I just had a good ole think. I feel maybe in a way I could agree with this notion that science is beginning to explain some peoles definition of spirituality but i just don't agree that they are merging. That implies they are separate.

Yes, someday hopefully we will have the unified theory of everything and if and when that day comes, then that would explain it all. IMO it would render the need or the concept of God absolutely pointless but would explain certain esoteric wonders our current ignorance carry's around today.

But then would it it still be spirituality? Not really, it would just be the natural world and a part of it. So agree with was it citta, or Joe that said "they seee no difference between the 2.

Oly this will probably surprise you.

I don't think Depak Chopra is getting it as wrong as some people make him out to be. I agree that Depak Chopra may at times take some liberties when all the science isn't there yet, BUT I don't think the bulk of what he is saying is wrong. I actually agree with his basic premise most times. Now for sure I don't keep up with Depak (he's not that important to me) so I can't say I fully agree with him as I don't know all hist claims, but most of what I've read from him seems to largely agree with what I believe as well. For sure others will feel differently.

Now I will openly admit that I do find it a little disturbing that so many people are jumping in claiming to be experts in this area when they clearly are not. BUT that doesn't mean that someone can't get the high level view and the merge that into their world view. People do this all the time with other technologies...electricity. How many average people really understand electricity?

I also agree that while no one understands quantum theory, quantum theorists are not just twiddling their thumbs. I mean we have entire quantum mechanics software packages like Gaussian that have been around for quite a while. We ( meaning they) know a lot about the math and can use that to derive new math and new algorithms...BUT fully understanding particle wave duality is just beyond anyone thinking in a dualistic frame of mind.

Particles only exist as a wave function.. Sounds great and seems to have a lot of meaning. But when you really stop and think about that. WTF does that mean? I mean everything we know about chemistry today is largely from understanding the flow of electrons...and we figured a good bit of this out long before quantum mechanics came along. It really is a very fascinating and mind boggling field. The universe is pure energy. Particles only seem to exist when we measure them. I know I'm glossing over this significantly, but that's because I enjoy finding the awe and wonder in it all. Just because I could rederive the math and show that it's all right here on paper...nothing mystical....that means nothing to me. It's just math. It's when you step back from the math, and step back from the hard core theory and take a big picture look that quantum mechanics becomes very mystical like in some ways.

I'd also like to down play my expertise here a little bit as I received a PM from someone thinking I was a quantum physicists. This is not that case. My PhD is in Medicinal Chemistry, but I spent the bulk of my time in grad school doing computational chemistry. When I left grad school I was employed as a computational chemist.

My graduate project was using genetic algorithms to evolve neural networks on a 20 node Beowulf cluster to help predict biological activity of new compounds. Those in the field know this as Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships or QSAR.

However, during my time in grad school I took both quantum mechanics (where I ran the experiment) and quantum chemistry.

My quantum mechanics teacher was squarely in the this is not mystical camp and would get quit irritated about the proposition. My quantum chemistry teacher felt differently. My quantum mechanics teacher taught with pure math. We'd get to class and it would be math on a chalk board for the entire class. My quantum chemistry teacher actually spent WAY more time focused on the high level thought experiments around quantum phenomena...then he would laugh when we all barfed on the pure mathematical tests! Go figure!

So to be very clear. I am not an expert in this field, but I have studied it enough to not only survive the classes, but to be able to philosophize about it as well. In my job as a computation chemist I would often times use ab initio methods (quantum mechanics) to derive free energy values of a small molecule in a pocket...actually to be more precise I largely used molecular mechanics, but would often times invoke higher level quantum theories such as 6-31g* to calculate a more accurate free energy for an important hydrogen bond.

This does not make me an expert. It just makes me educated on the subject. It also doesn't mean my views are correct any more than it means they are wrong. It just means I was able to do what it takes to fully form my own opinion of it...and that is something that I'm pretty sure most people talking about QM have not actually done.

