Physics and Consciousness.
socratus
Science has demonstrated unequivocally
that our physical reality can not be separated
from our conscious awareness of it.
===========.
1.
Dr. Jahn is the founder of PEAR
(Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research).
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
From that site:
"The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that
human thought and emotion can produce measureable influences on
physical reality. The researchers have also developed several
theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results,
which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific
model."
Here is one of his articles that I found interesting:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jahn15_4.pdf
where he discusses scientific problems and models.
I got a chuckle out of this portion where Jahn is beginning to
contemplate panpsychism:
"I once had the privilege of an interview with the Dalai Lama, during
which I asked whether, from his perspective, the devices we employed
in our human/machine anomalies experiments were conscious. After some
reflection, he responded that if we regarded them as conscious, they
were conscious. This somewhat enigmatic but probably profound
criterion stimulated my subsequent rumination on the rampant
anthropomorphism we practice on our childhood toys, our automobiles,
and our computers, and led me to the radical proposition that all
definable entities could be regarded as possessing some form of
consciousness."
2.
Same Soul, Many Bodies:
Discover the Healing Power of Future Lives
through Progression Therapy (Paperback)
by Brian L. Weiss (Author) "EACH OF US IS IMMORTAL..."
http://www.brianweiss.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Same-Soul-Many-Bodies-Progression/dp/0743264347/ref=tag_tdp_sv_edpp_i/104-6916870-9115928
3.
Consciousness and the Quantum Physics.
Dualism of consciousness.
The Problem of Knowledge .
Quantum Theory of Consciousness:
Our computer-brain works on a dualistic basis.
Some psychologists compare our consciousness with iceberg.
The small visible part of this iceberg is our consciousness.
And the unseen (underwater) greater part of the iceberg is
our subconsciousness. Therefore they say, the man uses
only 10% of possibility of his brain.
And if it so, why doesn’t anybody teach us how
to develop our subconsciousness.
I think it is because there are few people who understand
that the processes of subconsciousness are connected
with quantum processes. The subconsciousness theory
closely united with quantum theory.
These quantum processes which take place in lifeless
(inanimate) nature also take place in our brain.
Our brain can be the laboratory in which we can
test the truth of quantum theory.
===== ========
"The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind"
- Chuang Tzu
The conflict between right and wrong can be explain
by the theory of “Quantum dualism of consciousness” .
============.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik./ Socratus.
adrian
that. After the hooplah to join.
First things first.
1: Ex-dean Tarrant of Harvard correctly spoke of the alleged
scientific method
2: in 'playfcpro' on internet I show by an in common protocol that the
SM is no different from ye olde oracular method, see nab.vfed.net.
3: The EPR logically showed that logic is both incomplete and bears
no relation to reality so called.
Hokay, see where that gets. Under 'counterfactuals' knowledge
discusses a"what
if' and ignores the others like If..then, if so...then, if so...what.
etc. Basically that is how we can approach E to, haha. create a theory
of what? We're a bit further along than Kant.
My view is that consciousness is a misnomer and is anyhow pandemic or
global. still quite taboo in formal knowledge. Given Alan Aspect's
1982 proof that particles are telepathic the paddock gate is open. If
particles are telepathic then we are. Anyhow particles are math
fictions and from waves it's moved into fields which are scale free so
it has to be infinite. At least for a 10-14 billion lightyear universe
+ dark matter, oops quantum sea, aether, etc to sustain itself it has
to be autopoietic, which makes it sentient and universal. If it does
not share information everywhere it will tear itself apart.
"We must assume behind this force [in the atom] the existence of a
conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all
matter." Max Planck, accepting the Nobel Prize for Physics, 1918
Kant held that god created the Universe once and for all, which is no
longer tenable.
IOWords most all of the basic points needed have already been made. So
what's left is to construct an episteme in which sentience is
pandemic, infinite, everywhere, that is both local and global, self
sustaining or autopoietic. I'd like to add that god, so called, would
have to be curious.
Since we're playing with counterfactuals, that is possibilities, it's
an interesting game. I don't subscribe to authorities much, as
whatever they say and find is plucked from their subjective
unconscious and foibled into dogma.
To get away from logical it follows that for any A and B, they can be
treated as(a) isolate, as done with words, (b) alternative by
dominance and subordination or Ab & aB, with (c) unified or integrated
as AB, tantamount to ab, which reduces 6 free will possibilities into
5 potentials. For us to have free will, could god avoid having any?
The brain is NOT a computer but a twoway part <-> whole information
transfer mechanism between body and, let's call it spirit or global
sentience. After all in a continuum everything is already fully
connected. So when freewill elects a use it sets up a special
arrangement. So to the issue of whether brain makes it dual the
comment is yes'no. In conventional parlance brain is usually
equivocated to intellect and conscious when intellect makes it a
verbal trick and conscious minds the body which is not all there is to
it.
adrian
Israel Sadovnik./ Socratus.
Georges Metanomski
--- On Sat, 8/23/08, adrian <ad...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> From: adrian <ad...@kol.co.nz>
> Subject: [epistemology 9232] Re: Physics and Consciousness.
