GENIUS FORUMS

The first two installments of The Reasoning Show are now on-line.

Program 1 - "The Nature of Knowledge", with Victor Danilchenko, Dan Rowden and David Quinn.

Program 2 - "Consciousness and the Tao", with James Quirk (Naturyl), Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway.

A third show featuring Dr. Alexander Berzin - a teacher, author, and translator of Tibetan Buddhism - is scheduled to be on-line in a week's time.

As an aside, the second show has poor audio quality and it was only after much debate that we decided to release it. The fact that it is still listenable, and that the quality of discussion is good, eventually over-rode all other considerations.

-

Did you mean to say first? Nat's sounds fine to me, but Victor has this weird echo thing that occasionally makes him sound like Voice Of God.


Anyway, quite well done. :)

_________________
-Katy

For those who would like to know, the files take a very long time to download. It took me an hour to download the first one. I only watched the first 38 mins, since that was all the time I had to blow at the moment.

David's voice sounds very good -- nice and calm, even humble.

I agree with Katy. Victor's had a bizzare echo, and it did make his voice seem otherwordly at times. I thought the second was much clearer and no different in quality than what one would hear on a typical radio talk show. I wouldn't bother to download unless I wanted to save it, just click "Listen Now," and avoid the hassle.

I quite enjoyed both of them. Very insightful. Nice work on the intros and the music choice, too. The annoying accents were easy to ignore <jab at Dan>.

Well done, and worth the time I blew to listen to them.

In regard to the first show, I don't see why Victor thinks that developing unique definitions for certain terms can some how undermine the Truths that they point to. Aside from that, all defintions were at some point unique to the individual or to the particular culture they were derived from. The fact that he thinks any defintion that strays from scientific or social norms makes any conclusion reached by them null and void, is a perfect example of how people stuck in the academic/scientific mind set are just as unconscious as people stuck in the religious mind set, or even the materialistic mindset.

In regards to the second show, I don't see why Nat think's his fear about people taking the ideals of this forum and running with them in a delusional or destructive way is any reason to not make the distintion between conscious and unconscious people. In all actuality if someone wants to act in a delusional and destructive way they will find a way to do it. It's not all that hard to twist the words and meanings to suit one's own delusional interests. People do this all the time with religion, science, philosophy, spirituality and just about any other institution you can imagine. My point is, we shouldn't water down the truth, because not only will that result in hindering the progress of people with great potential for higher consciousness, but also regardless of these efforts, if it is evil one seeks, they will find a means to this end one way or another.

As for the quality of everyone's voices it was more than adequate for the purpose of the show. Everyone's words were expressed quite clearly.

Both were excellent shows. I've heard worse audio sound on professional recordings than the one with Nat. There was static on Nat's that wasn't on Victor's, and echo on both. There was much more background noise on Victor's than Nat's (it sounded like a ball park announcer in the background - maybe the TV was on or something in another room, there were lots of "pling" noises like the guys were pm-ing each other during the interview, and a noise that sounded like Dan was lighting up a cigarette (I don't know about that - I didn't think he smoked - that's just what it sounded like to me). The content, however, was excellent.
.

Yeah, but that's not what he thinks. He just thinks that the conclusions QRS push as "ultimate truths" consist of symbol-manipulations perfomed by QRS on terms they create themselves. In other words, he's saying they are performing a sort of vebal shell game where saying "floopters + arglesnipes = dribblemickets." In his view as I understand it, that is all well and fine when we're dealing with dribblemickets, but meaningless anywhere else. He's saying that such conclusions are only meaningful within the framework implicitly created by those defining the terms. In addition, he's arguing that QRS pronounce synthetic truths as analytic ones but then proceed to undermine this by framing their discussions of the ideas in question in implicitly synthetic terms. The "begging the question" point he makes is also important.

