Truth, experience, logic and the un-rational

[Cory Duchesne]

David,

I have some questions for you.

David: I've never said that truth is un-rational. I was only talking about what a sages experiences, in each moment, in his enlightenment.

For example, a sage might look at a flower and experience the colour red. His experience of red, in the moment, is neither rational nor un-rational in nature - it is simply what it is.
At the same time, there isn't a single aspect of this redness, or this experience of redness, which cannot be logically analyzed by him.

And you think a logical analyses of (a color, or the experiencer) is capable of yielding a complete and total logical explanation of the color and/or the experiencer?

Why do you believe that the existence of an uncaused totality is perfectly logical? It seems ‘pre-logical/un-rational’ if you ask me. If you are going to explain away the experience of red, or of red, then your explanation has to take into account the entire totality of existence. And the entire totality logically has no cause. To me, this is not logical, rational. I can apply logic and rationality in order to acknowlege the un-rationality and absurdity of the predicament, but I would be insane to say that it all made perfect sense.

But maybe you think that this is all just perfectly logical…….

Cory: David, here it seems like your saying; despite it requires logic in order to get to Rome, the actual direct experiencing of Rome is ultimately un-rational.

David: That's right.

And then....

David: But, I've never said that truth is un-rational. I was only talking about what a sage experiences, in each moment, in his enlightenment.

Experience is different and divided from the truth?

David: For example, a sage might look at a flower and experience the color red.

His experience of red, in the moment, is neither rational nor un-rational in nature - it is simply what it is.

David I think you are confusing ‘un-rational’ with ‘irrational’. You agreed with me originally that experience is un-rational.

The unrational is: “what is’

No?

[David Quinn]

Cory,

David: I've never said that truth is un-rational. I was only talking about what a sages experiences, in each moment, in his enlightenment.

For example, a sage might look at a flower and experience the colour red. His experience of red, in the moment, is neither rational nor un-rational in nature - it is simply what it is.
At the same time, there isn't a single aspect of this redness, or this experience of redness, which cannot be logically analyzed by him.

Cory: And you think a logical analyses of (a color, or the experiencer) is capable of yielding a complete and total logical explanation of the color and/or the experiencer?

It depends on which kind of explanation you are looking for. If you are looking for a philosophic explanation, then yes, a complete explanation is possible via comprehending the principle of cause and effect.

If it is a scientific or empirical explanation you after, then no. It is impossible to reach a complete empirical explanation because we don't have the capacity to trace the innumerable causes of red.

Why do you believe that the existence of an uncaused totality is perfectly logical?

Because (a) it is logically true that all things have causes, and (b) there cannot be anything beyond the totality, by definition.

It seems ‘pre-logical/un-rational’ if you ask me. If you are going to explain away the experience of red, or of red, then your explanation has to take into account the entire totality of existence. And the entire totality logically has no cause. To me, this is not logical, rational. I can apply logic and rationality in order to acknowlege the un-rationality and absurdity of the predicament, but I would be insane to say that it all made perfect sense.

But maybe you think that this is all just perfectly logical…….

It all makes perfect sense to me. If you are having difficulties, it is probably due to some residual emotional attachments inside you which is causing you to hanker after things which can never really exist - such as a static benchmark or a permament home in which the ego can dwell.

Cory: David, here it seems like your saying; despite it requires logic in order to get to Rome, the actual direct experiencing of Rome is ultimately un-rational.

David: That's right.

Cory: And then....

David: But, I've never said that truth is un-rational. I was only talking about what a sage experiences, in each moment, in his enlightenment.

Cory: Experience is different and divided from the truth?

The experience of the colour red is different from the experience of logical analysis.

A person can experience the colour red and choose to either apply or not apply logical analysis to it, depending on what he wants to do.

On the other hand, how a person experiences the colour red is shaped by how wise and logical his mind is. If he is very wise and logical, and he fully understands the nature of emptiness, then his experience of red will be bereft of all the delusions that people normally project onto it.

David: For example, a sage might look at a flower and experience the color red.

His experience of red, in the moment, is neither rational nor un-rational in nature - it is simply what it is.

Cory: David I think you are confusing ‘un-rational’ with ‘irrational’. You agreed with me originally that experience is un-rational.

The unrational is: “what is’

If by rational we mean "has the capacity to be explained by reason", then "what is" is certainly rational. Every aspect of "what is" is fully explained via the rational comprehension of cause and effect.

-

[tooyi]

Something old in a new dress:

Who is the divine being that makes the tv-camera and the tv-set understand red?

If you tune the picture into black and white, is there still understanding?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It is impossible to reach a complete empirical explanation because we don't have the capacity to trace the innumerable causes of red.

...

If by rational we mean "has the capacity to be explained by reason", then "what is" is certainly rational. Every aspect of "what is" is fully explained via the rational comprehension of cause and effect.

