Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Emergence describes the phaenomen that something new arises out of parts which wouldnt indicate the "newness".
This is incoherent nonsense - as a lot of modern Western philosophy tend to be. The type of emergence indicated here does not jump across absolute boundaries. Lines, rounded triangles and whatever are all the same type of 'stuff' which can be transformed into each other by mathematical transformations. Matter and consciousness are defined to be absolutely different kinds of stuff which cannot be transformed into each other by definition.
This is now going into the realms of adolescent tit for tat - we are all made of the same kind of 'stuff' - it we were made of completely different types of 'stuff' then we simply would not be able to communicate with each other - this is a species of Wittgenstein's private language argument but is fundamentally Buddhist. Am I actually talking to Buddhists who know anything about Buddhism, who seriously meditate - if not I will just remove you from my list of sites worth visiting and move on!
Emergence describes the phaenomen that something new arises out of parts which wouldnt indicate the "newness".
This is incoherent nonsense - as a lot of modern Western philosophy tend to be. The type of emergence indicated here does not jump across absolute boundaries. Lines, rounded triangles and whatever are all the same type of 'stuff' which can be transformed into each other by mathematical transformations. Matter and consciousness are defined to be absolutely different kinds of stuff which cannot be transformed into each other by definition.
There is a lot other stuff too which emerges "magically" from something other and there a at least a few scientists who believe consciousness could be created trough an emergent process.
I dont know where you get your defintions from but im pretty sure there isnt a defintion in the scientific world which states matter and consciousness are absolutley different kind of things, otherwise i could open any book about neuroscience and read that consciousness is not created by brain.
In your older posts you stated that the matter (the appearance of matter, which doesnt make much difference because there is only one kind of matter) _is_ created by consciousness.
Am I actually talking to Buddhists who know anything about Buddhism, who seriously meditate - if not I will just remove you from my list of sites worth visiting and move on!
Maybe you should stop using a scientific theory like quantum physics for your philosophy if you are not open to scientific discourse and arguments.
There was a post about what this site is somewhat earlier, the new in newbuddhist is for new to buddhist not a new buddhism, which indicates that there is a high chance that you are actually talking to people who are new to buddhism.
There was a post about what this site is somewhat earlier, the new in newbuddhist is for new to buddhist not a new buddhism, which indicates that there is a high chance that you are actually talking to people who are new to buddhism.
Ok point taken - I missed that post.
Maybe you should stop using a scientific theory like quantum physics for your philosophy if you are not open to scientific discourse and arguments.
I am not using quantum theory in the context of Buddhism out of whim. I set out about 10 years ago to find out if there were connections and the result of this investigation was a 650 page book detailing the extraordinary interconnections and parallels. The book is both scientifically and philosophically precise. So the notion that I am
not open to scientific discourse and arguments
is mistaken. You have read one of my articles so if you can find anything in it unscientific or dubious from a philosophical point of view please let me know. If I make mistakes I like to know so I can rectify them.
Now fruitful discussion requires that we use the currently accepted definitions (or we both agree on an alternative definition) and the generally accepted current definition of 'matter' is still that given by Descartes which is that it is space filling stuff which has no trace of consciousness. This is what materialists basically mean by matter. So when a materialist like Dennett or one of the Churchlands says that the mind is the brain he or she means that mind comes from mindlessness. Here is a quote from Dennett:
An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe.
How familiar with the current discourse concerning the nature of consciousness?
Consciousness for Descartes was knowing 'stuff' - using the term stuff in a very loose sense. In Buddhism consciousness is 'clarity that cognizes' which amounts to basically the same thing. So yes fundamentally in Western discourse matter and consciousness are complete different kinds of stuff.
However there are moves to change this because of the advent of quantum theory - the recent informational paradigm is an example - but all these new approaches accept that Cartesian - 'classical' type 'matter' does not exist in the way the 'classical' physics thought that it did.
In your older posts you stated that the matter (the appearance of matter, which doesnt make much difference because there is only one kind of matter) _is_ created by consciousness.
Is incorrect - matter was thought to be solid extended stuff completely independent of mind we now know this kind of matter does not exist which is why the following quotes are appropriate:
One might try to interpret the ‘matter’ occurring in this formula as the ‘matter’ that occurs in classical physics. But this kind of ‘matter’ does not exist in nature.
- Henry Stapp
…variables can no longer provide us with a definite, unique and unambiguous concept of matter in the quantum domain. Only in the classical domain is such a concept an adequate approximation.
- David Bohm
Quantum theory provides a superb description of physical reality on a small scale, yet it contains many mysteries. Without doubt, it is hard to come to terms with the workings of the theory, and it is particularly difficult to make sense of the kind of ‘physical reality’ – or lack of it – that it seems to imply for our world.
- Roger Penrose
…because experiments confirm that quantum mechanics does describe fundamental physics, it presents a frontal assault on our basic beliefs as to what constitutes reality.
- Brian Greene
The laws of physics were saying that matter as we know it simply can’t exist. It was time for some new laws of physics.
- Robert Oerter
I sometimes use the term 'matter' where I should if being precise use phrase 'the appearance of matter'.
There is a lot other stuff too which emerges "magically" from something other...
This is not correct - there are many instances where there are non-magical emergent transformations in which the emergent phenomenon can be accounted for by some aspect of the basis phenomenon - water from hydrogen and oxygen, which is often cited as an example, for instance - we can clearly account for the emergence form the basis of molecular properties. In the case of 'matter' and 'consciousness' 'matter' id defined to be completely devoid of possibilities for consciousness. I know of know one who would claim that hydrogen is completely devoid of the potentiality of transforming under certain circumstances into water.
This however is an important point, however. The issue is for example what exactly do the Churchland's mean by there materialist claims - I must look into this more. They seem to be saying that matter is completely and absolutely mindless and yet transforms into mind.
But, anyway, this all shown to be nonsense because the ground quantum field is insubstantial. Which means that the materialist case is insubstantial!
there a at least a few scientists who believe consciousness could be created trough an emergent process.
if not I will just remove you from my list of sites worth visiting and move on!
. It just looked like you would end the discussion because you did not agree with my arguments. If i was mistaken im sorry.
To clarify my opinion on the matter-consciousness problem:
I find it highly possible that consciousness is indeed the very fabric of the universe from which everything else is "created", but im not sure. Its just a possibility which is underpinned by various problems which are difficult to solve otherwise, but with no proof at all.
In addition i think there is the possibility that consciousness ist not the fabric of the universe but something else and consciousness emerges from that something else which in itself is not conscious or self-aware.
