Petition: Teach Science, Not "Intelligent Design"

Mind is Matter. E=MCsquared.

The conscious mind, like everything else is a form of energy, and energy, like everything else, is a form of matter, and follows all the physical laws of nature.

The natural sciences continues the process of discovery, and what was once the mystical supra-natural, is today exposed as a natural part of nature, and explained by the discovery of their natural laws.

Einstein, like Heisenberg, was influenced in their physics by Hindu cosmology.

That should be no suprise, because Hindu cosmology was, for those who could understand it, extremely advanced in the physics of its spiritual inferences.

Intelegent Design, however, fails to see 'mind as matter', but continues the illusion of separation, and continues to declare, 'mind over matter'.

The illusion of creator over its creation.

 

Good post.

 

That is a good point and seems to be one of the downfalls of taking a view like ID as a science. A designer, by definition I should think, is an entity separate and distinct from what that entity designed. This makes ID, then, very difficult to convincingly argue in favor of. Since we're talking about a designer of the universe, then:

1) The designer exists apart from the universe that it designed/created, but is still beholden to the physical laws that hold in the created universe

2) The designer exists outside the universe it designed/created AND outside the physical laws that we reckon with

With (1) and (2) we run back into the problem of verifiable effects. With (1) the problem is attributing worldly effects to this designer because the designer is not "of this universe".

(2) is especially troublesome. Meaning (in language) is use. So, how could we say anything coherent about this designer if (2) holds? It isn't a question of not being intelligent enough ourselves, but rather of the components necessary for the language being absent.

I maintain that this is a lingustic issue. We need to first be clear what we mean by 'science' and 'designer'.

 

Yes, the creator is the creation...

There is no seperation... consciousness is all, ONE COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS... So the term "supernatural" is really bogus I agree. It is all explaining by monisitic idealism... so called "matter" is secondary to consciousness, brain is a epiphenomenon of consciousness. yet that could be taken as seperation or duality... there is none of that brain is object in consciousness, so is all matter... it goes back to it all being one, consciousness the ground of all being.

So it different then the ID theories that I've heard about. Why are we not teaching quantum mechanics in schools instead of ID?

you sound like you might agree, you should check out Amit Goswami's Self Aware Universen and Physics of the Soul... he shows step by step how quantum physics proves this. Here is an interesting section from the book that shows the intelligence of the one consciousness that allows this dance of seperateness and illussion to be. So in a way it could be called intelligent design, but not the kind that the fundementalist prove of a transendent god that is above the creation and seperate... watching us like an old man with a beard sitting on a golden thrown sending people to eternal heavens and hells. please... how unscientific, I agree, how delusionary.

The whole thing is about this beam of light that is split into two beams with equal intensity, by using half silvered mirror. The two beams are then reflected by two regurlar mirrors to a crossing point on the right.

"The subtlest aspect of the experiment is as follows: In the delayed-choice experiment, the experimentor decides at the very last moment, in the very last pico second (this has been down in the laboratory), whethere or not to insert the half-silvered mirror, whethere or not to measure the wave aspect. In effect, this means that the photons have already traveled past the point of splitting (if you think of them as classical objects.) Even so, inserting at mirror shows the particle aspect. Was each photon moving in one path or two? The photosns seem to respond eve nto our delayed choice instantly and retroactively. A photon travles on path or both paths, exactly in harmony with our choice. How does it know? Is the effect of our choice preceding its cause in time? Says Wheeler: "Nature at the quantum level is not a machine that goes its inexorable way. Instead, what answer we get depends on the question we put, the experiment we arrange, the registering device we choose. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening.""

Later Goswami concluded...

"The classical scientist looked at the world and saw his single vision of seperateness. A couple of centuries ago, the English romantic poet William blake wrote; 'May God keep, From single vision and Newton's sleep'

Quantum physics is the answer to Blake's prayer. The quantum scientist who has learned the lesson of the complementarity pricible knows better then to heed (apparent) separatness. Quantum measurements interject our consciousness into the arena of the so called objective world. There is no paradox in the delayed choice experiment if we give up the idea that there is a fixed and independant material world even we are not observing it. Ultimately it boils down to what you, the observer, want to see. This reminds me of a Zen story.
Two monks were arguing about the motion of a flag in the wind. Said one: 'the flag is moving.' 'No the wind is moving' said the other. A third monk, who was passing by, made an observation that Wheeler would approve. 'The Flag is not moving. The wind is not moving, Your mind is moving.'"

