if it can not prove it universally since not everyone seems to have the gift of faith."

 

So, it can only be proved if you already believe? Again, not really proof.

 

Once again, theists are not stupid and have had a long time to think this through. If religion was in anyway provable it would fall down.

 

Any evidence or proof can be said to be "gods will" or "a test of your faith"

 

 

A thing is a proof if it works always and not for some instances only.

 

God should always appear if we perform the method with the right frame of mind believing in him and surrendering yourself to him because God himself had said that I will always appear to those people who study the "Isopanishad" scripture and understand the truth behind it. So he has to appear to keep up his words.

Yes they do give you a method to falsify their claims, they say if you believe hard enough pray for the revelation long and intensely enough and have faith god and or angels will appear to you, they speak in tongues and other interpret these tongues, they all claim it's as real as what you say. If he doesn't then is means you haven't believed hard enough. How is that different than your claims?

 

Yes you need to do it with the right frame of mind and the outcome depends on your approach to such knowledge. In Angels and Demons when Father asks Tom Hanks "Do you believe in God professor". Tom hanks says "I'm a research academic, faith is a gift of god which I'm yet to recieve". Even I was a atheist once, a fan of Richard Dawkins but there is this thing called human curiosity and I started studying the scriptures and my intellect just couldn't discard them easily, if science had answered all my questions it would have been easy for me to discard it and say they are talking rubbish.

 

These theistic models are for the gifted ones who have faith and once you have that gift these models provide a method to testify whether they are true or not and they go on to form the major religions of the world. This is how theism operates and should operate to ensure that its knowledge is valid and genuine and can be passed on to others. So theists believe there is something which has to be investigated seriously and their testable methods provide a means to accumulate genuine knowledge favouring the existence of god and they don't accept anything just by blind faith, the methods are the key to differentiate genuine knowledge from invalid ones. This is not science but in no way this is intellectually dishonest.

 

That is because your argument is bogus, your claim is no better than any other theists claims, dedicate your life to god, believe and have faith and god will appear. How is that different? Drugs are not necessary to produce hallucinations, intense belief can cause them as well.

 

You don't deserve such knowledge from god if you think he doesn't deserve to be worshipped of and if you won't dedicate your life and surrender yourself to him.

 

Unfortunately this is how theism operates, theists have faith and revealations provide a means to testify those belief systems. Theism answers questions which science doesn't. When I ask "Does God exist?". I want a honest answer with evidence as to why he doesn't exist, I don't want answers like probably, may be he doesn't exist. Science can not show me God, religion can. Science doesn't seem like disproving the existence of god with its current attitude where as religion can prove his existence for the theists atleast, if it can not prove it universally since not everyone seems to have the gift of faith. I may not have a knowledge to upload a new language on to my mind and start speaking in it with out even taking time to learn about it but I have knowledge to show God to an another theist.

 

Hallucinations happen randomly during random times where as God's experience happens only when one is performing those yogic methods and not at other times. This shows there is a pattern in the observed data and this collection of testified data is the foundation for some of the major religions of the world. This is the reason it is so important in brain research to model such experiences and if you can stimulate my brain and induce a feeling of god's experience then I will have no problem in believing that it is just a mere hallucination and I will change my view. You haven't shown me that it is a hallucination either and therefore my argument still stands. Why should I take that default position and dismiss it completely.

 

None the less how is a bad weekend a sacrifice if you know that not only are you coming back but you will sit at the right hand of god, if that was true you could skin me alive with a rusty knife, it would have only been a sacrifice if he was truly and permanently dead.

 

But he didn't asked God to open up a new heaven for him as the price of his sacrifice, he didn't expect anything from God nor from anyone. He didn't asked that he wants to rule the earth and take control over the earth and enjoy its pleasure.

 

His body is permanently dead he came back with his spiritual body. We all are immortals he would have died permanently if we were mortals. Don't blame Jesus for not dieing permanently.

 

 

Interesting article. In Near death experience one dreams and sleeps while he or she is awake. Just like you cannot respond or control the events while you are dreaming in the same way in Near death experience you cannot respond to your surroundings and you cannot respond to people communicating with you even though you feel desperate to respond to their questions but the brain fails to link the thought processes and you feel like you have forgot what they asked even before you want to respond to them.

 

This clearly shows that the brain shuts down and fails to work properly. It is true that this happens in a weird state in between the boundaries of deep sleep and full awareness. You feel like that the brain has shut itself down and you feel like you will never be awake again once if you try to sleep by closing your eyes.

 

The subject will be afraid and it leads to anxiety and the subject feels like his brain is dieing and he starts eating food to keep his brain alive and he pleads the people in and around him to keep talking to him as he feels like he is losing his communication with them since the brain fails to link his thoughts and process them.

 

The important thing is that if consciosness is something associated or produced by an emergent property of the brain how can people expereince the shutting down of the brain and yet be aware of it. How can one be awake and experience shutting down of the brain if awareness is something produced by the brain. How can something shut itself down and also be self aware of its state, there has to be a state or a process running inside it to represent such an event consuming a small power right?

 

Normally scientific discoveries happen when things go wrong and not while everything is right. For example- to know the function of a gene we often switch it off to observe the effects in the organism and that's how we come to know about what the gene functions for the body. I believe there are some drugs or medicines which alter the EM signals of sleep, awake and dream states and patients who are under those medicinal treatment are more prone to such near death experiences. It is important for the doctors and people around the patient to be calm so that they can relax the patient from the emotional trauma.

 

A perfect analogy might be a Von Neumann Machine in which each component as some processing power like the monitor and other input devices and a central processing unit called the CPU.

 

A near death experience is like "Monitor going to sleep" while the CPU is running and is aware of the fact that the monitor has gone to sleep. A sleep state might be all the devices including the CPU going to sleep and a wakeful state is like both the monitor and CPU is running and you are aware of the processing occuring at the input and output devices which forms the tip of the consciousness(the part which we are normally aware of) and you are not aware of the processing which is occuring at the seat of the consciousness called as the subconscious.

 

There are only two possibilities -

 

Either this would mean that there is a subsystem with in the brain which is aware and forms the seat of consciousness while other parts of the brain shuts down when one is experiencing a Near death experience.

 

Or this would mean that the whole brain shuts down and there is an another subsystem called as the mind seperate from the brain which is responsible for the seat of consciosness and other mental qualia like pain, fear, anxiety etc which is the hard problem or the

binding problem in conscious beings. The two subsystems brain and mind may be made of different hardware platforms and there might even be a protocol for effective comuunication between the two systems. Philosophers have always wondered how can a material system like the brain can communicate or can interact with an immaterial system like the mind. What if the cosmos is made of two subsystems and there might be two realities and we might have to model those two realities to fully comprehend the universe and no wonder why the universe is a paradox. What if the scientific models and the scientific method of enquiry of the physical world are not sufficient to fully understand the universe. Will we be prepared to change and speculate on a different method of enquiry and develop falsifiable models and yet keep a check on pseudoscience and other fraudulents.