IMO, David and Dan could have countered some of this more effectively by focusing more specifically on A=A, and how the logical idea expressed by it holds true regardless of what terms and definitions we plug into it. They touched on it, but they didn't get to the core of it. It wouldn't have refuted all of Victor's objections, but it would have cut to the core of what was an otherwise rather peripheral and academic portion of the discussion, where an impasse seemed to have been reached. I think that at minimum, a greater focus on A=A would have steered that portion of the conversation back to productive ground, and I think Dan and David largely missed the opportunity to do this.



Yes, but do we really want to throw gas on a fire?



As I mentioned in the show, I think that it's dangerous to focus exclusively on the difference in quality of consciousness without also looking at the other side of the coin - the common humanity and potential for greater understanding we all share. The former is implicit in the latter, of course, but I do believe the way it is framed can make all the difference.



Agreed. My show was a bit more "muffly" than Victor's, but his had significant echo almost the whole way through. I don't think that either show could have been done much better in terms of audio quality through the software used. One suggestion for future shows might also be to keep the background scoffing to a minimum. I may be mistaken about this, but it sounds to me as if someone was repeatedly scoffing quietly at certain points in both shows, and the mic caught this. If this is the case, I think it should be minimized as it undermines the appearance of professionalism.

_________________
I live in a tub.

I think there was far less scoffing than in most debate shows.
.

Well, the quiet scoffing (if that's what it was) sounds bad. Open laughter or something that doesn't sound furtive and/or concealed would actually be better, IMO. It's no big deal, though. Just an aside.

_________________
I live in a tub.

I'm not sure what you mean, Nat. As far as I can hear, Dan gave a couple of exasperated snorts, but that's about it.

What's an example?

-

Nat wrote:


These objections only apply within the context of "inter-personal truths" as he called it - i.e. the social realm of sharing knowledge as characterized by the scientific enterprise. They can be easily overcome when using the direct, personal, introspective reasoning which characterizes philosophy. Unfortunately, I failed to make this point on the program.



I pretty much agree with that. It was a solid enough opening show, but I would only rate my own performance as 6 out of 10. That middle section in particular, although amusing in its own way, could have been done better.

It wasn't helped that the show was plagued by technical problems from the start, and that the final product was eventually pieced together from 4 different partial takes. But still, it is obvious to me that I'm going to have to be a bit sharper on my feet and take control of the conversation a little more.

-

Hey I liked the shows! They sounded good. I had a hard time understanding Kevin at times (I think the mic was a little too close to his mouth) but overall it sounded very good and I thought they were very interesting. I think everybody did a fine job.

I don't think that's what he was saying, and he even seemed to agree with it to the extent that the technique would work like a tautology. What Victor was having a problem with was that David and Dan would not accept mathematical infinity as a definition of infinity, but were staunchly trying to appropriate "infinity" as solely a term to be used for the Infinite - kind of like how Christians get ticked when someone uses the term "bible" to mean a really great reference book (i.e. "the gardening bible") because they believe that the term bible should only refer to the Holy Bible. Victor ultimately ended up just spewing because he was so mad about Dan and David not accepting that in mathematics, "infinity" means what Victor was saying it meant. In his spewing, he retaliated by refusing to recognize their definition of Infinite just as they were refusing to accept his definition of infinity. The words they all spoke were English, yet they were still speaking two different languages.
.

I'm able to listen to it in 5 minute increments before my brain fills up and needs draining. It sounds fine, but I don't think anyone but a philosopher would have any clue what Victor was saying.

Anyway, thank God I'm not doing this show, because I'd probably drift into using an Australian accent by the end.

I followed Vic well, and I don't have much background in academics.

_________________
-Katy

.

Well done; both the discussions were reasonably audible, but the first one was a bit more clear that the other. I too find that the first one had an echo with Victor’s voice, and a few places where David speaks but his voice was much clearer. In the second show, Nat’s and Kevin’s voices were subdued as in heavy Bass. Dan’s voice was heard the best in both.

The ‘Listen Now’ starts up pretty quickly. The window pops up almost immediately, and the show starts in about 3 seconds, and continues all the way without any interruptions. (I use windows xp - high speed cable modem).

