|
|
Post by Beingist on May 3, 2013 14:24:08 GMT -5
You said: "Knowing what I now know about him I can't justify having faith in anything he is saying." What you think of him is obvious, and I'm not asking about that. I was asking what you know of him and how you know of it, besides what he has written. I don't get it. Can someone please explain to me why he thinks that I haven't answered his question? Sorry, I can't explain why anyone thinks anything, especially around these parts. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 3, 2013 15:58:53 GMT -5
"Coincidentally" i stumbled onto a youtube clip giving a view on the technical side of "truth" www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1YnlW59--JE(I guess it is made to debunk religion but it seems to explain some things quite well, although i must admit rhetoric is not one of my virtues). And indeed it seems he has not investigated modern science that much, it's not completely self-evident any more these days that science equals materialism. Where it does still seems that scientist do not always take the implications of their findings to question their own place in the matter. It's still a matter of semantics concerning judging the book off course , but where i was able to enjoy his earlier books ( for the most part ), this one seems to aid in getting stuck in semantics. gooseone, I watched your youtube link on truth, pretty good. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 3, 2013 16:08:59 GMT -5
I have found this thread of post to be very refreshing. It is nice to hear from those that are not a devoted Jed-sheep. Yes, the author of the Jed books is a money focused charlatan. There are those of you that have picked up on the true character behind the books. As the old saying goes, "Out of the heart the mouth speaks", and yes how true indeed, eventually the author gave away his true character through his words. His egoic hunger for spiritual popularity can only be realized through hiding behind these Jed books. His own personal efforts to the claim of fame has not come to fruition so he puts on his Jed costume and writes to self-affirm himself. The Theory of Everything was written to give the author an ego boost while making a buck on the way. The author of the books is a person that teaches and combines spiritual principals into business practices. He is a philosophical capitalist that writes articles on Forbes online. shawntedrow......how did you come about this information on Jed? Please give source. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 3, 2013 16:28:59 GMT -5
You said: "Knowing what I now know about him I can't justify having faith in anything he is saying." What you think of him is obvious, and I'm not asking about that. I was asking what you know of him and how you know of it, besides what he has written. I don't get it. Can someone please explain to me why he thinks that I haven't answered his question? Despite what you think and what you claim, you have no basis for your beliefs about Jed. We all have certain beliefs, and these can't help but distort information that enters our organism. You say that a big part of your problem with the 20 pages you've read of this book is that Jed's logic is faulty. You said that truth will reveal itself to be nothing more than a function of a class of sentences. ......and, truth...is merely a value of a true/false function within a sentence....and you can't extrapolate this function beyond the sentence...... Are you saying that truth doesn't exist apart from humans-making-sentences? I'll agree with Jed that truth isn't abstract, can't be an abstraction. The youtube clip by gooseone points out that deductive logic is built upon assumptions, just arbitrary man-made rules. Yes? No? It seems that your basis of criticizing Jed is purely arbitrary, purely subjective existing only in your own mind. That's why I said I guess I missed your refutation, I did. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 3, 2013 17:16:57 GMT -5
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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - And this is the tale of epic proportions that I hinted at earlier. - 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? - No, Jed has completely confused a poor fellow and robbed him of his precious time and money. - 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. - 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. - 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. 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. SDP, this is the post that SB is saying where he refutes Jed on the domain of logical fallacy. Of course using words to talk about the meaning of words in a true/false sense is problematic. SB seems to have no respect for intuition and I'm curious as to where words get their meaning in his view and how truth and falsity are evaluated without employing intuition. Between statements which form a logical contradiction, how do we decide which statement is false without intuition? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 4, 2013 3:58:05 GMT -5