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, August 23, 2008, 11:14 PM
> Hhm, rather a rare few folk are interested in epistemology,
> curious
> that. After the hooplah to join.
>
> First things first.
====================
G:
Let's restrict ourselves to the firstest:
====================
> 3: The EPR logically showed that logic is both incomplete
> and bears
> no relation to reality so called.
=====================
G:
The EPR paper did not deal with logic, nor with "reality"
whatever it may mean. It simply ridiculed the asinine
Copenhagen Interpretation, unfortunately not strongly
enough due to Einsteins inhibition to hurt his colleagues
and many essentials "buried under the (Podolsky's)
erudition [die Hauptsache ist sozusagen durch Gelehrsamkeit verschuettet]. Extended version in my
"The EPR Paradox" based upon the correspondence with
Einstein:
http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0g_epr.html
=====================
> My view is that consciousness is a misnomer and is anyhow
> pandemic or
> global. still quite taboo in formal knowledge. Given Alan
> Aspect's
> 1982 proof that particles are telepathic the paddock gate
> is open.
=================
G:
Open to a loony bin. Aspect's "proof" is apple sauce
ridiculed with the same arguments as those of EPR.
Georges.
=================
Georges Metanomski
--- On Sat, 8/23/08, adrian <ad...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> My view is that consciousness is a misnomer and is anyhow
> pandemic or
> global. still quite taboo in formal knowledge.
==============
G:
A little addendum to my previous.
Since Descartes knowledge and science are subjective
and founded in awareness.
Fatuous trials to "objectivise" awareness in form of
"conscious particles", of "Panpsychism", or whatever
are indeed banned from rationality into kitchen almanacs.
Georges.
==============
adrf
from Chaitin> quote:
By a mathematician: What is mathematics? Four provably equivalent definitions of mathematics:
1: Mathematics is the part of science you could continue to do if you woke up tomorrow and
discovered the universe was gone. I do not know the author of this elegant definition put on
the web by Dave Rusin.
2: The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before we can find them in
things. Albert Einstein.
3: In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them. John von Neumann
4: Mathematicians are mad tailors: they are making "all the possible clothes" hoping to make
also something suitable for dressing... Stanislaw Lem, "Summa Technologiae" (translated)
He adds: "For me, Goedel's results are the crucial evidence that stable self-contained systems
of reasoning cannot be perfect (just because they are stable and self-contained)
Thank you for your contribution to my welfare.
Adrian.
adrf
any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any error. Where science has been used in
the past to erect a new dogmatism, that dogmatism has found itself incompatible with the
progress of science; and in the end, the dogma has yielded, or science and freedom have
perished together.” J. Robert Oppenheimer
"John Campbell analog, feb 1962, editorial, quote p174,col 1:>
"The fool exists always and the prime characteristic is that while you can readily make a wise
man feel uncertain of his wisdom, it is absolutely impossible to make a fool doubt his wisdom",
end quote.
""If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life
you doubt, as far as possible, all things. Rene Descartes
"Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than
he already has." Rene Descartes
IFF you can make me doubt some of my statements, do try. Using pejoratives makes me laugh.
adrian
Georges Metanomski
--- On Sun, 8/24/08, adrf <ad...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
============
No, I can't. As your Campbell rightly said, it is
absolutely impossible to make a fool doubt his wisdom.
We'll leave it at that. Your future posts go unopened to
my trash.
Georges.
===========
einseele
language, which as tool is unable to bridge the gap.
Although words merit the fact they are able to outline, circle, that
very gap.
BTW, welcome to G's trash, there is a crowd in here, Schopenhauer
among others.
rgds
On 24 ago, 08:15, adrf <a...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> “There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free to ask any question, to doubt
> any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any error. Where science has been used in
> the past to erect a new dogmatism, that dogmatism has found itself incompatible with the
> progress of science; and in the end, the dogma has yielded, or science and freedom have
> perished together.” J. Robert Oppenheimer
> "John Campbell analog, feb 1962, editorial, quote p174,col 1:>
> "The fool exists always and the prime characteristic is that while you can readily make a wise
> man feel uncertain of his wisdom, it is absolutely impossible to make a fool doubt his wisdom",
> end quote.
> ""If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life
> you doubt, as far as possible, all things. Rene Descartes
> "Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than
> he already has." Rene Descartes
>
> IFF you can make me doubt some of my statements, do try. Using pejoratives makes me laugh.
>
> adrian
>
>
>
> Georges Metanomski wrote:
>
>
> >> My view is that consciousness is a misnomer and is anyhow
> >> pandemic or
> >> global. still quite taboo in formal knowledge.
> > ==============
> > G:
> > A little addendum to my previous.
> > Since Descartes knowledge and science are subjective
> > and founded in awareness.
> > Fatuous trials to "objectivise" awareness in form of
> > "conscious particles", of "Panpsychism", or whatever
> > are indeed banned from rationality into kitchen almanacs.
> > Georges.
>
> - Mostrar texto entre aspas -
adrf
"The bait is the means to get the fish where you want it. Catch the fish and you forget the
bait. The snare is the means to get the rabbit where you want it. Catch the rabbit and you
forget the snare. Words are the means to get the idea where you want it. Catch the idea and you
forget about the words. Where shall I find a man who forgets about words and have a word with
him". Chuang tzu.
