Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[The Belief Doctor]

_________

Hi The Belief Doctor,

Is it possible that the "deeper nature of reality" is some objective universe of particles which we are only capable of detecting, ultimately, as "possibility-fields"?

No.

Simple reason: anything that is objective in any form is not that which is whole, interconnecting all.

Furthermore, whatever is "thought" is not that which is whole, interconnecting all, since 'thinking of all' requires one to think again and again ... ad infinitum (such is the nature of the infinite).

Where these sorts of discussions go wrong is to believe that one's thinking can in any way make sense of that which remains beyond reasoning: reason and rational thought both have the Latin root, ratio - thus to be reasonable requires one to separate oneself from (i.e. be in ratio to) that which is interconnecting, whole. Ipso facto, reason will not ever get you 'there'.

Instead, if you wish to make any sense of that which is beyond thought, you'll need to make like any sage, artist or spiritual guru and feel into 'it' since feeling is the only connective ability we have with that which remains beyond what goes on in our heads.

Finally, feeling enables us to nonlocally feel 'at-one' and at-once (i.e 'parallel process' sideways, forwards and backwards in time), thus enabling some sense of 'wholeness' that defies easy rational description. The key here is to recognise that we are 'immersed' in that which is whole, so we cannot remain entirely unaware of 'it' even though it remains beyond our reasoning minds.

I suppose another way of saying this is that the frequent reports of euphoric states of bliss, or sense of 'God' by various spiritual sects is a feeling that cannot be entirely reduced to descriptions, words, equations or conceptualisations - as is common of such reports it is an expansive feeling of wholeness and connection beyond one's usual sense of self.

Unfortunately, what gets assigned to those feelings are invariably limited conceptualisations -- since to put into words any subjective experience requires thought, hence we're back into old territory.

[Rajaroux]

Thank you The Belief Doctor, nice post, we're probably off topic though, but I understand there are areas of non-dualistic practice, Jnana Yoga or 'the path of knowledge' for example, that suits the more philosophically natured of us and requires philosophical debate. The infinite needs to be proved for oneself. We have to begin with the inferred premise of determinism, therefore infinite regress and no acausal cause. If we can hold that to test, within us, we are able evolve into "Who am I?" and neti, neti - not this, not that. Thought then ultimately negates itself. This path is considered the most difficult because there are so many traps. The path of feel, meditation and Raja Yoga, also centres on "Who am I?" and may also employ Mantra to aid quietening thought to get to feel. This is a much more direct path but is difficult for the philosophical mind, already full of reasoning (as is common in 'the West'). A combination of the two or more Yogas is also valid and it is not even necessary to be intellectually advanced to evolve.
Back to topic. If we have gaps in our knowledge of the infinite, quantum connect to causal, god particle, dark matter, gravity, 11 dimensions, it may be reasonable to build particle accelerators to test infinity. Interestingly, Mathematics has many proofs involving infinity and they seem to be the only ones that ultimately work (mathematically). We may never get the Maths into the objective world but at some point the inference of determinism will turn us back to the inner questions. There'll be a different turning point for everyone. The indeterminists have always been willing to leave the unknown to acausality. Both sides will begin to ignore the other. One will evolve the other will preach. One trap for the philosopher determinist is to turn too late and remain in the argument and not to accept the limitations of the mind and ...

...invariably limited conceptualisations

Another trap is to accept limitations but remain 'out'.
We can only do it for ourselves. No matter how far out we go, we will eventually be facing ourselves.

Caveats needed for some: This may be like Sophistry in the use of argument to disprove absolute truth or absolute knowledge. This is not evil since either evil is a misnomer or notions of evil can only be subjective.

[Belinda]

The Belief Doctor wrote

I suppose another way of saying this is that the frequent reports of euphoric states of bliss, or sense of 'God' by various spiritual sects is a feeling that cannot be entirely reduced to descriptions, words, equations or conceptualisations - as is common of such reports it is an expansive feeling of wholeness and connection beyond one's usual sense of self.

Beyond one's usual sense of self is, I think, what Buddhists aim for. The self is an illusion, it does not exist, and the understanding that it does not exist may be intellectual via study of neuroscience, or it may be a lived understanding which is got accidentally and perhaps during meditation.The intellectual understanding doesn't seem to be sufficient for the lived understanding of no-self.

[The Belief Doctor]

Beyond one's usual sense of self is, I think, what Buddhists aim for. The self is an illusion, it does not exist, and the understanding that it does not exist may be intellectual via study of neuroscience, or it may be a lived understanding which is got accidentally and perhaps during meditation.The intellectual understanding doesn't seem to be sufficient for the lived understanding of no-self.

Belinda,

The key elements and message of my work is to affirm both individuality (as being real, valid and necessary) while being the "non-self" that you refer to.