Im not sure, and i dont think there is a method to proof either one of the theories, because its not possible to conduct an experiment which would withstand scientific requirements. It is not possible to compare two subjective states in the sense we can compare two objects.
I dont think your article is unscientifc, but it is unscientifc to say this is how reality works with 100% security.
matter was thought to be solid extended stuff completely independent of mind we now know this kind of matter does not exist which
I agree with the part that matter is not a solid extented stuff. I dont agree with the part that it is dependent on mind. Could be, i dont know, and it seems physicists dont have a unified opinion on this, see the paper of Nauenberg.
I argued with emergence to show that there could be other options in the theory of consciousness.
if not I will just remove you from my list of sites worth visiting and move on!
was that I was somewhat surprised by your saying:
You could use the same words to describe the experience, but you will never know if your meaning for the word bliss is the same meaning that i use for the word bliss.
I will never know what is like for you to bite into an apple.
which was supposed to indicate that meditation cannot be described, taught or whatever.
Suppose we are doing a scientific experiment - rolling a ball down an inclined plane for example - I can never know what your experience of the ball is like, this is obvious, but it does not stop us doing the experiment and drawing conclusions.
It just seemed like a very odd thing for a Buddhist to say. All the Buddhists I know, and most of my friends are Buddhists because Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy is the central concern of my life, consider the mind-stuff (using the term loosely) which makes up the minds of human beings (I will leave animals out for convenience because as far as I know they do not meditate!) is the same fundamental stuff (ultimately deriving from the non-dual awareness of the quantum field), although it gets tangled up in a multitude of different ways. Now meditation works to untangle this mind-stuff and produce replicable and describable meditative states. I know of no Buddhist who does not accept this!
Furthermore the notion that we are using the same words to describe radically different entities and states and yet are still communicating is surely mistaken. How often is this likely to happen? Words function because although as Wittgenstein said they do not have 'sharp boundaries' there is generally, if we are using the same 'language game', a large area of overlap of meaning.
However I now accept that I was wrong in being irritable - what a poor Buddhist I am! Please accept my apologies. The reason for it is that I have been on sites where people are not serious and just argue for the sake of it. But I see you are genuine and are debating the issues.
I will get back to you on your other remarks shortly.
I think there is the possibility that consciousness is not the fabric of the universe but something else and consciousness emerges from that something else which in itself is not conscious or self-aware.
Formulating an answer to this is useful for me because it is required for my third book which I am currently working on – Quantum Buddhist Wonders of the Universe. Western philosophy, and science when in philosophical mode, is often appallingly lax in conceptual precision when it comes to terminology involving consciousness and associated phenomena. In Buddhist Yogachara-Chitttamtra (Mind-Only) and Dzogchen (Great Perfection) metaphysics the nature and structure of reality is understood, in outline form of course, as follows:
At the ground level there is a vast infinite field/pool of energetic potentiality for manifestation. The fundamental nature of this field is cognizance, it is immaterial ‘knowing’ stuff. This in Yogachara metaphysics is called jnana – non-dual awareness-wisdom. But it is not wisdom in the limited sense of being wise about everyday affairs, is called ‘wisdom’ because when one experiences this level of awareness one directly knows the nature of reality.
Now if we are being precise then if asked the question is this ‘stuff’ (always I use the term ‘stuff’ loosely – it is immaterial ‘stuff’ – energetic potentiality with a fundamental cognizant nature) – is this ‘stuff’ ‘consciousness’, then the correct answer is no. Why – because consciousness is dualistic and jnana is non-dualistic. In Yogachara metaphysics consciousness is vijnana. The prefix ‘vi’ means to divide – so vijnana is divided jnana – divided non-dual awareness.
Although consciousness is not non-dual awareness it has a nature of non-dual awareness because it is jnana which has been divided up and ‘stepped-down’ so to speak in order to get embodied in sentient beings. We can also say that is of the nature of the ground is of the nature of consciousness because it is clearly potential consciousness. It does not make sense to say that the thing from which something else ‘emerges’ has absolutely none of the qualities of the thing which emerges. In the case of water, water is hydrogen and oxygen arranged in a particular way, but water, hydrogen, and oxygen are, talking from a conventional point of view, made of apparently material particles.
When jnana divides it creates the realm of subjectivity, which is the subjective consciousness experienced to various degrees by sentient beings, and the collective ‘objective’ realm of appearances which appear to make up an external ‘material’ world.
Why does jnana divide? In order to fulfil is cognizant function!
I dont think your article is unscientifc, but it is unscientifc to say this is how reality works with 100% security.
Matter is said to be 99.9999999999999% empty space – I think my account is one valid account of how reality functions with 99.9999999999999% security. There may be other accounts, like Hawking and Mlodinow’s in their book The Grand Design, but valid accounts will not contradict each other, they will, like the Heisenberg and Schrodinger quantum perspectives, be complementary perspectives upon a reality which can be articulated in differing ways. But the differing ways will not be inconsistent. Hawking and Mlodinow call this approach a Model Dependent Reality.
I agree with the part that matter is not a solid extented stuff. I dont agree with the part that it is dependent on mind. Could be, i dont know, and it seems physicists dont have a unified opinion on this, see the paper of Nauenberg.
Nauenberg’s paper is misleading – it misrepresents Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Wheeler and it leaves out much significant stuff like d’Espagnat, Zurek, Stapp and others. What he says about the mico and the macro is false exactly for the reasons outlined in the paper of mine that you have read. His paper is actually verging on intellectual fraud – in a previous post I indicated how he badly misrepresents Heisenberg. I am going to write an article about this paper but am engaged in several directions at the moment.
John Searle is philosophically confused – I have attached a section from my second book The Grand Designer dealing with Searle.
which was supposed to indicate that meditation cannot be described, taught or whatever.
Suppose we are doing a scientific experiment - rolling a ball down an inclined plane for example - I can never know what your experience of the ball is like, this is obvious, but it does not stop us doing the experiment and drawing conclusions.
Yes, but we can use other objects to measure the motion of the ball, like a clock and a ruler. Now everybody on the world can perform this experiment too and then they compare what they measured with the clock and the ruler.
There is no measuring device for subjective experience, so subjective experience cannot compared to another subjective experience in the way the behaviour of an object can be compared.
Furthermore the notion that we are using the same words to describe radically different entities and states and yet are still communicating is surely mistaken. How often is this likely to happen? Words function because although as Wittgenstein said they do not have 'sharp boundaries' there is generally, if we are using the same 'language game', a large area of overlap of meaning.