So this is a very different ID then what fundementalists want taught in school. It is one that does not involved a seperator creator. It does not involved seperation at all...

These interpretations of Quantum mechanics is what should be taught in school, ones that fit perfectly in with evolutionary theory, without the conclusions that Darwin came up with of course. As we observer evolution from whatever space and time, it fell into place as we wished to see it. Evolution is our creation, evolution is us. Thus evolution is not happening, our mind is happening.

I'm curious about your thoughts on all this m6m, because you seem to want to cut through the illussion of seperatness with even more of a vigor then I do, you Buddha you.

 

The difficulty with teaching Quantum physics in school is that Quantum theory is counter-intuitive to our cultural mind-set.

In other words, Quantum theory is counter-cultural, and threatens the repressed psychological motivations behind the cultural fundamentalism of Intelegent Design.

Evolution, however, does not attempt to answer sub-atomic questions.

Rather, Evolution merely explores how life's survival and reproduction adapts to various environments through the processes of random mutation and natural selection.

In the future, Quantum physics may add to our understanding of random mutation and natural selection, as well as survival and reproduction, but these processes won't disapear by any such understanding.

Beyond all our distinctions.
Beyond our State of Knowledge.
Exists a State of Being.

 

How very Taoist sounding...

 

How many times does (Non) Intelligent Design theory have to be refuted before the fairytale believers wake up to reality?

 

The fairytale is the ego, and the material world... passing away... passing forms... illussion of seperatness...

You might as well believe in unicorns if you believe in your own ego and the material plane...

Go to heaven mother lover, I hope your BURN in heaven for your sins, burn away until there is no desire, and only ever-new bliss, right here, right now... the heaven of the present moment... no thought, no physical world, just endless bright light shining so bright it blinds!

 

As much as I would love to believe in your Dass-ism, I am not quite persuaded to reverse the thought process that has taken centuries to evolve in humankind. Until I have OBJECTIVE pure evidence that cannot be denied, I will continue to progress through the methods that have worked.

Your Brain Is God. God is your creation.

 

As much as I would love to believe in your Dass-ism, I am not quite persuaded to reverse the thought process that has taken centuries to evolve in humankind. Until I have OBJECTIVE pure evidence that cannot be denied, I will continue to progress through the methods that have worked.

Your Brain Is God. God is your creation.

 

Ram Dass teaches, "

As long as you have an ego you're on a limited trip. You're on a trivial trip that's going to last ? maybe what? 60 ____ say 70__ maybe 80 years. and full with fear of its end trying to make its own eternity.

well: if "i" am not speaking if "i" am not what "i" thought "i" was, how did "i" get into this. who am "i"?

for only when "i" know who "i" am will "i" know what is possible.

UNDERSTANDING THE POSSIBILITY"





So you can understand intellectually what I'm saying and even be tempted to "believe" in it... but what I'm suggested is not belief...



I'm speaking of KNOWLEDGE!



"one way in which you know about it is thru direct experience

thru someway or another

thru being alone in the desert

thru falling in love

thru bearing a child

thru nearly dying

thru turning on

thru yoga

thru taking any one of your senses and pushing it beyond itself

going through it you have touched a place inside yourself that has an intuitive validity. it's intuitively valid. inside you know it's right. i've been with (literally now) well over 100 people who have had such an experience which was powerful and valid but it was so discontinuous with their normal consciousness that they screamed for help

The help that was available to them was a group of minds which said "that's all right, you've just gone crazy" that is, "the experience you've just had is the experience of psychosis"

William James said:

our normal waking consciousness is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it partedfrom it by the filmiest of screens there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different.We may go through life without suspecting their existence but apply the requisite stimulus, andat a touch they are there in all their completeness. Definite types of mentality which probablysomewhere have their field of application and adaptation. no account of the universe in itstotality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded. How to regard them is the question. For they are so discontinuous with ordinary consciousness. They maydetermine attitudes though they cannot furnish formulas and open a region though they fail to give a map. at any rate concludes James they forbid our premature closing of accounts with reality.

in spite of what he said, we've closed our accounts with reality (most of us)

"that experience you had is psychotic"

"i'll give you thorazine"

"It's not valid"

"you're hallucinating" "what do you mean, you're GOD???""


