New book, Jed McKenna's Theory of Everything:

[laughter]

Apr 29, 2013 10:48:47 GMT -5 ???????? ???????????? said:

Yo! Guess who this is. So I've read the ~20page books.google preview of Jed's new book and was a bit shocked because of the low quality. Usually I don't care, but this is an author with a large following and he speaks with such authority that I couldn't help but expose the guy for the charlatan that he is. Well, that and I also wanted an excuse to post again.

Jed: "Do you believe that truth does not exist?"

- A trick question, though not a surprising one, considering that he introduces his book by quoting Socrates, the father of all trick questions. What is the "truth" that Jed is speaking of? A fool's mind here will immediately start spinning a tale of epic proportions. Looked at closely "truth" will reveal itself to be nothing more than a function of a class of sentences. Other kinds of sentences don't contain this function and still remain operational.

"I agree that the statement truth does not exist is a logical contradiction"

- Let's be very precise here, because if we're not then this will distort the entire contemplation. If within the sentence the true/false-function operates, then this function can't be absent within the same sentence, for then the sentence would be in self-contradiction. However, we have to clearly recognize that such is the function of these particular kind of sentences, the function is not universal, it does not extend beyond this class of sentences.

"Based on the fact that truth cannot not exist, because it would be absurd to say that no-truth is truth is true, I agree that truth must exist. I don't know what truth is, only that something must be true."

- Look at the insanity of this. There is supposed to be some kind of mysterious truth-entity, we believe to know that it must exist, but we haven't the faintest clue about what it could be. It's an entirely abstract entity that insists not because we have positive evidence for it (we don't, because we have no idea what it could be) but because we can't imagine it not to be. Isn't that strange? The mystery is solved when you understand that truth is not a universal entity of some sort but instead merely a value of a true/false function within a sentence, and that this function necessarily insists whenever you instantiate it within the sentence, but it is completely unwarranted to extrapolate this function beyond the sentence and imagine it to be a universal entity.

"Truth cannot be finite. Truth must be unchanging. It must be universal and unlimited, without boundaries. Truth must be found in the essential nature of all that exists, and nothing can exist independently of truth. Truth must be infinite. Truth exists and must be absolute. Truth is all."

- And this is the tale of epic proportions that I hinted at earlier.

"So now, to determine what truth is, we need only determine what, with absolute certainty, exists."
"I can say I am. I know that I exist."
"And what is the nature of your existence?"
"Consciousness, of course. I am conscious."

- Don't be deceived by "absolute certainty", it simply articulates the inability to doubt, which in this case isn't representative of anything other than the constraints of the structure of the sentence which one is thinking in. "I know that I exist" is simply the swapping of one abstract term for another, same with "I am conscious". The strenght of "I" and "conscious" comes not from understanding, it comes from the dominance of intuition, which is the same as the inability to doubt, which is the result of a lack of understanding. He who does not understand whereof he speaks has the strongest intuitions. He who understands whereof he speaks requires no intuition.

Next. What is consciousness? Jed has to give a precise account, otherwise he would violate the requirement of "absolute certainty". So, how can you be absolutely certain about something if you're not exactly sure what it is? "Absolute truth" is an entirely abstract entity and according to Jed it can only be concretized by something of which we are absolutely certain, but it obviously can't be "consciousness" or "self", or "existence", or any other one of these ideas because we're not certain what they represent... and if Jed disagrees, then he contradicts himself and his syllogism falls apart faster than a virtual particle. Moreover, if you try to cheat and say that intuition is enough and that there is no obligation to present a precise account of the involved notions, then what reason is there to prefer consciousness over the myriad other dominant intuitions that we experience each and every day?

"We have just solved every sinlge mystery in the existence in five minutes."

- No, Jed has completely confused a poor fellow and robbed him of his precious time and money.

"Did we? Then why do I still not know?"
"You do, you just haven't realized it yet."

- Do you remember Rumsfeldian epistemology? There are things we know we know. Things we know we don't know. And things we don't know we don't know. But there is also a fourth to this permutation. Things we don't know we know. Be vigilant, the latter is the realm of charlatans.

"if Truth is All and Consciousness Exists then Consciousness is All"

- But is the "if" correct? Here's the thing. If you are incapable of doubting this syllogism of Jed's then you don't understand it. It's as simple as that. If you agree with the syllogism without being able to doubt it then you're relying on feel-good intuition. What does it mean to doubt this syllogism? It's not only by being able to construct alternatives of similar logical strenght. Instead it means that one should learn to understand how the syllogism functions in each of its parts.