 

I got this insight because I recently experienced and went through a similar thing.

We often use this terminologies in the computer world Hibernation(computing) and Sleep mode. May be the brain might have peripheral systems inside it which processes information and also keeps a check on the power consumption, brain might be a super system administrator.

 

 

Rational empirically verifyable reason to believe in theism? If you do then everyone who hears voices does too, what real knowledge have you obtained from this to pass on?

 

What real knowledge dude, so far all you have done is make claims, churches all over the USA regularly are visited by angels and many people claim to be able to see then as they walk among the congregation and anyone who doesn't see them just don't have enough faith or doesn't believe hard enough. Your claim is no different and is no more intellectually honest than any other theistic supernatural claim.....

 

Its a false comparison those people won't give you a method to falsify their claim, they just claim it, they don't provide a method to repeat those voices again and hence they cannot be passed on, that's why its not real knowledge while I have given you a method to repeat those experiences again and that experience can be passed on therefore it constitutes knowledge because such knowledge is repeatable. They won't say that angels will visit only when we walk backwards or in right angles so that we can perform and falsify their claim.

 

This is a total fallacy, your evidence may well be an hallucination for all you know and can show, just knowing is not knowledge any more than faith is proof.

 

You've shown no such knowledge only that by dedicating your life to belief and having faith you might be able to see something that could very well be an hallucination, this is no better than any other religion on the planet.

 

Is it impossible to know the noumenon? I don't think so. Kant's distinction between two forms or terms 'Phenomenon' - the world as it appears through the sense organs and 'Noumenon' - the world which is unknowable and helps the mind in producing the phenomenon according to Kantian terms is quite familiar to all of us. Kant argued that all our known knowledge had to arrive to the mind transformed through the sense organs. So the only knowledge we have is of the phenomenon. The things which appear around us or in the physical world are not the things that exist in the actual physical world (i.e. the noumenon world) they exist only in our minds and has to the exact nature of the actual physical world we will never know it according to Kant.

 

I argue that there is a new kind of observation possible in humans which helps us to interact with the noumenon world directly. In this new kind of observation the knowledge does not arrive through the sense organs to the mind. Here observation is possible with out using the sense organs. The mind will be in a new state apart from the sleeping, waking and being aware. To understand this you have to understand our model of the mind. In our model brain ! = (not equal) to mind. To us brain and mind are two different things.

 

Mind is normally modeled has a tightly held rope with one end tied to the sense organs and the other end tied to the platonic forms. It is completely wrong to model the noumenon in this way because the only way to investigate is through experience and these experiences are not the kind of things that we normally see in the phenomenon world and the language we use to describe our experiences can be misleading, as it is understandable that our language was developed for the world of phenomenon. But it is inevitable we have to do this in order to make others understand what we are speaking.

 

When the mind unconnects itself with the ties it has made with the sense organs we have a mind which is like a fallen rope with the other end connected to the platonic forms it is in this situation we are able to interact with the noumenon world. Now how do we know it is really the noumenon world that we are seeing?

 

It is not a hallucination as the subjects who experience are quite normal and healthy and are not subjected to alcohol or any other kind of drugs and these noumenal experiences are not the kind of normal experiences that we normally see in the phenomenon world. One more important thing is that the experience always seem to occur only when the subject is in the process or perfroming the method to interact with the noumenon world and not at other times and hence this is not hallucination.

 

It is not an optical illusion. These experiences are not kind of things that appears when you switch on or switch off inputs to your sense organs and more importantly we should note that we are observing with out using the sense organs. These experiences are really rare and it is not the kind of thing that appears when you give inputs to your sense organs and the brain interprets it differently.

 

It is not an experience that is produced by stimulating some part of the brain. If it is then I will provide a test. The subject who has experienced the noumenon world has to be under stimulation if you are able to produce the same kind of pictures that the subject has already experienced then my argument will be wrong. But I bet you can't. However we can produce consistent observations i.e all subjects will see identical descriptions or experiences of the noumenon world.

 

It is not an experience created by the mind. If we assume that all the experiences that we experience are created by the mind then from where did the mind came from there has to be a basis for the mind and the noumenon world is the basis. This is established by the fact that the subjects have experienced or seen the structure of the mind as it is. Which I discussed before by giving a model.

 

To those who are wondering that how it was possible for me to look this issue from all angles was because this argument was under disscusion in the chat room. I posted here so that many people look at it and as all people will not be available at the same time.

 

Whether is this science is a different issue. One thing which troubles me from being to describe this as science is that we can not make predictions as to when the experience will happen. There is no math here and that may be the single reason others might not give importance to this but this is definitely not metaphysics.

 

I am neither going to argue this using scientific models nor i will try to reduce this to exact science. The models of noumenon world are very much differnt from the models of science and it is not surprising to see this because one talks about phenomenon and other about noumenon

It just provides us with a possible new Worldview and I think just scientific models are not sufficient to describe the universe completely we need these noumenon models but there are no one to one correspondance between the phenomenon and the noumenon models. Its completely different and if this is the new physics that Roger Penrose is looking for then everyone have to be prepared for big surprises.

 

I had argued about this a year ago that this is not a hallucination but no one took it seriously and I expected it.

 

I also have to ask how was it a sacrifice if he came back?

 

 

The new discovery of Gospel of Judas says that it was Jesus himself who sent Judas Iscariot to bring the romans to his hiding place, it was God's plan and Jesus knew what was coming and only a divine man can dare to do such a thing knowing the consequences of it. He sacrificed himself to save the world for us. Judas didn't betrayed Jesus Christ, infact he was the only one who truly understood Jesus. Nothing is what it seems.

When God gave the Ten commandments to Moses it was only for the people who were jews and for people who will go on to inhabit a land mass called as Israel and form a nation. These laws should be strictly applied only in Isreal and a jew should follow this law even if he is inhabiting in a different part of the world and we should be secular enough to allow a jew to worship(not idol worship) his god and practice his religion and not oppose his views. Similarly this applies to other religions, I come from a nation where there are people who speak 18 official languages and follow seven major religions, we have hindu temples, muslim mosques and church cathedrals which are raised beside each other and people have co-existed happily for a generations of life time. So yes a certain amount of prejudice is justifyable but thoughts of extremism should not be entertained as everyone have the right to follow their own religion and their own views where ever they might be situated in the world.

So you pretty much have no more evidence than any other theists has?

 

 

It atleast doesn't make me intellectually dishonest since I have a rational empirically verifyable reason to believe in theism if not an evidence which can be shown to the sense organs. It atleast proves that some real knowledge can be passed on among the theists and I have atleast provided falsifiable theistic models just like the scientific models for those theists who are willing to worship him and think that he is deserved to be worshipped.

