|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 5:17:45 GMT -5
I'm talking about something real and you're talking about fish. Is there anything else you would like to share with me? Yup. This bear attacking the mirror. It is me attacking you.
Do you see how this is related to what Krishna said to Arjuna? |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 26, 2022 5:27:01 GMT -5
satch Avatar yesterday at 3:28am satch said: So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? I'm not clear how your question relates to what I said. But within that question is the presupposition of an objective reality, so I would have to say 'yes'. I've always wondered why that question is such a 'thing', if you know what I mean. Yeah, but that's a cop-out, the same way that saying "self-inquiry is misconceived" is a cop-out. That's Jed's analysis btw. The reason it's a thing is because the question has the potential to bring the mind out to the limit where the potential to realize the futility of intellect is enhanced. Mostly people just spin on it, instead. The honest answer, from the personal perspective, is not-knowing. Regarding the falling tree. What if I said, instead of not-knowing, from the personal perspective it can be said that it actually doesn't make a sound, but that is merely to say not in a 'particular' way. Yet there is evidence that points to the fact that at the same time it still does, but merely in the form of 'wave-function'. That way, if you get there after the event there is still momentary particular evidence of it having happened. Which allows for a measure of stability. Ergo, ultimately it neither does nor doesn't. Just musing. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 26, 2022 5:54:21 GMT -5
satch Avatar yesterday at 3:28am satch said: So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? Yeah, but that's a cop-out, the same way that saying "self-inquiry is misconceived" is a cop-out. That's Jed's analysis btw. The reason it's a thing is because the question has the potential to bring the mind out to the limit where the potential to realize the futility of intellect is enhanced. Mostly people just spin on it, instead. The honest answer, from the personal perspective, is not-knowing. Regarding the falling tree. What if I said, instead of not-knowing, from the personal perspective it can be said that it actually doesn't make a sound, but that is merely to say not in a 'particular' way. Yet there is evidence that points to the fact that at the same time it still does, but merely in the form of 'wave-function'. That way, if you get there after the event there is still momentary particular evidence of it having happened. Which allows for a measure of stability. Ergo, ultimately it neither does nor doesn't. Just musing. This is not musing, it's actual. Did we invent radio waves? No, the phenomenon already-existed, we invented the means to make radio waves (an antenna-transmitter) and receive them, a radio tuner. We I was a kid all we had was "air" TV and 3 channel, ABC, NBC, CBS. Those transmission waves are still transmitted in cities, not everyone can afford cable and high speed internet. You can still buy "rabbit ears", Best Buy, Amazon, and can still tune into the TV "air" broadcast that flows through your house constantly. When a tree falls in the forest, it doesn't make a sound, it sets up vibrations in the air. The vibrations are just vibrations in the atmosphere, until they are received by an ear. New example, If a tree falls in outer space does it make a sound? No. It can't even make sound vibrations, no air. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:01:43 GMT -5
satch Avatar yesterday at 3:28am satch said: So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? Yeah, but that's a cop-out, the same way that saying "self-inquiry is misconceived" is a cop-out. That's Jed's analysis btw. The reason it's a thing is because the question has the potential to bring the mind out to the limit where the potential to realize the futility of intellect is enhanced. Mostly people just spin on it, instead. The honest answer, from the personal perspective, is not-knowing. Regarding the falling tree. What if I said, instead of not-knowing, from the personal perspective it can be said that it actually doesn't make a sound, but that is merely to say not in a 'particular' way. Yet there is evidence that points to the fact that at the same time it still does, but merely in the form of 'wave-function'. That way, if you get there after the event there is still momentary particular evidence of it having happened. Which allows for a measure of stability. Ergo, ultimately it neither does nor doesn't. Just musing. That's Schrodinger's cat in a different form. And complete TMT btw.  Heisenberg's solution was that yes, the tree made a sound, and it was the entire Universe that heard it. He meant that in a very literal way, and he used a geiger counter instead of a tree. So he echoed a facet of Bohm's idea of implicate order, but Werner rejected the idea of "hidden variables". It took 25 years and Bell to prove that intuition correct. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:03:39 GMT -5