"I Am is the fundamental universal constant of knowledge. Everything else is belief."

- The "I Am" as such is completely irrelevant for epistemology. When talking about knowledge and belief in regard to fundamental epistemology the distinction of belief/knowledge is misleading. In logic the search for truth reveals itself not to be a hunt for some sort of divine truth but rather as the drawing of a conclusion that follows when certain data is applied to certain rules. Define rules, define relevant data, apply data to the rules, draw conclusion. The conclusion is merely the result of a logical "if-then" operation. One who understands this mechanism will also understand that these operations are virtual in the sense that they are unable to claim to give an account of anything external to them. This is why it is only out of lack of understanding that one is tempted to call logical conclusions beliefs or truths. To talk of absolute truth is nothing more than ideology. The best we can do is look at what rules we agree upon, apply to it what we think we count as evidence and then draw the conclusions - but none of this has anything to do with absolute truths.

Jed is clearly performing logical operations, but he claims that his conclusions are absolute truths pertaining to things far outside the context of notational logic. Either his understanding of logic is indeed so primitive that he doesn't understand his error, or he is knowingly in the ideology business, for egoic or financial reasons. Either way he is either unknowingly or knowingly contributing to mankind's ignorance.

"Universe is king, U-Rex. Your consciousness is a dot, one small thing in an infinite universe."
"Just switch the labels."
"C-Rex: Consciousness is King. Consciousness is the superset of the universe, not the other way around or any other way."

Notice that the background of his idea is the caricature of a material universe with conscious individuals trapped therein. It is a notion so naive and primitive that it is unworthy to be used as contrast for a theory of anything. Both members of the caricature and their relation have been known to be extremely problematic for millenia and no educated thinker would risk the certain embarrassment by publishing a paper that takes them at face value. Not so with Jed. He just switches the labels, solves not a single problem, creates a myriad others, sprinkles it with a bit of irony, anticipates the bewilderment of simple folks aswell as the devastating critique from experts such as myself by playing the role of the misunderstood genius, calls it a "theory of everything" and sells it for seven bucks a piece.

Now, putting it all together there reveals itself a possibility that Jed's fans should be worried about. Years ago I've actually bought and read his first book, and I didn't hate it. There he seemed to be writing mainly from his personal experience, which I trusted was more developed that mine and so I just registered his claims without criticizing them. However, this time his claims are within my field of expertise and seeing that he is wrong not about some complicated details but instead about the most basic of all concepts I cannot help but wonder about the extent of his ignorance.

Hey Q, good to hear from you.

Now I'm tempted to read the book because I'm genuinely curious as to how he reconciles:

"I Am is the fundamental universal constant of knowledge. Everything else is belief."

"Consciousness, of course. I am conscious."

... without coping to the obvious observation that he's just peddling a belief.

It's a natural progression, one that I'm personally familiar with and that I've discussed before: once you figure out that the model of individual fragments of consciousness that share an external objective physical reality doesn't work it's tempting to explain the propensity we have to share and agree on the commonality of experience by turning that inside out and replacing the objective physical reality with a subjective reality emerging from a shared unitive consciousness.

Nice theory. My guess is that if there was a way to subject it to skeptical validation we'd have heard of it by now. I call it the "spiritual speculation".

...

oh, and thanks for the lucidity ... what you wrote was a fun read and I agreed with most of it but then again I haven't read the book so that's worth what it isn't.

[stardustpilgrim]

I finished the book last night. Just as a little background, I read the first three books as they came out. You don't have to have read the trilogy to read this book, it stands on its own. It's good. I have few objections, maybe later. As time permits I'll speak, somewhat, to the concerns of Sweet Brown. ........But I would suggest if she is really interested, read the entire book, not just 20 pages.

Jed is talking about what's true, period. He not talking about any truth that can be put into sentences. He says that anything put into words is at least once removed from reality. The book is a small attempt to point to something that really has to be lived. Nothing is worth argument.

I've been discussing the subject of the book on another forum for about four months, Beliefnet, Science & Religion, the thread Physics in Mind, A Quantum View of the Brain by Werner R. Loewenstein. Most of the discussion there was centered around perception, but I later expanded it to "C-Rex", consciousness, so Jed's new book was a real treat (it was pretty-much me against everybody else over there).

sdp

[???????? ????????????]

Apr 29, 2013 21:53:49 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

I would suggest if she is really interested, read the entire book, not just 20 pages.

I will most certainly not give my money to a charlatan.

Jed is talking about what's true, period.

