Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2012 16:30:23 GMT -5
Actually when we look at a setting sun, it is not present as QM dictates. In fact we are looking at an image of the sun that happened 8 minutes ago. So the image of the setting sun doesn't actually reveal the true state of the sun. Or put another way, if while observing the sun set, the sun were to disintegrate, we would still be seeing the image of the sun for another 8 minutes, while the true nature of the sun as not being there, is not revealed by the QM model. I'm aware of too many anomalies in QM for it to be reliable when it comes to the description of reality in my experience. Wow, no offense, but from this post it should be obvious to everyone that you're very confused. I recommend that you start practising ATA. First you need to get clear of what direct experience means, then you can bring your ideas to it and start to systematically deconstruct them, which is what the QM can assist you with. But first you need to find the correct context, so, do some ATA first, because until them we're just debating ideas, and it would be simply a waste of time for both of us. No offense taken, because these ideas are from David Hodgson who has written numerous philosophical articles, mainly dealing with issues in philosophy of the mind. He writes primarily on the topics of free will and consciousness. Hodgson is the author of three books published by Oxford University Press, Consequences of Utilitarianism (1967), The Mind Matters: Consciousness and Choice in a Quantum World (1991) and Rationality + Consciousness = Free Will (2011). The judge has also written on probability and plausible reasoning. So I guess you'll have to write and tell him that he's confused... ;D Of course you'll have to back up your opinions with your own published articles. You do have some don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 12, 2012 17:07:28 GMT -5
Or put another way, if while observing the sun set, the sun were to disintegrate, we would still be seeing the image of the sun for another 8 minutes, while the true nature of the sun as not being there, is not revealed by the QM model. Anyone that seriously thinks that the Sun can disintegrate in a split second is really a waste fresh air. Peter please ban me. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2012 17:07:37 GMT -5
Maybe that's the issue I'm having with all of this; the words become far too important and folks want to make absolute distinctions about words that mean only what they say they mean. There are all sorts of ways to talk about what's going on, and I agree with most of them, and they're all wrong. That's pretty much my impression as well. Lots of logical deduction about which term fits where within a larger verbal equation. People get so lost in the terminology that the conversations quickly become so detached from their actual life that it borders on delusions of grandeur. This Niz quote offered by a guy named HermitLoon on the Tolle board sums it up well: "On realization, you feel complete, fulfilled, free from the pleasure-pain complex, and yet not always able to explain what happened, why and how. You can put it only in negative terms: "Nothing is wrong with me any longer". It is only by comparison with the past that you know that you are out of it. Otherwise, you are just yourself. Don't try to convey it to others. If you can, it is not the real thing. Be silent and watch it expressing itself in action. (332)" (Nisargadatta)
Of course ... the conversations like the one on this thread are just an example of "it expressing itself in action". Using the 'P-word' around here tends to multiply words so I won't do that even though that's what comes to mind from applying this observation to what Niz said. Perhaps I see a Giraffe when I categorize some of that conversation as being out of compassion, other of it as being out of pain. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 12, 2012 17:07:52 GMT -5
@trf: Nobody here is interested in your philosophy professors. Valid answers come from non-conceptual direct experience. Book knowledge and thinking will not help you one bit. So I guess you'll have to write and tell him that he's confused... ;D If your view is representative of his then he is confused. I do indeed, but I don't see the relevance. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2012 17:12:57 GMT -5
There are all sorts of ways to talk about what's going on, and I agree with most of them, and they're all wrong. Yeah, yeah ... what more to say? ... perhaps other than even when I agree with you on this ... right? wrong? ... ie: I have to include myself as someone who's wrong simply by the very fact that words are being typed. old quaint saying -- six of one, half-dozen of the other letting go of words ... hmmm ... yeah, that sounds like a plan ... a good plan ... Maybe that's the issue I'm having with all of this; the words become far too important and folks want to make absolute distinctions about words that mean only what they say they mean. There are all sorts of ways to talk about what's going on, and I agree with most of them, and they're all wrong. Well from what I've seen, at your best here, you have a knack for getting to the bottom of such things. While I know from both reading your stuff without comment and also corresponding with you that our opinions on the concept of nonduality differ, that doesn't stop me from being able to benefit from your expressions of it that cause me to pause and smile in a feeling that can be best expressed by this tune: The first thought, the first conception, the first breath of speech, these are the "first cut", and once that first cut is made the damage is done. Q's model is cool, and my mind reflects on what seems like it was a progression from Dualism to Materialist Monism through to Idealistic Monsim with fond nostalgia ... in the end, every peep's got there own fleet of river boats left on some far banks scattered around somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2012 17:14:53 GMT -5