-

We can give a workable explanation of the causality of red - the reflection of photons from the slow-moving range of light perceivable by the optic nerve of the average human eye. That makes "red" rational.

A complete dissertation on the causes of red is outside the scope of this forum, but I think that the experience of red by various individuals has been covered here.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Something old in a new dress:

Who is the divine being that makes the tv-camera and the tv-set understand red?

If you tune the picture into black and white, is there still understanding?

to some extent, yes.

Ever ridden at night with a driver who is colorblind, who comes up to a stoplight? It can be a problem that this person does not perceive red. This person can conceptualize the fact of red, but because he does not directly perceive red, there is a degree of misunderstanding.

[tooyi]

to some extent, yes.

Not there. No, I mean the other left.

---->

I was pointing to the tv-camera/set rather than someone watching (No one is). Also, colorblindness would be a problem in the camera, anyway. But yes, there is understanding. Many ways to go there.

Ever ridden at night with a driver who is colorblind, who comes up to a stoplight? It can be a problem that this person does not perceive red. This person can conceptualize the fact of red, but because he does not directly perceive red, there is a degree of misunderstanding.

So, how could anyone believe conceptualizing red to him would suddenly make him experience it? How about if red was the only color and the colorblind was completely ignorant of it?

The only real difference between a colorblind and a noncolorblind is that the colorblind has one illusion less to conquer.

"
A special transmission outside the scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing to the soul of man:
Seeing into one's own nature and attainment of Buddhahood
"

[namelesss]

So, how could anyone believe conceptualizing red to him would suddenly make him experience it?

Experience and 'concept' are the same coin.
You 'perceive' something, your mind 'conceptualizes' the 'data' from the senses, and the 'concept' in the mind is what is actually 'experienced'.

The only real difference between a colorblind and a noncolorblind is that the colorblind has one illusion less to conquer.

a) One 'illusion' 'conquered' (vanity!) is all illusions 'conquered'.
There can be found no place where one 'illusion' ends and 'another' begins, just as there is really no 'difference between the 'colorblind' and the 'non-colorblind', for the same 'reason'.
b) The vanity of the 'belief' in the illusion that we can 'conquer' anything is a good illusion to 'conquer'...

[namelesss]

On the other hand, how a person experiences the colour red is shaped by how wise and logical his mind is.

Are you serious? I'd love to hear your reasoning behind such a statement. My inability to express how incorrect that statement is, is only trumped by my mystification at the utter silence (as opposed to a howl of outrage) in response to this and many other nonsensical and self-serving comments.
Have you no education in biology? Psychology? Neurochemistry? Optics? Physics? Neurology?
'How' you 'see' red is determined by a myriad of factors;
your 'beliefs' regarding 'red'
color in general
health of your system (eyes, optic nerve, retina, brain..)
your memories of other encounters with 'red'
the 'involved feelings' inherent in those memories
your education (what you think 'red' to be)
do you find red socially attractive (in a work of art, for instance)
and on
and on
...
I say that your 'logic' and 'wisdom' have less to do with your 'experience' of 'red' than your mother did when she taught you your colors as a baby. I would submit that your feelings and emotions at the time are not only still in memory, but still active in your 'conceptualizing' of 'red'.
A human life is a predominately a non-logical existence, with vain sequins of 'logic' poorly glued on for ego sake. Pride. Vanity.

If he is very wise and logical, and he fully understands the nature of emptiness,

Is this idle speculation or are you refering to your own 'experience'?
Are you claiming to "fully understand.. the nature of emptiness"?
with your "very wise and logical" mind? Really?
And this wondrous understanding of the "nature of emptiness" has exactly 'what' to do with your 'concept' of red? Undeluded and all?

It takes an ego like mine to recognize the monumental ego structure built by you self-styled 'sages/wise/geniuses' here! 'Believing' the vain 'illusions' of the ego is delusion, and that is what you are sharing here, a real 'daisy chain' of ego masturbation (I'd be afraid to sit in a chair here! Whats that sticky stuff? Eeewwwwww! *__- ).
Is everyone too acclimated to the 'geniussageegomasturcumstench' (german word!)?
I imagine that there will even be toadies and disciples that have believed all you guys' self-promoting egoic claptrap jumping up to 'defend' y'all.
I guess there will be some fireworks when I disassemble y'all's foundation of 'cause and effect' here, and show it as obsolete.

then his experience of red will be bereft of all the delusions that people normally project onto it.