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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - And this is the tale of epic proportions that I hinted at earlier. - 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? - No, Jed has completely confused a poor fellow and robbed him of his precious time and money. - 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. - 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. - 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. 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. SDP, this is the post that SB is saying where he refutes Jed on the domain of logical fallacy. Of course using words to talk about the meaning of words in a true/false sense is problematic. SB seems to have no respect for intuition and I'm curious as to where words get their meaning in his view and how truth and falsity are evaluated without employing intuition. Between statements which form a logical contradiction, how do we decide which statement is false without intuition? Hey topology......All views are pretty-much hypothetical until they're not. Every world view is going to start out philosophical, some get to theory and fewer get to practice. How do you understand anything? Let's say you sit at a desk all day in front of a computer but decide you want to learn to play piano, you've never played a musical instrument. You find a music teacher, she explains all about the keys on the piano and then the notes on the sheet music and how one corresponds to the other. Now, you can get a pretty good knowledge of all that, but until you sit down at a piano and try to put the theory into practice, you're never going to learn to play the piano. I checked out a lot of different philosophies and religions, what I was looking for was an explanation for stuff in my experience, and how to apply meaning to the stuff, and where life leads and what it's for.....what it's all about. So, I looked for a philosophy of life that covered the most territory, but bottom line, how to verify what the philosophy taught. Yea, when you have a logical contradiction, you have a problem. You're not going to find real truth in words, in philosophy or theory. If you've got a teacher or a teaching that always and only talks a good talk, best abandon it. You have to find truth in yourself. You have to sit down at the piano and figure out for yourself what the keys on the piano and the notes on the sheet music mean, what one has to do with the other. Intuition can be helpful, but with intuition alone, you never learn how to play the piano. You learn what the words mean by finding the meaning in yourself. In this example, you learn to make music. Understanding is more than knowing. Words are just a means to something else, just little toys and playthings unless you know what they mean and find it in yourself. Logic only goes so far. Quantum physics is full of logical contradictions, how can a photon be both a wave and a particle? How can an electron be at two places at once? In the double-slit experiment, if you watch one of the slits, the photon goes through one of the slits. If you're not watching the slits but simply the target behind the slits, the photon goes through both the slits. Physicists don't know what's going on here, they only know the math of quantum physics works, always. And thus we have transistors, without which we could not have PC's or iPhones. No quantum mechanics, no iPhone. The truth of quantum mechanics is more basic that any words we can put to quantum mechanics. Without meaning, words are just little marks on a paper. (Sorry for the length, this is sort of a two birds with one stone post). sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 4, 2013 9:01:11 GMT -5
I guess I missed that....... The funniest part is where you attempt to simulate competency by implicating Kant. The guy has nothing to do with the issue and is just a historical footnote in the contemporary discourse. With Kant, "objects take their form from concepts. .....Kant does not start from God, being, the world, the object or the subject, but from man, for man is the area in which all the rest become reality for us. (pgs 91, 92, 93) Doesn't that familiar?, Jed-like. That's from Kant, by Karl Jaspers, 1957, 1962 (English translation from the German) Continuing: "It is in our own existence, through our own experience or action, that we must test what is true. ........Being remains the essential, but man can approach and apprehend it only through his existence as a man". (pg 93) Kant asked: "On what foundation rests the relation to the object of what is termed our representations?" ....his answers led to an entirely different path......."The old ontology, the thinking in concepts believed to apply directly to the world of objects, would have to be abandoned". (pg 15) "To be sure, he makes it clear that we live as though imprisoned in the subject-object dichotomy, in time and space and our forms of thought, but he shows how at the same time consciousness frees us from our prison. Kant's answer to the ground of our cognition will be: We know things in the world, because we have produced them, not in respect to their existence (for in their existence they must be given [ note sdp, Jed covers the why of this, why if we live in C-Rex, we can still posit an exterior world]..), but in respect to their form. Thus our concepts are valid only in the realm of possible experience". (pg 18) .................................... I don't mean to embarrass you, but don't make comments, to me anyway, when you don't know what you're talking about. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 4, 2013 14:10:06 GMT -5