That's pretty much my impression as well. Lots of logical deduction about which term fits where within a larger verbal equation. People get so lost in the terminology that the conversations quickly become so detached from their actual life that it borders on delusions of grandeur. Yes, I agree, most people are content with what their intuitions tells them and they don't bother to consult direct experience. One can point them to direct experience all day long, even with the simplest and most precise terminology known to mankind, it's still useless unless there is actual interest in truth. Illusion: being hijacked by one's experience. Your intuition mileage will vary since what distorts intuition is the same thing that distorts experience. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2012 17:22:09 GMT -5
Or put another way, if while observing the sun set, the sun were to disintegrate, we would still be seeing the image of the sun for another 8 minutes, while the true nature of the sun as not being there, is not revealed by the QM model. Anyone that seriously thinks that the Sun can disintegrate in a split second is really a waste fresh air. Peter please ban me. Sounds like you figure he should be punished. Have you been talking to Arisha?? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2012 17:32:14 GMT -5
That's pretty much my impression as well. Lots of logical deduction about which term fits where within a larger verbal equation. People get so lost in the terminology that the conversations quickly become so detached from their actual life that it borders on delusions of grandeur. This Niz quote offered by a guy named HermitLoon on the Tolle board sums it up well: "On realization, you feel complete, fulfilled, free from the pleasure-pain complex, and yet not always able to explain what happened, why and how. You can put it only in negative terms: "Nothing is wrong with me any longer". It is only by comparison with the past that you know that you are out of it. Otherwise, you are just yourself. Don't try to convey it to others. If you can, it is not the real thing. Be silent and watch it expressing itself in action. (332)" (Nisargadatta)
Of course ... the conversations like the one on this thread are just an example of "it expressing itself in action". Using the 'P-word' around here tends to multiply words so I won't do that even though that's what comes to mind from applying this observation to what Niz said. Perhaps I see a Giraffe when I categorize some of that conversation as being out of compassion, other of it as being out of pain. Yes, a very pertinent quote. I was watching UG the other day as he talked about being thrown off the merry go round. (The conditioning being thrown off) He said 'How can I tell you how it needs to happen when I don't even know how it happened?' |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2012 18:05:24 GMT -5
There are all sorts of ways to talk about what's going on, and I agree with most of them, and they're all wrong. Yeah, yeah ... what more to say? ... perhaps other than even when I agree with you on this ... right? wrong? ... ie: I have to include myself as someone who's wrong simply by the very fact that words are being typed. Maybe that's the issue I'm having with all of this; the words become far too important and folks want to make absolute distinctions about words that mean only what they say they mean. There are all sorts of ways to talk about what's going on, and I agree with most of them, and they're all wrong. The problem is nobody is interested in greasy spots. The QM is pretty greasy, and to that extent, a useful trip, but until one is willing to step back and say it doesn't say anything about anything, peeps are still licking the grease off their fingers. Sometimes I try to talk about the reward of that absence, cuz lets face it, it's all about reward, but how to talk about that? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 12, 2012 18:11:48 GMT -5
Wow, no offense, but from this post it should be obvious to everyone that you're very confused. I recommend that you start practising ATA. First you need to get clear of what direct experience means, then you can bring your ideas to it and start to systematically deconstruct them, which is what the QM can assist you with. But first you need to find the correct context, so, do some ATA first, because until them we're just debating ideas, and it would be simply a waste of time for both of us. No offense taken, because these ideas are from David Hodgson who has written numerous philosophical articles, mainly dealing with issues in philosophy of the mind. He writes primarily on the topics of free will and consciousness. Hodgson is the author of three books published by Oxford University Press, Consequences of Utilitarianism (1967), The Mind Matters: Consciousness and Choice in a Quantum World (1991) and Rationality + Consciousness = Free Will (2011). The judge has also written on probability and plausible reasoning. So I guess you'll have to write and tell him that he's confused... ;D Of course you'll have to back up your opinions with your own published articles. You do have some don't you? TRF, in order to critique the qualia model, you have to go where it points and live immersed in direct experience (including the absence of the mind). Without being fully grounded in direct experience, the QM is just an idea inside your head. Relying on someone else's critique just means you don't understand it yourself. It is clear that