Again, from experience? Do you feel that you experience 'red' "bereft of all the delusions that people normally project onto it"?
The very 'belief' that there is any actual 'color' or even 'light' outside of your own mind is a delusion.
Through all that 'vanity', all that 'pride', all that 'egoic delusion', you succumb to the greatest delusion of all; that you are essentially any different or any 'better' (as you seem to fancy yourself) than any other people.
Why, do you think, 'pride' is considered to be such a grievous 'sin'?
(hint; I mean 'sin' in this case as something 'toxic' to the host)

Every aspect of "what is" is fully explained via the rational comprehension of cause and effect.

The whole concept (and that is 'all' it is) of 'cause and effect', along with the attendent 'world-view', is obsolete. So are all the attendent erroneous beliefs, such as 'will', 'choice', 'responsibility' (vanity), 'pride', 'time', 'motion', 'linearity',... all 'illusions' and if 'believed', delusions...

The subject is a large one, though, and I will cover it in it's own thread. The notion of 'cause and effect' isn't even taken seriously by most top quantum scientists any more as reflecting the true nature of existence.
No 'linearity' + the impossibility of 'motion' + no 'time' = no 'cause and effect', which is concurrent with a very limited and arbitrary perspective. One of many, but can be likened to;
Seven blind men around an elephant, each feeling the 'elephant' before him; one feels the tail, "snake like with a head of hair", another the leg, "treelike", etc.
Each can either argue as to his 'view' being the 'right' one and the others being 'wrong' (due to his limitations and vanity) and getting nowhere. Or they can try to understand each other's perspective, examine it, and perhaps integrate it into a more accurate 'concept' of 'elephant'.
More on the subject soon..
.
.
Ok, fine, in the silence, let this voice proclaim loudly, 'the 'emperors' are naked!'
.
.
Good night.

[Kevin Solway]

The notion of 'cause and effect' isn't even taken seriously by most top quantum scientists any more as reflecting the true nature of existence.

As you can probably guess, we've had this discussion many times before, but if you'd like to start a new thread about cause and effect please do so.

Also, if you have any solid evidence that anything can happen without cause then please present it.

If you look into it more closely you will find that quantum physics doesn't say anything about cause and effect.

Have a look at Quantum Theory and Causation

[Sapius]

Nameless,

Experience and 'concept' are the same coin.

I can agree to that.

You 'perceive' something, your mind 'conceptualizes' the 'data' from the senses, and the 'concept' in the mind is what is actually 'experienced'.

Could you define ‘mind’?

[namelesss]

Also, if you have any solid evidence that anything can happen without cause then please present it.

The 'solid evidence' (whatever that means, ... is there some particular person who is the arbiter?) is that nothing 'happens', period.

If you look into it more closely you will find that quantum physics doesn't say anything about cause and effect.

I'll show where you are in error as soon as I have composed my opening post for the new thread.
Actually, I have 'looked into it quite closely', for half a century or so, and shall show you how quantum (along with mathematics and 'logic') denies 'motion', 'time' and 'linearity', without which, 'cause and effect' are mental chimera, illusions and nothing more. Quantum has also updated the notion of 'cause and effect' to 'mutually arising aspects of one event'. Which gives the appearance of c&e when viewed from a very particular and limited perspective.

Have a look at Quantum Theory and Causation

After reading the beginning with the carefully agendized and leading questions asked of denizens of physics forums (certain answers being included in his article and others excluded (in in the furtherance of his agenda) the scientific veracity of the entire article is brought into question. I did not finish it as that kind of slanted and agendized 'reporting' (from physics forums!) doesn't ordinarily become 'honest' midstream, and my 'time' is valuable. I hope 'that' slanted nonsense isn't all you got.
He interviews nonames on forums for his information, for chrissake?? This is acceptable to you as 'evidence' of anything other than apparent desperation to validate an egoically held concept and to trick others into becomming fellow 'believers'? I guess that we'll discuss this further on my thread. I don't want to hijack this one.
And I'd be happy to discuss it with all three of you local gurus, as a 'tag team match' wastes too much time and there's too much repetition and linking.
.
Good night for now.

[namelesss]

Could you define ‘mind’?

I'll be happy to define mind as I have used the term in the post in question.
(he said while deftly sidestepping the steamy pile of obfuscating and trick qualities inherent in the question)
The 'mind' to which I refer, is the physical bio-computational portions of the brain in which the 'data' that is perceived by the senses is processed and formed into 'concepts/hologramic images' after being filtered and cross referenced through our entire memory bank. Only then can we 'see' (have a concept of) 'red'.
I realize that this 'definition' that I have offered is limited and rather subjective, but, so is everything else! It does clarify my meaning, though, I hope.

[David Quinn]

Nameless,

DQ: On the other hand, how a person experiences the colour red is shaped by how wise and logical his mind is.