So you having I probably never had such a direct experience, or any faith in realized beings, or your reason hasn't lead you to conclude there anything else besides materialism not matter what evidence I present from quantum mechanics. Your reason does not allow for such evidence, such arguments, for it goes against a view of the world which you hold so dear to you like a child's belief in Santa Clause... you are not ready to go past the Santa Clause Stage and accept that your parents bought you presents, you still want to believe in the fat man with a beard and a red suit... and so it is.

So you have closed your accounts with reality insiting that it is mystical bullshit and so on, which is probably because you can't understand the possibility, because of what we have just spoken about.

Of course you would think like you do... You remind me of myself before I had my first mystical experience at age 17. I thought exactly like you do... and was just as anti-religion, always taking time to attack it and enjoying it too.


And sure my brain is god, but so is everything else... "god" is another word for the one conciousness which everything it is... so anything you could say, think of, point to, is not seperate from the oneness. It's all part of it, it is all it!


George Harrison sung about people like you, "We were talking - about the space between us all
And the people - who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion
Never glimpse of truth - then it's far too late - when they pass away
We were talking - about the love we could all share - when we find it
To try our best to hold it there - with our love
With our love - We could save the world - if they only knew
Try to realise it's all within yourself no-one else can make you change
And to see you're really only very small, and life flows on
wit-hin and wit-hout you
We were talking - about the love that's gone so cold and the people,
Who gain the world and lose their soul - then you may find,
pea-ce of mind, is waiting there
And the time will come when you see we're all one, and life flows on within and without you"

The time with come, but it may be when you pass away, when your body dies, when your brain dies... it may take that long, yet as George says, "it's far too late"

It is better to have it here now, within your holy temple called body and brain.

 

I almost took offense to this, but then I realized that I am not the one who is suggesting the "fairytales" such as "Santa Claus", but I am the one who is teaching the parents' brought you the gifts in the first place. Because there never was a Santa Claus...it was all myth.

How you can compare ME to the one who believes in such an entity (a representation of the mythical--what you believe, not what I believe) is a quite the role reversal. I find that quite amusing.

So, you see YOU are the Santa Claus team or at least from what I understand of your philosophy. It is mystic, is it not?

Santa Claus may represent materialism (such as) but, is not a good example of scientific naturalism.

I was like you once, when I was 12. I believed in a lot of shit that was subjective until I discovered more about science, mythology and even my work in the "illusionary arts" (i.e. magic). Now, I DENY the "supernatural" because there is no reason for me not to. IF you or ANYONE gives me a greater reason to see it differently, I will have no alternative but to accept it.

People say I want "concrete" proof. Not exactly. What I want when I say "prove it" is for the facts to line up to support the thesis rather than refute it. If I find the facts line up in your favor, I have to make the reasonable assessment that YOU are correct and swallow my pride for the greater quest of truth.

If you are wrong or provide no evidence, I will call you on it until you either provide it, ask for no further questioning, or just admit you don't know and go on.

 

Libertine is the little kid, Santa is materialism... he even bugs Santa while on the tiolet. What's up with that?

There is no santa, so let materialism take a shit because that is where it belongs in the bathroom with the rest of Satan's stink! Quantum mechanics has destroyed it! wohooo, the demise of materialism is beginning, not just in mysticism but now in science, thanks to brilliant minds like Amit Goswami, it's all the evidence you will ever need.

So who buys the presents?

The one conciousness does all and is all, it gives us the present of the present moment, and you have to be present to recieve it, wohooo!



Santa's dead all stuck up that reinedeer's ass he can't breathe, BURN IN HEAVEN you nazi materialistic screw heads! Move past the santa stage of reality, which is buying into the material plane of reality as the only plane, the only reality... Grow up into your Being that is ageless!

 

Quantum mechanics has not destroyed it all and made it a fairytale world no matter what your Ramtha teacher has brainwashed you with.

Life goes on. Either grasp a better understanding of QP or stay in your altered state of consciousness and continuing playing with your leprechauns and trolls.

 

I'm not just brainwashed by one teacher, I'm brainwashed by many many teachers; Ram Dass, Neem Karoli Baba my guru, Bhagavan Das, Amit Goswami, and on and on it goes.

The whole idea of brainwashing is to get your brain clean... and a clean brain can see that I am beyond the brain...



So go beyond your man, the brain is a epiphenomenon of conciousness, simply part of the passing thought I, the I we all share had, known as the material universe, one of an infinite number... it has long since come and gone and come back again...

Wohooo! its a cosmic joke!



The dog's ASSHOLE gets quantum mechanics more then you do! BURN IN HEAVEN!