Okay, but what is "true"?

He not talking about any truth that can be put into sentences.

Try to instantiate "truth" outside a sentence.

He says that anything put into words is at least once removed from reality.

And then he puts it into words. If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

The book is a small attempt to point to something that really has to be lived.

He calls it a "theory of everything"... that is not a small attempt.

I wonder about the "It's just a pointer. Duh!" If the author considers it to be necessary to express this truism I shudder to think not only of his opinion about his readership but also his mental condition when he adresses a "theory of everything" to them.

I've been discussing the subject of the book on another forum for about four months,

I wonder why.

(it was pretty-much me against everybody else over there)

We have a joke about that in Germany. The radio speaker announces "Attention! There is a wrong-way driver on the Autobahn." And the driver murmurs to himself "A wrong-way driver? Dozens! Dozens!"

[???????? ????????????]

Apr 29, 2013 16:42:56 GMT -5 laughter said:

It's a natural progression, one that I'm personally familiar with and that I've discussed before: once you figure out that the model of individual fragments of consciousness that share an external objective physical reality doesn't work it's tempting to explain the propensity we have to share and agree on the commonality of experience by turning that inside out and replacing the objective physical reality with a subjective reality emerging from a shared unitive consciousness.

Nice theory. My guess is that if there was a way to subject it to skeptical validation we'd have heard of it by now. I call it the "spiritual speculation".

There are no scientific experiments or any other human behaviours that address "consciousness" or "material universe". They are useless even in constructing logical sentences, i.e. you can omit these notions and the sentences still fully function.

[Deleted]

Whomever said Jed must be hard up for cash is probably right.

[laughter]

Apr 30, 2013 12:21:20 GMT -5 ???????? ???????????? said:

Apr 29, 2013 16:42:56 GMT -5 laughter said:

It's a natural progression, one that I'm personally familiar with and that I've discussed before: once you figure out that the model of individual fragments of consciousness that share an external objective physical reality doesn't work it's tempting to explain the propensity we have to share and agree on the commonality of experience by turning that inside out and replacing the objective physical reality with a subjective reality emerging from a shared unitive consciousness.

Nice theory. My guess is that if there was a way to subject it to skeptical validation we'd have heard of it by now. I call it the "spiritual speculation".

There are no scientific experiments or any other human behaviours that address "consciousness" or "material universe". They are useless even in constructing logical sentences, i.e. you can omit these notions and the sentences still fully function.

Yes I agree with you but with one caveat. It's useful to point out that the assumption underlying the notion of a "material universe" collapsed over a century ago based on experimentation with the goal of explaining it in depth.

[stardustpilgrim]

I was going to drop in this morning to add something, but my computer chose to update so I didn't have time.

C-Rex is pretty simple to understand. There's a whole big universe out there (U-Rex) but we can only know anything about it through our own consciousness, we only know about U-Rex via C-Rex, therefore U-Rex is essentially irrelevant. This is the flip Jed talks about, from U-Rex to C-Rex, Consciousness is King.

It's pretty easy to follow Jed. You have to do a little work, you have to find what his words are pointing to.......... this means that. These words point to that. You can see for yourself and in yourself what his words mean.

sdp

[stardustpilgrim]

Apr 30, 2013 13:28:05 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Whomever said Jed must be hard up for cash is probably right.

I'd call it a truly great book.

sdp

[stardustpilgrim]

Apr 30, 2013 11:33:52 GMT -5 ???????? ???????????? said:

Apr 29, 2013 21:53:49 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

I would suggest if she is really interested, read the entire book, not just 20 pages.

I will most certainly not give my money to a charlatan.

Jed is talking about what's true, period.

Okay, but what is "true"?

He not talking about any truth that can be put into sentences.

Try to instantiate "truth" outside a sentence.

He says that anything put into words is at least once removed from reality.

And then he puts it into words. If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...[c]

The book is a small attempt to point to something that really has to be lived.

He calls it a "theory of everything"... that is not a small attempt. [d]

I wonder about the "It's just a pointer. Duh!" If the author considers it to be necessary to express this truism I shudder to think not only of his opinion about his readership but also his mental condition when he adresses a "theory of everything" to them.[e]

I've been discussing the subject of the book on another forum for about four months,

I wonder why. [f]

(it was pretty-much me against everybody else over there)

We have a joke about that in Germany. The radio speaker announces "Attention! There is a wrong-way driver on the Autobahn." And the driver murmurs to himself "A wrong-way driver? Dozens! Dozens!" [g]

(For some reason and didn't copy......but it's sort of obvious I'm answering your first two points, below).....