It happens very often that two people are communicating but have different meanings for the words they use. Thats because there is no intrinsic meaning to the word. The word is associated with a subjective experience. Not everyone has the same linking of words to subjective experiences. Thats because subjective experience cannot be compared, as i stated above.
There are people who are color blind and they dont know it, because they have no means to compare there color experience to the color experience someone else has. They dont know what it is to see colors in the way someone else does. The word for the color they cant see is linked to that what they see. And my word for the color they cant see is linked to the color i can see. So the linking is different.
The reason I wrote: It just seemed like a very odd thing for a Buddhist to say. All the Buddhists I know, and most of my friends are Buddhists because Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy is the central concern of my life, consider the mind-stuff (using the term loosely) which makes up the minds of human beings (I will leave animals out for convenience because as far as I know they do not meditate!) is the same fundamental stuff (ultimately deriving from the non-dual awareness of the quantum field), although it gets tangled up in a multitude of different ways. Now meditation works to untangle this mind-stuff and produce replicable and describable meditative states. I know of no Buddhist who does not accept this!
I would not describe myself as a buddhist, im interested in buddhism. Same way im not a scientist i study science.
Matter is said to be 99.9999999999999% empty space – I think my account is one valid account of how reality functions with 99.9999999999999% security.
Yes, because you equate empty space with a consciousness field of potentiality. But there is no proof that it is like that.
Your whole argumentation is based on the argument that quantum mechanics is entangled with consciousness. It could be that it is like that, but neither is there proof nor is there consens in scientific community. You are quoting a lot of physicists expressing their _opinion_ on this matter, but they dont know, and they dont say they know and they would not dare to put it as a fact in to a textbook of quantum mechanics, because they know they dont know.
The Question is what is the Question? Is it all a Magic Show? Is Reality an Illusion? What is the framework of the Machine? Darwin`s Puzzle: Natural Selection? Where does Space-Time come from? Is there any answer except that it comes from consciousness? What is Out There? T`is Ourselves? Or, is IT all just a Magic Show?
'Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.'
Yes, but we can use other objects to measure the motion of the ball, like a clock and a ruler. Now everybody on the world can perform this experiment too and then they compare what they measured with the clock and the ruler.
True - but quantum theory and to a lesser extent relativity indicate that these objects you want to use as measuring standards are, from an ultimate point of view an illusion. They do not exist independently of the minds of the community of observers. This is why Professor Anton Zeilinger says about Wheeler's:
…realisation that the implications of quantum physics are so far-reaching that they require a completely novel approach in our view of reality and in the way we see our role in the universe. This distinguishes him from many others who in one way or another tried to save pre-quantum viewpoints, particularly the obviously wrong notion of a reality independent of us.
Zeilinger is not mystic, in his book Dance of the Photons he is very reluctant to talk of consciousness 'collapsing wavefunctions' and such but he concludes that we must now reject notions of an independent realm of 'materiality' which is not in some way dependent on mind. The large majority of physicists accept this. The number who do not is small and they often - like Nauenberg - misrepresent the evidence.
It happens very often that two people are communicating but have different meanings for the words they use. Thats because there is no intrinsic meaning to the word. The word is associated with a subjective experience. Not everyone has the same linking of words to subjective experiences. Thats because subjective experience cannot be compared, as i stated above.
True - but we learn to link words to the same subjective experiences by sharing a 'form of life' as Wittgenstein said. People who take up Buddhist meditation learn to link the appropriate words to the meditational experiences under the guidance of someone who knows what they are doing. Meditators can judge the reality and significance of this practice by results.
In the end all I can do is present the evidence and give reasoning as to why I reach certain conclusions - and these are the conclusions reached by the greatest number of significant physicists. But if you still remain unconvinced I can only put it down to your karma!
In the end all I can do is present the evidence and give reasoning as to why I reach certain conclusions - and these are the conclusions reached by the greatest number of significant physicists. But if you still remain unconvinced I can only put it down to your karma!
Yeah, i know i have the Karma of a doubter, but i promise to try harder in the next life!
Zeilinger says that the Dalai Lama did not have a problem with photons having both particle and wave-like properties, but was reluctant to accept that individual quantum events are random. For example, he refused to accept that we cannot know which path a photon takes in a two-path quantum interference experiment. Zeilinger notes that continuity of existence is very important to Buddhists because it leads to reincarnation.
However, observation plays a key part in what we can know in both quantum theory and Buddhism, and Zeilinger was surprised to learn that the Dalai Lama agreed that there are not only limits on what we can measure, but also limits on what we can know, even in principle
Wallace agrees that quantum mechanics and Buddhism have many similarities: neither is fully objective (i.e. certain quantum properties only have meaning in the context of a measurement) nor fully subjective. Consciousness and various mind-body problems are also similar in this respect, he adds. According to Wallace, the Dalai Lama had not realized before that these sorts of philosophical questions could be so clearly demonstrated in the laboratory, while physicists were surprised that the introspective approach of Buddhism led to similar questions.
Rest of the Article in Link above.
Second visit in 2007 was taped on video:
Haven't watched it, but maybe someone(Leon?) finds it interesting.
Watched part of it last night in my first forays into this fascinating subject. Sadly, the scientists were badly prepared, with just a still image to explain a 2 slot experiment. Language barriers, confusion, very slow ... I quit after 2 sections.... may watch the rest tonight.
Zeilinger says that the Dalai Lama did not have a problem with photons having both particle and wave-like properties, but was reluctant to accept that individual quantum events are random. For example, he refused to accept that we cannot know which path a photon takes in a two-path quantum interference experiment. Zeilinger notes that continuity of existence is very important to Buddhists because it leads to reincarnation.
However, observation plays a key part in what we can know in both quantum theory and Buddhism, and Zeilinger was surprised to learn that the Dalai Lama agreed that there are not only limits on what we can measure, but also limits on what we can know, even in principle
Wallace agrees that quantum mechanics and Buddhism have many similarities: neither is fully objective (i.e. certain quantum properties only have meaning in the context of a measurement) nor fully subjective. Consciousness and various mind-body problems are also similar in this respect, he adds. According to Wallace, the Dalai Lama had not realized before that these sorts of philosophical questions could be so clearly demonstrated in the laboratory, while physicists were surprised that the introspective approach of Buddhism led to similar questions.
Rest of the Article in Link above.
Second visit in 2007 was taped on video:
Haven't watched it, but maybe someone(Leon?) finds it interesting.