N: Are you serious? I'd love to hear your reasoning behind such a statement. My inability to express how incorrect that statement is, is only trumped by my mystification at the utter silence (as opposed to a howl of outrage) in response to this and many other nonsensical and self-serving comments.
Have you no education in biology? Psychology? Neurochemistry? Optics? Physics? Neurology?
'How' you 'see' red is determined by a myriad of factors;
your 'beliefs' regarding 'red'
color in general
health of your system (eyes, optic nerve, retina, brain..)
your memories of other encounters with 'red'
the 'involved feelings' inherent in those memories
your education (what you think 'red' to be)
do you find red socially attractive (in a work of art, for instance)
and on
and on

All this is true. However, the wise and logical person has sifted through all these factors and has eliminated all traces of irrational thinking, false beliefs, emotional reactions, instinctive delusions, etc, from his mind and now experiences "red" in a similar manner to how a newborn baby might experience it. All of the false conceptual layerings which the normal unthinking person projects onto his experiences have vanished

A human life is a predominately a non-logical existence, with vain sequins of 'logic' poorly glued on for ego sake. Pride. Vanity.

You underplay the power of reason. Everything can be reasoned about - if you're fearless enough.

DQ: If he is very wise and logical, and he fully understands the nature of emptiness,

N: Is this idle speculation or are you refering to your own 'experience'?

My own experience.

Are you claiming to "fully understand.. the nature of emptiness"? with your "very wise and logical" mind? Really?

Yes.

And this wondrous understanding of the "nature of emptiness" has exactly 'what' to do with your 'concept' of red? Undeluded and all?

My understanding of emptiness applies to all things in the universe, including red.

It takes an ego like mine to recognize the monumental ego structure built by you self-styled 'sages/wise/geniuses' here! 'Believing' the vain 'illusions' of the ego is delusion, and that is what you are sharing here, a real 'daisy chain' of ego masturbation (I'd be afraid to sit in a chair here! Whats that sticky stuff? Eeewwwwww! *__- ).
Is everyone too acclimated to the 'geniussageegomasturcumstench' (german word!)?
I imagine that there will even be toadies and disciples that have believed all you guys' self-promoting egoic claptrap jumping up to 'defend' y'all.
I guess there will be some fireworks when I disassemble y'all's foundation of 'cause and effect' here, and show it as obsolete.

Go for it. Give it your best shot. I've heard it all before.

The very 'belief' that there is any actual 'color' or even 'light' outside of your own mind is a delusion.

Agreed. Things are dependent upon consciousness for their existence.

Through all that 'vanity', all that 'pride', all that 'egoic delusion', you succumb to the greatest delusion of all; that you are essentially any different or any 'better' (as you seem to fancy yourself) than any other people.
Why, do you think, 'pride' is considered to be such a grievous 'sin'?
(hint; I mean 'sin' in this case as something 'toxic' to the host)

That's true. I don't consider myself to be intrinsically better than anyone else.

DQ: Every aspect of "what is" is fully explained via the rational comprehension of cause and effect.

N: The whole concept (and that is 'all' it is) of 'cause and effect', along with the attendent 'world-view', is obsolete. So are all the attendent erroneous beliefs, such as 'will', 'choice', 'responsibility' (vanity), 'pride', 'time', 'motion', 'linearity',... all 'illusions' and if 'believed', delusions...

The subject is a large one, though, and I will cover it in it's own thread. The notion of 'cause and effect' isn't even taken seriously by most top quantum scientists any more as reflecting the true nature of existence.

This doesn't mean anything. Quantum physicists generally steer clear of engaging in philosophical discourse, for the very good reason that they are not qualified to do it with any expertise or authority. At bottom, they are simply not interested in the philosophical ramifications of their own work. All they are interested in is advancing quantum theory and winning Noble Prizes and the like. So it is a waste of time turning to them for philosophical guidance. You might as well turn to hairdressers instead.

If you believe that modern quantum theory has proven that things can arise uncaused, you have been misled. The practical functioning of quantum mechanics doesn't depend on the belief that things are caused or uncaused. It is entirely neutral, either way. The whole thing has been a non-issue, a media beat-up, from the start.

-

[David Quinn]

nameless wrote:

KS: Have a look at Quantum Theory and Causation

N: After reading the beginning with the carefully agendized and leading questions asked of denizens of physics forums (certain answers being included in his article and others excluded (in in the furtherance of his agenda) the scientific veracity of the entire article is brought into question.

It accurately reflected my experiences on these forums. Almost everyone to a tee rejected the idea that quantum theory disproved causality. Indeed, I quickly gave up on the project because the responses was so repetitious, and also because I consider the issue to be a joke to begin with.

Who, in their right mind, could possibly entertain the idea that things can arise uncaused? You would have to be completely sucked in by textbook theorizing and divorced from reality.

He interviews nonames on forums for his information, for chrissake??

Good one, nameless! Very funny.