It's an inseparable-duality of one and all, of conscious and unlimited interconnecting unconsciousness.

Both at once = infinite and finite, one and all, individual and community, separateness and oneness, physical and metaphysical.

No exceptions, as all exceptions are reliant on disconnects from the infinite inclusiveness of all.

According, the Buddhists are chasing illusory goals, when they seek to 'give up the ego' or attempt to find some "Nirvana" that is devoid of individuality.

more at beliefinstitute.com and beliefdoctor.com

[Rajaroux]

Of course this is a mistake for a Buddhist and not what the teachings are saying. Some Buddhist sects even begin with the premise that we as individuals can never be enlightened. 'Give up the ego' more correctly put is 'transcend the ego' and understand completely what the ego is, so that it's influence can be entirely conscious. Or the ego influence is circumvented by 'compassion' or 'selfless service' where we do what needs to be done without reward by receiving the present (need). Also for any non-dualist like your

...inseparable-duality...

...ists, seeking a goal like nirvana only promotes wanting and ego. But for some that is considered the last want to drop or the want is left pending so the teachings can be explored as a matter of faith. And individuality it is ultimately such as part of the whole, or a portion of resonating harmony amongst all noise. Which Buddhists are you talking about?

[Belinda]

The Belief Doctor wrote in reply to me

The key elements and message of my work is to affirm both individuality (as being real, valid and necessary) while being the "non-self" that you refer to

Susan Blackmore suggests that the individual's sense of self(ego self) has to be firm and healthy before it can be transcended. To transcend an infirm and shaky ego self is no big deal, and may also be detrimental especially if the subject is very neurotic or psychopathic.
But Blackmore also suggests that certain Buddhist practices such as the gentle living-in-the-present exercises of Thich Nhat Han are beneficial even for those whose ego selves may be shaky such as people in prisons or psychopaths in need of psychotherapy.

If I understand Rajaroux,

'Give up the ego' more correctly put is 'transcend the ego' and understand completely what the ego is, so that it's influence can be entirely conscious.

understanding what the ego is is necessary before it can be transcended. I guess that some may benefit from psychotherapy in order to understand their egos before their egos can be transcended.If I have misunderstood you Rajaroux, please put me right.

[The Belief Doctor]

The Belief Doctor wrote in reply to me

The key elements and message of my work is to affirm both individuality (as being real, valid and necessary) while being the "non-self" that you refer to

Susan Blackmore suggests that the individual's sense of self(ego self) has to be firm and healthy before it can be transcended. To transcend an infirm and shaky ego self is no big deal, and may also be detrimental especially if the subject is very neurotic or psychopathic.
But Blackmore also suggests that certain Buddhist practices such as the gentle living-in-the-present exercises of Thich Nhat Han are beneficial even for those whose ego selves may be shaky such as people in prisons or psychopaths in need of psychotherapy.

If I understand Rajaroux,

'Give up the ego' more correctly put is 'transcend the ego' and understand completely what the ego is, so that it's influence can be entirely conscious.

understanding what the ego is is necessary before it can be transcended. I guess that some may benefit from psychotherapy in order to understand their egos before their egos can be transcended.If I have misunderstood you Rajaroux, please put me right.

Belinda,

Your response, and that of the other contributor appears to again confirm the ideal of 'giving up the ego' ... What, may I ask does "transcending the ego' mean, if not giving it up? Bear in mind here that "transcend' according to standard dictionary definitions means "going beyond', i.e. leaving behind the ego = old illusory goals of achieving that which does not make sense.

Both at once means just that ... to champion and hold sacred both individuality and oneness, with neither being 'transcended.'

Put differently, does it makes sense to attempt to transcend 'oneness'?

The answer to that simple question telegraphs the inherent bias in various new-age, spiritual belief-systems.

Denial of the ego (in whatever form) is the cause of a great deal misery in the world.

Better to expand the ego to include a greater sense of community ("oneness), but most certainly not ever helpful to attempt to transcend it. 'Transcending the ego' is about as likely as transcending oneness. After all, what do you have if you remove all individuals from a community?

As I said, oneness without individuality is some weird belief-system that involves fundamental disconnects -- for within the oneness of all, individuality is.