Jed says that truth is. Nothing that is is exempt from truth, it is the essential nature of all that is, nothing can exist independent from truth. Truth is whole, cannot be limited or finite, no boundaries. Truth is the whole, truth is all, only truth exists, untruth does not exist. Like I said, Jed's talking about truth, period.

Say you have never tasted a kumquat (I haven't). Say your friend has tasted a kumquat. Would you be able to know what a kumquat tasted like if you got your friend to instantiate the taste of a kumquat?

Describe the taste of a kumquat? Better to just put one in your mouth, tongue better than words.

And, a picture is worth a thousand words.

[c] Jed said he didn't really like the term Theory of Everything. He was watching a science program discussing a Theory of Everything and realized that he hadn't described, in the three books, the world he lived in. He just lived it, had never had a need to describe it. It suddenly seemed he had a new project, try to put into words what living in his world is like. He said that first of all he tried to get out of writing the book by looking to see if anybody else had already described it. He browsed a lot of books, poked around a lot on the internet. He found that some had written around the edges, but he could find nowhere a good and as full as possible description of where he lived from, so, he figured........it was a book that needed to be written. It's good effort.

[d] Well, the whole book is merely theoretical, words can't but be theoretical. Words are totally abstract, the letters t-r-e-e have absolutely zero to do with the meaning they represent. Now, Chinese was originally a pictographic language but has over time become more abstract. But someone who knows Chinese could point to many letters and tell you that this used to be a so-n-so and you could probably then see somewhat the pictograph. But English is totally abstract. You have to attribute meaning to the words, there is no meaning in any words. All words are metaphors trying to point to something. Jed says that for over twenty years he's lived in a state of consciousness he's never felt the need to describe, has never tried to put it into words. I consider Jed's Theory of Everything is a great book. Anyone who tries can get the theory, the theory of C-Rex. It's not that complicated. You can follow Jed step by step. He points to this means that. You get it and then move on. If there's something you don't get, just stay with it....OK...this means that, you'll eventually see what he's saying and then you move on. It's a small attempt in that the words in and of themselves mean nothing. You have to see what they're pointing to.......you can go through the whole book and see the greatness of the book.

[e] Read [d] again.

[f] Why am I discussing the subject of the book, "C-Rex" on another forum? If you don't understand the nature of self and its relationship to the structure of the universe, then absolutely nothing else can be of any significance. It's like trying to build a house on shifting sand.

[g] On Beliefnet I started with perception. There is no such thing as direct perception. Everything you see, touch, hear, taste and smell is inside your head, inside your skin. The senses collect incoming information, the information is then coded electrically and chemically and the neural structure of the brain interprets the coded information and turns it into what we see, touch, hear, taste and smell. We never have direct contact with the exterior universe. The same is true concerning everything. All we can ever know is our own consciousness. This is what Jed means by C-Rex. Now, if you get that then I've saved you $7.00, you don't have to read the book.....but it is such an enjoyable ride.......... But it's so much better to live consciously in C-Rex rather than just understand it theoretically..........according to Jed. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink....true...true.......but you can make him thirsty.......

sdp

[???????? ????????????]

Apr 30, 2013 13:38:50 GMT -5 laughter said:

Apr 30, 2013 12:21:20 GMT -5 ???????? ???????????? said:

There are no scientific experiments or any other human behaviours that address "consciousness" or "material universe". They are useless even in constructing logical sentences, i.e. you can omit these notions and the sentences still fully function.

Yes I agree with you but with one caveat. It's useful to point out that the assumption underlying the notion of a "material universe" collapsed over a century ago based on experimentation with the goal of explaining it in depth.

Maybe some of them during their lunchbreak fancied their experminets to be about exloring the "depth of the material universe", but the actual procedure has no way to live up to this. The philosophers of science still are uncertain about the correct interpretation.

The issue lies elsewhere. Quantum physics is articulated via mathematical formulas, the interpretations are philosophical in nature. People disagree about the interpretations, not about the math. If someone wants to contribute to the field then he is required to do so in the language of mathematics, and it does not respect our philosophical intuitions. The reason is that the two languages are incompatible and everyday language can't accurately represent the abstract formalisms. You can't build a consistent everyday ontology out of it, because then you get backwards time, many-worlds, too many dimensions, entanglement, etc... and this ontology remains inconsistent even if we swap "U-Rex" with "C-Rex", because these oddities still remain and we still can't comprehend them.

[???????? ????????????]