I did not finish it as that kind of slanted and agendized 'reporting' (from physics forums!) doesn't ordinarily become 'honest' midstream, and my 'time' is valuable.

Are you saying that you don't really believe in your philosophy, after all?

-

[namelesss]

All this is true. However, the wise and logical person has sifted through all these factors and has eliminated all traces of irrational thinking, false beliefs, emotional reactions, instinctive delusions, etc, from his mind and now experiences "red" in a similar manner to how a newborn baby might experience it. All of the false conceptual layerings which the normal unthinking person projects onto his experiences have vanished

Delusional thinking. Vain. False ego. Whatever. If you really believe all this idealic nonsense about yourself, you are so deep in delusion that I'm sure that nothing will get through to 'disturb'. And all that comes out will be the same validating noises and 'conservation-at-all-costs' to protect your delusional feeling of superiority, for which, I for one see no evidence. Do you always announce your 'sage/wise/genius' to all who would listen, just in case they cannot recognise it in you on their own? Do you wear a button when in public? Do you ever go out in public? I have never heard such a self serving, egotistical delusional pile of crap before. You have self-delusion down to an airtight art!

You underplay the power of reason. Everything can be reasoned about - if you're fearless enough.

There you go again. If someone disagrees with you, here, they are simply not as fearless as you. Your statement lacks reason and has fallacy as its strong point.
"Only a moron would disagree with me."
Another similar, self validating, fallacious statement. It takes no 'courage' to reason and utilize logic. It takes, on the other hand, delusion to assert that, one, it takes 'courage', and two, that each and everything can be logically fully explained. What I can posit that might be beyond your little mental tools will undoubtedly be pooh-poohed as non-existent/invalid (if it don't fit, dismiss it as ivalid. Been there, done that).

DQ: If he is very wise and logical, and he fully understands the nature of emptiness,

N: Is this idle speculation or are you refering to your own 'experience'?

My own experience.

Delusional. It is delusional to 'believe' that your subjective experience somehow reflects the ultimate true basic nature of existence, or Reality. Fantasizing yourself as 'all that' only makes it true to yourself. You don't fool any 'Yankee boys'...

Are you claiming to "fully understand.. the nature of emptiness"? with your "very wise and logical" mind? Really?

Yes.

More delusional vanity... But, hey, it just has to feel true to yourself, eh?

And this wondrous understanding of the "nature of emptiness" has exactly 'what' to do with your 'concept' of red? Undeluded and all?

My understanding of emptiness applies to all things in the universe, including red.

That it?
That the best you can do to show some sparkling evidence in support of all the hot air you're blowing?
Go ahead, I'd love to be amazed at some evidence of your superiority! Do give us a display? You must certainly expect the request with such a vain 'exhalation'!

I've heard it all before.

Dare I say it? More evidence of your self-aggrandizemental delusions...
You are not in the least interested in what I might be able to offer of value as you already feel that you know everything of value, and better than anyone else. You will argue and reject anything proferred out of hand, wasting my time completely casting my pearls before swine. On the other hand, perhaps a few lurkers and peripheral members might find some of my words of value. I would, of course, only be speaking to those interested in understanding what I will offer before questioning it. You are not that interested in 'Truth' as you are in the comfort of your 'tower' of vanity in which you seem to live.

Through all that 'vanity', all that 'pride', all that 'egoic delusion', you succumb to the greatest delusion of all; that you are essentially any different or any 'better' (as you seem to fancy yourself) than any other people.
Why, do you think, 'pride' is considered to be such a grievous 'sin'?
(hint; I mean 'sin' in this case as something 'toxic' to the host)

That's true. I don't consider myself to be intrinsically better than anyone else.

That 'intrinsically' doesn't invalidate that you DO feel superior to most, if not all (excepting the other two gurus here) in every extrinsic way possible.

DQ: Every aspect of "what is" is fully explained via the rational comprehension of cause and effect.

Quantum physicists generally steer clear of engaging in philosophical discourse, for the very good reason that they are not qualified to do it with any expertise or authority. At bottom, they are simply not interested in the philosophical ramifications of their own work. All they are interested in is advancing quantum theory and winning Noble Prizes and the like. So it is a waste of time turning to them for philosophical guidance. You might as well turn to hairdressers instead.

A case of 'don't bother me with facts, I have my opinions? You will cry 'invalid' to any science that threatens your delicate house of cards? 'Philosophy' that is not 'indexed' to every other discipline, will leave you worshipping the sun god as he rotates around the earth. My desire was 'Truth', which is why I left no stone unturned. There is a 'place', of which you are completely unfamiliar, where the 'fruits' of all 'disciplines', all 'paths' converge. Your fear of having the delusions to which you have become attached, shattered by the revealed latest 'fruits' of science leave you the exact opposite of all you fancy yourself to be. You "know it all" so can logically (within your neurotic framework) dismiss all that might be in 'opposition' to your 'beliefs', while 'logically' accepting all validation. You should be on a psychiatrists couch somewhere, not here spouting all this crap. Been here for how long? Comfortable?

