New Age Religion is wrong...

Originally posted by Specimen
I have very little concern about New Age believes, but I can tell there trouble. As far as im concerned, New Age has little steam in it engine to be actually "ATTACKED".

Every label is the steam to empower the engine for conflict.
The identification with concepts divide.
Only when it is seen that all concepts arise in the non conceptual will there be peace.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Division is conflict.
How is it working for you?

If you have something to share then share but I do not see the need to invent a group of people to attack as a platform for you beliefs.

I see. So you don't know how to read, neither. If so, how come you can't read this major part I keep repeating to you?:

post by swanne
No, this is not an opposition to New Age Religion. In fact I approve of this religion, as it's one of the few remaining religions which actually seems to be open-minded about both science and spirituality, and I applaud its efforts to promote morality, science, but also love and peace.

Then, you interpret my report as an attack. This tells me alot about you, in fact. Someone who is unable to face critics or other data which contradicts his/her own belief system (aka, that the Earth exist only because we see it).

Yes, New Agers are different than me. They believe something I really don't - I'm absolute atheist, meaning I believe in no philosophy, only investigation of these said philosophies.

I have two other arguments (scientific ones) against "consciousness arise before matter/energy) which I wished to disclose to you. The Car Accident argument and the Camera argument. But now I realize there is no much point discussing with you, right? You interpret discussion as "label attack" and use the word "peace" to justify you aggressively defensive position.

What I don't understand, is this: if you can't bear debates, what are doing on ATS?

Hm, see you on the board.

reply to post by swanne


What is it that you believe new agers believe?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by swanne
Perfection may never be achieved in reality, but it must never be given up as (at least) a distant goal.

Reality is perfect but there seems to be something separate from it that judges it.

There is only ever what is actually happening and the happening is presently happening. The idea that it is not perfect happens because there is a belief in more than there is.

A 'goal' is a projection outside of what is - 'goals' imply that you are incomplete - that this is incomplete.
This is complete and you are not separate from it. It is the idea that there is more than there is that makes you feel conflicted and that hides the love and peace that is ever present.

These are very nice points. Well though, and really thought-provoking. I would love to discuss these with you.

Unfortunately, it seems you don't like my counter-arguments. It seems you're feeling harmed each time I reply.

Yes, I used a catchy title for my thread. But if you read my WHOLE thread, you see why. The title was just the beginning of a sentence.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by swanne

 

What is it that you believe new agers believe?

I know they believe in the incorrect observation principle... see, I have New Ager friends, and I was a new agers a couple of years ago.

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by swanne
Perfection may never be achieved in reality, but it must never be given up as (at least) a distant goal.

Reality is perfect but there seems to be something separate from it that judges it.

There is only ever what is actually happening and the happening is presently happening. The idea that it is not perfect happens because there is a belief in more than there is.

A 'goal' is a projection outside of what is - 'goals' imply that you are incomplete - that this is incomplete.
This is complete and you are not separate from it. It is the idea that there is more than there is that makes you feel conflicted and that hides the love and peace that is ever present.

These are very nice points. Well though, and really thought-provoking. I would love to discuss these with you.

Unfortunately, it seems you don't like my counter-arguments. It seems you're feeling harmed each time I reply.

I am not harmed or offended by any response.

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by swanne

 

What is it that you believe new agers believe?

I know they believe in the incorrect observation principle... see, I have friends who are New Agers!

edit on 7-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

I see - maybe there is more to New Age than what your friends speak about.

Its central precepts have been described as "drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology, holistic health, parapsychology, consciousness research and quantum physics.

en.wikipedia.org...

I prefer non duality/Advaita Vedanta.

Originally posted by swanne
I know they believe in the incorrect observation principle... see, I have New Ager friends, and I was a new agers a couple of years ago.

How will it ever be proved that something can appear without there being an observer?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I am not harmed or offended by any response.

You are sure? In that case I'm kinda relieved. I sincerely really don't want anyone to get offended.

We both invest time in this topic... which prove we both are investigating for the truth. Falsification can disprove unlikely interpretations, though.

Anyway, then I'll go ahead and post my reply.

How will it ever be proved that something can appear without there being an observer?

Rather simply... At first I thought about some weird experiment with exotic machines, but then I realized an experiment which is quite more simple could be imagined instead (a big plus since we don't have unlimited resources)...

In fact I think it may be possible to prove it simply by using deduction and logic.

Last night, I was thinking about it when suddenly it came to me: The Camera argument, which could falsify the theory that things one does not perceive cease existing. It goes like this:

A camera is placed behind a subject in a closed room with no windows. The camera only catches the back of the model, and the model cannot see the camera. BUT... a monitor is linked to the camera. This monitor is placed in front of the model. If the camera's lens cease existing when the model stops looking at the camera, then how come the monitor still shows the back of the model in the monitor?

This is one counter-argument which could perhaps be in favour of the continued existence of a physical world even without consciousness.

Food for thoughts.

Originally posted by swanne

How will it ever be proved that something can appear without there being an observer?

A camera is placed behind a subject in a closed room with no windows. The camera only catches the back of the model, and the model cannot see the camera. BUT... a monitor is linked to the camera. This monitor is placed in front of the model. If the camera's lens cease existing when the model stops looking at the camera, then how come the monitor still shows the back of the model in the monitor?

As you say above 'the model cannot see the camera'. The camera and the camera lens are not appearing to anyone - they are not appearing to exist. The monitor screen with the back of the model is what is appearing to exist for the observer (model).