Words are just noises. It's the attitude people impose on them that makes the difference.
Yeah, it seems every list, group, blog and knol has at least one defender of the faith. One
could call them pulpit martinets. He's got near 7000 emails to his name and not that well
approved. The Funny thing is that even the vastness of rhetoric lacks an apt label for it.
Darwin never noted that the human beast has an aptitude for getting itself screwed up.
""You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically
shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it is going to rise tomorrow. When
people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas
or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen in the
Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Indeed, I don't question the reality of a fork when eating,
though Uri Geller does.
adrian
adrf
Adrian
adrf
Let's see where we can get. Epistemology has to do with philosophy and not science.
HINTZ PAGELS: "We live in the wake of a physics revolution comparable to the Copernican
demolition of the anthropocentric world - a revolution which began with the invention of the
theory of relativity and quantum mechanics in the first decades of this century and which has
left most educated people behind" .See: http://www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/seminark.html
That's nice to know, us muggings can open our own mouths for a change. The interesting thing
will be when we share our own ideas what may pop up for what's in common for a group.
All authority originally writes up what they experience. It's a social game of outdated value.
NICK Herbert: "Object and subject have become inseparable from each other."
That needs correcting. For any pairing A and B, given free will or choice, we can
(a) treat it as isolate, as done with language as either A or B. eg space and time.
(b) pair them by dominance and subordination, Ab and/or aB
(c) join them in union as AB which is the same as ab, called a continuum or the aether or sea
of energy, etc.
This reveals a deficiency in logic which excludes by rules the 'what if' of speculation and
possibilities although by way of beliefs and assumptions this precedes logic. In a word there
is no such thing as a 'detached observer' but there is the embedded experient.
Although reality cannot be directly observed with our external five senses we have 10 x or more
inner senses we use all the time. We use them to project ideas abstracted with our inner
senses to construct a world view. We cannot do without one. We use it to exchange by location
in our body in a mapping used by the brain what we feel about things. That is, by nervous paths
all neural twitches are the same. They become different whether it happens in the toes, tum, or
anywhere in the body. This is hardwired in so we cannot avoid using this as a systems. That is
what subjectivity boils down to. We do not need to be taught or trained how it works or how to
do it. It goes on all the time.
It's when an externally imposed authority works to suppress this inner activity that condition
a results, aka politics we can do without. As intuition mode b foregounds as distinct and in
conflict. It's when we get into mode c that the fun begins. It goes on in the background as the
unconscious which is actually superconscious because it keeps the conscious in illusions and
fantasies as well as valid ideas. Think about it. The bottom line is with consciousness or
awareness knocked out there is no world to observe. YET we know we exist to notice there is no
world to observe; funny that. The social system by peddling the material hypothesis, totally
unproven, excludes mind and soul, sentience, spirit, prana and a 100 odd synonyms.
Consider in chatting that you get an itch in the toes, Does that mean you'd like to walk away,
kick someone to shut them up or a flea biting you, or mebbe an itchy bacterium? Only You can
know which one it is. The same happens with an itch in the tum, is it hunger, indigestion or
that detective hunch about whatever you'd better take notice of. In the abstract it's
undecidably ambiguous but speaking for oneself it's usually obvious. My favorite is: Having
one's thinking done by others imports problems you never asked for. Philosophers are fond of
writing down such ideas to see what kind of sense it makes.
adrian
adrf
Oh well I'll just carry on with an elementary introduction to episteaming.
Anybody ever thought about why in our society feelings and the subjective is taboo?
It's very simple really.
I'll defy anybody to explain the taste of, say, icecream or to describe a transparent glass
cube with so much as using those words. You can only share icecreaminess with somebody who has
already tasted an icecream. That is what the qualitative is about. Korzybski asked his audience
to pick on any word, define it, and re-define it without repeating themselves. After some three
to five repeats people end up with their finger in their mouth, where it starts before words
get involved. Go look at Onelook Dictionary to look up Alchemy. There's three 'quick'
definitions, the third by a "user" Me, haha, with the added editorial note of "(about)". It is
not "about" at all, words are about. Experience, raw, real experience does not use nor need
words. Mine is the only neutral definition.
It is not until, unless and only if you have personal, non-verbal experience of something that
you really and actually "know" where it's at. In German "know" comes as kennen and wissen,
where kennschaft is about things and Wissenschaft is OF experience. There's a whole raft of
kinds of know. Let me indulge. Some of is preen ourselves or fluff our feathers. But if you
borrow feathers at the "about" word level you cannot tell real from imaginary, phony or any
kind from one another. But with experience of the effects of preening you can. My cat knows, it
likes fish, fresh and hates canned cat food. There's absolutely no way you can make cat it
tinned food. We tried it once, only tinned food in its dish. What did cat dO? It went outside,
caught a bird, jumped on the stove, dumped the bird on an element and YOWLED. We got the
message. After that when cat sat in front of the fridge, screaming for attention, it got fish.
You don't believe me? Maybe your cat is not a smartass, easily fooled or maybe cat decided I
was smart enough to understand it. Who really knows? How will you force your cat to come
straight with you?