Apr 30, 2013 21:59:19 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Jed says that truth is. Nothing that is is exempt from truth, it is the essential nature of all that is, nothing can exist independent from truth. Truth is whole, cannot be limited or finite, no boundaries. Truth is the whole, truth is all, only truth exists, untruth does not exist. Like I said, Jed's talking about truth, period.

I've already refuted this idea.

Say you have never tasted a kumquat (I haven't). Say your friend has tasted a kumquat. Would you be able to know what a kumquat tasted like if you got your friend to instantiate the taste of a kumquat?

The taste comes and goes and is never heard of again, it leaves no trace. For the mind it's an excuse to introduce the idea "taste of kumquat" and "I tasted it" and give it the evidence stamp. For example when you taste it in a dream you don't so freely give out the evidence stamp, some people give the evidence stamp to everything that is said on Wikipedia, some people refuse to give the stamp to anything.

[c] Jed said he didn't really like the term Theory of Everything. He was watching a science program discussing a Theory of Everything and realized that he hadn't described, in the three books, the world he lived in. He just lived it, had never had a need to describe it. It suddenly seemed he had a new project, try to put into words what living in his world is like. He said that first of all he tried to get out of writing the book by looking to see if anybody else had already described it. He browsed a lot of books, poked around a lot on the internet. He found that some had written around the edges, but he could find nowhere a good and as full as possible description of where he lived from, so, he figured........it was a book that needed to be written. It's good effort.

No, he did not browse a lot of books - the spirituality section of every book store contains at least a couple of books propagating the same theory as Jed's. Why is he choosing a title that he doesn't even like? Do you know what Jed means by "living it"? I suggest that it means that his intuition is so strong that he is unable to doubt it. You can't "live" ideas, nobody lives a materialistic or consicous life, they merely think they do.

[d] Well, the whole book is merely theoretical, words can't but be theoretical.

What happened to the "truth, period!"?

Jed says that for over twenty years he's lived in a state of consciousness he's never felt the need to describe, has never tried to put it into words. I consider Jed's Theory of Everything is a great book.

I have lived in the absolute state of consciousness for much longer than Jed. All people I know consider me THE bearer of Truth. Now agree with me or be wrong!

Anyone who tries can get the theory, the theory of C-Rex. It's not that complicated.

Simplicity is not a criterion for a good theory. "All Jews are crooks" is a retarded theory despite being simple.

the words in and of themselves mean nothing.

Right, and then he writes a book with nothing but words. If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

[f] Why am I discussing the subject of the book, "C-Rex" on another forum? If you don't understand the nature of self and its relationship to the structure of the universe, then absolutely nothing else can be of any significance. It's like trying to build a house on shifting sand.

So you're spamming all over the online interwebs in order to save people from ignorance? Be honest. Not even you believe this. You need others to believe it for you.

[g] On Beliefnet I started with perception. There is no such thing as direct perception. Everything you see, touch, hear, taste and smell is inside your head, inside your skin.

Didn't you claim that by tasting a kumquat you get to participate in some kind of truth?

[Peter]

Apr 29, 2013 10:48:47 GMT -5 ???????? ???????????? said:

Yo! Guess who this is.

Question, back with us again. Ahh, Laughter beat me to it - well spotted.

In drag this time. And there's nowt wrong with that.

Stick with the forum guidelines this time round and I've no problem with you re-joining us.

[topology]

May 1, 2013 11:12:31 GMT -5 Peter said:

Apr 29, 2013 10:48:47 GMT -5 ???????? ???????????? said:

Yo! Guess who this is.

Question, back with us again. Ahh, Laughter beat me to it - well spotted.

In drag this time. And there's nowt wrong with that.

Stick with the forum guidelines this time round and I've no problem with you re-joining us.

I was guessing that from the picture used.

[Deleted]

Maybe Jed's ineffable Truth, which you can buy for 7 dollars, is just 'pointing to' the fact that qualia happens.

[silence]

Apr 30, 2013 13:28:05 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Whomever said Jed must be hard up for cash is probably right.

When people start to sniff out the fact that spiritual teachers don't really have anything to offer, that's actually a good sign and an honest teacher would admit this to a student or a reader and leave them on their way. The whole thing is wacky but some people just feel compelled to write and talk and communicate things that can't be communicated. People also like money and that includes spiritual teachers. From a financial perspective, he really is building up a client base and working a niche where he doesn't have to deliver anything specific to make money. All he HAS to do is churn out more material. He's likely to lose some people here and pick up some others there like anything else.