I don't get it. Can someone please explain to me why he thinks that I haven't answered his question? Despite what you think and what you claim, you have no basis for your beliefs about Jed. We all have certain beliefs, and these can't help but distort information that enters our organism. Yes, I have: the errors he makes in his writing and the authority he attempts to appear as. If he genuinely doesn't see his errors then he is stupid or deluded and so has no business teaching anyone about anything. If he is aware of his errors then he is a charlatan cheating people out of their money. Yes. Ironically the situation is reversed. It is on Jed's account that truth effectively remains abstract. On my account truth has a clear function. Man-made yes. Arbitrary in the sense that there isn't a way to escape notation, there is no meta-language. It's awkward how you're using "purely subjective" and "only in your mind" as an attack... as if something other than that wouldn't instantly beg the question. And what does it have to do with you missing my refutation? Do you take notice of opinions only when they claim to be objective and substantiated by a source external to mind? The plain fact is that Kant failed at providing both an account of and a means to come to absolute truth. He is of no help for Jed's theory. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 4, 2013 14:17:50 GMT -5
SDP, this is the post that SB is saying where he refutes Jed on the domain of logical fallacy. Of course using words to talk about the meaning of words in a true/false sense is problematic. No, it's not problematic. It's problematic to talk with words about non-words. Words are meaningful entities, that's why they are words and not merely sounds. Meaning/definition is function. A word without function is meaningless, when we ask "what does it mean?" then we're asking "how does it function?". True/false is assigned according to formal rules. Statements based on intuition follow no such rules, they are of the form "this is so, because it (my god, my father, I, etc) says so", i.e. the statement requires an intervention from an authority that escapes formalization. In order to understand the issue you have to think like a programmer, you have to think from the pov of formalization, not from the paradigm of mind/subjective/objective/consciousness/matter/representation/etc. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 4, 2013 19:39:28 GMT -5
Greetings..
The issue of 'truth' is subjectively based on the observer's understanding of the meaning of the word..
True/false, are more objectively applicable but suffer the variables of context and socio-cultural conditioning..
From my own perspective, i pay attention to 'what works'.. maintaining an awareness of the conditions present when 'what works' works.. allowing for variables like context and conditioning, there is a class understandings that work consistently and throughout the range of variables, with the exception for those that choose to remain attached to beliefs in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Due to the emotional baggage attached to words like 'truth', 'true', 'false', i favor the words 'accurate' and 'not accurate'.. i am interested in minimizing ambiguity, in maximizing the use of language so that it communicates clearly and accurately to the broadest audience possible..
I am interested in honesty of communication.. no hidden agendas, no intentions contrary to what is stated, such as.. asking questions because don't know the answer, rather than asking questions you already believe you have the answer to, just to create the opportunity to make your answer appear superior or to make the other person's answer appear inferior.. if there is disagreement, state so, and offer your understanding why your understanding 'works'..
I am interested in unconditionally sincere curiosity.. where someone wants to understand what is actually happening, just to know, just so they can not be distracted by wondering about what 'has' happened while what is happening, IS happening..
I'm interested in letting go of all beliefs, in letting go of all that i think i know, just long enough to 'see/experience' what is happening, and.. it's interesting, that in my experience, 'what is happening', is a continuous flow, so.. living a physical existence requires a balance of unattached liberation and focused conditional interaction..
I'm not sure why this post morphed into these understandings, i suspect it's related to 'my' Theory of Everything..
Be well..