Why do I call it episteaming? Simple, You cannot get there unless, until and only if you get
sufficiently steamed up to find out in your own right. Take C.K. Chesterton, Quote:
""You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it."
“ It is not that they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see the problem.”
That's a sneaky, sly statement. What he means by truth is what I describe in the above
paragraphs. Rephrase: without real experience you cannot use logic. In other words you cannot
describe connections or relations short of experience. See if you can figure out the other one
on your own? "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. (George
Orwell means the same thing, nothing to do with Boolean logic at all.
NEXT:
Every discipline or speciality comes in answer to a specific question. After you rummage around
in that lot for a bit, can you name what your question, your curiosity is?
IF it relates to epistemology, would you know? If it does you'll immediately get into Ontology
and psychology. DO have fun willya. Can you explain why?
Adrian.
ornamentalmind
>
> - Show quoted text -
adrf
ideas or else. The universe is not made up of nouns. I'm not a pigeon so I don't need a pigeonhole.
adrian
ornamentalmind wrote:
> Gnostic vs agnostic?
>
> On Aug 24, 11:28 pm, adrf <a...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> Hmm, No bites, no bytes, no comments?
>>
>> Oh well I'll just carry on with an elementary introduction to episteaming..
>>
ornamentalmind
already 'knows' or one doesn't. (A notion found at least as early as
Plato) Said logic does not enter into truth.
Since different people use different definitions, I'll point quickly
at how I was using the terms.
Gnostic = (from gnosis, to know) one who knows.
Agnostic = the negation of gnostic, thus one who doesn't know.
adrf
things, impose a meaning on them, and contrive its knowing. You should distinguish between a
potential to learn, learning and making use of that learning as knowing. We have a capacity to
learn. It seems at some point people stop doing that. WHY? HOW?
Gnosticism, agnosticism and all other isms have one shot, prescribed concenptual answers.
That's allowing other people to do your thinking.
Agnosticism was coined by old man Huxley to the Jesuit ploy that he who denies god also admits
god exists. He denied either way that he could do that. So he admitted to a kind of unknowing.
And YOU don't even know the proper meaning of the terms you use. Why don't you start thinking
for yourself.
What about making up your own?
adrian
ornamentalmind
agnostic.
And, before I follow you on to "Why? How?", I'd like to clarify
whether you accept/embrace...Plato's notion of re-cognition or not. I
will assume you are familiar with it.
I ask this because it is inherent within what I was meaning to ask no
matter how clumsily I did it.
And, yes, perhaps we can get to 'making up your own' down the line
too.
adrf
wrote for openers? I don't accept Plato's notion on cognition. Why don't your drop your
intellectual baggage and make a fresh start? Plato started by accepting Socrates, who was
superb at asking questions and then dropped that as the Athens City Fathers killed Socrates. So
which of Plato's phase are you into?
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority,
merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not,
believed by a majority of the people." Giordano Bruno
As I wrote before, Every authority dug their insights out of their own, mistakenly called
subjective mind. And to get snide I don't have to pass your tests, do I? I've got a few decades
of thinking ahead of you and it will take a long time to get thru that lot.
Godel's proof implies that for any ONE error in one's thinking the whole lot is suspect until
you nail down the culprit. So how will you do that? And since one should never raise a
question unless you know that answer, the general approach to that is called problem solving,
ie make up a list of possible suspects and eliminate them one by one. Your list is rather long
as I can tell. There are better ways to tackle this, but they're not found in a textbook.
adrian
ornamentalmind
Yes, I did read them, but obviously not carefully enough.
In truth, I'm working at adding some 'intellectual baggage' to my
psyche. I've been very ignorant when it comes to things philosophical
and epistemological for many decades. For you, I'll do my best to
remember that you appear to not wish to delve into Plato's
thoughts...at least not of cognition.
While I can only guess that your question about which phase is
rhetorical, I'm too ignorant to know which phases you are talking
about.
You say that one must establish insights on ones own. I agree. I
seldom learn anything when I'm telling others what I already know.
You suggest decades of thought over me...would you mind pointing me in
the direction you seem to find is best? Or, are you merely talking
about age? And, no, I don't know the answer to these questions.
adrf
I'm 78 and took myself to school at age three. My openers lay out the field and it took me over
40 years to get rid of my intellectuall baggage, although as Alchemy suggests, keep the dross.
It does come in handy to outmaster the likes of self aggrandising twits like georges. He
started life, I think, as a schoolyard bully. He, haha, does not even know he was set up so now
he won't bother me with his borrowed featers. The pother is that one has to read them all,
which takes time. I took Ezra Pound's advice that there are a lot of copycats, one had best
ignore. I am highly intuitive, borderline channeling,'fey' really, which also comes in handy.
Like right now I was trying to remember Dante Alighieri's anagogic, symbolic, metaphoric as
four levels of language mentioned in Rg Veda, hymn 1.164 by Dirghatamas as 'language has four
levels of language of which ordinary people know only the one,' viz the similetic or literal,
as in "fact"; Facts don't exist. they're fabricated. It's not a fact unless pickled in a theory.
I "mind" things like a dog worrying at a bone until it comes to me.