If you believe that modern quantum theory has proven that things can arise uncaused, you have been misled.

I 'believe' nothing. And this is not what I have said. Had you been paying attention, you would have heard me say that quantum doesn't say that 'things don't happen without a cause', but that NOTHING HAPPENS AT ALL! There is NO 'MOTION'.

The practical functioning of quantum mechanics doesn't depend on the belief that things are caused or uncaused. It is entirely neutral, either way. The whole thing has been a non-issue, a media beat-up, from the start.

Nonsense. You display your complete lack of knowledge and understanding of quantum for the obvious reason that due to the fact that a) you cannot 'understand' it to any depth at all, and b) must dismiss it as you already know everything that you 'need to know' (to stay comfortable in your deluded neurotic state) and quantum threatens your delicate and over-compensated ego.
And you dare to speak of 'fearlessness'? You are afraid to even attempt to understand, and all I am asking for here is understanding. It matters not a whit to me whether you agree or 'believe' or accept what I am saying. A truly 'fearless' person would go out of their way to understand as 'strange' and 'unusual' and 'beautiful' perspective as I will offer.

But, of course, 'you' have heard it all before, so you can dismiss all that 'disturbs' while remaining in your comfy place, again, to hide while blowing your egoic neurotic self aggrandizing smoke at whoever is pathetic enough to swallow it all (ultimately just yourself) at your say so. I have stopped by here on occassion and nothing ever seems to change. Same old 'look at how great we are' sh!t, another day. Must be cozy... Stagnation always is. As is death.

Ever notice that "one who blows his own horn is usually a 'solo' act"?

Im going to bed, now.
Back later...
Peace...

[namelesss]

Who, in their right mind, could possibly entertain the idea that things can arise uncaused? You would have to be completely sucked in by textbook theorizing and divorced from reality.

NO MOTION! No movement. No '-ing' other than perhaps 'being'. No 'arising', no 'causing', no 'doing', no '-ing'! But this is 'science' and, like any other fundamnentalist, you dismiss science when it threatens your 'illusions'. I will use it to support my opinions on my 'Cause and effect' thread. Feel free to ignore it (the science) if you like, but that will severely limit further conversation.
But, as it seems that you are all 'interchangeable', perhaps there will be some conversation anyway.

Are you saying that you don't really believe in your philosophy, after all?

Again you missed when I told you that I hold no 'beliefs'. How many times will we have to cover this ground?

[David Quinn]

nameless wrote:

DQ: Who, in their right mind, could possibly entertain the idea that things can arise uncaused? You would have to be completely sucked in by textbook theorizing and divorced from reality.

n: NO MOTION! No movement. No '-ing' other than perhaps 'being'. No 'arising', no 'causing', no 'doing', no '-ing'! But this is 'science' and, like any other fundamnentalist, you dismiss science when it threatens your 'illusions'.

How does quantum physics, which specifically studies the motion of quantum phenomena, disprove motion?

I'm reminded of a story about Diogenes:

A student of philosophy, eager to display his powers of argument, approached Diogenes, introduced himself and said, "If it pleases you, sir, let me prove to you that there is no such thing as motion." Whereupon Diogenes immediately got up and left.

:)

I will use it to support my opinions on my 'Cause and effect' thread. Feel free to ignore it (the science) if you like, but that will severely limit further conversation.
But, as it seems that you are all 'interchangeable', perhaps there will be some conversation anyway.

You seem to be confusing science with metaphysics. I can understand you making a case for there being no motion in a metaphysical sense - for example, by logically demonstrating that all boundaries between things are illusory and that therefore, fundamentally, nothing ever arises. But that isn't science. You can't use science to disprove motion when science and empirical observation is specifically about studying the movement of things.

DQ: Are you saying that you don't really believe in your philosophy, after all?

N: Again you missed when I told you that I hold no 'beliefs'. How many times will we have to cover this ground?

You believe, among other things, that there is no time and no motion.

-

[Sapius]

Could you define ‘mind’?

I'll be happy to define mind as I have used the term in the post in question.
(he said while deftly sidestepping the steamy pile of obfuscating and trick qualities inherent in the question)
The 'mind' to which I refer, is the physical bio-computational portions of the brain in which the 'data' that is perceived by the senses is processed and formed into 'concepts/hologramic images' after being filtered and cross referenced through our entire memory bank. Only then can we 'see' (have a concept of) 'red'.
I realize that this 'definition' that I have offered is limited and rather subjective, but, so is everything else! It does clarify my meaning, though, I hope.