 

You are unwilling to worship him and its quite fine, its quite fair but your challenge is huge because you have requested evidence which can be seen through the sense organs for a phenomena which happens beyond the sense organs in the subjective mind. You want me to bring such a phenomena to the scientific method of enquiry and your demand for such an evidence is like creationists who demand evidence for macroevolution with in a person's or a generations of life time for an event which is so rare and takes millions of years to occur.

 

I am not backing away from your challenge as I have made a few claims whose effects on the physical world can be easily seen but it takes time and will to sacrifice one's life to go on meditating( along with yoga) for years to gain such a knowledge and to demonstrate them and therefore such a event is higly unpredictable.

 

I cannot bring God in front of your eyes, you yourself have to communicate with him. I cannot easily disprove the existence of god for people who stick with the scientific method of enquiry with in a person's life time as such knowledge is highly unpredictable while it can be easily disproved if we are prepared to change and believe in a different method of enquiry.

 

There is a sharp disconnect here, it is not about the evidence, it is about the belief on the methods used to test the hypothesis which disconnects me from you and there is no common ground for a purposeful argument. It atleast shows that all theists are not crackpots and will change their views once evidence has been shown to them and it shows that some religion do contain real knowledge and it is not completely true to say that it is a cancer to the society.

 

 

So you pretty much have no more evidence than any other theists has?

Unfortunately I'm undertaking medication in a hospital and I will respond to your post as soon as I get back my wellness. Posting from my cell phone.

First of all the things you are linking to are highly disputed, second exactly what knowledge has been gained by any of this stuff? Don't make me read three novels to find out, what is specifically is this knowledge and can it be confirmed in any other way and of what use is this knowledge?

 

 

In simple words a different set of models means a different set of possibilities in reality and we can see its effects on the physical world.

 

Consciousness and Immortality - From ancient times we have pondered over the question as to why we should be aware of our own bodies, what purpose does consciousness serve. The thing is that we don't have to be aware of our bodies, we don't have to be subject to the constraints of space and time, the body has enough intelligence to survive on its own and will look for ways to reduce its entropy by itself. Having this knowledge means you can seperate yourself from your body and your brain and not suffer the effects on your body.

 

We have looked for the fountain of youth to defy the process of ageing but Aryas wouldn't try to transform a mortal body into an immortal one instead they would simulate their consciousness outside of space and time and exist forever defying death. If strong AI can simulate my consciousness and make me run on a machine then again this knowledge will be disproved.

 

Having a portal to communicate with the gods opens up endless possibilities, we can communicate with the rain gods and bring rain at places where people are suffering from heavy drought. You can imagine the possible uses of such a communication channel.

 

This knowledge means that brain, mind and intelligence are different things and not one. We don't have to learn things instead we can just access or load such information on to our minds and will be able to speak new languages without even taking time to learn them since intelligence is viewed as a physical entity existing in its own realm.

 

Having control over such light rays means we don't have to reduce entropy and can survive without eating for days since those light rays are responsible for self organisation in biological entities.

 

It will take years of time and further research to demonstrate above claims and I can not do it all alone. You yourself will be transformed into something else in the process of falsfying it so it takes years of time.

 

The important point is that these above knowledge can only be possible if the basic stuff of those God's light rays exists and I have presented a method in my previous post which addresses the heart of the matter and shows that those light rays exist and it can be tested and falsified.

 

If neurologists can show those light rays on request and induce a feeling of presence of a personal god then this belief system will be disproved and we can say that man created god.

Scientists often predict such advanced technology but they either think that such knowledge comes from extraterrestrial beings or from artificial intelligence and they don't realize the possibility that such supreme intelligence can come from god too and say God is dead, I think he is very much alive for now.

 

 

Can you name those other religions and give some examples of those powerful knowledge models?

 

 

There are many extinct religions in this world whose practical knowledge have been lost over time because the religious sects failed to pass on their cultural ideas and doctrines to their future generations due to various other cultural influences on them or other natural causes. We can not rule out the possibility of an extinct civilization who might have been more advanced than us, who might have had a different approach in studying the natural world around them. The common attitude is that the ancient earth was a dark age and the picture we have in our minds are people following pseudoscience and other foolish practices and thinking that they were less intelligent than us and lacked any real knowledge. I think this attitude has to change as we discover and explore more about those civilizations and reconsider our position on such civilizations.

 

There are many extinct civilizations like those and we do often find some new information or a new discovery about them every now and then and one such religious sect with whom I have developed some interest and researched is the ARYAN religion. It is the Aryas who discovered the Vedas and the Upanishads and what is left today is a few disorganized rituals and pseudoscientific practices in the name of Hinduism giving us a picture of horse feather stories and extreme view points hiding the actual truth from our eyes.

 

Aryas were sun worshippers and to them sun is not just a star at the centre of the solar system it is also a personal god existing in every biological entity responsible for organisms intelligent behaviour and self organisation. (Note- I am not advocating Intelligent Design here and opposing evolution by NS since proponents of ID make baseless arguments against a well established body of evidence that already exists for evolution)

 

Aryas have a complete different set of models and it has nothing to do with the scientific models and these models can be tested. They describe their personal god in detail and there are various yogic methods to test such a knowledge. One such method which I adopted was a set of breathing exercise called as Surya Namaskara. The link provides information about the sequence of steps that has to be performed. Since many people perform it for different reasons, some people in the west might perform it to keep themselves healthy and fit while our purpose is to actually communicate with him and take this very seriously so we need some additional preparation before performing it.

 

We need to do it with the right frame of mind because the outcome of our experiment depends on how we approach it. So we need to assume that he exists and pray the following words in the beginning.

hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham

tat tvam pushannya apavrino satya-dharmaya drishtaye (Isopanishad, Verse 15 from the scripture)

It means that the truth is hidden behind God's complex geometry of light rays and those light rays are preventing us from seeing him clearly and the ultimate truth so we should plead him to remove those impeding light rays and show us the path of righteousness.

 

There are many verses from the scripture and each verse can be tested and its validity can be empirically verified by subjective experiences. An example of such experiences can be found in books by a scholar named Devudu Narasimha Shastry who has extensively studied the Aryan culture. I have an english translation of one of his book named Mahabrahmana.

Introduction

Appendix

Chapters61-65

Chapters66-70

(chapters 65 to 67 are important please read them.)

 

So he should appear to us at some point in the same way as he has appeared across centuries of time and hence such a knowledge is repeatable and empirically verified.

 

This is what happened after I performed it for almost one year so it should be performed under guidance and not mess up with the gods by performing it in a wrong way.

 

 

The main argument I want to make is that where I do acknowledge the scientific method in discovering new real knowledge it is not the only method that exists to know the truth. So science will be nothing more but a religion if it suppresses other valid methods of knowledge enquiry and say that nothing real exists outside of science and suppress free thinking. If we have to take Cosmotheology seriously then according to one of its principle we need to be open to new conceptions of God and the cosmic order.

 

 

 

We seem to disagree. My larger point is that you cannot reasonably and in good faith remain a theist if you are intellectually honest.