It's all in there already and it comes as dreams in an anagogic or universal level. by way of
similar patterning. The other day I deamt of someone miming an action I did not understand and
it then came to me in words as parametric analysis, I'd never used or heard about. When I
looked it up on internet, surprise, surprise, I found it. It's best to go one's own way and
inveigle the unconscious to cooperate. Although it helps to read others who've been there. The
Early English poets are quite good at it. One can dig only so deep with changing one's attitude
and ideas at which rockbottom point one finds certain bits one simply cannot change which make
up one's true character. The points made by others only serve to confirm one's grasp is the
"truth" as then it's obvious what is meant which before that reads as nonsense or incomprehensible.
Epistemology is something else. One collects working rules to play by and changes them as
understanding deepens which seem to be never ending. We're trained or brainwashed to believe in
theory as absolutes and which does not help at all. If you're interested go read some at
nab.vfed.net, poke it in the browser it won't appear in a search engine. I'm not into
stereotypes. The moment I make up my mind about something I get a load of experience and
insights that show me there's always deeper. The important bit is to be open and willing to
learn at a same time as keeping to one's own mind.
Here's a number of my 'proverbs' that pop up from certain experiences, haha.
Quote:
As soon as you mature enough to write intelligibly I'll reply.
YOU need dynamite up your steatopiggiest.
For anything strange we try to disambiguate unto stereotyping
Hegel: Anything that displays otherness we try to suborn or kill or ignore
To strenghten one's faith, feed it some dogma.
The last thing a non-genius can do is assess who is a genius.
Death is painless. It can become very attractive.
How to be yourself and lose the popularity stakes.
You have to swallow an awful lot of knowledge before you can spit it out into its long term
consequences.
It's always simple once and after you know how it works plus the jargon.
We're all prone to treat our personal experience as akin to or the same as reality. Freud calls
that projection.
To be classed as gifted you need parents who can recognise and admit that .
If you swim in shit expect to get dirty
Internet is the only robot that self replicates
If ignorance is bliss admitting it is exstacy
If the world is weird why do we want it simple?
Man is a monkey of infinite sensitivity, easily brutalised, for which he never forgives himself.
Having your thinking done for you imports problems you did not ask for.
The hardest job is being oneself.
Being involved gets things done. The problem is to uninvolve when done.
Everybody knows what simple is but who can contrive it?
I wish I could debug your thinking.
If we could choose our parents they would be childless.
Put in the knife where it hurts the most and Ohh the relief when the pus comes out.
etc.
adrian
archytas
exemplar that we can establish rules that work, but then can also
intuit more by discovering mistakes and exploring the ground that
logical, iterative manoeuvres produces when the rules are working.
adrf
Aristotle is flesh,
All flesh is edible,
Therefore Aristotle is edible.
Makes good sense to sharks, cannibals and bacteria. One can construct even weirder things.
It does not matter whether A is my cat or me, excepting potplants.
adrian
ornamentalmind
remember aspects of WWII...but not many.
My path was all too 'normal' for decades...and, your reference to
Alchemy points towards my last two score year.
On occasion I quote aspects of the Rig Veda...but more of a comic
book..shallow insight way...stuff like the following which is loosely
related to something you said: “All companions are given both eyes and
ears, But each man differs in his quickness of mind. There are some
who are like deep refreshing lakes, and yet others like shallow pools
of water.” Rig-Veda
My intuition isn't highly honed yet...I continue to empty now.
And, yes, I find that much that was opaque to me on first or even 9th
reading can become clear.
To be clear, theory is never absolute...it is always
relative....always.
And, I do recognize a few of the proverbs and will not bore you with
regurgitation.
adrf
Rg Veda, together with ZEN are my favorites now. And yes, reality does not use absolutes. Just
woke up with: You cannot do philosophy with a yardstick. It's the quickness of mind or nous,
but not conventional IQ that makes the difference. Indian rhetoric has it as four kinds of
hearer: Those who understand (a) immediately, ie intuitives, (b) upon reflection, using true
reason, (c) upon being shown, and (d) never ever at all. And having a degree is not proof of
being able to think.
Although its tough reading
http://vfed.net/sankhya/sankhyakarika.pdf G. Srinivasan filed SANKHYAKARIKA 209.85.165.104
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Secret Of Sankhya:. Acme Of Scientific. Unification. By. G.
Srinivasan. Transliterated From. The Sankhya Karika. In Sanskrit. By. Ishwara Krishna ...
http://www.geocities.com/om3namaskar/index.html website of srinivasan g.
is very worthwhile getting stuck into. All 3 refs point to the same text. It makes certain that
there was a civilisation before the flood.
For brain.exe. I've got a copy, on that silly left right gazzaniga brain trope I score 52/48.
In a summary I collect theories and methods. Given up on collecting assumptions, too B many of
them. Quite like figures of speech, cannot be managed into order.
adrian
Georges Metanomski
--- On Tue, 8/26/08, archytas <nwt...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'd take a different tack on Godel. ...
===============
Before taking it have a look at
" LIAR'S PARADOX" in
http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/C_MODELING_AND_LOGIC/CB_CRISIS_OF_NOUMENALISTIC_LOGIC/cbd_liar_paradox.html
which clearly shows that of all cortege following
Russell's fatuous "logic" Goedel was the most asinine,
not worth while losing a minute to tackle with.
