|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 7, 2023 9:04:04 GMT -5
This isn't the way the quantum world-classical world works. That's why I said analogy. There are rocks and trees and planets and stars out there. The manifest world has been around 13.8 billion years. Mind or consciousness isn't needed to collapse the wave function. A very big problem in quantum computing is keeping the qubits in superposition until the answer is arrived at. Look at the following image with a still mind (the mind of a baby who doesn't know a single word yet. And what do you see? You see one big whole image. No distinctions. Now, only after learning words does the baby begin to see distinctions and name "things" in the room. ZD is always pointing to the same thing that a wise man once said when he said "except ye become as little children" you can not see the kingdom of heaven. That you can not see the forest for the trees.  I wasn't arguing that. I was just saying ZD's view doesn't fit how the classical world comes-out-of the quantum world. But, further, a baby couldn't make distinctions unless that room full of stuff already existed. I have no problem with one undivided whole. But there would not be a human mind, period, without a long process of the evolution of distinctions (not meaning separation). The human mind just didn't appear out of thin air. But the beginning, began with Consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 7, 2023 9:09:03 GMT -5
How could you have ATA-T [localised] tree-thwacking, if supposedly in that situation the tree is in a state of superposition. Yes. Say you have a blind guy wandering in a forest. He gets tree-thwacked if he walks into a tree accidentally. He gets dead if he walks off a 100 ft cliff, accidentally. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 7, 2023 9:22:10 GMT -5
I wasn't arguing that. I was just saying ZD's view doesn't fit how the classical world comes-out-of the quantum world. . Interesting distinction. What would happen if you didn’t make it? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 7, 2023 10:06:22 GMT -5
How could you have ATA-T [localised] tree-thwacking, if supposedly in that situation the tree is in a state of superposition. Yes. Say you have a blind guy wandering in a forest. He gets tree-thwacked if he walks into a tree accidentally. He gets dead if he walks off a 100 ft cliff, accidentally. This has nothing to do with what's being pointed to. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 7, 2023 10:07:04 GMT -5
I wasn't arguing that. I was just saying ZD's view doesn't fit how the classical world comes-out-of the quantum world. . Interesting distinction. What would happen if you didn’t make it? I was going to ask the same thing, but you beat me to it.  |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 7, 2023 10:41:57 GMT -5
How could you have ATA-T [localised] tree-thwacking, if supposedly in that situation the tree is in a state of superposition. Tree-thwacking is not tree-thwacking if the intellect is not imagining and distinguishing tree-thwacking as tree-thwacking.  Let me guess. Just THIS, THISing. It seems we've reached an impasse. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 7, 2023 11:05:08 GMT -5
Yes. Say you have a blind guy wandering in a forest. He gets tree-thwacked if he walks into a tree accidentally. He gets dead if he walks off a 100 ft cliff, accidentally. This has nothing to do with what's being pointed to. So distinctions are collective? They are not individual in the moment? If someone else has made a distinction, the that affects your world? You said my OP was not an analogy, but actual. If stuff exists in our classical world, apart from abstracting them, you get thwacked. Superpositions don't thwack. IOW, I don't see how your view translates to the quantum realm. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 7, 2023 11:06:34 GMT -5
I wasn't arguing that. I was just saying ZD's view doesn't fit how the classical world comes-out-of the quantum world. . Interesting distinction. What would happen if you didn’t make it? You would still get thwacked |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 7, 2023 11:25:41 GMT -5
. Interesting distinction. What would happen if you didn’t make it? You would still get thwacked Would you have to say “Oh, I was thwacked” before it hurt? Thwacking happens. Hurting happens. Mentation nor batteries required. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 7, 2023 11:36:46 GMT -5
Tree-thwacking is not tree-thwacking if the intellect is not imagining and distinguishing tree-thwacking as tree-thwacking. Let me guess. Just THIS, THISing. It seems we've reached an impasse. Yes, that's one way to put it, or THIS-ing is Not-THISing because "THIS" is also a distinction. I think it was Wittgenstein who said, "Whereof one cannot speak one must remain silent." I would put it this way, "Whereof one cannot speak, one can only point." This is why so many Zen koans are answered with a silent physical action/gesture rather than with words. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 7, 2023 11:39:17 GMT -5