 

How so? I have a strong intellectual reason to believe in theism so why don't science address this phenomena and see whether man created god or not instead of backing away from the challenge because even I want to enjoy my life and not abide by the word of God.

I have consistently criticized people who oppose evolution by natural selection and I have also attacked scholars who mix religion and science and try to interpret scientific models in terms of religion in other threads. The universe indeed seems to be a paradox and more we have explored it the more is the evidence that it defies our logical minds and it is appearing in different ways depending on the choice of method we are adopting to measure it.

In which case the process of disproving it cannot even begin. Once your definition is in place and accepted by all parties, we can seek to falsify it, but not until.

 

A possible universal definition of God might come from Cosmotheology avoiding the conflicts existing in traditional religions.

 

I would like to stick with the Immanuel Kant's definition of Cosmotheology

Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804), the most influential philosopher of the late Enlightenment, coined the term in his best-known work, The Critique of Pure Reason, considered one of the greatest contributions to Western philosophical thought. But Kant's definition of cosmotheology was narrow, referring to a specific form of what he called "transcendental theology," a method human beings must use to discern theological concepts because, according to Kant, reason alone cannot prove God's existence.

 

The theory is this that every living being is inherently connected with the cosmic universe. There is a whole new spectrum of light having some weird properties which is the main cause for the existence of this universe and it is this same spectrum of light existing in every living thing is responsible for the survival and the intelligent behaviours exhibited by such entities. So this new light having weird geometry is called as God. This takes a Top-bottom approach of the cosmos and avoids the reductionist approach.

 

The claim is that this single entity(new light) is responsible for simulating those spiritual experiences of Jesus, Allah, Yahweh or what ever among different cultures of people. So if in some way neurologists show that those spiritual experiences are simulated by the brain and establish that their Gods only exists in their minds indicating that Man created God then the above theory will be disproved and intellectually honest theists will be obliged to change their views and belief systems on submission of such an evidence.

 

 

I undesrtand what you're getting at, but belief is about faith, not evidence. Simply showing believers evidence of this won't generally change their beliefs... maybe for a small handful, but most will just rationalize it away and continue believing as they see fit.

 

Also, FWIW... Everything we experience is just a "hallucination occurring in the brain."

 

There are models in place, and a great number of researchers who DON'T "back away from it." Yet, there are still billions of people who ignore their work because it conflicts with their beliefs. Again, belief is not about evidence, but faith.

 

Even religion evolves over the years and paradigm shifts do happen it is not stringent as it was in the past.

Frank Parkinson on cosmotheology

 

 

The great revolution in cosmology that began with discovery of the galactic

redshift is our awareness that we live in an expanding universe. Its vital

importance to theology lies in the reasonable assumption that the more

cosmology reveals about the processes of creation, the more it will reveal about

the nature of the creating power. Since this information became available to

theology less than a century ago, cosmotheology marks a significant advance in

the evolution of religion, for it is based solidly on empirical observation. Thus it is

a prime example of the kind of fact-based theology which Arthur Peacocke has

recently argued must be a new standard for authentic religion. Religion, he says,

must "become truly open theologically" and theologians need "frankly to infer

the best explanation of the data - and not build theological castles in the air

based on historically unsupported events ... and on outdated metaphysical

systems." [5] To his argument I would add that this is the first time in history that

intellectual honesty, which is an essential in science, has been taken as a

defining criterion of religion. Until now honesty in religion has always been

subordinated to the founding principles of the so-called "faith community". From

this perspective - and is there any other for the genuine seeker of truth today? -

cosmotheology becomes not one option among many but a universal moral

imperative, making all other creation myths obsolescent.

 

Do you know what intellectually honest theists are called? They're called "atheists."

 

 

Moontanman said,

 

"An intellectually honest theist, I guess we have different definitions of intellectually honest? I apologize for that remark, i know several theists on this forum that are intellectually honest within the bounds of their belief system, i should not have suggested all were intellectually dishonest...."

 

We indeed have a conflict over the definition of intellectuall honesty. Theists have a strong reason for holding a theistic view and the same is for the atheists. Theists believe in theism because of the personal encounters that they have with god and considerably affects his conduct and his thought process. True religions arise in this way from a small group of handful people who have some real consistent knowledge about the gods, I don't think it is a crap. So assuming that intellectually honest theists are equivalent to atheists is quite unfair, there is a distinction between the two and we can draw clear logical line between those two.

 

So you admit that there are other gods than Jesus if you surrender your self to them? In some churches God or angels appearing to people is quite consistent and happens every Sunday, often more than one person claims to be able to see them...

 

No, I don't believe in any gods unless I see them for myself therefore neither I believe in Jesus nor I believe in Buddha but I doesn't claim that they do not exist since I don't have enough knowledge about them.

 

How can we put that hypothesis to the test, the hypothesis is that there are so many conflicting ideas of god they have to be man made, how can that be tested?

 

We can certainly test that hypothesis there are certain religious systems in which the knowledge of the gods are accessible and they have described him with full detail to every inch of it. They are not talking about unicorns or horse feathers and its not crap. So if we could reproduce those experiences in our labs then those belief systems will be destroyed.

 

Quite the contrary, that was, in the not too distant past, what main stream Christianity said about evidence the bible was wrong in any way.

 

I doesn't want to defend any religious claims. I want to test those belief systems and christianity is not the only religion of the world so your consistent premise that those claims have been tested again and again is not quite right since there are other more powerful knowledge models in other religions which have to be tested yet.

People hallucinate all the time, religion has been shown to bring about these hallucination in people who believe strongly enough but the god they see or see evidence of is always the god they are worshiping whether it is Yahweh or Allah, or Krishna or Anubis, this indicates to me that god is in their mind and when god answers you are talking to your self. As far as i know no new knowledge has ever come from religion.

 

That doesn't prove that god is in their brain unless you reproduce those experiences on request. I know a few things about gods they don't appear to you unless you surrender to them so obviously Buddha won't appear to me when I have completely surendered myself to Jesus and worshipping only him. Its too soon to come to your logical conclusion when an alternative interpretation exists and therefore there is a necessity to reproduce those experiences and test it for ourselves.

 

 

No it wouldn't, god like experiences can indeed be induced by magnetic fields applied to the correct portion of the brain, this is dismissed out of hand by believers if in no other way than saying it is a trick of Satan.

 

An intellectually honest theist should change his belief system when evidence is provided to him. Now given my specific characteristics of god if you can induce a feeling of presence of this god in my brain having those same specific characteristics I will be obliged to change my belief system when it is put to test.

 

I disagree, if indeed there was only one religion or if all religions said the same thing you would have a point but the plethora of religions, nearly all of them contradicting each other is pretty good evidence they are all man made, especially since they seem to be composed of the beliefs and morals of the time period they were made up in. I wouldn't say it is absolute proof but it is a working hypothesis.