Georges.
===================
adrf
Since no context is given one may not exclude the possibility that he spoke in a fit of honesty
to a non-Boeotian. And that, dear boy is what all paradox suffers from, that and literalistic
treatment of "the word" and a bootless belief in the one word, one meaning, which Wikipedia
calls disambiguation. So far nobody has disproven Godel. With 36,600,000 Websites on paradox.
why be asinine enough to 'believe' one interpretation? http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-liar.htm
has it that: "Experts in the field of philosophical logic have never agreed on the way out of
the trouble despite 2,300 years of attention." Binary Logic is not a reliable guide to truth.
Tarski was able to prove that the assumptions [in the Liar's paradox with 165,000 sites] lead
to semantic incoherence. It will be simpler to call it an oxymoron.
The devil's path is a far more intriguing paradox. Have you an interpretaion of how to UNdouble
bind a Double Bind? as originated by Gregory Bateson?
adrian
archytas
social science Godel was hailed as somehow allowing intution at the
expense of hard work - strangely lots of brain dumps of twaddle
lacking intuition followed. I quite like the idea of reliable
software doing work that would otherwise consume lifetimes, much as I
welcome technology in farming to save broken backs - yet there is a
price to pay if this is just to doom us to fat idleness and idle
criminality or the inanities of single Gaussian copula based super-
computing to keep an idle rich or consume us in Dr. Strangelove's
Game. We do not pay enough attention to what logic becomes once it is
playing a part in practical matters, and when idiots render it
unquestionable.
On 26 Aug, 09:17, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd take a different tack on Godel. ...
>
> ===============
> Before taking it have a look at
ornamentalmind
And, yes, IQ tests specific test taking...not full agility of
cognition etc.
Thanks for the 4 rhetorics...direct apprehension, intuition,
contemplation, analogy and ignorance make a good list.
About the ancient floods...until I moved to the Pacific NW, I had
never heard of the Missoula Floods...a fascinating thing to learn
about...and see all around this area.
One generic site to jump off of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods
By the way, I chatted with Bjornstad a bit when he came here to talk
about it. His newer book "On the Trail of the Ice Age Floods, A
geological field guide to the Mid-Columbia Basin", although dry...and
more of a how to travel the area..is very well documented.
One last one from the Rig Veda:
"When Men of the Word, companions, worship, in their hearts refining
flashes of insight, then some become fully conscious of knowledge,
while others go their way mouthing empty words." Rig-Veda
Yes, heuristics perhaps...and a coherent praxis for sure.
On Aug 26, 12:22 am, adrf <a...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> That's fascinating. Lately I don't remember some stuff. It became unimportant. Alchemy and the
> Rg Veda, together with ZEN are my favorites now. And yes, reality does not use absolutes. Just
> woke up with: You cannot do philosophy with a yardstick. It's the quickness of mind or nous,
> but not conventional IQ that makes the difference. Indian rhetoric has it as four kinds of
> hearer: Those who understand (a) immediately, ie intuitives, (b) upon reflection, using true
> reason, (c) upon being shown, and (d) never ever at all. And having a degree is not proof of
> being able to think.
> there was a civilisation before the flood.
>
> For brain.exe. I've got a copy, on that silly left right gazzaniga brain trope I score 52/48.
> In a summary I collect theories and methods. Given up on collecting assumptions, too B many of
> them. Quite like figures of speech, cannot be managed into order.
>
> adrian
>
>
>
> ornamentalmind wrote:
> > adrf, thanks for the opening. We are of similar vintage...since I can
> > remember aspects of WWII...but not many.
> > My path was all too 'normal' for decades...and, your reference to
> > Alchemy points towards my last two score year.
> > On occasion I quote aspects of the Rig Veda...but more of a comic
> > book..shallow insight way...stuff like the following which is loosely
> > related to something you said: “All companions are given both eyes and
> > ears, But each man differs in his quickness of mind. There are some
> > who are like deep refreshing lakes, and yet others like shallow pools
> > of water.” Rig-Veda
> > My intuition isn't highly honed yet...I continue to empty now.
> > And, yes, I find that much that was opaque to me on first or even 9th
> > reading can become clear.
> > To be clear, theory is never absolute...it is always
> > relative....always.
> > And, I do recognize a few of the proverbs and will not bore you with
Georges Metanomski
merits of technology, I simply wrote a proof that Goedel's
Theorem is the unsurpassed summit of idiocy ever committed
in pseudo-science. A point, that's all. Did you read it?
Georges.
archytas
dashing about in a sinking U-boat may well have had more to do with
breaking Enigma than any fatuous 'logic' about any false proposition
implying all others. That plus some decent Polish work before the
war. I've met people who could apply searing intellect to problems
that had me like a dog chasing its tail. Some of them could even
dress themselves - others seemed to use 'logic' to rationalise
cheating on their wives. Cheating on partners does not have to be
problematic, or even necessary. I'm wondering whether your
unsurpassed summit was surpassed - perhaps by von Newman and his
sidekick Morgenstern.