Lastly, to me quantum entanglement is the proof that we are all one...that we could never be separate. I don't want to dive to far down this rabbit hole, but I can remember distinctly working out the math of entanglement for a pair of particles...an elementary exercise in the realm of quantum mechanics, but then my mind made the jump from a pair of electrons to all possible combinations of electrons in the universe..... That moment was a moment of awakening for me personally. I'm pretty sure my quantum chem teacher had a similar moment at some point.

In the end whether people like Depak Chopra have it all correct or not is not so important to me. What I find important is that other people are looking at this data and having the same ah ha moment that I had, and then trying to use that information to help others have an ah ha moment.

I like my science with mysticism. Science is mystical to me. But them I'm one of those strange birds that thinks things like an essentially infinite universe and infinitely dense black dots roaming the infinite universe sucking up light and matter is mystical. It's all mystical. Every last bit of it. Waking up in the morning..having all my billions of cells move in harmony to make me..well me. That is mystical to me. I'm one of the scientist that still sees the awe in everything. I know other scientists take the view that since it can be explained it's not so mystical. I honestly feel bad for some of those guys. I like being in awe.

Well I was only gonna have a small post, but instead I wrote a second dissertation. LOL

Peace

..olympus mon..the irony, if that's the right word, of this thread is that first you (quite acceptably to me) use the word 'consciousness' in the title..this results in a bit of conjecture by a few..but then they are told that science cannot even talk about consciousness because science has no agreed on definition or it's too hard..

so, you used this blasphemous to science (in the minds of some) expression to begin with..

when a couple of people began to talk about it, a debate ensued..

it's your title..

so ponder who's really pondering your question..

Citta wrote: ..and perhaps less and less understanding or describing of 'mystical experiences' or consciousness (both of which have been around a long time)
. (& i don't see a lot of pure maths in science)

I whole heartedly agree...this sums it all up for me...

Wake up in Awe...not in a Quandary...

Thank you Oly for PMing me this.

I need to retract some statements about siding with Depak after watching this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E99BdOfxAE

He was clearly very aggravated, but he did nothing but discredit himself and others that think in similar ways.

I still don't think Depak is a total fool because I can clearly see he is very ruffled in this debate, but I also no longer feel like I can make acarta blanc statement that I agree with him either.

Just wanted to clear that up. It's still mystical to me and I still see the merging of science and certain aspects of mysticism...and I very much agree with the scientist in this video with regards to their points about a creator god that most of our fellow humans seem to believe in. It is beyond disturbing and I agree with all their points about it.

However I can't help but note that the talk was about the future of God and the scientist seemed hell bent on keeping the conversation about abrahamic religions. But I will stop right there as I've only seen 45 minutes (power went out), and I simply cannot side with someone acting like Depak.

I lost a lot of respect for this man watching this video.

Thanks again Oly.

Peace

joedirt wrote:
..i think there's some western psychology at play in a lot of these debates..
the judeo-christian concept of 'god' is to me ridiculous ..to orientate discussion of 'mysticism' in this direction opens it to serious attack by plain common sense..
however, other cultural 'mysticisms' such as taoism, or animist perspectives, are IMO not so irrational..
i think a lot of this debate is actually between Western Science and Western (i.e judeo-christian) Religion..
it is a debate which emerges from a jaded past..

in Indian, or even Chinese culture the divide between 'rational science' and 'mystical thought' is not so great..indeed the two can support eachother, like yin-yang..

the thing with which we do the 'observing' is the unseen, unknown - the 'mystical'
this is my definition..

I'm confused by your reply but I think I agree with you other than your last statement. "Its your title", kinda of suggests I'm responsible for other peoples words or view points that I havent made or agreed with unless im reading this wrong.
I agree with you that just because there isn't a clear definition of consciousness doesn't mean it cant be studied with science. Well in part mostly because IT IS being studied with
science, .