Watched part of it last night in my first forays into this fascinating subject. Sadly, the scientists were badly prepared, with just a still image to explain a 2 slot experiment. Language barriers, confusion, very slow ... I quit after 2 sections.... may watch the rest tonight.
yep, very boring to watch. the dalai lama should have visited neil de grasse tyson.
@ihepf I came across those videos (the ones you posted) last year and they sparked my interest. Do you happen to have some recommendations for videos worth watching, that are more educational, and some with also a Buddhist angle? Looks like there was a TED clip, so I'll look there next...
Meditation is a means for looking more closely at our experience of reality.
According to Wojciech Zurek the quantum realm is epiontic dream stuff.
Quantum physics shows us that experience is reality - although to experience reality in its pure nondual state experience has to be purified through engaging in spiritual techniques of transformation.
It's become a fad recently to put use 'quantum' with regard to subjects that it has nothing to do with.
Have you done the necessary research to make this statement? If you have not have the following:
1. A reasonable grasp of the research and debates on the foundations of quantum theory - I have given a list of the people one needs to have studied earlier in this debate
2. An in depth knowledge of Buddhist philosophy - Chittamatra, Madhyamaka, Dzogchen.
then the answer is no!
If you do not have this knowledge then your remarks are based on ignorance. If you do have the relevant knowledge I challenge you to go to my website www.quantumbuddhism.com where you will find free articles explaining my position and then give a reasoned account of why you think I am mistaken. If you have strong opinions on this matter you must surely have reasons for them!
Quantum physics shows us that experience is reality
The statement above is an opinion expressed as fact.
Experiment shows that we live in a world that behaves, on the microscopical plane, not like we are used to in our conventional experience. Why it behaves like that, nobody knows. The theory that can be used to calculate that strange behaviour is called quantum physics.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@ClearLightMind I've spent some time reading some of your articles at http://quantumbuddha.byethost12.com/qb-newindex.php?pg=5 and I just want to say that In my view you have a very important view to share with people. I wish you well in getting your message across and hope to see and hear of your ideas in the future.
Quantum physics shows us that experience is reality
The statement above is an opinion expressed as fact.
Let me amplify my assertion - after a considered evaluation of the views of people like Whitehead, Stapp, d'Espagnat, Wheeler, Zurek, Penrose, Everett, DeWitt, Vlatko Vedral, Victor Mansfield, Joos, Zeh, Oppenheimer, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Planck, Linde, Eddington,... to mention just a few - I accept that the overwhelming evidence points in the direction of pan-experientialism of some kind. The most convincing pan-experiential metaphysical account I have found which is consistent with quantum theory is Chittamatta/Yogachara Buddhism and Dzogchen (both Buddhist and non-Buddhist or Bon).
Thanks person for taking the time to look into my views in detail. And thanks for the endorsement.
Quantum Mechanics is very complementary to non-dual philosophy in general, which in Buddhist terms comes through as Zen.
Zen is not the only nondual formulation of Buddhism. Early Hinayana (Theravada) can be (implicitly) seen as nondual. Chittamatra-Yogachara and Dzogchen are explicity nondual Buddhist metaphysics. The idea that only Zen is nondual is mistaken.
Quantum Mechanics is very complementary to non-dual philosophy in general, which in Buddhist terms comes through as Zen.
Zen is not the only nondual formulation of Buddhism. Early Hinayana (Theravada) can be (implicitly) seen as nondual. Chittamatra-Yogachara and Dzogchen are explicity nondual Buddhist metaphysics. The idea that only Zen is nondual is mistaken.
That would seem to be a safe assumption, since it seems quite clear the Buddha teaches Non-Duality. Thank you for the information! I suppose it is my tendency to use "Zen" as a catch-all term for a certain way of thinking, although it, or at least much of it, can most definitely be applied to different schools of thought.
But the human world ( including Buddhism ) follows the principles of Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics.
If you ask most physicists they will tell you that the ultimate nature of reality is quantum and that what we take to be a 'real' 'classical' world is a kind of illusion. In fact Erich Joos says its a 'delusion'. This corresponds exactly to the Buddhist Madhyamaka doctrine of the 'two realities' - the 'conventional' 'seeming' realm that sentient beings seem to inhabit is a deceptive illusion, the ultimate realm is EMPTINESS.
Now an astonishing thing is that according to the Madhyamaka the existential configuration of emptiness is ->
Neither existent, nor non-existent, nor both, nor neither.
This turns out to be precisely the existential configuration of the quantum realm. In his book Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards Giancarlo Ghirardi, who is notable for being one of a group of quantum physicists who have proposed an interpretation of quantum theory (the Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber interpretation), describes the existential possibility, or potentiality, configuration for a quantum chair, i.e. a chair imagined as behaving as a quantum object:
What meaning can there be in a state that makes it illegitimate to think that our chair is either here or in some other place? … only potentialities exist about the location of the chair, potentialities that cannot be realized, unless we carry out a measurement of position? How can it be understood that, attached to these potentialities, is a nonepistemic probability that in a subsequent measurement of position the chair will be found here or there (which is equivalent to asserting that, before the measurement was carried out, the chair could be neither here nor there, nor in both places, nor in neither place)?
While I can see how it is difficult to grasp and position tiny particles or waves, I don't understand why a solid, complete object that I can see and touch is "neither here nor there", but rather an "illusion" - in an actual and not metaphysical sense.. I follow as far as seeing and interpreting is a matter of perception and understanding of what is perceived, but touching an object that is solid is "real", and a chair in front of me is just "there". Beginner's question, but I'd like to know....
While I can see how it is difficult to grasp and position tiny particles or waves, I don't understand why a solid, complete object that I can see and touch is "neither here nor there", but rather an "illusion" - in an actual and not metaphysical sense.. I follow as far as seeing and interpreting is a matter of perception and understanding of what is perceived, but touching an object that is solid is "real", and a chair in front of me is just "there". Beginner's question, but I'd like to know....
Solid is relation to what?
Touch is dependent on finer and object making contact this touch consciousness. Lift hand off and there is no contact thus no touch consciousness.
That is just one stream of consciousness and contact. Sight has nothing to do with touch other than what the mind links based on karma.
Any position on an object is invalid because it dependently originates.
Touch is referencing point a and b. go where there is only hard and nothing else.