 

That is what I want the scientific community to do to test that working hypothesis, if we can some how reproduce those experiences on request then it will be a great evidence that they are all man made. I agree that science has tested most of the religious claims again and again and found nothing but I want science to test this particular hypothesis because its results might have some strange outcomes.

 

I think you are being exceedingly naive about that, the teaching of Christianity actually says that evidence that contradicts god must be ignored and not believed.

 

Then those advocating that are not true Christians, those teachings are from radical fundamentalists and extremists who misinterpret the scriptures and completely misunderstand it. No word of God advocate such extreme view and I am very much happy to put my belief system for a lab test.

Define god.

 

I cannot universally define the term 'God' but what I can do is that I can specifically define the concept of God to every inch of it with in a group of people whose knowledge of God is consistent, specific and completely coherent. By consistent I mean God is experienced as a person and it is the same person who will always appear in the experience every time one has it. His characteristics are specific, it doesn't vary from one experience to another experience between different persons, he always appears the same way across centuries of time. These experiences are coherent, they are not random and the data can be passed on from generation to generation which leads to increase in knowledge in a person.

 

It is this kind of knowledge which will go on to produce many of the major religious belief systems in the world which some might call it a cancer in their minds so if in some way neurologists can reproduce those similar experiences at request it would convince the theists that their great great almighty or the personal god is nothing but a hallucination occuring in their Brains. In simple words given this specific knowledge about the personal god can they really reproduce the same experience having those specific characteristics of God on request. If they can then the existence of God is disproved and it would convince the theists to change their view and this would be the end of religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why should we disprove the existence of god, let them prove he exists. The normal way of science is that the entity that makes a claim, has to prove said claim. NOT the other way around.

 

Then it should be accepted that those individuals who claim that Man created God are basing those claims on blind faith with out any evidence what so ever and it would put them on the same pool as a theist who goes by faith rather than empirical evidence.

 

Also science should address this phenomena and provide a model or an explanation for these spiritual experiences and not back away from it. The end result on whether science can model such experiences or not might go on to decide on the existence of god. Such a model do serve some purpose it will radically change the worldview of billions of people or it will give us some insights to explore a all new world.

 

 

 

 

 

I recently watched the documentary series "Through The Worm Hole with Morgan Freeman" in Science Discovery Channel. One interesting thing I found was the work of Dr.Michael Persinger and his God Helmet. If out of body experiences can be induced on people at request whenever we desire to have it then if in someway get to know those minute complex stimulations of the temporal lobes in the brain which induce the experience of a personal god then it will be proved beyond doubt that "Man created God" rather than the other way around.

 

The point is people who claim that Man created God should back up their claim with an evidence showing that the experience of a personal god is no more than just a mere hallucination occuring at the temporal lobe of the brain rather than taking up the logical default position and dismissing the existence of God outside of science straight away.

 

The attitude has to change that the existence of God can be disproved and science shouldn't back away saying that the burden of proof is on people who claim that he exists. Scientists should take this field seriously just the same way how they take smashing atoms in particle accelerators seriously looking for truth and testing their models.

 

If neuropsychologists can repeatedly induce feelings or experiences of a personal god whose body is covered with gems and pearls eminating blue and red radiant light out of it irrespective of time and place then the theists should have to change their views and put their belief systems to the test. What if we could put the God helmet on Pope and induce a feeling of presence of god in him?

 

On the contrary if science fails and if there is a method which repeatedly allows one to expereince and communicate with a personal god at some point in time then it must be assumed that our reductionist approach is wrong and that there is something real outside of science. Its a great challenge on us and lets put our belief systems to test and evade blind faith.

 

Wiki - God_helmet and the Discussions Page

Neurotheology with god in mind

 

This is your Brain on God

 

 

This paper might answer all your queries about Quantum Computers. What is Quantum Computation?

I haven't seen a quantum computer but I'm sure there are few people on SFN who might have seen it in their universities and will be able to provide more insights into it.

I come from a place where these caste systems prevailed for thousands of years in the past and it is still in existence even today and I suspect this common system will continue to prevail in the near future and will remain as an integral part of hindu society.

 

It is true that these castes also called as varnas had specific professional roles in their society and they had to practice only those duties and professions. It is also true that they had to mate with individuals with in their caste i.e of the same kind. The opposite sex didn't had too many choices to make since it was pre-determined priorly at a very young age as to who her mate is and therefore sexual selection was quite complex which involved lots of factors and played a huge part in shaping those choices.

 

Even though this kind of rules were made for various religious reasons, one can speak in evolutionary terms and it makes some sense when one considers the success of this system which ensures that genes and memes(ideas) are passed on to future generations with high fidelity

 

Once humans started settling around fertile lands developing farming and taming of cattle which was so different from their nomadic behaviour our cultural evolution kicked in and it started shaping our genomes and removed the immense pressures on Natural selection to find soultions to emerging problems.

 

So though forcing individuals to mate with in their caste reduces diversity and variety of existing genotypes which are so vital for natural selection during times of environmental stress and crisis since those populations which provide raw materials in the form of variety to natural selection are more likely to come out of those crisis evolving as much better individuals however with the advent of cultural evolution these selection pressures during the times of environmental stress were wiped out by stable communal systems.

 

The Ksatriyas protected the fertile lands from the foreign enemy, the Vaishyas provided the economic strength for import of new goods, the shudras were workers who helped all other varnas and finally the Brahmanas would pray to gods of nature for the welfare of the whole community, they used to do perform rituals to please the gods and they would bring rain even during times of extreme drought. In this way all the four varnas divided their societal tasks helping each other for the good of their own caste and there by ensuring that their genes are passed on to their progeny.

 

Since all the four castes very necessary for a stable system it was very important that the individuals in the respective castes proliferated so that they meet the needs of the society on the whole and therefore cultural evolution introduced emotional barriers of reproduction between the caste systems instead of the physical barriers which would been introduced if natural selection was the only force shaping human beings. These reproductional barriers had to be introduced to prevent the wastage of gametes since humans spend most of their energy in developing a progeny and since the costs are too high there had to be a way to ensure that the developed progeny favoured the stability of the communal system rather than impeding its success. So individuals would perform their tasks more efficiently if they had two dominant genes in them instead of one dominant and one recessive gene which would fail to express its trait to its full potential. Therefore forcing individuals to mate with in their caste was a form of ancient genetic engineering allowing dominant genes of a specific trait to be more likely passed on to next generation increasing the reproductive success of the community on the whole.

 

Therefore those mutations which favoured the increase in development of muscles in ksatriyas and those mutations which favoured the development of neurons and its differentiation in Brahmans might have got selected and accumulated over time but this doesn't in any way make the ksatriyas more stronger and Brahmans being more smarter than other members of the castes. One will become smart and strong by his own efforts, interests and other environmental and nurture factors.