Joe-im with you and happy you watched the link i sent. I too once very much liked Depak Chopra but after watching his childish self boasting ridiculous, behavior, I saw right through the man. Its like the guy needed the validation of the audience to feel he was right. Thats such an obvious trate of a charlatan. If you know your shit, then speak it but stop looking at the audience for applause and approval that never came,

And you mentioned wondering if there was a back story, well this isnt the first time the guy flipped out when his fluffy woo woo BS has been questioned. Watch the documentary with Richard Dawkins in which Dawkins calmly questions him why he uses scientific terms incorrectly and repeatedly. Depak had to make a public you tube apology for his once again, childish behavior. The guys full of shit.
A phony that happens to make some good points at times.

Also I agree about quantum entanglement. if we all came form the singularity we must have all been entangled at one point and maybe still are but I dont see how that changes anyone's daily lives any different than a bumper sticker stating '
'We are All One".

thanks yall/

Just read an interesting Essay from Dec 2012 in the Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. It pertains to parts of the discussion so I figured I'd post it to see what others think.

This is a PDF and the link will automatically download. just an fyi

https://www.google.com/u...mp;bvm=bv.41867550,d.dmQ

Peace

Thanks for the link! Hey, I can't seem to find the "like" button on this forum. So, how come we don't have one, like Facebook or Mycotopia does? I like a lot of what I read on this site (while conversely, some of it makes want to pull my hair out).

And I wholly agree with you, olympus mon, Deepak does more to discredit the cause for a unification between the scientific community and the spiritual community, than he does to help to conjoin them. Still, I feel his heart is in the right place, even if his brain is undergoing some deep angst, that leaves him unable to behave sanely in public.

I believe it is imperative that he be seen for who he is, with due compassion. He is a medical doctor with a seeming, passion for the esoteric. He is neither a quantum physicist nor an advanced spiritual adept in terms of detachment or equanimity, so his generalizations do little to clear away any dichotomy, causing nothing but friction with such alternate perspectives. He is an entertainer, I suppose, and I could personally do just fine without his act (or his literary efforts). Life is too short for kindergarten metaphysics that have little to no effect in cultivating a peaceful, centered state of mind.

An objective look into "Vedic Sciences", as they were called 3000+ year ago, does shed some interesting light upon some of the parallels with contemporary quantum physics. Hey, I said the V-word & the S-word in one phrase and lightning didn't actually strike me dead! Knowledge itself, be it a procedurally-deduced hypothesis or a Gnostic epiphany, covers an incredible expanse of potential understanding, both quantifiable and mystical... and we have just scratched the very surface of what is existent, both outside and inside of ourselves.

Seen through the proper perceptual lens, the Indian Upanishads and Advaitan Vedanta touch upon many ideas whereby we might collectively reach some reasonable consensus betwixt the scientific model of the universe, as we know it and the religious model, which we instinctively intuit. As does a deep study of Chinese Taoism, when viewed from a sympathetic angle. After all, Lao Tzu implied such quantum dynamics, which we can now observe in String Theory, over 2500 years ago. Though his method at arriving at this profound observation differed dramatically and was not the product of a technologically induced procedure. (Not to go all Deepak Chopra on y'all.)

But that debate was a circus act gone badly awry. The fellows in suits n' ties wouldn't release their cherished and frankly, adolescent dismissal, of the Jude-Christian-Islamic God of yore. To his credit, Deepak was attempting to shift humanity's focus on the outdated and rather primitive idea of anthropomorphic deification, towards something more cosmic and immanently interrelated with everything else, within the paradox of existence/non-existence. His gigantic ego just kept getting in his own way. Not very "spiritual".

This is the 21st century and IMO, any progressive concept God or any belief system about an Omnipotent Being, itself immanently inherent within everything, ought to be understood as universal. Something greater than the individual parts of the whole of it's all-encompassing, field of singularity in being. Certainly not the older model of the Divine Intelligence. I ask if this is because ONLY the older model can be so easily negated and dismissed, by the typical left-brained arguments, those proposed by logicians and procedural pragmatists?

