Any defender of the materialist narrative here?

[MiracleMan]

27 minutes ago, snowleopard said:

@MarkusSweden  Much of modern science is still stuck in the materialist paradigm, but has simply conveniently ignored the findings of physicists that 'matter' is a phenomenal experience dependent upon consciousness. Even many physicists still hold that consciousness is an emergent property of some objective substrate, thus contradicting their own evidence to the contrary. Such is the power of indoctrination into a collective worldview.

The problem with the principle of emergent consciousness is that it implies that it comes and goes, it's still materialism but maybe it's a step in the right direction?  Maybe not, there seems to be a trend in physics now for panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is inside everything, but this is still making consciousness into a material thing.  No one has ever found anything outside consciousness right?  Seems that all observed phenomena exists within consciousness, consciousness does not exist in phenomena.

[snowleopard]

@MarkusSweden  @MiracleMan

What passes for philosophy in establishment academia is also corrupted by the prevailing paradigm. For a free-thinking alternative, once again, I would recommend Bernardo Kastrup, who I have linked to elsewhere in this forum. Even if not inclined to buy the books, there is plenty of info freely available online, seminars, interviews, articles, peer-reviewed papers, etc.  But it's not easily grokked in some over-simplified synopsis. It takes some serious effort.

[MarkusSweden]

@snowleopardHave you seen the "buddha at gas pump" - interview with him? 

Interesting I must say..

[snowleopard]

@MarkusSweden  I've checked out most interviews with him, including this most recent one, perhaps one of the most clear and concise available

 

[MarkusSweden]

@snowleopard Thanks, I'll check it out right now! 

Would you say he differ in any way from Rupert Spira or Jed McKenna? 

[Joseph Maynor]

The materialist paradigm is just a conceptual projection upon reality as all paradigms are.  It’s not a bad assumption for science to operate with loosely.  But when you’re doing ultimate truth, it’s just a belief, and no belief is ultimate truth.  Ultimate truth is the unchanging Self.  So, instead of looking at paradigms to be true, we should appreciate the pragmatic use of models of reality.  The deeper problem is our belief and faith  in conceptual-truth — our belief that truth is captured by language.  We can model reality with thought — and we can even model processes that happen with regularity.  But the idea that we’re obtaining knowledge about reality — or truth in the strong sense — is a misperception.  The only truth is right now — and it ain’t conceptual at all.  Sure, I’m sensing thoughts in reality — but as sensations.  All stories take one into fantasy land, model land, Maya.  Now — models can be useful!  But they ain’t true.  Paradigms ain’t true.  Thoughts ain’t true.  So stop expecting paradigms to be true.  That’s a wrong expectation to have of them. That’s your underlying faith and belief in the paradigm of conceptual-truth.  Let Science do it’s thing without trying to fit it into the category of truth.  That is a silly error that almost all of us are culturally programmed to do, even the scientists themselves!  We are judging Science using the wrong metric.  Pragmatically, Science is capturing — through models —patterns that come up over and over again.  We need to take a pragmatic view of paradigms rather than looking for them to be true — tacitly accepting the conceptual-truth paradigm of truth is the error.  That’s the linchpin belief that’s in error.  One of them anyway.  There’s at least one more of belief of this caliber that I’ve found.  It’s the belief that reality and words share a relation to each other.  The belief that our words are a window into the true nature of reality.  That’s another deep paradigm that seems to go all the way back to when we learned about reality as babies by learning the names of objects.  And we just kept going with that language-reality corroboration as a habit as we got older.  It’s a habit — but it’s a habit that’s based on a belief.  And that belief can be outed and examined. That’s what we do here! Enlightenment is the removal of ignorance, and ignorance is plainly about none other than the issue of beliefs. So, beliefs are our work.  We are basically scientists that deal with beliefs.  We examine them, take them apart, see relations among them, see differences among them, etc.  We take a meta view of beliefs, paradigms, culture. This leads ultimately to removal of ignorance and therefore Moksha.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, MarkusSweden said:

I don't know much about relativity other then it proves that time and space are relative entities

What is spacetime relative to?

That’s the crux of what I’m suggesting is worth looking into. When he said God doesn’t play dice with the universe, he was a materialist & atheist. He expressed logically an inescapable order to everything - no room for randomness nor mysticism. He said this to Neils Bohr in response to the Copenhagen gathering, and the lab tests of Thomas Young’s double slit experiment, which proved the moon isn’t there when Einstein wasn’t directly aware of it. Einstein was denying the truth revealed in the double slit. Here he is with your OP, but you stated you’re at 80%, he was at 100%.

Later, he did realize the truth, noting reality is an illusion (100%).

My aim is at your remaining 20%. A helpful realization is the actuality of what relativity reveals. 

[snowleopard]

4 minutes ago, MarkusSweden said:

Would you say he differ in any way from Rupert Spira or Jed McKenna? 

He does not identify as a spiritual teacher, in that sense. He just offers an alternative metaphysical model or map, as perhaps being more accurate and useful that materialism. Although he and Spira are acquainted with each others work, and would certainly agree on the primacy of consciousness.

[Edvard]

54 minutes ago, Nahm said:

When he said God doesn’t play dice with the universe, he was a materialist & atheist. He expressed logically an inescapable order to everything - no room for randomness nor mysticism

What is randomness, really? I'm not sure.

[Nahm]

@Edvard I think it means “I don’t know”.

[Preety_India]

Panpsychism is a very interesting field. It helps to explore greater depths of the human psyche. These are essentially different paradigms that we are trying to explore.