Is it possible to place a guest’s picture in the popup window? That is if they don’t mind.

Well… certain points on the discussions itself. Aren’t we here just for that, actually! :)

Talk show 1:

In my opinion, what Victor was getting at at one point was; that there is no way one could come to a logical conclusion unless it is initially supported by and through empirical means. Which is an important point that I can relate to.

What I mean to say is; how does one eventually come to the conclusion that all things are caused other than through logically analyzing empirical observations in the first place? I am not saying that things could popup without a cause, but the point is, how could one actually arrive at such a conclusion sans sense perceptions of what we define as empirical?

It is not that a rock could come to such a conclusion, or could it? I mean without our sense perception, which is then supported by logical analysis, we could have never come to such a conclusion. And then saying that ‘empirical observation’ are unreliable actually shakes the foundations of that logical conclusion itself, which was initially a result of conscious observation of an “empirically observed process” itself. And we cannot at any point drop or discard ‘sense perceptions’ as unworthy because the definitions itself that help us arrive at certain logical conclusions are necessarily mostly based in defining something perceived through senses to begin with.

The fact that we are capable of constructing abstract concepts in no way falsifies the truth of observable facts, because most of such concepts rely on definitions that were necessarily derived through observations in the first place. And if observations stand on shaky grounds, then what can one say about definitions, which are mostly grounded in our senses? Including the sense of thinking. Which is merely a process of manipulating meaningful words, hence creating concepts, and thence arrive at a conclusion that makes logical sense of what was observed.

Philosophy too is a science that rests upon observations and thence applying logical thinking to what has been observed, and the same goes for Science. But Science requires proof that certain models cannot be falsified through repeatedly observable tests, and at the same time is humble enough to acknowledge that at any point of time, we have not experienced all that could be possibly experienced. As new experiences are faced, that is new findings are discovered, it starts looking for tangible proofs that are based in and of logical reasoning that help understand what is exactly happening. Now what’s wrong with that?

I am told that our senses cannot be trusted; if not, then through what means do we come to a logical conclusion otherwise; JUST pure abstract logical thinking devoid of any sensual input or involvement? If one cannot trust his senses, then what logical proof we have for defining a thing as that thing? Just that we sense it to be so, so it is so?

White is defined as white, hence it is white, and because we define it so does not make it a universal truth. We do know through SCIENCE that a bee sees the same flower as violet.

It is true that ‘white’ is a caused phenomenon for us, as is ‘violet for a bee, but that does not make “causality” the mother of all truths in its SELF, because it would fall apart if it were not for the ‘bee’ or ‘me’, or THINGS being in the picture. Causality cannot exist on its OWN. Nor can an “Absolute Truth” remain on its own, except the change that brings forth such realizations through words and meanings, which are also subject to disappear with change. Hence ‘change’ (causality) itself holds no inherent meaning or existence, except through a thinking thing.

So in essence, a philosopher is saying that I trust my senses, through which I derive definitions, and through conceptualization and pure logic, I arrive at the conclusions that senses cannot be trusted. So how can one trust his conclusions that were based on his senses to begin with?

The other point is the Matrix type scenario that keeps coming up time and time again, on which I have mentioned many a times that that has to necessarily end up in regress, and hence proves nothing, scientifically or philosophically. It’s a lame excuse to keep on going in circles. All meaningful applications of logically derived conclusions also fall apart in such a scenario, making causality the whole and sole creator and hence responsible of absolutely everything, and hence that actually says that no individual thinking is going on, hence comparativeness is a literal illusion which holds no real meaning comparatively speaking. Which is totally absurd in my opinion.

Simply saying that ‘that does not mean that all comparativeness is meaningless….” Actually says that one did not really mean what he said earlier in the first place, then.

Talk show 2:

What can I say… it seems it is merely a matter of personal perspectives, but as always, I find it illogical to deem conscious things as un-conscious by any far-fetched logical justifications.

