Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Where Science and Buddhism Meet

science buddhism quantum

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1    Bildr

Bildr

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Joined:30 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec Province(Canada)

  • “Enlightenment is not imagining figures of light but making the darkness conscious.” -Carl Gustav Jung

Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:15 AM



Posted Image


#2    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 4,046 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:01 AM

Nice videos, but I think the author pushes the similarities a bit too far. I also object to his interpretation of consciousness and reality. The mind creates its own reality within the mind. The mind does not create reality outside of the mind.. The fundamental reality of the universe lies external to mind or consciousness.

Another thing I object to is his use of the term observation as regards to quantum mechanics. For instance, it is not our conscious observation that affects the outcomes of the double-slit experiment, it is our measurements that affects the outcomes. Just looking at something, or not looking at it, have no effect on the behavior of quantum particles. .

"Reality does not exist without the mind defining it," he states. The mind only defines reality within the mind. My desk exists even when there is no mind observing it.

The author also states, "The lines between science and spirituality have become inevitably blurred. The concepts interchangeable." I think not.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
My credentials: http://www.unexplain...ic=87935&st=225

#3    dlonewolf85

dlonewolf85

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 237 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Male

  • I'm not a bad boy,

    But just misunderstood!!

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:52 AM

View PostStarMountainKid, on 15 June 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

Another thing I object to is his use of the term observation as regards to quantum mechanics. For instance, it is not our conscious observation that affects the outcomes of the double-slit experiment, it is our measurements that affects the outcomes. Just looking at something, or not looking at it, have no effect on the behavior of quantum particles.

I agree with StarMountainKid, but I believe it was Heisenberg who said that the mere observation of a phenomenon actually changes the phenomenon. Of course, in his noted paper he refers to measurements rather than observations, therefore it's not surprising that people relate and confuse the Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect which highlights the effect of the observer on the system. Forget the spiritualists, I believe I have read articles even by physicists who relate the two, without realizing the difference. Interesting thread though, and I would like to see how this discussion turns out.

∂ Ѡοɭ ʄ85

#4    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2012 - 12:40 PM

View PostStarMountainKid, on 15 June 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

1. I also object to his interpretation of consciousness and reality. The mind creates its own reality within the mind. The mind does not create reality outside of the mind.. The fundamental reality of the universe lies external to mind or consciousness.

2. Another thing I object to is his use of the term observation as regards to quantum mechanics. For instance, it is not our conscious observation that affects the outcomes of the double-slit experiment, it is our measurements that affects the outcomes. Just looking at something, or not looking at it, have no effect on the behavior of quantum particles. .

3. "Reality does not exist without the mind defining it," he states. The mind only defines reality within the mind. My desk exists even when there is no mind observing it. The author also states, "The lines between science and spirituality have become inevitably blurred. The concepts interchangeable." I think not.

Hi StarMountainKid

1. Colour and sound are mental perceptions located outside of your head.
2. The human eye isnt developed enough to see atoms so this is correct.
3. Reality is mind and your desk is a collection of mental perceptions.

In philosophy there are two main stances -
A. Even though reality is created by the mind something objective exists behind it.
B. Non-dualsm (Buddhsm) means that nothing objective exists behind the experience we call reality.

Most people in the Western World adopt A because B is to far out for them. However as any good scientist or philosopher will tell you theres not one shred of evidence that anything exists independantly of your mind. Nuts but truth. The wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics is the same as the prime substance in Buddhism. In our language its pure potential from which any possibility can arise.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 15 June 2012 - 12:41 PM.


#5    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,120 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 15 June 2012 - 12:51 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 15 June 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

1. Colour and sound are mental perceptions located outside of your head.
Still on about this silly argument that has been explained for you numerous times?

Quote

Most people in the Western World adopt A because B is to far out for them. However as any good scientist or philosopher will tell you theres not one shred of evidence that anything exists independantly of your mind. Nuts but truth. The wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics is the same as the prime substance in Buddhism. In our language its pure potential from which any possibility can arise.
You're confusing fringe theories with well established science.

All of the natural sciences (that is astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, etc) has proven your idea wrong.

Edited by Rlyeh, 15 June 2012 - 12:56 PM.


#6    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:19 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 15 June 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

Still on about this silly argument that has been explained for you numerous times?

You're confusing fringe theories with well established science.

All of the natural sciences (that is astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, etc) has proven your idea wrong.

People need warning about this member.

He got given the psychological links about human perception and links showing colour is created by the mind in response to electrical impulses from the eyes. Hi is blatently biased, ignores all areas of main stream science and philosophy that dont fit his world view, isnt qualfied to talk about science and will argue against those that are.

In addition he is evasive and likes to play Mr Ostrich by burrowing his head in the sand whenever a question appears he doest want to answer. So here we go yet again, this time please answer the following two questions Mr Ostrich -

1. Is colour human perception or is it a property of light?
2. How do you explain away the first paragrah which tells you its perception - http://en.wikipedia....ki/Color_vision

I suspect this question will get side stepped as usual by Mr Ostrich.


#7    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:35 PM

Mr Osterich?

lol


#8    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,120 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:13 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 15 June 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

People need warning about this member.

He got given the psychological links about human perception and links showing colour is created by the mind in response to electrical impulses from the eyes. Hi is blatently biased, ignores all areas of main stream science and philosophy that dont fit his world view, isnt qualfied to talk about science and will argue against those that are.