Hosgson believes there is an objective reality independent of his current experience. That is a belief that he was either taught or came to under his own meticulous study of light. Since he is a philosopher, odds are he's just repeating what scientists have told him. What does Awareness have to do with the Sun in the "physical" universe independent of our experience? What is being talked about here is immersion into our immediate experience as our truth. Immersion implies a prior non-immersion. Engaging in mental activity, especially belief and conceptualization about reality, the world, the universe, that is not being immersed in your immediate experience. When you resort to critiques made by others who are still assuming there is a world separate from our experience, and when you are so incistant that there is a right way to talk about this "Awareness + Consciousness = Oneness", then it's clear that you are still playing around in the mind. Your mind has become a chameleon, cloaking itself in the language of spirituality in order to preserve itself and avoid its dissolution. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 12, 2012 18:14:41 GMT -5
Yeah, yeah ... what more to say? ... perhaps other than even when I agree with you on this ... right? wrong? ... ie: I have to include myself as someone who's wrong simply by the very fact that words are being typed. Maybe that's the issue I'm having with all of this; the words become far too important and folks want to make absolute distinctions about words that mean only what they say they mean. There are all sorts of ways to talk about what's going on, and I agree with most of them, and they're all wrong. The problem is nobody is interested in greasy spots. The QM is pretty greasy, and to that extent, a useful trip, but until one is willing to step back and say it doesn't say anything about anything, peeps are still licking the grease off their fingers. Sometimes I try to talk about the reward of that absence, cuz lets face it, it's all about reward, but how to talk about that? Rewards come in currency, whether that is money, a return favor, emotional elation, self-esteem, security in society, etc. what kind of reward are you talking about? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2012 19:57:35 GMT -5
@trf: Nobody here is interested in your philosophy professors. Valid answers come from non-conceptual direct experience. Book knowledge and thinking will not help you one bit. I don't know what your going on about, when you say valid answers. What questions are you talking about that these valid answers are suppose to resolve? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2012 20:11:00 GMT -5
Or put another way, if while observing the sun set, the sun were to disintegrate, we would still be seeing the image of the sun for another 8 minutes, while the true nature of the sun as not being there, is not revealed by the QM model. Anyone that seriously thinks that the Sun can disintegrate in a split second is really a waste fresh air. Peter please ban me. Do you think that he was serious or just creating a thought experiment? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2012 20:25:01 GMT -5
No offense taken, because these ideas are from David Hodgson who has written numerous philosophical articles, mainly dealing with issues in philosophy of the mind. He writes primarily on the topics of free will and consciousness. Hodgson is the author of three books published by Oxford University Press, Consequences of Utilitarianism (1967), The Mind Matters: Consciousness and Choice in a Quantum World (1991) and Rationality + Consciousness = Free Will (2011). The judge has also written on probability and plausible reasoning. So I guess you'll have to write and tell him that he's confused... ;D Of course you'll have to back up your opinions with your own published articles. You do have some don't you? TRF, in order to critique the qualia model, you have to go where it points and live immersed in direct experience (including the absence of the mind). Without being fully grounded in direct experience, the QM is just an idea inside your head. Relying on someone else's critique just means you don't understand it yourself. It is clear that Hosgson believes there is an objective reality independent of his current experience. That is a belief that he was either taught or came to under his own meticulous study of light. Since he is a philosopher, odds are he's just repeating what scientists have told him. What does Awareness have to do with the Sun in the "physical" universe independent of our experience? Actually Top, that's all I ever talk about is the direct experience of Awareness and Consciousness and not as concepts which are simply a description of that non-conceptual experiencing. The same way that QM is a 'description', a 'concept' about non-conceptual experiencing. What Awareness points to is the non-conceptual experiencing and the relationship it has with consciousness. Sorry I don't know what your talking about with regards to Awareness and the sun. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 12, 2012 20:27:49 GMT -5
Maybe that's the issue I'm having with all of this; the words become far too important and folks want to make absolute distinctions about words that mean only what they say they mean. There are all sorts of ways to talk about what's going on, and I agree with most of them, and they're all wrong. That's pretty much my impression as well. Lots of logical deduction about which term fits where within a larger verbal equation. People get so lost in the terminology that the conversations quickly become so detached from their actual life that it borders on delusions of grandeur. Hey, silence!  That's what drives a forum, la folie des grandeurs! |
|