If at all, one can say that given what consciousness means in a general sense, a conscious thing may or may not be aware of what consciousness is or how it operates. Consciousness exists irrelevant of one realizing the facts about how and why does it exist, and that it is the realization that is missing in most, not consciousness itself.

One can consider ones self to be FULL to the brim with consciousness, or percentages thereof, but I really wouldn't know what that means. On the other hand, if one says that he fully realizes or is aware of what consciousness is, or existence for the matter, it would make perfect sense to not only me, but also to any English speaking person. I would say stop confusing the world that is already confused as it is. You are helping no one by creating special meanings to old words. If there is something new that you mean, then no one will stop you from creating new words and then define them as you please. The dictionary welcomes new words day in and day out. Please show some originality that I may come to respect it.

And Nat; it is absolutely illogical to promote the kind of understanding you promote. Which seems to suggest that understanding or realization itself exists in and of all consciousnesses. It is a fact that consciousness exists, but not the realization that YOU might have achieved, as opposed to every individually created consciousness. Give them room and the oportunity to realize what you have.

The difference lies in the realizations, not in what consciousness itself is, between one human and another.

_________________
---------

I don't disagree. In fact, I feel I was trying to make that point or a similar one during several portions of the show, but I regrettably ended up adopting the terminology Kevin was using regarding "consciousness" when I should have diverged and made my own position clearer. It's an area in which I feel I could have done better.

_________________
I live in a tub.

I agree, Nat. Many a places you sounded as if you were unsure of what you were saying, or stopped speaking because you were actually thinking on how to explain what you actually mean.

And do you mind to address to who or what you are referring to when you respond. You see, all posts do not necessarily fall exactly below to who you are referring to, because in the mean time someone else can post, and your post might actually be referring not to the one just above yours, but a post or several posts before that.

_________________
---------

Just finished listening to the first show with Victor.

What made the show at times getting to the point of being pointless was the different frameworks from which the participants were approaching the subject at hand without getting to bridge the divide. At one hand we have Victor who is well educated and informed about a million facts and definitions as well as formal logic and philosophy, but reasons from a pure materialist or perhaps even a utilitarian position but then in the sense of seeing truth as only relevant when useful or relating to a common agreed on empirical reality. On the other hand we have a more existential, inward philosophizing which tries to address our ignorance about this empirical reality without using empirical or scientific methods but instead attempt to directly point to the elephants in the room.

Perhaps it's the old divide between religion and science, the inner experience expressing itself necessarily in metaphors to capture immense complexities against the outer experience that describes the world in models that claim not to require some a-priori faith. A relational, calculable modeling, which simplifies a boundless reality to repeatable and quantifiable events.

Another way to describe the divide (as metaphor) is to take the example of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in quantum physics which shows how one cannot measure position and momentum of a particle. If 'reality' would be such a particle then the moment we approach the topic via an outer, circumvent, empirical way we lose any grip on the essential, absolute understandings. The moment we approach using essential and absolute understandings (using metaphors in expression) it happens that the we have to let go of the empirical method or abuse it, dismiss even the scientific approach.

The problem then with the discussion with Victor shows itself as a failing to create any bridge between these two approaches. I think it's really inflexible from all participant in the discussion to insist on 'correct' definitions of 'infinite' or 'totality'. It's indeed an immense challenge to find a way to link the more mystical or religious concepts of the infinite, totality and god to the world of formal logic and science. It might be those two worlds never really will meet or perhaps it's something for future science to explore its own metaphysical origin and method a bit deeper. And its build-in limitations, which are also part of the question: 'prove it'.

Just finished listening to the discussion with Victor. Here's my contribution (with a couple of my personal comments in square brackets) in the form of a partial transcript (you guys planning on providing same)? Worth putting in typeface, I reckon.