Thanks. Considering that you may have something worthwhile to say, I shall hold all other queries until you have said your piece. However…

NO MOTION! No movement. No '-ing' other than perhaps 'being'. No 'arising', no 'causing', no 'doing', no '-ing'! But this is 'science'…

That’s interesting, and if that is true, then what is ‘mind’? Is it perhaps ‘being’? Since it cannot be the ‘-ing’ as in a process ‘process-ing’. So is there no ‘process-ing’? And why the exception to ‘be-ing’ itself?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

nameless,

You will argue and reject anything proferred out of hand, wasting my time completely casting my pearls before swine. On the other hand, perhaps a few lurkers and peripheral members might find some of my words of value.

As a peripheral member, I disagree. You sound like a teenager having a temper tantrum because someone isn't that impressed by his writing. Your stones haven't been in the oyster's gut long enough to be pearls.

There are many ways someone can be superior, and you should simply not be offended by all of them. For instance, a person needs superiority if he is going to speak with authority. He also needs superiority if he's going to be a teacher.

He can also be superior if, based on a given value system, he has more values to a greater degree.

It is the height of stupidity -- hypocricy, even -- not to strive to be superior than others, and once superior, not to recognize the superiority. If you don't believe your alleged values are more important than any other random value system, then you simply do not prize your values sufficiently.

David Quinn is not arrogant. He is one of the most straight-forward, logical, level-headed people I've seen on any forum. If you are having difficulty, such as getting offended by what he says, I highly recommend that you re-read what he has written until you can think of at least one possible way that it is not ludicrous. Some of the things that have offended you so far are simply true by definition, or have to be true because there is no alternative. [for example: "do you know this by personal experience?" "yes." -- quite simply, the only possible way he can know something is by experience; were you trying to force him to say no?]

[David Quinn]

nameless wrote:

DQ: You underplay the power of reason. Everything can be reasoned about - if you're fearless enough.

N: There you go again. If someone disagrees with you, here, they are simply not as fearless as you. Your statement lacks reason and has fallacy as its strong point.
"Only a moron would disagree with me."
Another similar, self validating, fallacious statement. It takes no 'courage' to reason and utilize logic.

It does if your attachments, beliefs, values and happiness are on the line.

For example, if a fundamentalist Christian was to start logically analyzing his beliefs, he runs the risk of shattering his entire world-view, with the possibility that nothing will be there to replace it. This can make anyone tremble with fear. It is the reason why fundamentalist Christians praise the authority of the Bible so much and constantly attack the value of reason. They are scared of reason.

Another example is the policeman who begins to find evidence of systemic corruption in his superiors. It would take a great deal of courage for him to acknowledge the existence of this anomaly and to investigate it. He stands to lose everything - his job, his career, his marriage, possibly even his life. It is a test of character for him, of how much value he places on rationality and truth.

It is easy to apply logic to trivial matters, such as what academics and scientists generally do. But it takes real balls to apply logic to every aspect of your personal life and to weed out everything that is false.

Of course, the younger you start this process, the easier it is.

-

[namelesss]

David, I will cover all this in my thread when ready. But I'll be happy to give a few short answers now.

A student of philosophy, eager to display his powers of argument, approached Diogenes, introduced himself and said, "If it pleases you, sir, let me prove to you that there is no such thing as motion." Whereupon Diogenes immediately got up and left.

This is old stuff and the story was from Zeno where Diogenese (I think) tried to disprove Zeno when Zeno proposed that things actually were 'in the mind' and not 'solid', 'out there'. Whereupon Diogenese kicked a rock in supposed refutation.

This supposed 'refutation' is from the thoroughly refuted philosophy of 'naive realism'. 'Naive realism' proposes that our 'perceptions and conceptions' accurately reflect the actual true basic nature of existence. This has been thoroughly refuted for decades. I'll be happy to demonstrate if you like, but I do think that the 'dedicated thread' would be a more appropriate place. Don't fret, I won't run away.

You seem to be confusing science with metaphysics.

Not in the least. With the new tools that quantum offers, there seems to be an area of convergence, though, between metaphysics and quantum; they are independently validating each others findings, finally.

You can't use science to disprove motion when science and empirical observation is specifically about studying the movement of things.

Empiricism is sensory related and therefore very limited in it's ability to define existence at a basic level. It is refuted at any 'depth'.

"Any branch of knowledge, whether geology or astronomy, strikes mysticism as soon as it reaches any depth."
and
"Quantum mechanics comes on as so off-the-wall that only a mystical state of mind can even begin to probe it's mysteries." -Richard Feynman

You believe, among other things, that there is no time and no motion.