On 26 Aug, 14:27, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Whatever social science may prattle and whatever the
> merits of technology, I simply wrote a proof that Goedel's
> Theorem is the unsurpassed summit of idiocy ever committed
> in pseudo-science. A point, that's all. Did you read it?
> Georges.
>
adrf
blame you for my deficiency in twisting my mind around this paragraph's line of thought I'll
declare myself non-plussed. There is no such beast as reliable software. The Geek comment is
that by the time the bugs are removed a new version shows up. Software is rated for periods of
duration between crashes. A copula being a liaison or association I suspect Gauss produced a
way to produce a single instance. Wikipedia is rather obtuse on it. If so then it's precisely
your idiots who latch onto a single instance or occasion and insist it's THE one and only truth
around? Moreover it is because even logicians seldom know the limits and faults of their craft
that inanities arise. So unwrapping your verbosity into the plainest of statements are you
saying that people can write nonsense? A simple yes or no would do.
"Archytas of Tarentum was a Greek mathematician, political leader and philosopher, active in
the first half of the fourth century BC (i.e., during Plato's lifetime)."
Are you really that old? It reminds me of Anthony calling Brutus "an honorable man".
Georges seems to suffer from a rather quaint form of autism. I wonder does he take his
medication regularly?
adrian
adrf
I'm very grateful for your pointing out what not to read, saves time.
adrian
Georges Metanomski
--- On Tue, 8/26/08, archytas <nwt...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Yes Georges and even agreed. I'd guess this - one brave
> RN officer
> dashing about in a sinking U-boat may well have had more to
> do with
> breaking Enigma than any fatuous 'logic' about any
> false proposition
> implying all others. That plus some decent Polish work
> before the
> war.
============
G:
Polish Notation of Boole Algebra indeed underlies all
computing and other "logical" electronics. Yet, it has
nothing to do with alleged logic of Russell's
bandwagon.
============
I've met people who could apply searing intellect
> to problems
> that had me like a dog chasing its tail. Some of them
> could even
> dress themselves - others seemed to use 'logic' to
> rationalise
> cheating on their wives. Cheating on partners does not
> have to be
> problematic, or even necessary. I'm wondering whether
> your
> unsurpassed summit was surpassed - perhaps by von Newman
> and his
> sidekick Morgenstern.
===============
G:
That sounds interesting, but I don't grasp it in detail.
Could you, pls. give a link or pointer?
Georges.
================
adrf
wording. Antiquity used the heart as a symbol'image of holistic understanding that results by
balancing and integrating inner and outer. It's in the balancing act of the "quick mind" that
the quality of insight emerges. Intuition usually pops up when relaxed and not thinking of
anything in particular. It's a bit of a timid beastie. At first it pops up sporadically so
needs encouragement. One poet mentions that to give it a chance you have to appear to do a lot
of nothing much. I use it by poking in the expectancy that I've known this before and simply
wait for it to pop up. In writing I put in a string of ???? and when I go back over it again
fill in the gaps. Usually works in second but may take weeks. In my case it comes in the
abstract, without form but it can deploy every sensory style of imagination. Fi in seeing auras
one relies on the background part of the retina which detects motion. So you have to relax
seeing into somewhat like a blank stare or use ganzfeld, ie, cut a pingpong ball in half, stick
together with elastic and clap over the eyes. I tried Lilly's epsom salts sensory deprivation
bath but found it disappointing.
LOGIC, it appears that the use of "ALL" guarantees a wild generalisation and carries a buried
paradox.
I'll start on my Episteme, next post.
adrian
How many people on this list? There seem to be, as usual, a lot of lurkers? I fancy I sort of
have the measure of this group, using the foot putting tactic. The composition is fairly
typical. "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have
to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken, computer geek. More usually many of then rush
in to plaster their own over them. I'll clear one bicker first. From Onelook:
sentience: state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness.
RogetIII, 1995 concurs with several others there's no synonym for sentience. That's why I
picked on it. Of course it includes man's, but it applies to everything for once, including IT
or intelligence transcendent, aka god. It makes it out as a universal, so subsidiary instances.
I suppose one could say that every baby, etc. everything, is born with undifferentiated
sentience which is soon filled up with an individual content.
adrian
ornamentalmind
I've only dabbled in it and Tibetan...which uses a subset of the same
alphabet but is an entirely unique language from it...shared words not
withstanding.
I've been 'working' on the heart recently...and I'm not sure it is
just a symbol...and, the notion of not-inside, not-outside is nothing
new.
Little by little, I learn how to hear (not look for, not listen for)
but to know intuition when it arises...so far, coaxing is of little
use. Oh, you are of like experience as I when you give it space to
arise...yes.
He whom I have learned from...mainly...was mentioned in John's "The
Center of the Cyclone" and heard John back in the 70s...along w/Ram
Das et al
The road back home from that individual content is that of the Fool
too.
adrf
simple use. It conforms to Lamarkism who promoted the idea that use makes evolution. Fed Hoyle
points out that Bio-evolution jumps by entire units, not bits at a time, so one can only
conclude there's an intelligence behind it. A humbler explanation is that the scope and range
of one's 'knowing' improves with use so the associational paths become a freely accessible
network like streets in a town. Babies are now known to install or carve their own neural
pathways making for individuation.
adrian
adrf
Quite often a paradigm change is preceded or accompanied by the advent of a new trope like the
hologram. Currently we're having an overload of them buzzing around. In a hologram, as
everybody seems to know right now, the information is distributed everywhere. It was promoted
by Pribram and Bohm, a physicist and a neurologist. Our mind actually thinks in patterns, not
objects in space.