 

A Brahmin by birth will not be hard-wired with thousands of verses and mantras from the religious texts, they have to practice and memorize them, similarly a ksatriya by birth will not be knowing all the art of fighting in the battle field. Its just their bodies will favour them in their interests and desires to learn those tasks. History has shown us that there were many ksatriyas who went on to become Brahmans by achieving Brahmanahood by one'e own shear hard work and efforts while Brahmans by birth who had to achieve Brahmanahood failed to achieve it and remained as only jati(namesake) Brahmans and not as true Brahmans. So no where it says that intelligence is inheritable. Some genes might favour the process of learning and developing intelligence but it doesn't in any way make the individual more smarter than other individuals and the same holds for Ksatriyas too.

 

The Distinctions and divisions of castes which prevailed during those times can be found in the Yajnvalkya smriti text, chapter IV, pg 184 -221. I have uploaded this chapter to google docs. We can better understand the dynamics of those caste systems and their duties by studying this text which forms the basis foundation for hinduism.

 

 

 

 

I often hear about unemployment and discouragement towards outsourcing of jobs from random people in US whom I occasionally meet in IRC. There is often a common strong voice lifted against jobs going overseas and most of them are looking out for jobs. While some display anger others say that people should be recruited based on their meritocracy. So someone had to pull the breaks on companies outsourcing jobs outside and it came at the right time, a bill by congressman Tim Bishop which targets to put the breaks on relocation of call center workplaces to the more cheaper overseas locations. Will this be enough to tackle the increase in unemployment rate or whether more outside measures has to be taken like increasing the standards of the educational system? Does this mean that US will adopt more protectionist measures in the future?

 

Is it a good move, would you back the party which will claim to ensure that this bill will be amended as a law in the coming next year elections? What do you guys think and how the global world would react to this?

 

 

The Anti-Outsourcing Bill was introduced in the house on Dec 21.

 

The Official Bill can be found here.

 

<reason for edit: typed as angers instead of anger>

The Beginners guide to Quantum Mechanics by Alastair I.M Rae and Modern Physics by Moyer, Moses and Serway are some of the good books to start with the basics of QM.

 

 

But for the Upanishads the unity would come before anything. If you were right then Advaita Hinduism would be monotheism. Rather, it is nondualism. This would be the orthodox view. If mysticism were monotheism it would be no improvement on it. I wouldn't want to argue with your own belief in this respect, but it is not found in mysticism. It is true that the word God is used, but it would be a code word, often used for didactic purposes or to prevent charges of heresy and so on, or just because it is difficult to find a better or more evocative word, and not the claim that monotheism is true.

 

Monotheism - belief in one god, Panthesim - nature is god, Panentheism - god is in everything, polytheism all these school of thoughts comes under the umbrella of mysticism and they are inseperable from it.

 

Sankara, the founder of Advaita himself in many of his works has glorified the gods with poems and verses. Advaita doesn't discard the existence of gods, all it says is that the universe is one which is called as the 'Brahman' or the Unity and it is the only eternal truth, the truth about the multiplicity is not an eternal truth but it is very much true and it has an empirical existence.

 

 

Rig Veda 1.164.46,

Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garuda.To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."(trans. Griffith)

 

This is the view that all gods are one who is the personal god. Sankara is saying that this multiplicity of gods, the world, and the personal god is true temporarily. The eternal truth is that there is only entity which is non-dual i.e without an another.

 

You are wrong or either you have misunderstood it. Mysticism is not the death of gods infact it uphelds their existence. Mystics are not religious but that doesn't mean they deny the existence of gods.

 

Ah. There is way around this. Not ideal, but the best the intellect can do with no help. If we can read the literature of all the traditions, from the Buddhist sutras to the verses of the Upanishads, from the Tao Teh Ching to the Mystical Theology of the pseodo-Dionysius, from the Anelects of Plotinus to the poetry of Honghzhi and Rumi, from Schroedinger to Wei Wu Wei, from Badley to the Dalai Lama, and if these writers and texts seem always rigorous and perfectly consistent with each other, then you will know you have the correct interpretation, or are on the right track. If you see substantial disagreements between different traditions, more than just the usual cultural, linguistic and methodological differences, then some adjustment is indicated. I suppose it's a coherence theory of intepretation. It will work as long as there is only one mysticism and if there is only one truth.

 

If we adopt a neutral metaphysical position then there will be nothing to disagree with in the literature of mysticism, and if we want to render its doctrine implausible we would only need to refute this position.

 

It's the handy thing about mysticism, as a an area of intellectual study. If the issue is important then whatever we know about the doctrine of one tradition we know about the doctrine of all them.

 

You seem too optimistic here but I'm not so excited. Mysticism creates more problems than it solves. I'm afraid such a coherent interpretation does not exist and we don't know whether the truth is one and our hope of refuting to only one interpretation may never be realized.

 

What about the Abrahamic God? What about the gods of the Greeks? Do Gnostics of the christians, sufis and fakirs of the muslim, sages of the Aryas, shamans, the native americans, mayans, the egyptians all speak of the one truth? They have their own gods, their own rituals and their own traditions and practices. How does it provide a coherent interpretation? On what basis they fall and doesn't fall under the umbrella of mysticism? what's so special about the god of schroedinger or sunya of the buddhists so much that we have to give them more credence and take it seriously.

 

If you think that we have to take them seriously just because it comes from the mouth of intelligent people and if that's how you define mysticism then its not mysticism at all. Why is that mysticism should be logically consistent to the rational mind? Its too much of a narrow view upon what mysticism is. This is the reason why I don't get into discussions like these, I prefer to remain silent and investigate on what the truth is rather than trying to give a rational logically consistent coherent interpretation on mysticism.

 

 

 

 

PeterJ,

 

Sorry for the entangled question. It was not meant for just anybody. I was meant for you and Immortal, based on what we have been talking about, and in the context of my OP question. "What is it that you know, that I am misunderstanding, that he is getting wrong."

 

But its good for me to know, in my investigation, what "insights" you grant me as being already in possession of, and what insights you think I have yet to have. And how you would characterize the same for Immortal, a run of the mill master mystic, and a "perfect", ideal, super master mystic.

 

I guess I am feeling that answering this type of question, would cause you to have to "make a decision" out loud, about what you think of your own grasp of the truth, as compared to the grasp of the second person, and the third, and the Ideal person.

 

 

Name one thing you think I am misunderstanding, that you fully understand, that anti-mystics have absolutely wrong.

With an explanation in regards to me, one in regards to you, one in regards to Immortal, and one in regards to the anti-mystics.

 

 

(I am already "guessing" that there is going to be a positive light cast upon your knowledge and that of the ideal mystic, a questionable light cast upon my knowledge, and a negative light cast upon the knowledge of the anti-mystic. This is not very scientific, in that I am trying to "fit" my guess to the facts, rather than "look at the facts" and see what they tell me. But I have already looked for a while, and am truely only interested in how you really see it. I will adjust any view I have to fit the facts, rather then try to adjust the facts to fit my view. And I ask only for an honest answer, so I have some actual PeterJ views to account for, and fit into my investigation of the meaning behind language.)