[Rajaroux]

The Belief Doctor,
to some degree I agree with you and I think I am guilty of using old terminology which in my experience can be the root of much misunderstanding in the non-dualistic or even inseparable-dualistic teachings. Hopefully from my above post you will see the context I have placed 'transcend the ego' to mean become aware of it's modus operandi and it's influence on the mind and thinking. The ego thinks it is something by identifying with fixed positions when there are none. Therefore the ego I am referring to here is an illusion. But without a 'sense' of self, or animal instinctive ego, there is nothing to save you from being run over by a bus. Consider though if you are 'awake' enough, would you be in the way in the first place. And picture Gandhi at his death; a man comes out of the crowd with a gun, Gandhi does not cower or duck or run like most of us would instinctively, he is aware what is happening, says "Rama. Rama." is shot, and dies cheerfully. Also as I have mentioned before in these forums, we have an interesting example of spontaneous enlightenment in Ramana Maharshi at 16 before he had developed his protective ego fully. Our early years are devoted to developing the ego. At some point, probably late teens, we have the chance to see or extrapolate extreme ego and it looks like psychopathy, the ego usurps empathy or connectedness. Other illnesses of the mind, schizophrenia, depression, are to varying degrees lost in, or damaged into, this reactive fantasy ego. In these conditions medication and psychotherapy may have a chance to improve things. With the chance of extrapolating ego comes self-enquiry, enquiry within; "Who am I?" and "What's the point of it all?" As we progress further, or evolve, or grow up, we either try to form firm opinions to answer those questions, and fixed identities (ego fantasy), or we further discover what the ego is, or more importantly isn't, and then it can be used as a tool and not an identity. In this sense the ego is transcended. The old notions of identity are left behind. Transcending 'oneness' or reality, is not the same as transcending 'ego' or illusion. Expanding the ego to include community is either the same thing I am talking about where notions of the separate self are transcended, left behind, although I contest that it is not the ego that is expading, but awareness, or you are developing delusions of omnipotence. Either way of putting things can be misinterpreted by the 'ego'.

Denial of the ego (in whatever form) is the cause of a great deal misery in the world.

Yes. Denial is an incorrect interpretation and the root of much suffering, but non-dualistic philosophy teaches acceptance not denial. The Buddhists or new-agers you are referring to are not paying attention...yet.
Aren't we way off topic here? Tell me about the new topic if you start or you've started one.

On topic. If you accept infinity as real or at least usable in equations, you cannot believe in, or you begin to discredit, uncaused cause. As we search into the smaller quantum world, anything we observe, or discern there is as separate from something else. We observe ourselves into duality. Our separate self creates separateness. If there is a point or smallness we cannot see beyond, the same as largeness we cannot see beyond, that is only a limitation to our seeing. All between is cause and effect. Beyond is infinity as far as we can ever be concerned. And since infinity includes everything, all discernable, observable, will always be cause and effect. No uncaused cause. When we pay attention to observing the observer, when the object becomes the subject, that's where the real fun starts.

[The Belief Doctor]

The Belief Doctor,
to some degree I agree with you and I think I am guilty of using old terminology which in my experience can be the root of much misunderstanding in the non-dualistic or even inseparable-dualistic teachings. Hopefully from my above post you will see the context I have placed 'transcend the ego' to mean become aware of it's modus operandi and it's influence on the mind and thinking. The ego thinks it is something by identifying with fixed positions when there are none. Therefore the ego I am referring to here is an illusion.
...

Expanding the ego to include community is either the same thing I am talking about where notions of the separate self are transcended, left behind, although I contest that it is not the ego that is expanding, but awareness, or you are developing delusions of omnipotence. Either way of putting things can be misinterpreted by the 'ego'.

Denial of the ego (in whatever form) is the cause of a great deal misery in the world.

Yes. Denial is an incorrect interpretation and the root of much suffering, but non-dualistic philosophy teaches acceptance not denial. The Buddhists or new-agers you are referring to are not paying attention...yet.

...

On topic. If you accept infinity as real or at least usable in equations, you cannot believe in, or you begin to discredit, uncaused cause. As we search into the smaller quantum world, anything we observe, or discern there is as separate from something else. We observe ourselves into duality. Our separate self creates separateness. If there is a point or smallness we cannot see beyond, the same as largeness we cannot see beyond, that is only a limitation to our seeing. All between is cause and effect. Beyond is infinity as far as we can ever be concerned. And since infinity includes everything, all discernable, observable, will always be cause and effect. No uncaused cause. When we pay attention to observing the observer, when the object becomes the subject, that's where the real fun starts.

I would agree with much of what you write, but there are subtleties in this that deserve mention.

re your "Therefore the ego I am referring to here is an illusion." no, it is both (at-once) an illusion while being real.

It is the pivotal "while being" that most have difficulty with, including the Buddhists and new-age followers. Hence we observe the frequent use of the "non-dualistic' terms which deny the validity and importance of duality, and that of individuality and ego. It's an inseparable-duality of One and All. We can no more transcend the illusion of One, than that of All.

re your reference to being omniscient. Absolutely, in potential, for as in the whole, so within the part. There can be no exceptions to this.

Thus, as within God, so within each of us. This page "Will God save me?" explains more.