~

Victor: Given the assumptions of the Peano axioms of number theory, given the established meaning of the term, 2 as the number that follows 1 and 1 as the number that follows 0, it is possible but purely syntactic manipulation to arrive at the conclusion that 2+2=4. But, that--but, you see, the difference here is that when we talk about Euclidean geometry, geometry is something that is empirical. It’s supposed to apply to the real world. There are actually shapes and lines and figures and angles and, as long as you relate geometry to the real world, this is what happens. People start out with axioms that they didn’t properly support, they cannot contradict it, and then eventually they discover that this axiom is not actually necessarily true. That is not the same thing as what is happening in 2+2=4. 2+2=4 is true strictly by virtue of the definitions of the terms. But then, that is all the term means. What we may discover in the future is that the mapping between the concepts and the empirical objects isn’t the same. In fact, we discovered that already. If you mix, for example, a litre of water and a litre of alcohol you will not get a 2 litre of vodka, you will get slightly less [laughs--Ukrainians!] because when water and alcohol mix they are not linearly adaptive. So, if you attempt to relate this to the empirical world, we have already proven it false. But as a purely analytic statement--I mean, it’s not even, strictly speaking, analytic; it’s simply syntactic manipulation. You are just pushing symbols around according to given rules. In terms of definition, in terms of pushing symbols around by the given rules, 2+2 is certain. But it is only certain as long as it doesn’t actually mean anything. That’s my point. That you can either push symbols around and have your certainty or you can have--you can introduce--you can relate it to the truth about the world and say something useful and lose the certainty. You can’t have both.

David: Well, I would disagree with that. There are cases where you can have the best of both there and, for example, if we take the concept of a thing, which I define to be some portion within the whole of nature--the totality--so, a thing is something that is limited in extent then we can conclude that everything within the world, all phenomena--clouds, galaxies, people, thoughts, electrons, models, whatever--they’re classified as things so there is an empirical correlation right there and then whatever we conclude about things through a purely logical process applies necessarily to what is in the world. For example, we can conclude that a cloud is not the totality of all there is, it’s a thing within the totality and so there is a definite truth about an empirical phenomenon that’s arrived through pure logic.

Victor: So, but you see, again, the conclusion you make is really a purely tautological statement and the statement is something that is less than the totality is less than the totality--

David: Yes,…

Victor: But, now, try saying something useful about the cloud. Try saying that a cloud is not infinite.

David: Well, a cloud…

Victor: That’s right, that’s right.

David: Yeah, a cloud is not infinite in the sense that it’s existence does not extend indefinitely…

Victor: But…
David: It has a beginning and an end.

Victor: But there are things which are potentially infinite, empirically. Black holes, for example. Black holes have certain characteristics which are infinite…

David: Well, we’re talking about…

Victor: My point here is that in making these arguments, you’re not really saying anything about the things. You’re saying that which is less than the totality is less than the totality…

David: Well, we can say certain things about it.

Victor: You should try saying something useful. Like I said, for example, “All things are finite.” If I recall correctly, that is actually one of the conclusions you have tried to draw a long time ago--a few years ago. That all things are finite. And I just gave example of how the moment you try to relate your purely syntactic games to the actual, empirical concept, it immediately falls flat.

David: Well, no--no. As long as you are clear about what finite means. So…

Victor: Exactly. And then what you are saying is because finite is something that you define as having limits, being less than the totality, then if you use your own custom definition of infinity, then all you are saying is still something that is less than the totality is less than the totality.

David: Yes, OK.

Victor: As long as you are using custom definitions, you can have your conclusions. But they don’t actually mean anything because all they are is your conclusion about your own definitions. You aren’t really saying anything about the thing.

David: Well, OK.

Victor: You’re just restating your own definitions in different ways.

David: If we--I understand your point--if we just focus purely on the form--yes, I agree it’s a tautology, and focussing purely on the form, a tautology has no meaning. It’s just a re-statement.

Victor: Well…

David: But…

Victor: Not quite, not quite.

David: If we factor in the content, then it becomes meaningful to us…

Victor: But that’s my point.

David: …as living human beings. So it’s the content

Victor: It’s the content.

David: …which makes the tautology meaningful.