satch Avatar yesterday at 3:28am satch said: So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? Regarding the falling tree. What if I said, instead of not-knowing, from the personal perspective it can be said that it actually doesn't make a sound, but that is merely to say not in a 'particular' way. Yet there is evidence that points to the fact that at the same time it still does, but merely in the form of 'wave-function'. That way, if you get there after the event there is still momentary particular evidence of it having happened. Which allows for a measure of stability. Ergo, ultimately it neither does nor doesn't. Just musing. This is not musing, it's actual. Did we invent radio waves? No, the phenomenon already-existed, we invented the means to make radio waves (an antenna-transmitter) and receive them, a radio tuner. We I was a kid all we had was "air" TV and 3 channel, ABC, NBC, CBS. Those transmission waves are still transmitted in cities, not everyone can afford cable and high speed internet. You can still buy "rabbit ears", Best Buy, Amazon, and can still tune into the TV "air" broadcast that flows through your house constantly. When a tree falls in the forest, it doesn't make a sound, it sets up vibrations in the air. The vibrations are just vibrations in the atmosphere, until they are received by an ear. New example, If a tree falls in outer space does it make a sound? No. It can't even make sound vibrations, no air. You're just playing with the definition of "sound". How do you define sound but as "vibrations in the air"? The question still comes down to "what hears the sound?". Stop thinking about it. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 26, 2022 6:06:09 GMT -5
satch Avatar yesterday at 3:28am satch said: So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? Regarding the falling tree. What if I said, instead of not-knowing, from the personal perspective it can be said that it actually doesn't make a sound, but that is merely to say not in a 'particular' way. Yet there is evidence that points to the fact that at the same time it still does, but merely in the form of 'wave-function'. That way, if you get there after the event there is still momentary particular evidence of it having happened. Which allows for a measure of stability. Ergo, ultimately it neither does nor doesn't. Just musing. This is not musing, it's actual. Did we invent radio waves? No, the phenomenon already-existed, we invented the means to make radio waves (an antenna-transmitter) and receive them, a radio tuner. We I was a kid all we had was "air" TV and 3 channel, ABC, NBC, CBS. Those transmission waves are still transmitted in cities, not everyone can afford cable and high speed internet. You can still buy "rabbit ears", Best Buy, Amazon, and can still tune into the TV "air" broadcast that flows through your house constantly. Good point. Well I'd go one further, and say at that stage the tree and forest themsleves are merely 'vibratory'. Moreover, the universal at large. Perhaps we could say locality is particular in nature and non-locality is wave-function like. But I'm struggling to reconcile 'interference' with my musing though. I mean, you actually get two different patterns depending on whether or not the event is witnessed directly, right. Ultimately 'event' is problematic. It's not really my strong area. Maybe laffy will come along and help us out. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 26, 2022 6:07:01 GMT -5
Okay, maybe not. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 6:11:39 GMT -5
I'm not clear how your question relates to what I said. But within that question is the presupposition of an objective reality, so I would have to say 'yes'. I've always wondered why that question is such a 'thing', if you know what I mean. Yeah, but that's a cop-out, the same way that saying "self-inquiry is misconceived" is a cop-out. That's Jed's analysis btw. The reason it's a thing is because the question has the potential to bring the mind out to the limit where the potential to realize the futility of intellect is enhanced. Mostly people just spin on it, instead. The honest answer, from the personal perspective, is not-knowing. Nah. I would consider that a problematic form of not-knowing. I do see the value in bringing mind to the limit, but it actually has to go TO that limit. I really don't think that that is that point. For me, the limit is 'I don't know'. It's not ' I know that I don't know', it's not ' I know that I know nothing'. The limit I see is one of bamboozlement lol. And that's the limit because the rational mind has nothing to land on, no way to position itself...it's a potential doorway for a different kind of deeper knowing, 'the irrational'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 6:13:27 GMT -5
"Your own" that's your problem right there mister greedy britches it's legitimate to refer to "my" consciousness when undifferentiated awareness becomes associated with individuated consciousness as I. It might be legitimate to refer to 'my consciousness' even in the absence of that associated. The problem of 'my consciousness' is when it is considered to be an isolated and separate consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 26, 2022 6:17:19 GMT -5
satch Avatar yesterday at 3:28am satch said: So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? Regarding the falling tree. What if I said, instead of not-knowing, from the personal perspective it can be said that it actually doesn't make a sound, but that is merely to say not in a 'particular' way. Yet there is evidence that points to the fact that at the same time it still does, but merely in the form of 'wave-function'. That way, if you get there after the event there is still momentary particular evidence of it having happened. Which allows for a measure of stability. Ergo, ultimately it neither does nor doesn't. Just musing. That's Schrodinger's cat in a different form. And complete TMT btw. Heisenberg's solution was that yes, the tree made a sound, and it was the entire Universe that heard it. He meant that in a very literal way, and he used a geiger counter instead of a tree. So he echoed a facet of Bohm's idea of implicate order, but Werner rejected the idea of "hidden variables". It took 25 years and Bell to prove that intuition correct. You only just notice that the falling tree and Schrodingers cat are variations of the same thought experiment?  |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 26, 2022 6:19:23 GMT -5