Touching "something", no matter what, is different from touching nothing (or air). The DIFFERENCE is obvious, and not an illusion (even if I have no idea what it is that I am touching or not)
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Touching "something", no matter what, is different from touching nothing (or air). The DIFFERENCE is obvious, and not an illusion (even if I have no idea what it is that I am touching or not)
The illusion is in how our minds percieve the object, the mental construction of it. To say that things don't exist at all and don't have some type of conventional existence is also wrong. A chair may be illusiory in nature but that doesn't mean if we put cream cheese on it that it would make a nice snack or that a bagel would be a comfortable place to rest your tush.
Our minds percieve an object to be totally independent of its parts, of our senses, of change. This is the illusion, phenomena exist but our perception of how they actually exist is way off.
Here is no "nothing" touching. There is just no causes and conditions for touching to be.
Differences are only based of references which are not inherent in the object itself.
For insrance how can we posit a here? We need a there. In experience the touch of say the shirt i am wearing has nothing to do with any other previous touch unless the mind posits a relationship. Not only that there is no location to where the touch is happening other than the minds assertion of a point in relationship to another point.
Touch is happening but where, when, who do not apply to touch. Until a mind asserts a reference point in relation to another. But this is always done retroactively. In direct experience touch is just touch. Pure touch. Just see how all the assumptions are projected after the fact.
To possibilities: let me make two points that I believe will be helpful to you.
First of all, there is no such thing as "physical things." What we call "physicality" is actually energy condensed in a very slow rate of vibration. What we call "things" are actually mental projections, as there are no things, only a flowing pool of energy.
As for your second post, we never "touch" ANYTHING. That is impossible, as there is a repulsion that ocurrs that makes that sort of contact impossible. What you perceive to be your "touching" of an object is actually the magnetic repulsion, which you have come to interpret as touching.
Thank you @ImmersedOne@taiyaki and @person -- I am learning a lot in these past few days and I'm intrigued with how it ties in with Buddhist thought.
I saw a few videos yesterday that paved the way for the explanation of matter being "energy condensed in a very slow rate of vibration" which resonates most, as does the idea of not touching since it "is actually the magnetic repulsion, which you have come to interpret as touching."
I can see how on this level we are all one..... and yet don't (so far) see implications of these realizations for daily life... (anyone?)
Also, gratifying to know that when I read here that something "is an illusion", what is meant is that it is LIKE an illusion. I had a hard time with that, associating "illusion" with something like a fata morgana...
I can see how on this level we are all one..... and yet don't (so far) see implications of these realizations for daily life... (anyone?)
There are virtually unlimited implications and potentialities that stem from these realizations, as your life can be virtually transformed by understanding the mechanism through which your reality comes into being, and learning to take hold of that mechanism.
The real-life implications, however, are not very useful to be put into words. If I were to tell you some of the real-life implications, it would simply be a matter of belief, whether you believed me or not. What I have explained thus far can be logically and scientifically verified, whereas the implications can only come about through personal experience. When I speak of my personal experiences that have come about through these realizations, occasionally someone can relate, and those who can't relate either believe me or don't believe me. Regardless of whether they believe me or not, it is faith in a conceptual position at that point, which serves little purpose.
But the human world ( including Buddhism ) follows the principles of Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics.
If you ask most physicists they will tell you that the ultimate nature of reality is quantum and that what we take to be a 'real' 'classical' world is a kind of illusion.
No, most scientists would acknowledge that they are still a long way from an "ultimate" unified theory. And our reality as humans is defined in terms of Newtonian phsyics.
First of all, there is no such thing as "physical things." What we call "physicality" is actually energy condensed in a very slow rate of vibration.
Possibly at the quantum level if string theory is correct. But this has no relevance to our everyday experience - a brick is very physical if it falls on your foot.
As for your second post, we never "touch" ANYTHING. That is impossible, as there is a repulsion that ocurrs that makes that sort of contact impossible. What you perceive to be your "touching" of an object is actually the magnetic repulsion, which you have come to interpret as touching.
Where did you get this idea from? It's completely unscientific.
Is there any relation existing to the mind? Of quantum mechanics? Are there mind probability waves? Incidentally there are other models of quantum that Schroedingers, Dirac had a model. Could even these experiments and what is found be based on 'world's karma'?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
As for your second post, we never "touch" ANYTHING. That is impossible, as there is a repulsion that ocurrs that makes that sort of contact impossible. What you perceive to be your "touching" of an object is actually the magnetic repulsion, which you have come to interpret as touching.
Where did you get this idea from? It's completely unscientific.
Maybe what he's talking about is at the atomic level. Atoms are %99.99 empty space, when we 'touch' an object one atom doesn't come into direct contact with another. What happens is the electromagnetic field produced by the largly hollow space of one set of atoms repels the other set of atoms, no actual contact is made.
This is one example of how the force of gravity is so weak. Gravity is pulling us into the earth but there's no way it can over come the EMF to pull us through the ground.
Comments
Emergence describes the phaenomen that something new arises out of parts which wouldnt indicate the "newness".
This is incoherent nonsense - as a lot of modern Western philosophy tend to be. The type of emergence indicated here does not jump across absolute boundaries. Lines, rounded triangles and whatever are all the same type of 'stuff' which can be transformed into each other by mathematical transformations. Matter and consciousness are defined to be absolutely different kinds of stuff which cannot be transformed into each other by definition.
I dont know where you get your defintions from but im pretty sure there isnt a defintion in the scientific world which states matter and consciousness are absolutley different kind of things, otherwise i could open any book about neuroscience and read that consciousness is not created by brain.
In your older posts you stated that the matter (the appearance of matter, which doesnt make much difference because there is only one kind of matter) _is_ created by consciousness.
Maybe you should stop using a scientific theory like quantum physics for your philosophy if you are not open to scientific discourse and arguments.
There was a post about what this site is somewhat earlier, the new in newbuddhist is for new to buddhist not a new buddhism, which indicates that there is a high chance that you are actually talking to people who are new to buddhism.
There was a post about what this site is somewhat earlier, the new in newbuddhist is for new to buddhist not a new buddhism, which indicates that there is a high chance that you are actually talking to people who are new to buddhism.
Ok point taken - I missed that post.
Maybe you should stop using a scientific theory like quantum physics for your philosophy if you are not open to scientific discourse and arguments.
I am not using quantum theory in the context of Buddhism out of whim. I set out about 10 years ago to find out if there were connections and the result of this investigation was a 650 page book detailing the extraordinary interconnections and parallels. The book is both scientifically and philosophically precise. So the notion that I am
not open to scientific discourse and arguments
is mistaken. You have read one of my articles so if you can find anything in it unscientific or dubious from a philosophical point of view please let me know. If I make mistakes I like to know so I can rectify them.