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 4, 2013 20:43:09 GMT -5
SDP, this is the post that SB is saying where he refutes Jed on the domain of logical fallacy. Of course using words to talk about the meaning of words in a true/false sense is problematic. No, it's not problematic. It's problematic to talk with words about non-words. Counter Example: Recipes and Instructions. Words are meaningful entities, that's why they are words and not merely sounds. Meaning/definition is function. A word without function is meaningless, when we ask "what does it mean?" then we're asking "how does it function?". True/false is assigned according to formal rules. Statements based on intuition follow no such rules, they are of the form "this is so, because it (my god, my father, I, etc) says so", i.e. the statement requires an intervention from an authority that escapes formalization. In order to understand the issue you have to think like a programmer, you have to think from the pov of formalization, not from the paradigm of mind/subjective/objective/consciousness/matter/representation/etc. I am a programmer, working on a PhD in the realm of logic programming and domain specific languages. I think I've got thinking like a programmer down. The problem with formalization is that its a restriction on language and provably either incomplete or inconsistent. (Godel) Poetry is an example of meaningful language which can express a truth about existence without having a formal semantics for the words used. My best understanding with what is going on with language processing is scene construction. Each word read in a sentence contributes to a transformation of the mental image being constructed in the mind. The primitives within the scenes are fundamentally sourced from prior experience and prior imagining. When someone utters the word "horse" not only does the image of a prototypical horse come to mind, but so does the prototypical context for the horse in that person's memory banks. The words surrounding the horse may select or deselect features in the scene, applying constraints to the image that emerges. The final image satisfies all the constraints of the sentence or fails to produce a scene within the mind, creating the experience of "this is nonsense". The scientific research is beginning to support this model of language processing.What this says is that human language is highly informal where the meaning of a word within each individual is sourced in experience and not in dictionary definitions or formalized semantics for words. There are several notions of intuition and one particular definition is something I don't think you would have a problem with accepting. It goes back to Intuitionism. Intuition is what selects axioms and decides how to construct formalisms and how to shape models. This intuition is sourced in both experience and in the sense of elegance and mathematical aesthetics. How someone chooses axioms cannot be formalized itself, suffering from the boot-strapping problem. At some point logicians just have to admit they are operating with a heavy sense of intuition when shaping their formalisms. The justification for the rejection of the law of excluded middle in constructive and intuitionist mathematics is fundamentally sourced with modeling human understanding and knowledge. Formal non-monotonic logics are a product of the last 50 years, but they emerged because binary logics could not model human reasoning elegantly or intuitively. If you can agree with this sense of intuition, then it shouldn't be that far to accommodate a intuition in the sense of pattern matching and pattern identification. Within this realm you have the genius which contribute tremendous insights to their disciplines with no explanation of why or how. Srinivasa_Ramanujan, Fermat, Tesla, etc. These people have an intuitive sense of what is true in mathematics but could not prove formally many of their claims. And of course some of their claims were proven not true. But they are not operating within a formalization, they are operating within the realm of feeling with respect to what might be true, i.e. intuition. (As Godel Explains it) If you can accommodate intuition as a function of pattern matching on information that we may not even be consciously aware of, then we can have a means for legitimate "gut feelings". Information processing on overdrive, beyond what the individual is consciously and formally able to follow. This also allows for the emergence of Wisdom and discernment of principles through application of metaphor and simile. I believe that up to this point you might be willing to accommodate these definitions of intuition. What you seem to not want to accommodate is any kind of non-local intuition. Messages being passed at a distance either from others or from God/Spirit or other entities. Perhaps you can clarify whether you will accept intuition in the forms I believe you can accept, or explain what you see as their problem. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 5, 2013 0:11:45 GMT -5