The 3 decades of research by Princeton University's PEAR laboratory revealed that we do move matter with mind. However, the effect at this point in our level of development is small. The biblical quote "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you" is literal. It's just that we're not likely at this stage of development to see anyone moving whole mountains with mind. Not unless we see another Jesus-type figure emerging into our reality, someone who's seriously 'plugged in' to cooperatively engage a whole mountain. Mind you, now that the quantum cat has been well and truly let out of the box (pun intended), I sense we're likely to 'call forward' such a person, sometime within the next 30-50 years or so. We'll do so, collectively speaking, to give ourselves permission to engage potentials that hitherto we've denied ourselves (due to the downward causative influences of present Western science and beliefs), but which are now beckoning and necessary to emerge. Either that or our race is finished.

Note: from the PEAR website

"The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measureable influences on physical reality."

[Belinda]

Note: from the PEAR website

Does consciousness affect the outcome by

1. altering the causal connection

or 2. altering the interpretation of the outcome?

[The Belief Doctor]

Note: from the PEAR website

Does consciousness affect the outcome by

1. altering the causal connection

or 2. altering the interpretation of the outcome?

"The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measureable influences on physical reality."

The reasons why people avoid the "clear evidence" is provided here.

[Tfindlay]

The PEAR experiments are not generally accepted as reliable.

"These tiny deviations from chance have failed to convince mainstream scientists who feel that the effect is inconsistent and that relatively few negative studies would cancel it out.[4] Physicist Robert L. Park said of PEAR, "It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton".[1] Park maintains that if a coin is flipped enough times, even a slight imperfection can produce more than 50% heads, and that the "tiny statistical edges" PEAR reported are the result of statistical flaws.[8]"
Wikipedia

[The Belief Doctor]

The PEAR experiments are not generally accepted as reliable.

"These tiny deviations from chance have failed to convince mainstream scientists who feel that the effect is inconsistent and that relatively few negative studies would cancel it out.[4] Physicist Robert L. Park said of PEAR, "It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton".[1] Park maintains that if a coin is flipped enough times, even a slight imperfection can produce more than 50% heads, and that the "tiny statistical edges" PEAR reported are the result of statistical flaws.[8]"
Wikipedia

Wikipedia??? Robert L. who? embarrassed by ... what? .. 30 years of rigorous experimentation, with the experimenters opening their processes and methodology to world scrutiny. Statistical flaws? Crikey, Jahn and his team must have been incompetent dunces to have failed noticing 'statistical flaws' during 30 years of experimentation.

Standard Newtonian scientific, objective world-views are untenable in the face of the quantum evidence. They simply don't explain or correlate with the facts.

Refutation of the standard objective world-view is straight forward and hardly bears repeating:.

1. Zeno's Paradoxes: A thought experiment

2. Proof of the impossibility of movement (2nd Proof, 3rd Proof)

3. Correct solutions to Zeno's Paradoxes

4. The travesty of modern science

5. Psychic abilities and skeptics

... to name a few. More at Belief Institute, and at BeliefDoctor.com

But none of the above carries anywhere near the weight of the simple fact that while I stand by my beliefs, those who argue (on this forum) under the cloak of a pseudonym demonstrate their lack of conviction to their ideas.

From "Missing the connections" :

What most people seem not to have noticed is that the Internet has enabled a whole new world of bad behaviour - that of sneaking around without substance, without being open and genuine. A good example is Wikipedia, where editors are generally advised to not use their real names? What sort of society are we building when we allow people to offer advice but without accountability for that advice?

Compare the sneaking around in current times, in contrast to the likes of Giordano Bruno who openly voiced his beliefs, even though it resulted in being burned alive at the stake.

Bruno epitomizes the courage of one's convictions, for upon being sentenced to death his only response to the inquisition was:

"Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it"

[Tfindlay]

If Wikipedia bothers you a quick Google turns up a plethora of links disputing the validity of the PEAR experiments.

The 30 years over which the PEAR results were obtained is irrelevant if they are flawed.

Nobody is suggesting that Standard Newtonian physics is sufficient to explain quantum mechanics. However, quantum weirdness does not justify belief in telekinesis or any other supernatural phenomenon.

Pseudonym? My name is Terry Findlay. My username is Tfindlay. I am hardly sneaking around under the cloak of a pseudonym.

[Meleagar]

Nobody is suggesting that Standard Newtonian physics is sufficient to explain quantum mechanics. However, quantum weirdness does not justify belief in telekinesis or any other supernatural phenomenon.

While it certainly doesn't justify such beliefs, aspects of quantum physics provide a reasonable scientific framework that can be interpreted to support the existence of such phenomena. The PEAR results are only a small part of the evidence available concerning psi phenomena, and it is up to the individual to look over the evidence and reach their own conclusions.

BTW, I don't see where anyone claimed that such phenomena was "supernatural".