Now fruitful discussion requires that we use the currently accepted definitions (or we both agree on an alternative definition) and the generally accepted current definition of 'matter' is still that given by Descartes which is that it is space filling stuff which has no trace of consciousness. This is what materialists basically mean by matter. So when a materialist like Dennett or one of the Churchlands says that the mind is the brain he or she means that mind comes from mindlessness. Here is a quote from Dennett:
An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe.
How familiar with the current discourse concerning the nature of consciousness?
Consciousness for Descartes was knowing 'stuff' - using the term stuff in a very loose sense. In Buddhism consciousness is 'clarity that cognizes' which amounts to basically the same thing. So yes fundamentally in Western discourse matter and consciousness are complete different kinds of stuff.
However there are moves to change this because of the advent of quantum theory - the recent informational paradigm is an example - but all these new approaches accept that Cartesian - 'classical' type 'matter' does not exist in the way the 'classical' physics thought that it did.
In your older posts you stated that the matter (the appearance of matter, which doesnt make much difference because there is only one kind of matter) _is_ created by consciousness.
Is incorrect - matter was thought to be solid extended stuff completely independent of mind we now know this kind of matter does not exist which is why the following quotes are appropriate:
One might try to interpret the ‘matter’ occurring in this formula as the ‘matter’ that occurs in classical physics. But this kind of ‘matter’ does not exist in nature.
- Henry Stapp
…variables can no longer provide us with a definite, unique and unambiguous concept of matter in the quantum domain. Only in the classical domain is such a concept an adequate approximation.
- David Bohm
Quantum theory provides a superb description of physical reality on a small scale, yet it contains many mysteries. Without doubt, it is hard to come to terms with the workings of the theory, and it is particularly difficult to make sense of the kind of ‘physical reality’ – or lack of it – that it seems to imply for our world.
- Roger Penrose
…because experiments confirm that quantum mechanics does describe fundamental physics, it presents a frontal assault on our basic beliefs as to what constitutes reality.
- Brian Greene
The laws of physics were saying that matter as we know it simply can’t exist. It was time for some new laws of physics.
- Robert Oerter
I sometimes use the term 'matter' where I should if being precise use phrase 'the appearance of matter'.
There is a lot other stuff too which emerges "magically" from something other...
This is not correct - there are many instances where there are non-magical emergent transformations in which the emergent phenomenon can be accounted for by some aspect of the basis phenomenon - water from hydrogen and oxygen, which is often cited as an example, for instance - we can clearly account for the emergence form the basis of molecular properties. In the case of 'matter' and 'consciousness' 'matter' id defined to be completely devoid of possibilities for consciousness. I know of know one who would claim that hydrogen is completely devoid of the potentiality of transforming under certain circumstances into water.
This however is an important point, however. The issue is for example what exactly do the Churchland's mean by there materialist claims - I must look into this more. They seem to be saying that matter is completely and absolutely mindless and yet transforms into mind.
But, anyway, this all shown to be nonsense because the ground quantum field is insubstantial. Which means that the materialist case is insubstantial!
there a at least a few scientists who believe consciousness could be created trough an emergent process.
Who are you thinking of?
To clarify my opinion on the matter-consciousness problem:
I find it highly possible that consciousness is indeed the very fabric of the universe from which everything else is "created", but im not sure. Its just a possibility which is underpinned by various problems which are difficult to solve otherwise, but with no proof at all.
In addition i think there is the possibility that consciousness ist not the fabric of the universe but something else and consciousness emerges from that something else which in itself is not conscious or self-aware.
Im not sure, and i dont think there is a method to proof either one of the theories, because its not possible to conduct an experiment which would withstand scientific requirements. It is not possible to compare two subjective states in the sense we can compare two objects.
I dont think your article is unscientifc, but it is unscientifc to say this is how reality works with 100% security. I agree with the part that matter is not a solid extented stuff. I dont agree with the part that it is dependent on mind. Could be, i dont know, and it seems physicists dont have a unified opinion on this, see the paper of Nauenberg.
I argued with emergence to show that there could be other options in the theory of consciousness. For example John Searle.
if not I will just remove you from my list of sites worth visiting and move on!
was that I was somewhat surprised by your saying:
You could use the same words to describe the experience, but you will never know if your meaning for the word bliss is the same meaning that i use for the word bliss.
I will never know what is like for you to bite into an apple.
which was supposed to indicate that meditation cannot be described, taught or whatever.
Suppose we are doing a scientific experiment - rolling a ball down an inclined plane for example - I can never know what your experience of the ball is like, this is obvious, but it does not stop us doing the experiment and drawing conclusions.
It just seemed like a very odd thing for a Buddhist to say. All the Buddhists I know, and most of my friends are Buddhists because Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy is the central concern of my life, consider the mind-stuff (using the term loosely) which makes up the minds of human beings (I will leave animals out for convenience because as far as I know they do not meditate!) is the same fundamental stuff (ultimately deriving from the non-dual awareness of the quantum field), although it gets tangled up in a multitude of different ways. Now meditation works to untangle this mind-stuff and produce replicable and describable meditative states. I know of no Buddhist who does not accept this!
Furthermore the notion that we are using the same words to describe radically different entities and states and yet are still communicating is surely mistaken. How often is this likely to happen? Words function because although as Wittgenstein said they do not have 'sharp boundaries' there is generally, if we are using the same 'language game', a large area of overlap of meaning.
However I now accept that I was wrong in being irritable - what a poor Buddhist I am! Please accept my apologies. The reason for it is that I have been on sites where people are not serious and just argue for the sake of it. But I see you are genuine and are debating the issues.
I will get back to you on your other remarks shortly.
I think there is the possibility that consciousness is not the fabric of the universe but something else and consciousness emerges from that something else which in itself is not conscious or self-aware.
Formulating an answer to this is useful for me because it is required for my third book which I am currently working on – Quantum Buddhist Wonders of the Universe.
Western philosophy, and science when in philosophical mode, is often appallingly lax in conceptual precision when it comes to terminology involving consciousness and associated phenomena. In Buddhist Yogachara-Chitttamtra (Mind-Only) and Dzogchen (Great Perfection) metaphysics the nature and structure of reality is understood, in outline form of course, as follows:
At the ground level there is a vast infinite field/pool of energetic potentiality for manifestation. The fundamental nature of this field is cognizance, it is immaterial ‘knowing’ stuff. This in Yogachara metaphysics is called jnana – non-dual awareness-wisdom. But it is not wisdom in the limited sense of being wise about everyday affairs, is called ‘wisdom’ because when one experiences this level of awareness one directly knows the nature of reality.