 

 

My view - I am able to understand the mystical claims because I have a model where Brain ! = (is not equal to) Mind. To me Brain and the Mind are two different things. That's how I see it. This is the central dogma of Mysctism. We misunderstand or do not understand Mysticism because we don't know its basic models and their claims obviously appears absurd, ridiculuous and silly to us because we don't view it through the eye of the mystic. There's nothing magical about them.

 

So when I'm talking about the experiences of the mystics I'm not talking about the events happening between the synaptic junctions of the Brain and its not in any way related to the brain or the synaptic junctions. Its a completely different thing.

 

 

 

Molecular Neurobiology has very well investigated on how the Brain processes information at the most fundamental level and very well explains on how it helps the humans to communicate and work as a machine and we know the process of how the brain fires a neuron generating an action pontential(Na⁺ and K⁺ ions) coupling itself with the ca²⁺ ions coupling it with the contraction and relaxation of the actin and myosin fibres in the muscles there by allowing me to type the words which I'm typing right now. The works of Kandel shows us the process of learning. This is the view of the Brain. This is reality. This is something which is common to all of us.

 

 

Anti-mystics view - Their view is that even quantum mechanics makes absurd claims but QM also provides a way to say that a particle appears at some places with a high probability and it doesn't appear at all in some other places and the probability of finding the particle at these places is zero. So when we put a detector at places where there is a high probability of finding the particle and if we find it there quite often then the theorectical predictions are said to consistent with the observations made. The more the theory is tested and found consistent the more is our belief on it.

 

If the particle appears often at places where the theory says that the probability of finding the particle is almost zero at those places then there is something wrong with the theory because the observations are inconsistent. So we look for a different model to represent that reality.

 

So they view that this is the only way to acquire real knowledge there by rubbishing the claims which are by random speculation, metaphysical, mystical mumbo-jumbo and other pseudosciences.

 

I'm saying that mysticism is not real science but its not garbage either, there is some knowledge in it which can be tested and accumulated by practising the techniques. If you're not willing to put a detector and measure the postion of the particle how will you know whether the theory correctly represents reality or not, in the same way if you're not willing to practice the techniques how will you know whether there is any truth behind them or not.

 

PeterJ - He doesn't go by models, all he is saying that the claims of mysticism should not be dismissed off-hand since there are too many literatures and scholars and even scientists all talking about the same stuff making positive assertions in favour of mysticism. He has a gut feeling that there is something which needs to be investigated. An opinion based on reason.

 

However there are differences in how he sees mysticism and the way I see it.

 

Peter - [God of Schroedinger or the thing called 'Unity' or the emptiness or whatever]

 

Immortal - [unity, gods and personal god (the reason for this is, the scriptures which speak about the Unity can not exist with out Gods according to Vedas and Upanishads which forms an important part of the literature of mysticism.]

 

You - You think that we already know the truth, I don't know in what context you said that, assuming that I know about you, you seem to be talking about the "pure intuition" or the true insight which we all have in us which helps us to know the truth behind the Language.

Let me put this way we already know the truth because the truths already exists and our minds have access to it. There are many mathematicians who think that integers and other numbers do exist in their own realm and its not something which mathematicians create on their own. They don't invent anything they just discover the hidden truths. This might be the ultimate truth to you but the scripture says there is something else more subtle than this which is the ultimate truth.

 

As for the Real mystic or the super mystic is concerned I can define them and make an another set of mystical claims but I don't like to do it because it sounds like I'm preaching here with no knowledge in it and also not demonstrating it to everyone as to how it is achieved.

I very well Know where I'm standing on this issue.

 

 

 

You do realize that is a positive assertion, you say that humans can have cognition of the physical world with no sensory input? Like the existence of god that is impossible to disprove, it is on your head to provide evidence this can happen not demand proof it cannot....

 

Yes I do, that's why I requested some time, the burden of proof is on me, I'm not forcing anyone to change their view when there is a lack of evidence, you can continue bashing mysticism.

The default position is the logical choice in matters of no supporting evidence.

 

Yes we are not assuming or believing that the claims of Mysticism is true, I would like to test it and make some judgements which will not be conditioned on our pre-concieved belief systems.

 

Now here I think lies a disconnect, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) you seem to be assuming such claims have not been tested, when in reality they have been tested, over and over since even before scientific methodology was invented and so far all we get is a null result at best. Creationists often whine the mantra of "If you would only look, really investigate, the reality of creationism would become obvious. But this is a strawman, creationist writings have indeed been put to the test and they have failed in all cases. Mysticism, if it can be separated from religion and I do not think it really can, but mysticism is no better than religion and it's reveled truths, I have no doubt many people believe them with all their heart but such does not equal knowledge.

 

I'm not desperate to hold on to my beliefs just as creationists hold on and refuse to change even when the evidence is provided to them. Religious revealed truths have their own methodologies and I wouldn't test those religious claims by launching a space craft which will go to the far reaches of the universe and detect a radiation which will show us how the universe was at the inital stages of the Big Bang. This is not the way to test a religious claim, the words from the scriptures came from the angels and only through their knowledge we can understand those claims. So I would go and look out for angels to have the knowledge of the scriptures and depending on their existence I would decide the credibility of religious knowledge.

 

This is another strawman, "science can not claim to know what space time is?" so the default position is that the mental masturbation of mysticism can know what space time is simply because it claims to know??? On top of that who claims science cannot know what space time is? Again i am going to compare this to creationism, they consistently make such claims about science, science cannot know what caused the universe to come into existence but reveled truth to some slap happy televangelist snorting meth off the tight ass of a male prostitute can, the default position is not mysticism for the win, it's "we do not know"

 

Its better if we keep science and mysticism seperate. I'm not advocating that Mysticism is science. Creationists often attack science with absurd arguments because they don't understand how science operates. Mysticism doesn't claim that since "Science can not know what space-time is so by default mystics claim that they know what space-time is". Irrespective of what science claims and what it doesn't Mysticism stands on its own, it doesn't interfere with science, it lies outside of science.

 

The whole thread in the philosophy forum "Is philosophy relevant to science?" is to show to Owl that the ontology of space and time is irrelevant to science. I mentioned this because you said Mysticism doesn't serve any purpose, it does serve some purpose like to know the ontology of space and time. What space is? What time is?. It doesn't arrive at this position by default just because science claims it can't. Mysticism doesn't build its models based on what science claims and what it doesn't. It has its own models and its own methodologies and it lies outside of science.

 

The whole dogma of Mysticism lies in the following statement, it is the central dogma of mysticism. All their claims are based on this dogma.

 

Human beings can observe the world and have cognition with out any sensory inputs, perception and the act of knowing about the physical world can be achieved with out any stimulation of the sense organs or in other words observing the world only through the eyes is not the only way that exists to measure the physical world.

 

Disprove this statement i.e prove that observing the physical world through one's own eyes is the only way that is available to know about the physical world, then I'll take all this baggage of Mysticism from here and will go and hide somewhere.

