Evgenii
p. 72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even
though, as I said, that by itself won’t really change the
reflexes. But if we don’t think of it clearly then all our
attempts to get into this will go wrong. Clear thinking implies
that we are in some way awakened a little bit. Perhaps there is
something beyond the reflex which is at work – in other words,
something unconditioned.”
p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If
everything is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the
very fact that we are sometimes able to see new things would
suggest that there is unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material
structure of the brain is unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”
p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the
movement of intelligence, then there is some possibility of
getting into this.”
p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then
it would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
conditioning. Is that clear?”
p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the
unconditioned, then we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we
assume that there is the unconditioned, again we are going to
be stuck – we will produce an image of the unconditioned in the
system of conditioning, and mistake the image for the
unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that there may be the
unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in
our thought for possibilities.”
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.
Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into them. I cannot resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.�
Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude - and change the continuation of anything?
It all comes from my agnosticism: we know so little and don't knwo so much. Some newer knowledge infiltrates our base - in adjusted format, of course, how our primitive mindset of today can apply it - but our knowledge-base does grow.�That means my disregard for 'older' thoughts (e.g. of yesterday...).�I am on the basis of "I don't know".�
In another line there was mention of statistical analysis.�
Statistics is (IMO) a no-no, it is upon our arbitrary (present?) norderlines within which we COUNT te appropriate items. As we gather new information the borderlines change and our statistics becomes irrelevant.
Analytics, however, is restricted to the (present?) inventory of structural etc. parts in our (statistically applied?) system of a presently KNOWN composition. The real results may be ingenious, but insufficient: restsricted to today's knowledge.�
I leave my doubts on the 'anticipatory' for tomorrow.�
RegardsJohn M
On 9/6/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into them. I cannot resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.�Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude - and change the continuation of anything?
They are justified by their success in prediction.� "Random" doesn't mean "anything can happen".� In the successful theories the randomness is narrowly constrained and random distributions are accurately predicted.
> Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude
> Statistics is (IMO) a no-no,