What is wrong with you. What would you think, if, having never met you nor knowing anything about you, if you told me that you didn't eat meat, I aegued with you and asserted that you certainly 'did' eat meat? What would you think of me?
I tell you that I hold no 'beliefs' and instead of a perhaps respectful question if you have a problem with my statement, you basically call me a liar or 'deluded'.
Regarding 'time and motion', I have no 'beliefs' to 'feed'. This is what I have found from the (what I feel is) sufficient 'evidence/data' to form an opinion of the most tentatively workable theory (for which I find more supportive evidence all the time, BTW).. My present 'opiniontheory' is always tentative (as opposed to a 'belief' that demands support), and with the assimilation of new data, is subject to alteration at any 'moment'.

[namelesss]

As a peripheral member, I disagree. You sound like a teenager having a temper tantrum because someone isn't that impressed by his writing.

Thank you for sharing, Trevor.
You'll forgive me for not answering anything else in your post as you obviously find no value in my words, so I sha'n't waste them.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

nameless,

You'll forgive me for not answering anything else in your post as you obviously find no value in my words, so I sha'n't waste them.

I don't, really. You can't blame me. What with your mercurial beliefs, I don't think you find much value in your words either -- although your ego is certainly another matter.

I gave you a tip to help adjust your attitude to get the most out of your conversation with David. You're obviously unable to see your target, like a blind mouse trying to eat a cat's tail. If you are too stubborn to see past two sentences of criticism to the helpful advice I, a sighted mouse, was giving you, that's your problem.

Your argument is with David, though, not with me. I have no interest in joining in. You just looked a little swamped and helpless, and I'm always happy to point out someone's difficulties.

[namelesss]

You underplay the power of reason. Everything can be reasoned about - if you're fearless enough.

N: It takes no 'courage' to reason and utilize logic.

It does if your attachments, beliefs, values and happiness are on the line.

Ok, if you are talking about honest introspection, actually facing the demons, I'll agree that you make a point. It is a very courageous thing to question, honestly, your delusions ('beliefs', neuroses, values(s)..) And 'honestly' is a key word here. I do dispute that 'reason' alone is a powerful enough 'tool' to actually 'slay' all of our demons.
The universe is not a neat intellectual exercise, David.
The attempt to 'make it so' evidences (the 'demon' of) fear of Reality, Chaos..
Do you suppose that your 'Reason' alone can stand up to this demon, unaided?
'There are more things in heaven and earth, dear Horatio, than fit into thy philosophy.'

But it takes real balls to apply logic to every aspect of your personal life and to weed out everything that is false.

I understand what you are saying here, David, and am inclined to agree, but I am questioning the ability of 'logic' alone to fully accomplish the 'weeding' process.
Logic can certainly affect 'logical' constructs (built upon a foundational program incorporational of 'logic' programs), but would be ineffective, for instance, in functionally influencing a deeply based 'emotional' program (non-logical).
You cannot 'rationalize' away the 'emotional' (and related) wounds of a parental abandonment, which also operates at a primarily 'subconscious' level where there are no 'logic programs' anywhere.
Or 'intuitional' based programs (again, deliberately bypassing the thought process in access.. )
We seem to have other 'tools' that deliberately by-pass the rational thought processes. It seems that if 'rationality' alone covered all bases, we would not have alternative tools of 'discovery'..

[David Quinn]

nameless wrote:

I'll be happy to demonstrate if you like, but I do think that the 'dedicated thread' would be a more appropriate place.

Okay.

DQ: You believe, among other things, that there is no time and no motion.

N: What is wrong with you. What would you think, if, having never met you nor knowing anything about you, if you told me that you didn't eat meat, I aegued with you and asserted that you certainly 'did' eat meat? What would you think of me?

If I claimed that I didn't eat meat, while at the same time stuffing my mouth with big gobs of meat, you would be perfectly within your rights to question my claim.

Similarly, I don't believe you when you say that you don't have beliefs. Your every sentence expresses a belief of some kind.

For example, I have already detected that you believe that no one can ever know absolute truth, that everything is fundamentally uncertain, that quantum theory and metaphysics are converging, that Diogenes' refutation was an example of "naive realism", that our perceptions and conceptions cannot accurately reflect the true nature of existence, and so on. All these beliefs are expressed in your last post alone. You seem to be chock full of beliefs, many of them permanent and fixed.

Regarding 'time and motion', I have no 'beliefs' to 'feed'. This is what I have found from the (what I feel is) sufficient 'evidence/data' to form an opinion of the most tentatively workable theory (for which I find more supportive evidence all the time, BTW).. My present 'opiniontheory' is always tentative (as opposed to a 'belief' that demands support), and with the assimilation of new data, is subject to alteration at any 'moment'.

And behind this flux are your permanent, static beliefs - such as the belief that all you don't really have any beliefs, that no one can uncover permanent absolute truth, that science has something to say about the nature of reality, that everything is always provisional and uncertain, and so on.

-