This is not musing, it's actual. Did we invent radio waves? No, the phenomenon already-existed, we invented the means to make radio waves (an antenna-transmitter) and receive them, a radio tuner. We I was a kid all we had was "air" TV and 3 channel, ABC, NBC, CBS. Those transmission waves are still transmitted in cities, not everyone can afford cable and high speed internet. You can still buy "rabbit ears", Best Buy, Amazon, and can still tune into the TV "air" broadcast that flows through your house constantly. When a tree falls in the forest, it doesn't make a sound, it sets up vibrations in the air. The vibrations are just vibrations in the atmosphere, until they are received by an ear. New example, If a tree falls in outer space does it make a sound? No. It can't even make sound vibrations, no air. You're just playing with the definition of "sound". How do you define sound but as "vibrations in the air"? The question still comes down to "what hears the sound?". Stop thinking about it. I'm not convinced about that. It's about the nature of the manifest, and the path that takes. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 6:27:33 GMT -5
And I should acknowledge that reefs did go that extra mile in engaging about the animate/inanimate dichotomy. Everything is alive. Brass hasp day, you know. But on the flip side, figology is not wrong in the truthiness doctrine, either. There is no existential truth in anything that appears to you. ZD has contemplated and once expressed - to my recollection in paraphrase - that one can realize what one is, and/or, one can realize what one is not. Abandoning any concern over the risk of sounding like a condescending asshole, I'd opine that much of the turbulence in these dialogs is a clash of varying flavors and degrees of those two different realizations and the informings of mind that followed. Yes, I wrote "varying degree of realization", you see, in this regard, I am more ZD that even ZD ... Yes, basically agree. Regarding the bolded, I see a long standing conflict in where 'appearance' begins and ends. I'm pretty flexible on this matter. What concerns me more is always the equity, rather than whether 'consciousness' (for example) is an appearance, or is fundamental. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 26, 2022 6:28:50 GMT -5
This is not musing, it's actual. Did we invent radio waves? No, the phenomenon already-existed, we invented the means to make radio waves (an antenna-transmitter) and receive them, a radio tuner. We I was a kid all we had was "air" TV and 3 channel, ABC, NBC, CBS. Those transmission waves are still transmitted in cities, not everyone can afford cable and high speed internet. You can still buy "rabbit ears", Best Buy, Amazon, and can still tune into the TV "air" broadcast that flows through your house constantly. When a tree falls in the forest, it doesn't make a sound, it sets up vibrations in the air. The vibrations are just vibrations in the atmosphere, until they are received by an ear. New example, If a tree falls in outer space does it make a sound? No. It can't even make sound vibrations, no air. You're just playing with the definition of "sound". How do you define sound but as "vibrations in the air"? The question still comes down to "what hears the sound?". Stop thinking about it. Have you ever known anyone deaf? Or better yet, going deaf? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:34:08 GMT -5
Yeah, but that's a cop-out, the same way that saying "self-inquiry is misconceived" is a cop-out. That's Jed's analysis btw. The reason it's a thing is because the question has the potential to bring the mind out to the limit where the potential to realize the futility of intellect is enhanced. Mostly people just spin on it, instead. The honest answer, from the personal perspective, is not-knowing. Nah. I would consider that a problematic form of not-knowing. I do see the value in bringing mind to the limit, but it actually has to go TO that limit. I really don't think that that is that point. For me, the limit is 'I don't know'. It's not ' I know that I don't know', it's not ' I know that I know nothing'. The limit I see is one of bamboozlement lol. And that's the limit because the rational mind has nothing to land on, no way to position itself...it's a potential doorway for a different kind of deeper knowing, 'the irrational'. Well, are you saying that there's a difference between "I don't know" and "I can never know"? It's possible to arrive at the understanding that the question of the tree in the forest is unknowable, in relative terms, by intellect alone. It's just commonsense, if noone is there to hear it, there's noone to tell you, one way or another. But, mind will spin. It's what minds do. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:35:01 GMT -5
You're just playing with the definition of "sound". How do you define sound but as "vibrations in the air"? The question still comes down to "what hears the sound?". Stop thinking about it. Have you ever known anyone deaf? Or better yet, going deaf? More mind play, this time on the definition of "hear". Stop thinking about it.  |
|
Heisenberg's solution was that yes, the tree made a sound, and it was the entire Universe that heard it. He meant that in a very literal way, and he used a geiger counter instead of a tree. So he echoed a facet of Bohm's idea of implicate order, but Werner rejected the idea of "hidden variables". It took 25 years and Bell to prove that intuition correct. 