No, it's not problematic. It's problematic to talk with words about non-words. Counter Example: Recipes and Instructions. Words are meaningful entities, that's why they are words and not merely sounds. Meaning/definition is function. A word without function is meaningless, when we ask "what does it mean?" then we're asking "how does it function?". True/false is assigned according to formal rules. Statements based on intuition follow no such rules, they are of the form "this is so, because it (my god, my father, I, etc) says so", i.e. the statement requires an intervention from an authority that escapes formalization. In order to understand the issue you have to think like a programmer, you have to think from the pov of formalization, not from the paradigm of mind/subjective/objective/consciousness/matter/representation/etc. I am a programmer, working on a PhD in the realm of logic programming and domain specific languages. I think I've got thinking like a programmer down. The problem with formalization is that its a restriction on language and provably either incomplete or inconsistent. (Godel) Poetry is an example of meaningful language which can express a truth about existence without having a formal semantics for the words used. My best understanding with what is going on with language processing is scene construction. Each word read in a sentence contributes to a transformation of the mental image being constructed in the mind. The primitives within the scenes are fundamentally sourced from prior experience and prior imagining. When someone utters the word "horse" not only does the image of a prototypical horse come to mind, but so does the prototypical context for the horse in that person's memory banks. The words surrounding the horse may select or deselect features in the scene, applying constraints to the image that emerges. The final image satisfies all the constraints of the sentence or fails to produce a scene within the mind, creating the experience of "this is nonsense". The scientific research is beginning to support this model of language processing.What this says is that human language is highly informal where the meaning of a word within each individual is sourced in experience and not in dictionary definitions or formalized semantics for words. There are several notions of intuition and one particular definition is something I don't think you would have a problem with accepting. It goes back to Intuitionism. Intuition is what selects axioms and decides how to construct formalisms and how to shape models. This intuition is sourced in both experience and in the sense of elegance and mathematical aesthetics. How someone chooses axioms cannot be formalized itself, suffering from the boot-strapping problem. At some point logicians just have to admit they are operating with a heavy sense of intuition when shaping their formalisms. The justification for the rejection of the law of excluded middle in constructive and intuitionist mathematics is fundamentally sourced with modeling human understanding and knowledge. Formal non-monotonic logics are a product of the last 50 years, but they emerged because binary logics could not model human reasoning elegantly or intuitively. If you can agree with this sense of intuition, then it shouldn't be that far to accommodate a intuition in the sense of pattern matching and pattern identification. Within this realm you have the genius which contribute tremendous insights to their disciplines with no explanation of why or how. Srinivasa_Ramanujan, Fermat, Tesla, etc. These people have an intuitive sense of what is true in mathematics but could not prove formally many of their claims. And of course some of their claims were proven not true. But they are not operating within a formalization, they are operating within the realm of feeling with respect to what might be true, i.e. intuition. (As Godel Explains it) If you can accommodate intuition as a function of pattern matching on information that we may not even be consciously aware of, then we can have a means for legitimate "gut feelings". Information processing on overdrive, beyond what the individual is consciously and formally able to follow. This also allows for the emergence of Wisdom and discernment of principles through application of metaphor and simile. I believe that up to this point you might be willing to accommodate these definitions of intuition. What you seem to not want to accommodate is any kind of non-local intuition. Messages being passed at a distance either from others or from God/Spirit or other entities. Perhaps you can clarify whether you will accept intuition in the forms I believe you can accept, or explain what you see as their problem. Very nice topology. I think Einstein operated from intuition (in places he called it imagination, not the make-believe kind). Logic is probably confined to the known. Would you say that intuition is the movement from the known into the unknown? sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 5, 2013 1:10:13 GMT -5
The plain fact is that Kant failed at providing both an account of and a means to come to absolute truth. He is of no help for Jed's theory. SB: The point is that if you don't see a correspondence between the quotes about Kant and Jed's C-Rex, you know absolutely nothing concerning what Jed means by C-Rex. Jed says that truth is what is. Kant says that no matter what's out there (whatever what is, is, the noumenal world), we only know it via our own consciousness (phenomenally). IOW, Kant was concerned about epistemology, not ontology. Jed says, no matter what's out there (U-Rex), we only know it by our own consciousness, IOW, C-Rex. And Jed says we can either live unconsciously in C-Rex (basically, functioning merely through ego/cultural self/false self/persona/mask) or consciously in C-Rex (which is what the trilogy was about, and that means more than being enlightened, it means becoming what Jed calls a mature Adult). I don't know how anyone can argue with that, and I don't know why saying that makes Jed a charlatan. You're like a fish swimming in water, and Jed says, that's water you're swimming in, and you say, what water?, what's water? Now, if Jed (or any teacher) could lift you up out of the water and into the air, you'd know that you had been in water. You're like a caterpillar, crawling around in essentially what's a two-dimensional world. But we are made to be a butterflies. Even if you were standing right in front of a real teacher, the best they could do is hand out maps and guide books (theory and practices). We have to make the journey for ourselves. The journeying is what's transformative. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 5, 2013 5:56:53 GMT -5