 

The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, non-superluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there.

To say that 20th century physics initiated some new holistic view of the universe is a complete misrepresentation of what actually took place.

Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation.

The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world.

 

Correction that is what the dog's asshole sounds like when it farted, so you do know as much as the dog's asshole, sorry for saying the dog's asshole knows more, I apologize.

The dog acknowledges its own fart for it is very wise and enjoys listening to alternative points of views no matter how much they smell... (Note I have translated the barks for those of you that don't know Dog-speak.)

The Dog realizing by it's very loving nature that it is all one conciousness asked, "So what then is science’s problem with the monistic non-dual metaphysics of God? Why aren’t a majority of scientists embracing that position?"

Amit Goswami

The wise physcists that accepted the mystical as valid sceintific truth in his books and his heart, answered while petting the dog, "This one is subtle. Obviously, science must accept and does, that there is only one "substance" or being in reality. Otherwise we get into the problem of dualism. The question is, is that substance matter, or is it some kind of "God substance" that is the basic being? The success of a materialist metaphysics--the idea that everything is made of matter including mind, consciousness, God--now causes a conceptual conundrum. Is God needed?

In eighteenth century, the physicist Laplace, upon explaining astronomy on the basis of the material metaphysics alone declared, "I do not need that (God) hypothesis." Darwin repeated the same contention in biology with his evolution theory; the biological case was made almost foolproof with the discovery of molecular biology. In psychology, Freud, Watson and Skinner, all sang the glory of a materialist metaphysics in their revolutionary investigations. In contrast, the case for a monistic consciousness, consciousness as the ground of being, has become serious only recently within science. It will take a while before this idea catches on."

The Dog asked, "Will you give us some details of the winds of change in science’s position from material monism to a monism based on consciousness? "

Goswami: The crucial question again is, Is God needed? All scientists subscribe to the philosophy of parsimony (Occam’s razor): if an idea is not needed, theoretically or experimentally or both, why use it? But in recent years, both theoretical and experimental gaps, sometimes big holes, have been found in the matter-based science. First, Carl Jung found, from his case studies in psychotherapy, that therapy works better when one ventures outside of the materialist models of psychology, with concepts such as intuition (which is creative and beyond reason), collective unconscious (which is non-local and beyond the materialist dogma of locality), and synchronicity (which is beyond materialist models of upward causation). Later, Abraham Maslow and others discovered the same thing in their psychological study of people: the answer to "who am I?" must involve a self beyond the behavioral ego, a transpersonal self, for those people who can be said to have "positive mental health."

Second, the materialist ontology from the very inception of quantum physics was found to be inadequate for understanding quantum phenomena. Quantum phenomena clearly show discontinuity (as in the Bohr atom) and non-locality (as demonstrated by the celebrated Aspect’s experiment). And the quantum measurement problem -- how quantum waves of possibility that quantum mathematics calculates for objects to become experienced events--cannot be solved without the assertion of downward causation. The great mathematician John von Neumann first saw this. Von Neumann’s ideas were originally dualistic. I made a contribution showing that the quantum measurement problem can be solved with philosophical rigor only if we assert that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being.

Third, Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge discovered punctuated equilibrium in biological evolution--evolution consists of more than Darwinian gradual variation/selection chance and necessity mechanisms. There are punctuation marks in an otherwise continuous prose of Darwinian evolution. Experimentally, they show up as the "missing links" in the fossil data. Theoretically, they point to a non-Darwinian process in evolution with a faster tempo, maybe even a discontinuity, a quantum leap. Rupert Sheldrake made a breakthrough jump from materialist thinking by proposing non-local morphogenetic fields as essential for understanding biological morphogenesis--the building of form from a one-cell embryo. More recently, I myself have been able to develop a theory in which consciousness creatively intervenes in evolution producing the quantum leaps of speciation--the punctuation marks referred to above. My theory also nicely incorporates Sheldrake’s ideas and produces the much-needed understanding of the roll of development in evolution.

Fourtproducing the quantum leaps of speciation--the punctuation marks referred to above. My theory also nicely incorporates Sheldrake’s ideas and produces the much-needed understanding of the roll of development in evolution.

Fourth, in medicine, there has been an accumulation of many cases of mind-body healing, clearly demonstrating "mind over body." But if mind is brain, then how can it cause healing? The physician Deepak Chopra was the first to suggest a model of mind-body healing by proposing that it is quantum healing and works because of the quantum nature of mind and body working on a substratum of consciousness which is the ground of being.

