I watched a wonderful presentation between a physicist and a Buddhist over reality. I enjoy these discussions but HATE not being able to contribute or question. So I will use my blog to enter my contributions.

First the physicists made a wonderful observation that we see reality in layers and those layers do not separate those observations of existence but nest. They all have truth. The chair is composed of atoms and wood. It is a part of a stage design currently, part of the auditorium’s inventory etc. All those layers are still just one part of the story of the chair.

The thing that irritates me is when he claims he doesn’t know all but then jumps to …”Because I know ALL the forces of nature, there is no life after death.” Wait a second…what happened to I don’t know all?

When a person dies the physicists sees all the particles as deteriorating and concludes “that is all the person is”.

The Buddhist replies that observing the observer should be as intensely studied as any other tool the scientific community uses, which science fails to do.

I must go simply go to my metaphor. A square desk top computer is a solid, dissectible, physical thing. When there is no energy going thru it we are left with just particles. You can claim you know all the circuits, all the components and how they integrate with each other but you don’t know three important things.

1.       What software will be on it and will that software work? (the consciousness)

2.       Was the purpose of the box designed to run the software? Or just be a collection of components. (the body)

3.       Who or what thought it necessary to design a box? (intent or creator)

Matter is observable. Energy is partially observable, but only if we are able to create a machine that we properly calibrate and agree on a measurement language that science can document.

Partially observable, is the key. Functioning instrument language is the ONLY thing that we can use. If we don’t have that instrument, than the energy does NOT exist? Can anyone actually claim with any surety that something does NOT exist? That is a falsity in logic, until you “know all” which no one has ever claimed, you can’t know something is Not.

A behavior psychologist asked a question of the presenters about the duality of a person before a stroke and the totally different person that may exist after a stroke. I respond that a part of the computer box can break down, there can be glitches in the software, but that does not separate the box running that software from having the experience, nor does it preclude it from running only one piece of software.

Anyway, no one listens to me, but I believe just the creation of the thought pattern puts it in the human accessible database. It now will easier to tap into that information once the correlation has been made. Maybe I have expanded consciousness.

Anyway, that’s my story.

May you enjoy the journey of your software and delight in your ability to modify that story.

Hugs, Pam