Right now what is behind you is not appearing in your field of vision - it is not 'appearing' to exist. If the pc monitor is acting like a mirror and you claim that you can see behind you - it is actually appearing to exist in you.

Can anything appear to exist without you being there?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Right now what is behind you is not appearing in your field of vision - it is not 'appearing' to exist. If the pc monitor is acting like a mirror and you claim that you can see behind you - it is actually appearing to exist in you.

Can anything appear to exist without you being there?

Good point (star).

But one of the reason why I chose a monitor is really because the monitor doesn't act like a mirror... The camera behind the model scans the model, decomposes this image into a bit stream, and send this through a HDMI cable. This HDMI cable is connected to the monitor in front of the model, which then re-composes the stream into an image.

In a mirror, if the model had a laser beam and shined it into the mirrors setup, the beam would rebound and shine on the back of the model's head. The monitor is special in the fact that any beam, including laser beams, sent to the monitor won't affect the existence of the camera behind the model. Perceiving the monitor is independent from the perception of the camera. Basically, the model cannot claim she sees behind herself. Only that she sees the representation of behind herself, a representation which is only as accurate as the quality of the bitstream which flows through the HDMI cable and the resolution of the monitor.

You may be right though, maybe nature doesn't see a difference between a mirror and an HDMI... maybe an observation is an observation, no matter how convoluted the path of the perception is. I'll really have to think about it.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post!

reply to post by swanne

Science also has much of the answers.

Yes it does

You see... Searching is being... because without a quest, there is no point in "being" in the first place...

However, my point was well beyond any quest, search or journey.

reply to post by InhaleExhale


Hm, BTW I would like to know what you think about the Camera argument which I presented in favour of non-conscious existence of the universe?

A camera is placed behind a subject in a closed room with no windows. The camera only catches the back of the model, and the model cannot see the camera. BUT... a monitor is linked to the camera. This monitor is placed in front of the model. If the camera's lens cease existing when the model stops looking at the camera, then how come the monitor still shows the back of the model in the monitor?

Originally posted by swanne
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

Hm, BTW I would like to know what you think about the Camera argument which I presented in favour of non-conscious existence of the universe?

A camera is placed behind a subject in a closed room with no windows. The camera only catches the back of the model, and the model cannot see the camera. BUT... a monitor is linked to the camera. This monitor is placed in front of the model. If the camera's lens cease existing when the model stops looking at the camera, then how come the monitor still shows the back of the model in the monitor?

edit on 8-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

If the model cannot see the camera, how can it stop looking at something it cannot see?

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
If the model cannot see the camera, how can it stop looking at something it cannot see?

Very good reply

But, the model can neither start looking at something she doesn't see. Thus the camera isn't supposed to come into existence at all in the first place...

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
If the model cannot see the camera, how can it stop looking at something it cannot see?

Very good reply

But, the model can neither start looking at something she doesn't see. Thus the camera isn't supposed to come into existence at all in the first place...

edit on 8-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

the other question I was going to ask, Is the model aware of the camera if they cannot see it, they must be if they can see their own back on a monitor placed in front of them.

Things exist when we are aware of them, (be it just the knowledge or if your imagination is detailed enough) it matter not if we are looking at or seeing them.

This is just my philosophical understanding of a quantum world we are in symbiosis with

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
Things exist when we are aware of them, (be it just the knowledge or if your imagination is detailed enough) it matter not if we are looking at or seeing them.

This is just my philosophical understanding of a quantum world we are in symbiosis with

What really bugs me, and this is kind of what I wanted to point out in my OP, is this: Quantum Theory itself states than quantum wavefunction only applies to subatomic particles, nothing larger.

A wave function or wavefunction is a mathematical tool used in quantum mechanics. It is a function typically of space or momentum or spin and possibly of time that returns the probability amplitude of a position or momentum for a subatomic particle.

Source

This is because anything larger than atoms, including stable atoms, behave exactly as predicted by classical mechanics. Quantum theory was simply invented to account for the anomaly of a subatomic particle (the electron) inside the atomic cloud. Imagine a still picture at a TV screen. If you look closely, you'll see that individual pixels pulse slowly and are kind of grainy. But as you sit back, zoom out and watch the overall picture, the overall picture is stable.

The quantum graininess is just a feature of a very small scale of the universe. Large bodies have definite position as they orbit around the sun. The only thing that doesn't have definite position in these bodies are the electronic distribution cloud inside their individual atoms. A picture is made of red-green-blue pixels; that doesn't mean all pictures must look like three, red-green-blue bars.

reply to post by swanne

What really bugs me, and this is kind of what I wanted to point out in my OP, is this: Quantum Theory itself states than quantum wavefunction only applies to subatomic particles, nothing larger.

My understanding that I pointed out isn't based on the common misunderstandings of Quantum wave function and the slit experiment that many new age gurus like to preach.

Its a lot more whacked out than that where science will never catch up to explain and is simply faith in my own belief of who, what and why I am.

This is because anything larger than atoms, including stable atoms, behave exactly as predicted by classical mechanics.

Yes they do when observed and tested and studied, they act as predicted.

reply to post by swanne


"New Age Religiion is Wrong"

You're almost there...

ew Age Religion is Wrong
w Age Religion is Wrong
Age Religion is Wrong
Age Religion is Wrong
ge Religion is Wrong
e Religion is Wrong
Religion is Wrong
Religion is Wrong

The reason why New age religion is wrong is. because when you cross into a new age it becomes an old age.

Welcome to the old age.