In addition he is evasive and likes to play Mr Ostrich by burrowing his head in the sand whenever a question appears he doest want to answer. So here we go yet again, this time please answer the following two questions Mr Ostrich -

1. Is colour human perception or is it a property of light?
2. How do you explain away the first paragrah which tells you its perception - http://en.wikipedia....ki/Color_vision

I suspect this question will get side stepped as usual by Mr Ostrich.
Mr Ostrich, (also known as Mr Right Wing) can't read his own sources. The article states its bological and mechanical, and based on a property of light.

"Color vision is the capacity of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths (or frequencies) of the light they reflect, emit, or transmit. Colors can be measured and quantified in various ways; indeed, a human's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone photoreceptors in the eye."


What is the point of asking a question when you're too incompetent to understand the answer from your own links?

Edited by Rlyeh, 15 June 2012 - 02:16 PM.


#9    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 4,046 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:21 PM

Mr Right Wing said:

1. Colour and sound are mental perceptions located outside of your head.
2. The human eye isnt developed enough to see atoms so this is correct.
3. Reality is mind and your desk is a collection of mental perceptions.

In philosophy there are two main stances -
A. Even though reality is created by the mind something objective exists behind it.
B. Non-dualsm (Buddhsm) means that nothing objective exists behind the experience we call reality.

Hi Mr Right Wing

1. How can a mental perception be located outside one's head? All mental perceptions are located inside the head.
2. ok.
3. The reality of the concept "desk" is a mental perception which only exists withing one's mind, but the reality of the atoms that make up the "desk" exist external to perception.  I think we agree here.

A. I agree, but I object to using the term "Reality" as our perceptions within the mind. The true Reality exists external to the mind.
B.

Mr Right Wing said:

However as any good scientist or philosopher will tell you theres not one shred of evidence that anything exists independantly of your mind.
How do you correlate that with your #1. statement that "Colour and sound are mental perceptions located outside of your head"?
If nothing exists independently of the mind, how could the universe have existed before the human mind evolved?

A Chinese Ch'an master, Hung Po or someone said, "The true nature of reality is invisible and cannot be perceived by the conscious mind."  This "true nature" is the emptiness or Void from which all things arise, and this potential does exist independent of mind, as he says.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
My credentials: http://www.unexplain...ic=87935&st=225

#10    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:23 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 15 June 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Mr Ostrich, (also known as Mr Right Wing) can't read his own sources. The article states its bological and mechanical, and based on a property of light.

What is the point of asking a question when you're too incompetent to understand the answer from your own links?

The article says (as you are fully aware) -

Color vision is the capacity of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths (or frequencies) of the light they reflect, emit, or transmit. Colors can be measured and quantified in various ways; indeed, a human's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone photorecptors in the eye.


#11    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,120 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:29 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 15 June 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

The article says (as you are fully aware) -

Color vision is the capacity of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths (or frequencies) of the light they reflect, emit, or transmit. Colors can be measured and quantified in various ways; indeed, a human's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone photorecptors in the eye.
Thanks for repeating it. What part don't you comprehend? The fact it's using human perception of color as an example?


#12    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:15 PM

View PostStarMountainKid, on 15 June 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

1. How can a mental perception be located outside one's head? All mental perceptions are located inside the head..
2. The reality of the concept "desk" is a mental perception which only exists withing one's mind, but the reality of the atoms that make up the "desk" exist external to perception.  I think we agree here.

1. Buddhism leads people to the realisation that the universe they experience and their mind are the same thing which they call oneness. If you take a Western philosophical approach you end up at the same place. All perceptions (which collectively we call reality) are created and experienced by the mind. As reality is just those perceptions you are in fact living in your mind. Reality is your mind.
2. So lets ask are atoms real? The double slit experiment shows that when theres no information on an atom it isnt a particle. Instead its a strange thing called a wavefunction which represents all possibilities. In Buddhism the prime substance is the same thing and it too represents all possbilites. In Buddhism the mind brings into being a reality out of the prime substance when it attempts awareness (gains information).

Materalists dont like the idea that ones perceptions alter reality and its because they dont like the fact that ones perceptions are reality. They praise scientists such as Galileo while ignoring the fact that as all perceptions are created by the mind the mind is at the centre of the universe. The mind collapses probabilities (prime substance) into reality when it gains information (awareness). What you actually perceive when you look out of your eyes determines reality. Thats why books like the secret try to get people perceiving positively.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 15 June 2012 - 03:22 PM.


#13    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:20 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 15 June 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Thanks for repeating it. What part don't you comprehend? The fact it's using human perception of color as an example?

My God this is laughable.

I remember why I stopped replying to you now. You're going on my ignore list.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 15 June 2012 - 03:20 PM.


#14    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,120 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:34 PM

In a month or so I imagine Mr Right Wing will be making an ass of himself again with the same question.


#15    ChloeB

ChloeB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Female

  • “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” — Leonardo da Vinci

Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:47 PM

I read The Universe in a Single Atom by the Dalai Lama and thought it was really well-done:



I tried to talk about it once on here and got accused of supporting a theocracy, lmao.  However, if you aren't an alarmist drama queen and have an open mind, I'd highly recommend it.  :)

Edited by ChloeB, 15 June 2012 - 03:51 PM.

“You've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
Love like you'll never be hurt,
Sing like there's nobody listening,
And live like it's heaven on earth.”
― William W. Purkey





Also tagged with science, buddhism, quantum

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users