Now if we are being precise then if asked the question is this ‘stuff’ (always I use the term ‘stuff’ loosely – it is immaterial ‘stuff’ – energetic potentiality with a fundamental cognizant nature) – is this ‘stuff’ ‘consciousness’, then the correct answer is no. Why – because consciousness is dualistic and jnana is non-dualistic. In Yogachara metaphysics consciousness is vijnana. The prefix ‘vi’ means to divide – so vijnana is divided jnana – divided non-dual awareness.
Although consciousness is not non-dual awareness it has a nature of non-dual awareness because it is jnana which has been divided up and ‘stepped-down’ so to speak in order to get embodied in sentient beings. We can also say that is of the nature of the ground is of the nature of consciousness because it is clearly potential consciousness. It does not make sense to say that the thing from which something else ‘emerges’ has absolutely none of the qualities of the thing which emerges. In the case of water, water is hydrogen and oxygen arranged in a particular way, but water, hydrogen, and oxygen are, talking from a conventional point of view, made of apparently material particles.
When jnana divides it creates the realm of subjectivity, which is the subjective consciousness experienced to various degrees by sentient beings, and the collective ‘objective’ realm of appearances which appear to make up an external ‘material’ world.
Why does jnana divide? In order to fulfil is cognizant function!
I dont think your article is unscientifc, but it is unscientifc to say this is how reality works with 100% security.
Matter is said to be 99.9999999999999% empty space – I think my account is one valid account of how reality functions with 99.9999999999999% security. There may be other accounts, like Hawking and Mlodinow’s in their book The Grand Design, but valid accounts will not contradict each other, they will, like the Heisenberg and Schrodinger quantum perspectives, be complementary perspectives upon a reality which can be articulated in differing ways. But the differing ways will not be inconsistent. Hawking and Mlodinow call this approach a Model Dependent Reality.
I agree with the part that matter is not a solid extented stuff. I dont agree with the part that it is dependent on mind. Could be, i dont know, and it seems physicists dont have a unified opinion on this, see the paper of Nauenberg.
Nauenberg’s paper is misleading – it misrepresents Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Wheeler and it leaves out much significant stuff like d’Espagnat, Zurek, Stapp and others. What he says about the mico and the macro is false exactly for the reasons outlined in the paper of mine that you have read. His paper is actually verging on intellectual fraud – in a previous post I indicated how he badly misrepresents Heisenberg. I am going to write an article about this paper but am engaged in several directions at the moment.
John Searle is philosophically confused – I have attached a section from my second book The Grand Designer dealing with Searle.
There is no measuring device for subjective experience, so subjective experience cannot compared to another subjective experience in the way the behaviour of an object can be compared. It happens very often that two people are communicating but have different meanings for the words they use. Thats because there is no intrinsic meaning to the word. The word is associated with a subjective experience. Not everyone has the same linking of words to subjective experiences. Thats because subjective experience cannot be compared, as i stated above.
There are people who are color blind and they dont know it, because they have no means to compare there color experience to the color experience someone else has. They dont know what it is to see colors in the way someone else does. The word for the color they cant see is linked to that what they see. And my word for the color they cant see is linked to the color i can see. So the linking is different. I would not describe myself as a buddhist, im interested in buddhism. Same way im not a scientist i study science. Yes, because you equate empty space with a consciousness field of potentiality. But there is no proof that it is like that.
Your whole argumentation is based on the argument that quantum mechanics is entangled with consciousness. It could be that it is like that, but neither is there proof nor is there consens in scientific community. You are quoting a lot of physicists expressing their _opinion_ on this matter, but they dont know, and they dont say they know and they would not dare to put it as a fact in to a textbook of quantum mechanics, because they know they dont know. A lot of interrogation marks.
Einstein:
'Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.'
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
Yes, but we can use other objects to measure the motion of the ball, like a clock and a ruler. Now everybody on the world can perform this experiment too and then they compare what they measured with the clock and the ruler.
True - but quantum theory and to a lesser extent relativity indicate that these objects you want to use as measuring standards are, from an ultimate point of view an illusion. They do not exist independently of the minds of the community of observers. This is why Professor Anton Zeilinger says about Wheeler's:
…realisation that the implications of quantum physics are so far-reaching that they require a completely novel approach in our view of reality and in the way we see our role in the universe. This distinguishes him from many others who in one way or another tried to save pre-quantum viewpoints, particularly the obviously wrong notion of a reality independent of us.
Zeilinger is not mystic, in his book Dance of the Photons he is very reluctant to talk of consciousness 'collapsing wavefunctions' and such but he concludes that we must now reject notions of an independent realm of 'materiality' which is not in some way dependent on mind. The large majority of physicists accept this. The number who do not is small and they often - like Nauenberg - misrepresent the evidence.
It happens very often that two people are communicating but have different meanings for the words they use. Thats because there is no intrinsic meaning to the word. The word is associated with a subjective experience. Not everyone has the same linking of words to subjective experiences. Thats because subjective experience cannot be compared, as i stated above.
True - but we learn to link words to the same subjective experiences by sharing a 'form of life' as Wittgenstein said. People who take up Buddhist meditation learn to link the appropriate words to the meditational experiences under the guidance of someone who knows what they are doing. Meditators can judge the reality and significance of this practice by results.
In the end all I can do is present the evidence and give reasoning as to why I reach certain conclusions - and these are the conclusions reached by the greatest number of significant physicists. But if you still remain unconvinced I can only put it down to your
karma!
Let's add more stuff to this!
What would you like?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3186 Rest of the Article in Link above.
Second visit in 2007 was taped on video:
Haven't watched it, but maybe someone(Leon?) finds it interesting.
Science and Interconnectness:
tyson is the "have you heard this???" guy.
Same with Quantum World:
Search in youtube for Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Very brilliant and entertaining physicists.
TV-Series:
NOVA ScienceNow (with Neil deGrasse Tyson)
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/watch/nova-sciencenow
Through the Wormhole (with Morgan Freeman
http://science.discovery.com/tv/through-the-wormhole/episodes/
Documentation:
The Elegant Universe with Stringtheory physicist Brian Greene
talks about quantum theory, relativity theory and theory of everything
Lectures:
MIT has a lot of online lectures on various subjects:
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
with Buddhist angle:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Life After Death Episode (featuring the Penrose-Hameroff Idea that ClearlightMind mentioned)
Meditation is a means for looking more closely at our experience of reality.