. Interesting distinction. What would happen if you didn’t make it? You would still get thwacked Only if you wanted to make that distinction and imagine what would happen. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 7, 2023 11:56:06 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with what's being pointed to. So distinctions are collective? They are not individual in the moment? If someone else has made a distinction, the that affects your world? You said my OP was not an analogy, but actual. If stuff exists in our classical world, apart from abstracting them, you get thwacked. Superpositions don't thwack. IOW, I don't see how your view translates to the quantum realm. Two of the existential questions that I thought about for more than twenty years were: 1. What is a subatomic particle, really? I wondered, "If I could shrink myself to the size of a photon, what would I see?" I was a visualizer and wanted to somehow visually grasp what's being talked about regarding the subatomic realm. 2. How could there be any difference between what we call "the macroscopic realm" and the "subatomic realm?" IOW, where was a point of transition, a boundary, that separated the world that we observe from a world than can only be inferred? After about two years of meditation, I suddenly had a realization that resolved both questions. As Niz told a seeker, "To find the truth one must go beyond the mind." The intellect imagines 10,000 things (quantum realm, classical realm, subatomic particles, trees, observers, etc), but if imagination/cognition/distinction/ideation ceases, what remains? We can point to "the living truth" with words like "THIS," but the mind cannot grasp what it IS. Images, ideas, symbols, and imaginary simulations of reality are useful for many purposes (including communication), but the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 7, 2023 13:44:10 GMT -5
So distinctions are collective? They are not individual in the moment? If someone else has made a distinction, the that affects your world? You said my OP was not an analogy, but actual. If stuff exists in our classical world, apart from abstracting them, you get thwacked. Superpositions don't thwack. IOW, I don't see how your view translates to the quantum realm. Two of the existential questions that I thought about for more than twenty years were: 1. What is a subatomic particle, really? I wondered, "If I could shrink myself to the size of a photon, what would I see?" I was a visualizer and wanted to somehow visually grasp what's being talked about regarding the subatomic realm. 2. How could there be any difference between what we call "the macroscopic realm" and the "subatomic realm?" IOW, where was a point of transition, a boundary, that separated the world that we observe from a world than can only be inferred? After about two years of meditation, I suddenly had a realization that resolved both questions. As Niz told a seeker, "To find the truth one must go beyond the mind." The intellect imagines 10,000 things (quantum realm, classical realm, subatomic particles, trees, observers, etc), but if imagination/cognition/distinction/ideation ceases, what remains? We can point to "the living truth" with words like "THIS," but the mind cannot grasp what it IS. Images, ideas, symbols, and imaginary simulations of reality are useful for many purposes (including communication), but the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. I couldn't say, no physicist knows what's going on at the quantum level. That's why there are so many theories. Bohr said, we can't know. Nobody understands how the many (superposition-probabilities) turns into one actual occurrence. Probability is the norm in the quantum world, determinism operates in the manifest world. |
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jun 8, 2023 5:18:12 GMT -5
Look at the following image with a still mind (the mind of a baby who doesn't know a single word yet. And what do you see? You see one big whole image. No distinctions. Now, only after learning words does the baby begin to see distinctions and name "things" in the room. ZD is always pointing to the same thing that a wise man once said when he said "except ye become as little children" you can not see the kingdom of heaven. That you can not see the forest for the trees. This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 8, 2023 6:40:56 GMT -5
Look at the following image with a still mind (the mind of a baby who doesn't know a single word yet. And what do you see? You see one big whole image. No distinctions. Now, only after learning words does the baby begin to see distinctions and name "things" in the room. ZD is always pointing to the same thing that a wise man once said when he said "except ye become as little children" you can not see the kingdom of heaven. That you can not see the forest for the trees. This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! There is a curious story from the Bible about Jesus healing a blind guy. Makes you consider it's not just made-up stuff. They asked him what he saw. He said: I see trees walking. He had probably felt trees before, the sense of touch, had a kind of *distinction*, big thingy with small thingy's coming off it (limbs). So he connected that, his newly-seeing, to people, walking. But for babies, everything, sensing, is a learning process. A mother's face is one of their first distinctions. Of course, their mother's breast, is distinctly found (gets shoved into) immediately. A baby has more neurons than it will ever have in its whole life, but few connections between neurons. (We keep trimming neurons throughout our life. One huge pruning process takes place about age 10-11, you keep neurons that have made firm connections with others [called mylination], a huge amount that have not made connections get cut away, gone forever). That's what *distinctions* ARE, connections between neurons. |
|