Fifth, there is also much data that are classified under the label "paranormal," telepathy, survival after death and reincarnation, and such. Mainstream science still scoffs at this data. But the sheer volume of it is getting a lot of attention from the public. This data can only be accommodated with a consciousness-based science.

Sixth, I must also mention the philosopher David Chalmers’ work. Chalmers pointed out that the subject-object split awareness that we experience is a "hard question" of consciousness that neurophysiologists are not studying — maybe they cannot study it. If we start with objects or algorithms, we always get to stay at the same level: objects beget objects, and input statements beget output statements, never a subject looking at objects or a subject examining the output statement. This is a very brief summary, of course. Many other scientists have contributed to the monistic consciousness-based paradigm that is now developing. The good news about the new paradigm is that it is inclusive. It includes the old science; does not entirely reject it. And it promises an integration of science and spirituality.


The Dog said, "What about the fart coming from my asshole and simular farts coming from the very smart mouths of many mainstream scientists who remain skeptical about any integration of science and spirituality. Why? Did they eat too many beens or something?"

Goswami: Scientists are distrustful of the consciousness-based ontology because:

1) they do not see a clear epistemology--the answer to how to know reality (God) question; and
2) they think that the mythology used in spiritual traditions involves faith, which they interpret as holding a belief system without verification. This, they think, is fundamentally against the scientific method, where skeptical inquiry is essential. What is happening right now is that the new paradigm scientists are addressing the epistemological question within science. Witness Chopra’s recent book, How To Know God. When I wrote my book The Self-Aware Universe, I too devoted a considerable effort to the epistemological question that is further developed in my new book: The Visionary Window: A Quantum Physicist’s Guide To Enlightenment. And frankly, most scientists just miss the spiritual methodology, that it is entirely the same as the scientific methodology. The truth is, the scientific method is not fully based on rational thinking. It crucially involves creativity, creative insights of intuitive quantum leaps (read my book Quantum Creativity). And scientists, too, must begin with faith, not looked upon as a static belief system, but a conviction in an intuition of the value of the inquiry. Spritual faith, if one looks closely, is no more than that. You inquire into "What is God?" or "Who am I?" because you have a faith that reality is more than it seems at first. Both science and spiritual inquiry are based on our intuition that bulk of reality is "uncommon sense" to use Robert Oppenheimer’s phrase."


The dog and Goswami walked off... It was the beginning of a beautiful friendship... another fart prepared to come out in the dog's digestion system... this is otherwise known as Libertine's next response. Hold your noses, friends that know the one conciousness. It tends to smell worse when you a beginner in knowing like me.

 

There is an interpretation of QED that takes into account a field, in which all 'natural' resides. This field is responsible for the organization of nature, guiding and directing it via "virtual" particles (the field (God) is virtual particle/antiparticle pairs that come into existence and then anihilate eachother leaving no evidence except the effect they have had on particles around them).

An interesting part of the field, it modulates the thoughts (waveforms) that lie within souls.

 

"The wise physcists that accepted the mystical as valid sceintific truth".

That says all one needs to know about the agenda of such people.

Ramtha...ahhhhh What The Bleep?



Perception is one thing, validation is another. Pull off some of those stunts which these Ramtha teachers and other cult nuts claim and I'll kiss your guru's dirty feet, throw on a robe and meditate until the stars burn out.

And seriously, my friend the comparison of my responses to a canine's passing of gases is not only ridiculously disrespectful for such an enlightened one, but it's old already. Move on to new material.

 

I thought the dog and goswami conversation was one of the most creative I ever made, hehehe, I guess you didn't like it.

Then again my sense of humor encompasses all of reality, and all things... thus it is very broad, and jokes don't get old with me, when I remember the cosmic joke.

I would love for you to have met Neem Karoli Baba, and have him pulled some amazing "stunt" to turn you on to conciousness being the only reality, but the thing is that some people are not ready... and a beginner like me is no good at turning anyone on, people just find me a long winded crackpot for the most part, which I respect and understand... I'm simply working on myself, these posts are for me jnana yoga, because Im writing about it, Im further brainwashing myself... so I can become a nobody, go nowhere and do nothing... then my presence if well developed could have an effect like a more advanced being... but I am beginner like I said. It's enough right now for me to know that I know and diving into the knowledge of the one conciousness, I used to get frustrated about others not seeing, but now I understand more that this is the way it has to be!