|
Post by relinquish on Sept 16, 2015 18:08:48 GMT -5
When the Advaitist claims they don't exist, what they mean is that the body/mind making that claim does not actually exist in the solely self-inclusive way that conceptual labels make it seem to. In fact, no form could EVER truly exist in such a way. There is no real 'thing' called a 'human being', or anything else for that matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 18:29:49 GMT -5
My money is on not one Advaitaist, or anyone who believes they do not exist will ever conduct this test. Is it the same reason why scientists don't use human observers in experiments anymore?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 15:53:21 GMT -5
Is it the same reason why scientists don't use human observers in experiments anymore? I wasn't aware scientists stopped observing their experiments? Yeah, all theoretical experiments which involve probability have the observer removed as to not affect the results. The results may mirror an experiment with an observer present, but the trick is to let nature answer the question of the experiment without being influenced by an observer.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 17, 2015 16:07:54 GMT -5
I wasn't aware scientists stopped observing their experiments? Yeah, all theoretical experiments which involve probability have the observer removed as to not affect the results. The results may mirror an experiment with an observer present, but the trick is to let nature answer the question of the experiment without being influenced by an observer. I'm not exactly sure how an experiment can be conducted without someone there to enact the experiment itself. Is there an example you can link me to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 16:21:07 GMT -5
Yeah, all theoretical experiments which involve probability have the observer removed as to not affect the results. The results may mirror an experiment with an observer present, but the trick is to let nature answer the question of the experiment without being influenced by an observer. I'm not exactly sure how an experiment can be conducted without someone there to enact the experiment itself. Is there an example you can link me to? Sorry I don't, it's not something I am interested in so much. Google is your best bet I would think.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 17, 2015 17:19:46 GMT -5
I'm not exactly sure how an experiment can be conducted without someone there to enact the experiment itself. Is there an example you can link me to? Sorry I don't, it's not something I am interested in so much. Google is your best bet I would think. If you weren't interested, you wouldn't have posted the info - it's a bit incomplete to take seriously, then. I was interested in how that happens, and figured you knew how scientific experiments are done these days.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Sept 17, 2015 17:32:14 GMT -5
When the Advaitist claims they don't exist, what they mean is that the body/mind making that claim does not actually exist in the solely self-inclusive way that conceptual labels make it seem to. In fact, no form could EVER truly exist in such a way. There is no real 'thing' called a 'human being', or anything else for that matter. And as i said, doing the test will provide tangible proof their claim of non existence is true. i also said this, and stand by it... My money is on not one Advaitaist, or anyone who believes they do not exist will ever conduct this test. ...because i theorize the precepts of Advaita are not truth, but simply thoughts perceived to be truth, just like any other religion or philosophy, and doing the test will prove it as such. Think about it for a sec...if someone is utterly convinced their conclusions about reality is the truth, they would have no resistance to conducting tests, as they would be utterly convinced the test would prove them correct. But from my experiential understanding of mind, thoughts, beliefs, perception...it is very easy to be utterly convinced something is truth when it actually isn't. But as long as one remains in a self activated delusion they have absolute truth, their is no desire to verify it because they are already convinced. That is the fundamental mechanism of delusion. I predict not one nonexistian will ever conduct this test because there is a part of self that knows when they are self deluding themself, but they do not want to face reality because the belief they hold to makes them feel secure, the fear of the unknown mysteries of life are answered in their philosophy, so why detach from that. "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha The world of an Advaitaist, the reality they exist in and judge as truth is all constructed by their thoughts. I do not seek for anyone to destroy the world they have constructed around themselves, if someone needs or desires to believe\perceive they do not exist, i wish them well. If the actions of another that is based on their beliefs\perception does not adversely affect my life, i have no rational reason to defend myself or attackthem. That is my current position. However, i remain genuinely interested to see the result of this test, for i seek understanding of existence. If a nonexistian did this test, repeatedly and the results was an interference pattern, then i would be convinced there is something real about Advaita and i would explore those paths. But i will not believe simply from the rhetoric of the adherents, especially when the rhetoric, to me, contains huge discrepancies that do not add up to a sound conclusion, and not helped when adherents respond to my inquires and thoughts from defensive and\or attacking postures. What do you think proof of the nonexistence of any real 'thing' (including a 'human being') would look like? Again, the claim being made is not that the FORM being called a 'thing' (by the intellect) isn't really there. It's that the form is not actually 'solely self-inclusive' (a 'thing') in the way that conceptual labels make it seem to be, and that the form in fact mutually includes ALL forms that lie beyond it's physical boundaries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 17:40:48 GMT -5