Although it is the quality and calibre of the person that decides it has little to do with the
theory or mapping of the territory. Basically an epistem orparadigm enables a shared and public
world model for mass communication like the Alchemical body, mind and spirit vs the material
hypothesis in an only material world. Boyle, the Chemist wrote in his Diary whether it was
possible to account for the world mechanically. The answer is now out and is NO, we cannot,
with a heap of reasons found.
The major problem with a new episteme comes to enabling an alternative mapping of our world to
take advantage by. It now has to include intelligence or sentience which needs either an
overhaul of scientific theory, now unsuccessful for nigh a century. The reason is political as
a small power elite treats the masses like a farmer does his crop and stock, for profit.
Nevertheless there's no stopping the grass growing. Garyiaev and his team point out that the US
junk DNA is a holographic projector. They've proven their case several ways but unless one
knows Russian information in English is scarce on the ground.
A difficulty is harmonic resonance or the interaction of the specturm of frequncies with one
another. The latest fad out on that is binaural brain bending. Feed different herz frequencies
into the left and right ear with a stereophone, not speakers, and the difference in frequency
is heard in the brain. The reason we have earlobes while animals have mobile ones is the
advantage of decibels at a distance, so a dog can hear a 100 times better than us. We can
detect location at short runaway distance, obviously a survival tactic. Our earlobes have
those curlicues that introduce a Doppler shift which enables precise location which has to be
centred in the head. I've been watching earlobes a while and they're as different as
fingerprints. Whales and Bats do thesame thing but in different ways again. Fish have a line of
sound pits alongside the body in order to keep a school together. That is to fool sharks and
preditors just like the big eyes on butterflies. As per usual the moment mane invents a new
mousetrap Nature invents a new mouse, by James Carswell. It actually happens to be rats. When a
rat finds new food it pisses on it and if after a few days nothing disturbs it, it is safe to
eat. Rats can run in the dark along paths of piss. If you want a way to get rid of rats
permanently ask me. I don't know about cockroaches.
Along comes another trope. the transducer. With 8,380,000 websites do have fun convincing
yourself how they work. Simply put a transducer converts any form and kind of energy into
another. An egg, lightbulb, microphone, speaker, heatpump you name it there's likely one for
it. A recent lot is bio-transmutation introduced by C.L. Kervran. It's not cold fusion but our
body can transmute certain essential elements.
Here comes the original idea. All our senses, 5 external and about 10 that internal are all
transducers. The hindbrain regulates rhythms which are fed directly into the forebrain core.
That's how we regulate our just above zero and near forty Herz brainwaves, each one of which
governs certain of our mind patterns. A Baby cannot walk, talk or piss until its brain can
produce certain syncopated herz rhythms. Antiquity used music as its major trope for it. Sufism
though used wine and getting drunk to discuss mystical states. Shamanism used drumming. Once
you realise how such 'trope-ic' image transfer works it opens up like a cracked walnut. It's
why occultism used to talk about correspondences as analogs by way of harmonic resonance.
adrian.
ornamentalmind
shrinks and Buddhists present. He discussed stuff w/HHDL. His
implicate order glows some.
Later, I joined a local “Bohm Dialogue” group…some light there…even
saw some movies w/him and Jiddu Krishnamurti. The group died after a
few years with a whimper.
By the way, when it comes to the material world, I see it as being in
opposition to nothing…merely one aspect of the complete (integral)
man.
I remember making alpha wave generators in our electronics shop in the
early 70s…as much as it was a small arrow, like entheogens, it is an
overall failure.
When I lived in Florida, besides Boric acid, I mainly learned to co-
exist with the “Palmetto Bugs”…read: large, very noisy flying roaches.
For materialists, when it comes to ‘self’ and identity…IF one wishes
to do so, hormones and trophins must be remembered beyond the material
brain itself. Quite often such glands can be felt …at least during
meditation and other states.
And, as a dancing black foot, the wine is often found within the
Zhikr. Once, while in fanaa with Jelaluddin Loras, I noted he only did
one way…not the nine of the School where I learned to play the taksim.
Such is the way of harmonics.
archytas
some interesting, if glib, character assassination on von Newman and
economics generally. The work of Ludwig and Snell in structuralism in
physics could be applied generally to issues of just how much
approximation is involved in problems that are assumed to be logical
in form, with the approximations and root metaphors soon forgotten,
let alone potentials for bias. The essence for me is that we oversate
the role of logic in complex systems and get consumed by it, instead
of looking for the logics that can be expressed from more empirical
findings (Alain Connes - a good website, though depressingly
mathematical given my limted abilities).
I don't hold with religions, yet there are similarities between the
resonances of maths with practical systems and these ponderings into
'cosmic sensing'. Something has to be better than belief in a war of
all against all written up in minimax maths.
ornamentalmind
verifiable.