According to Wojciech Zurek the quantum realm is epiontic dream stuff.
Quantum physics shows us that experience is reality - although to experience reality in its pure nondual state experience has to be purified through engaging in spiritual techniques of transformation.
Spiny
It's become a fad recently to put use 'quantum' with regard to subjects that it has nothing to do with.
Have you done the necessary research to make this statement? If you have not have the following:
1. A reasonable grasp of the research and debates on the foundations of quantum theory - I have given a list of the people one needs to have studied earlier in this debate
2. An in depth knowledge of Buddhist philosophy - Chittamatra, Madhyamaka, Dzogchen.
then the answer is no!
If you do not have this knowledge then your remarks are based on ignorance. If you do have the relevant knowledge I challenge you to go to my website www.quantumbuddhism.com where you will find free articles explaining my position and then give a reasoned account of why you think I am mistaken. If you have strong opinions on this matter you must surely have reasons for them!
Experiment shows that we live in a world that behaves, on the microscopical plane, not like we are used to in our conventional experience. Why it behaves like that, nobody knows. The theory that can be used to calculate that strange behaviour is called quantum physics.
Quantum physics shows us that experience is reality
The statement above is an opinion expressed as fact.
Let me amplify my assertion - after a considered evaluation of the views of people like Whitehead, Stapp, d'Espagnat, Wheeler, Zurek, Penrose, Everett, DeWitt, Vlatko Vedral, Victor Mansfield, Joos, Zeh, Oppenheimer, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Planck, Linde, Eddington,... to mention just a few - I accept that the overwhelming evidence points in the direction of pan-experientialism of some kind. The most convincing pan-experiential metaphysical account I have found which is consistent with quantum theory is Chittamatta/Yogachara Buddhism and Dzogchen (both Buddhist and non-Buddhist or Bon).
Thanks person for taking the time to look into my views in detail. And thanks for the endorsement.
Quantum Mechanics is very complementary to non-dual philosophy in general, which in Buddhist terms comes through as Zen.
Zen is not the only nondual formulation of Buddhism. Early Hinayana (Theravada) can be (implicitly) seen as nondual. Chittamatra-Yogachara and Dzogchen are explicity nondual Buddhist metaphysics. The idea that only Zen is nondual is mistaken.
But the human world ( including Buddhism ) follows the principles of Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics.
But the human world ( including Buddhism ) follows the principles of Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics.
If you ask most physicists they will tell you that the ultimate nature of reality is quantum and that what we take to be a 'real' 'classical' world is a kind of illusion. In fact Erich Joos says its a 'delusion'. This corresponds exactly to the Buddhist Madhyamaka doctrine of the 'two realities' - the 'conventional' 'seeming' realm that sentient beings seem to inhabit is a deceptive illusion, the ultimate realm is EMPTINESS.
Now an astonishing thing is that according to the Madhyamaka the existential configuration of emptiness is ->
Neither existent, nor non-existent, nor both, nor neither.
This turns out to be precisely the existential configuration of the quantum realm. In his book Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards Giancarlo Ghirardi, who is notable for being one of a group of quantum physicists who have proposed an interpretation of quantum theory (the Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber interpretation), describes the existential possibility, or potentiality, configuration for a quantum chair, i.e. a chair imagined as behaving as a quantum object:
What meaning can there be in a state that makes it illegitimate to think that our chair is either here or in some other place? … only potentialities exist about the location of the chair, potentialities that cannot be realized, unless we carry out a measurement of position? How can it be understood that, attached to these potentialities, is a nonepistemic probability that in a subsequent measurement of position the chair will be found here or there (which is equivalent to asserting that, before the measurement was carried out, the chair could be neither here nor there, nor in both places, nor in neither place)?
I follow as far as seeing and interpreting is a matter of perception and understanding of what is perceived, but touching an object that is solid is "real", and a chair in front of me is just "there". Beginner's question, but I'd like to know....
Touch is dependent on finer and object making contact this touch consciousness. Lift hand off and there is no contact thus no touch consciousness.
That is just one stream of consciousness and contact. Sight has nothing to do with touch other than what the mind links based on karma.
Any position on an object is invalid because it dependently originates.
Touch is referencing point a and b. go where there is only hard and nothing else.
That is non duality.
Our minds percieve an object to be totally independent of its parts, of our senses, of change. This is the illusion, phenomena exist but our perception of how they actually exist is way off.
Here is no "nothing" touching. There is just no causes and conditions for touching to be.
Differences are only based of references which are not inherent in the object itself.
For insrance how can we posit a here? We need a there. In experience the touch of say the shirt i am wearing has nothing to do with any other previous touch unless the mind posits a relationship. Not only that there is no location to where the touch is happening other than the minds assertion of a point in relationship to another point.
Touch is happening but where, when, who do not apply to touch. Until a mind asserts a reference point in relation to another. But this is always done retroactively. In direct experience touch is just touch. Pure touch. Just see how all the assumptions are projected after the fact.
Vivid yet empty thus dependently originated.
First of all, there is no such thing as "physical things." What we call "physicality" is actually energy condensed in a very slow rate of vibration. What we call "things" are actually mental projections, as there are no things, only a flowing pool of energy.
As for your second post, we never "touch" ANYTHING. That is impossible, as there is a repulsion that ocurrs that makes that sort of contact impossible. What you perceive to be your "touching" of an object is actually the magnetic repulsion, which you have come to interpret as touching.
I saw a few videos yesterday that paved the way for the explanation of matter being "energy condensed in a very slow rate of vibration" which resonates most, as does the idea of not touching since it "is actually the magnetic repulsion, which you have come to interpret as touching."
I can see how on this level we are all one..... and yet don't (so far) see implications of these realizations for daily life... (anyone?)
Also, gratifying to know that when I read here that something "is an illusion", what is meant is that it is LIKE an illusion. I had a hard time with that, associating "illusion" with something like a fata morgana...
Thanks!!
The real-life implications, however, are not very useful to be put into words. If I were to tell you some of the real-life implications, it would simply be a matter of belief, whether you believed me or not. What I have explained thus far can be logically and scientifically verified, whereas the implications can only come about through personal experience. When I speak of my personal experiences that have come about through these realizations, occasionally someone can relate, and those who can't relate either believe me or don't believe me. Regardless of whether they believe me or not, it is faith in a conceptual position at that point, which serves little purpose.
Spiny
Spiny
This is one example of how the force of gravity is so weak. Gravity is pulling us into the earth but there's no way it can over come the EMF to pull us through the ground.