I guess I missed that....... sdp And there it is. No further questions. Look, I know your kind in and out. It's obvious to everyone here that you have no clue. If you're as serious as you claim to be then for your own sake please stop pretending. Maybe you're not intelligent enough to figure out the ultimate truths, but you sure are smart enough clean up the psychological mess that causes you to spam all over the internet and fake spiritual competency. Sweet Brown, you haven't refuted anything. topology's post on intuition is enough to show that. If you rely on logic to get you to truth then you live in a very tiny little box. I said there isn't my address. Didn't say I've never been there. You don't even get it theoretically, if you did you would understand what Jed is saying about C-Rex. It's irrelevant to me what you think of me. Actually, it's irrelevant, period. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 5, 2013 7:41:42 GMT -5
Counter Example: Recipes and Instructions. I am a programmer, working on a PhD in the realm of logic programming and domain specific languages. I think I've got thinking like a programmer down. The problem with formalization is that its a restriction on language and provably either incomplete or inconsistent. (Godel) Poetry is an example of meaningful language which can express a truth about existence without having a formal semantics for the words used. My best understanding with what is going on with language processing is scene construction. Each word read in a sentence contributes to a transformation of the mental image being constructed in the mind. The primitives within the scenes are fundamentally sourced from prior experience and prior imagining. When someone utters the word "horse" not only does the image of a prototypical horse come to mind, but so does the prototypical context for the horse in that person's memory banks. The words surrounding the horse may select or deselect features in the scene, applying constraints to the image that emerges. The final image satisfies all the constraints of the sentence or fails to produce a scene within the mind, creating the experience of "this is nonsense". The scientific research is beginning to support this model of language processing.What this says is that human language is highly informal where the meaning of a word within each individual is sourced in experience and not in dictionary definitions or formalized semantics for words. There are several notions of intuition and one particular definition is something I don't think you would have a problem with accepting. It goes back to Intuitionism. Intuition is what selects axioms and decides how to construct formalisms and how to shape models. This intuition is sourced in both experience and in the sense of elegance and mathematical aesthetics. How someone chooses axioms cannot be formalized itself, suffering from the boot-strapping problem. At some point logicians just have to admit they are operating with a heavy sense of intuition when shaping their formalisms. The justification for the rejection of the law of excluded middle in constructive and intuitionist mathematics is fundamentally sourced with modeling human understanding and knowledge. Formal non-monotonic logics are a product of the last 50 years, but they emerged because binary logics could not model human reasoning elegantly or intuitively. If you can agree with this sense of intuition, then it shouldn't be that far to accommodate a intuition in the sense of pattern matching and pattern identification. Within this realm you have the genius which contribute tremendous insights to their disciplines with no explanation of why or how. Srinivasa_Ramanujan, Fermat, Tesla, etc. These people have an intuitive sense of what is true in mathematics but could not prove formally many of their claims. And of course some of their claims were proven not true. But they are not operating within a formalization, they are operating within the realm of feeling with respect to what might be true, i.e. intuition. (As Godel Explains it) If you can accommodate intuition as a function of pattern matching on information that we may not even be consciously aware of, then we can have a means for legitimate "gut feelings". Information processing on overdrive, beyond what the individual is consciously and formally able to follow. This also allows for the emergence of Wisdom and discernment of principles through application of metaphor and simile. I believe that up to this point you might be willing to accommodate these definitions of intuition. What you seem to not want to accommodate is any kind of non-local intuition. Messages being passed at a distance either from others or from God/Spirit or other entities. Perhaps you can clarify whether you will accept intuition in the forms I believe you can accept, or explain what you see as their problem. Very nice topology. I think Einstein operated from intuition (in places he called it imagination, not the make-believe kind). Logic is probably confined to the known. Would you say that intuition is the movement from the known into the unknown? sdp I think you could describe it either way, the movement of the knowing into the unknown, or the process by which the unknown becomes known. Intuition at the level of refinement of mental models is about sitting with an experience and bringing forward the relevant properties and relationships to highlight the essential features. The product of intuition is clear understanding or at a weaker level, insightful hunches to be investigated further. |
|