So, as contemporary earth entities, we are behooved to look beyond a large percentage of antiquated ideas and/or contexts of theology. My God is the essence of consciousness and awareness. It belongs to everyone and everything, as it IS everyone and everything. It is both what is seen and procedurally quantifiable within these material realms... and simultaneously, not anything that can possibly be labeled as "a thing" or even an infinite number or group of things, all combined together. It has a wee bit of THE VOID within it's limitless nature.

This idea of what is Sacred or Holy, by necessity, ought to be contemplated upon as wholly interconnected with all that exists (and even that which remains eternally unknowable to our limited degree of awareness).

And while I am certainly uneducated in quantum physics, which may well be one of the understatements of the century... I feel that whatever that no-thing was, which originally initiated quantum fluctuations, it still is initiating them now... and we are also IT. To me, this is what is Divine. Is not the old God dead to free thinkers? I assumed this was common knowledge. Although honestly, I missed the funeral, so I am just going by eye witness accounts of the event.

Paradoxically, we are apparently some direct or indirect expression of this "no-thing", however made manifest as "a thing", for some reason that cannot be fully grasped by our consciousness as long as we are still an isolated thing observing other things.

I believe that this is the unseen essence and interlocking unity between the isolated aspect of the One. A multidimensional, energetic synonym of sorts. An inter-meshing, existential Grid, each aspect refracting to one another in some kind of seamless symmetry.

My apologies, everyone, as I am prone to digression.

Sigh... silly Deepak blew his chance at steering the discussion into a mature conversation about said interrelationships, by polarizing himself so foolishly. That, and it's quite transparent that he is a poor debater, with even worst manners than a dubious ruffian, found loitering on any inner city street corner. I suspect he practices a non-transformative methodology of meditation?

I also agree with both of you, reason and intuition are not totally separate aspects of human cognition, they are two sides of the same spinning coin. Perhaps when we find the right balance, we will step into the next paradigm in human consciousness? I am betting on it... win lose or draw. Blackjack anyone?

olympus mon wrote:
..Citta wrote:
..i interpreted the title of the thread as inviting partial discussion of consciousness (and physics)

i agree with Citta it is the ultimate mindfuck though and always appreciate Citta's views..

olympus mon wrote:
..i'm beginning to think that stringtheory is actually a definition of some aspects of consciousness..i.e the meta-physical (as embracethevoid called it) ..some mathematics is getting close too..

Rising Spirit wrote:
..this conversation i think reflects the immaturity of the cultural background in which the debate was taking place..
i should clarify my earlier statement about judeo-christian religion..some early Gnostic forms i think are quite insightful branches..it is the dominance by certain twisted men around the 3rd to 4th century AD (who feared the feminine..the yin..) that lead to bloodshed and ignorance..until then it was alright to say 'i think jesus was connected to spirit but wasn't personally the son of god..we all are..'..after that you got called a Heretic by the Romans and killed in the name of God! ..and of course (more to the point) intelligent, open and free thinking were suppressed..
including rational Science..2000 years later we still have the Nazis stating 'the truth is dangerous to the state'..and entheogens illegal..

this is a very long running Political/Power struggle that has left both European rationalists and religions without common language, and at loggerheads..very few (Scientists included) can remain non-emotional in the west when debating this abyss of a divide..

meanwhile, in the 'East'..

Rising Spirit wrote:
..true Yoga (of physical or mental forms) brings 'union', but via a careful study program of self experiment and observation..'unbiased' perception is one of the mental functions seen to aid this 'union'..via methodological work on the self the whole is perceived..

the intense 'individualism' of Roman-Christian ('western'..) fights to suppress the good of the many in the favour of the few..but i'm verging on political now..
better get outa here..

may the gods strike you with soma and pure light Rising Spirit..
.