Sorry I don't, it's not something I am interested in so much. Google is your best bet I would think. If you weren't interested, you wouldn't have posted the info - it's a bit incomplete to take seriously, then. I was interested in how that happens, and figured you knew how scientific experiments are done these days. My interest is Consciousness, which is why I found the double slit experiment interesting. It's a problem for science to deal with and I dont have any interest in educating myself on how they plan to do that.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 17, 2015 17:48:47 GMT -5
If you weren't interested, you wouldn't have posted the info - it's a bit incomplete to take seriously, then. I was interested in how that happens, and figured you knew how scientific experiments are done these days. My interest is Consciousness, which is why I found the double slit experiment interesting. It's a problem for science to deal with and I dont have any interest in educating myself on how they plan to do that. Well then, wouldn't it be safe to say that you don't know if they've removed the observer then? I don't care except in the context of the stuff in this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 18:50:05 GMT -5
My interest is Consciousness, which is why I found the double slit experiment interesting. It's a problem for science to deal with and I dont have any interest in educating myself on how they plan to do that. Well then, wouldn't it be safe to say that you don't know if they've removed the observer then? I don't care except in the context of the stuff in this thread. Obviously you do care, just not about removing the observer from experiments...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 17, 2015 18:53:47 GMT -5
Well then, wouldn't it be safe to say that you don't know if they've removed the observer then? I don't care except in the context of the stuff in this thread. Obviously you do care, just not about removing the observer from experiments... I'm not a modern science type, exactly - wouldn't know the first thing about conducting an experiment while removing the viewer!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 19:34:57 GMT -5
Obviously you do care, just not about removing the observer from experiments... I'm not a modern science type, exactly - wouldn't know the first thing about conducting an experiment while removing the viewer! You know more than you think you know. Nevertheless, that's probably the reason why neither of us are quantum physicists, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2015 20:51:43 GMT -5
My money is on not one Advaitaist, or anyone who believes they do not exist will ever conduct this test. The double slit experiment already implies the truth of what you want to test. (Otherwise it would already be proving your viewpoint, as there are not some that exist and some not) As Relinquish has been trying to say, 'no person' just means there is no separate, volitional person. The person is just a set of thoughts, as your Buddha quote is trying to tell you. No separate person means that all is a play of a singular consciousness, including both the observer, the experimental apparatus, and the light through which it moves. Nothing is separate from anything, and observation is creative. Whether the observer is considered a separate person, or an aspect of a singular consciousness, it will still influence the experiment. The scientific community will not confirm that's what's happening, but in any event, Advaita is not in conflict with the test results.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2015 22:39:16 GMT -5
My money is on not one Advaitaist, or anyone who believes they do not exist will ever conduct this test. The double slit experiment already implies the truth of what you want to test. (Otherwise it would already be proving your viewpoint, as there are not some that exist and some not) As Relinquish has been trying to say, 'no person' just means there is no separate, volitional person. The person is just a set of thoughts, as your Buddha quote is trying to tell you. No separate person means that all is a play of a singular consciousness, including both the observer, the experimental apparatus, and the light through which it moves. Nothing is separate from anything, and observation is creative. Whether the observer is considered a separate person, or an aspect of a singular consciousness, it will still influence the experiment. The scientific community will not confirm that's what's happening, but in any event, Advaita is not in conflict with the test results. Well, they did, going on almost a hundred years ago now. Some scientists resist this, but, despite popular appeal, they're not in the mainstream. My sophomore lab prof in Modern Physics made a point at the end of the semester to lead our recitation section to the conclusion that "reality is very very different from how we perceive it". Heisenberg, in a discussion of the double-slit years after his Nobel wrote this: " It may be said that classical physics is just that idealization in which we can speak about parts of the world without any reference to ourselves." (from para 24 "The Copenhagen Interpretation", of "Physics and Philosophy")
It's an interesting chapter, all about subjectivity and objectivity, and that quote is just a glimpse past the door of the bunny warren. Hey, know what else is framed this way, in terms of subjectivity and objectivity? -- Sekida's treatment of "mountains are once again mountains and rivers are once again rivers" in "Zen Training".
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 30, 2015 14:50:10 GMT -5
The point is, there is no experiment until it is served, 'obly'. Or the rest of it for that matter.
|
|