Victor: A tautology, generally speaking, can be actually very meaningful because--think about it this way; tautology explicates the implicit. In mathematics, for example, any mathematical theorem is, strictly speaking, a tautology. But there are things that are implicit in your assumptions without being obvious and it takes a theorem, which is a series of tautological statements, to explicate it. So a tautology in and of itself is not a bad thing. Tautologies can be very useful.

David: Yep.

Victor: The real problem here is that when you try to relate your tautology to the world you immediately lose the certitude that you are seeking [Exactly! Good point--frankly, I think these guys are in agreement, even though they appear not to be--at least to one participant?].

David: Alright, a change of subject…[end of voluntary partial transcription service--that I sure hope has not been already provided elsewhere]

_________________
Between Suicides

.

Dan says, and Nat agrees to it in different words,

“All thinking is of dualistic nature and ultimate reality is non-dual. And therefore there is no possibility for the mind to truly grasp the nature of ultimate reality at all.” (but however, intelect [thinking] can grasp it)

Kevin says that they are not really two different things, and dual and non-dual exist at the same time.

I don’t understand how the concept 'cake' represents non-duality, and 'pieces of cake' represent duality?

Can any one of you explain how we arrive at non-dual?

_________________
---------

Haven't heard the show yet but I'd say that any grasping, arriving or experiencing (or state) is another form of slicing the cake. Any believe in having stopped the slicing is yet another form of slicing.

But that doesn't mean that there's no big cake :)

Diebert,



Hehehe... that’s a good one Diebert :)

However, although at times I too use ‘but that does not mean…’ thing, but generally avoid it.

Well, what I am asking is how does one arrive at the concept of One Big cake in the first place, and hold that to be the true nature of reality? That reality has some true nature other than what can be grasped, arrived at, experienced and so on…. And yet one is claiming in and of duality, (in other words consciousness, or conscious thinking) that some sort of non-duality lies beyond duality, which essentially means that it lies beyond consciousness. And that the definition of cake some how proves it, because when we cut it into pieces, it yet remains a cake, hence both exist simultaniously, a whole and the pieces.

Well, I don’t have a sweet tooth, so I will opt for a chicken, and the concept will still work. But I really don’t know what to say when I chop up a tree?

I simply don’t see that the genius of language, or how it is grammatically used, proves the nature of some ultimate reality as non-dual, which is beyond or say in comparison to superficial (non-ultimate) reality (duality)?

If that is the case, then is our pure logic, which is dependant on at least consciousness, which is further not possible without duality being around, hence is dependant on a superficial reality, and yet is capable of… I really don’t know what? It cannot be grasped, arrived at…. so… well? What the hell does such a concept really do?

I would really like one of the speakers to defend their position though, since it seems all three agree to it.

BTW…



In my opinion, it is only a matter of time that there will be no gap between mystical experiences and logical understandings, even where science is concerned. We are simply in the very beginning stages of a mental evolution; thirty or forty thousand years is an extremely short period to reach definitive conclusions. There is much much more that consciousness can really experience, and find “tangible” proofs in time to come. It is too early right now.

It has been a natural tendency of humans to conclude that I know it all, at any given point of time that is. It is simply pride in ones own particular experiences and the belief that nothing lies beyond his particular experiences or his particular interpretations of them that speaks.

Time will tell...

_________________
---------

Why would there be anything mystical about arriving at this particular concept? It would be no different from other conceptual thought processes. Tao can be named after all, only weasels deny that. Applying logic and honesty would be key, as well as having interest to delve in this particular topic.

Your usage of the words 'other' and 'beyond' look like problems contained in your question. Compare it to what you wrote before:

I was now able to listen to all of both shows.

The first show was easier to follow for me, as it was very easy to know whose voice was whose. With the second show, maybe due to the loss in sound quality, I couldn't always tell the difference between Kevin's voice and Nat's voice.

BTW, the argument Victor gave on how QRS redefine terms, reach conclusions and later try to sell those conclusions as applying to the whole world is similar to an argument that I made here about a month ago, about the same redefinition trick being used with terms such as "feminine" and "masculine". Needless to say, nobody even attempted to refute my argument.

-