 

As you can see it lies outside of science and just because science has tested its models and more we test them the more they stand the test of the times and more belief we have on those models. This doesn't necessarily mean that it has tested the claims of mystics and doesn't mean that it can be dismissed at off-hand. For example:- Science says that the earth is not flat but it doesn't mean it will appear in the same way when we observe the physical world in a different way unless one proves that the way science sees it is the only way that is possible to observe the empirical world. It was just an anology, I'm not doubting the methods of science, all I'm saying is that there might be other ways to acquire knowledge.

 

It is in this context I want to do some research on it and see whether there is any truth behind it irrespective of what science says about reality.

 

I claim to be an alien in disguise, my cloaked space craft is orbit as i type, none of the physical laws of the universe prohibit me from being an alien and having a space ship in orbit, can you see how lacking in substance both claims are?

 

Again, you would accept such an assertion with no evidence? My space craft can travel faster than light and I have used it to observe the dinosaurs and the extinction event that killed them all off.... unless you hold mystics to the same level of proof that you would hold me and my claims of a space ship in orbit they can claim anything and never have to back it up, never....

 

I am not accepting those claims but I doesn't want to dismiss it either. I'm not claiming those claims are the absolute truth as though we should believe or accept it with out any proof of it. As to the level of proof mysticism can not stand along with science because as I have been repeatedly stated that their observations can not be predicted and repeated in a way we repeat the scientific measurements. But once the observations are recorded they are consistent with previous observations. Mysticism can not say that a person will acquire the knowledge of teleportation by performing a particular technique for this much amount of time, say 1 year or 2 year it can not say that, but when he acquires, that knowledge is certain and its demonstration is repeatable.

 

Again like the creationists you are indeed asking not only for something that has already been done many many times and your requests for respect of mysticism will be just as never ending as the creationist whine about science not being fair....

 

I have been repeatedly saying that Mysticism is not science and it lies outside of science and I'm not advocating that it should be taught in schools as though it is true science as creationists demand. I used the term "intellectual community" and not "scientific community" because this is not science, even if I have evidence for all those mystical claims I will not be able to convince a scientist. Science works differently, it has its own methodologies. Mysticism is metaphysics, so it is best to keep it outside of science. I'm not desperate to prove that Mysticism is science, its not and it doesn't require science to get the respect that it deserves. It stands on its own.

 

Immortal,

 

I do not believe in magic.

 

Nor do I believe in teleportation as anything other than an "imaginary" trip.

 

Just have a mystic go retreive some objects that would be valuable to us from the future. Or have him pop around to local star systems, and let us know what they are like, and where the closest planet with life on it, is. Or teleport around under the sea and surface of the Earth, and tell us where to find the minerals and resources we need. Science would have no hesitation in accepting trustworthy info of this sort, and would be anxious to know exactly how the teleportation is achieved. They would probably be able to not only use it to our benefit, but use the principles involved, to extend human capabilities fast and far.

 

Yes, this shows that if there's any credence behind the claims of mystics then it does serve some purpose to humanity. It might change the way we think about this world completely.

 

I take back "a little" of my association with you, if you take the ideas that I assign as figurative in a literal fashion.

 

I'm a person who think that the universe is paradoxical, I'll be a completely different person when it comes to debating in hard science forums and my view and my thinking process will change when I'm in the religious forums and I'll be a different person in the philosophical forums. Therefore I would investigate a world in which the world is made of particles of the standard model in physics and I would also investigate the world made up of gods as said in religion. It seems contradictory and weird but humans have enough wisdom to seperate out the claims of science and religion and understand how they both work at the fundamental level in increasing our knowledge.

 

I am looking for the "actual" ways before us.

 

Rationalism is one way, Empiricism is an another. Pure intuition is an another way. Knowing the noumenon of kant might be an another way. i.e to know the thing in itself which mysticism claims to know.

 

They indeed, in my expectation, have been, are and will be quite astounding. And there is "something" I suspect, that is "behind" the wisdom of the ages, that is still true now, as it was when first noticed...BUT we are "already" using it, and it has gotten us to where we are. We can learn more, and understand better, and increase our human knowledge. But we have not yet done what we have not yet done. And we have not yet known what we are yet to know. And the mystic is constrained to reality as is the layman. The truth of any "actual" journey the mystics have taken would not be hard for them to show us. If they actually had anything to show us. Insights surely. Outsightings? Evidently not.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

There is nothing that will prevent the Mystic from showing you the truth, he will show us but only if we are prepared to see it. The problem is there are hardly a few of them who can do that for you, if I had that knowledge myself I could've easily shown you.

So in other words mysticism has no added no more or less than religion or any other supernatural superstition to our first world civilization. Mysticism is just a way to pretend to know something important and use that pretense to demand respect it does not deserve. I prefer to live in our science based first world civilization, if you want to go back to the times of charlatans and fakers getting adulation for nothing be my guest but think of how low our level of civilization was when we allowed such people real power and respect. They contribute nothing to humanities store house of knowledge, they contribute no technology, no medicine, no wisdom, nothing but baseless claims about things that cannot be tested and serve no purpose, no better than or different from snake oil salesmen, multi-level marketing, preachers, pastors, or ju ju men. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, mystics have the claims but no evidence, nothing positive at all. Mystics are no better than any other witch doctor, in fact that is exactly what they are, ju ju men desperately trying to remain relevant in a modern world by false promises, mysterious claims, and out right fabrications. Skeptic? One of you claimed I was not a skeptic because I could not allow for the absolute truth of the mystic, much like the revealed truth of religion, their horse feathers are still difficult to choke down with out a huge chaser of blind faith. Really really really believing something is not knowledge and neither is endless open ended speculations.

 

 

I doesn't want to defend mysticism since the burden of proof will be upon me and I can not give you any evidence for mysticism and I'm not a mystic either and its not wrong at all on you to take the default position at this time were there is a lack of evidence.

 

On an another note I would really like to do more research on it and test their claims and would love to know whether there is any truth behind those claims.

 

Mysticism claims many things and it server many purposes. Science can not claim to know "what space-time is?" and there is no experiment in the scientific methodology to test the assertions of "what space-time really is?" but its the kind of knowledge which mysticism claims to explain, it claims to explain "what space-time is" and gives a set of techniques to know it.

 

Mysticism claims to have a technique which help the mystic to teleport from one place to another and we also know that there is no law in physics which would prevent teleporation from happening, it doesn't violate any laws of physics.

 

We all know that all events are always happening and that the time can not be changed but it can be rewinded and forwarded to see the past and the future. Its an another claim by mystics which says that they can see events which have already happened, which is happening now and which has happened in the future.

 

Its definitely not science but it does serve some purpose and if the knowledge is consistent then it does adds something to the knowledge book of the humanities. So I would really like to know the truth behind all those assertions and request some time from the intellectual community for the evidence to accumulated which might be in favour of mysticism or against it.