|
Post by tute on Oct 30, 2018 6:09:35 GMT 10
There is nothing (no action) that is free of consequences so the concept of FREE WILL is of course a nonsense. FREE WILL has always been a cop out by worshipers for their God's not helping when someone makes the "shit hit the fan". It is nothing more and nothing less. ...........................................................................................................................
There appears to be some confusion in here on the subject of free will....
you are part right Col, tho I fail to see how the God's influence outcomes.... do you have some inside knowledge?
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, then you are not free at all. You have free will when you are free to think and act in unison with that freedom, be it for better or for worse.
And.... an article of interest for freedom lovers..... of special interest to those avid followers of the Chinese structured system.
All to be in force and fully operational by 2020....
www.businessinsider.com.au/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Oct 30, 2018 8:23:28 GMT 10
Col is right.
There is no such thing as free will. This does not mean that therefore everything is determined.
Why do theologically inclined people think, firstly that there is free will ... and if not then determinism is the only alternative.
Flora grow free .. their path is not fore-ordained.
The superstitious belief in 'consciousness' is so pervasive and so many can't get past it.
|
|
|
Post by qjumper on Oct 30, 2018 9:25:55 GMT 10
Thanks Tute and Greg.
I do have insider knowledge and so does everyone else. My insider knowledge is called the evening news.
Essentially, when it comes to so called "free will" the news gives us the more serious stuff, newsworthy, not so much the trivial. The news gives us W W W W and H and news usually starts with the consequences followed by who when where what and how.
Recent news examples where the result of so called free will has been beamed to our homes are USA parcel bombs, mass killing of Jews in their place of worship, the Cricket Australia report.
When I was working with Queensland Criminal Code law = Environmental Law under the Criminal Code it was accepted that no lawful document with an ADJECTIVE in it was enforceable.
So it does not surprise me that people like us have difficulty with a Free (as an adjective) Will. Basically there is no such thing as "free will" in legal terms. So it remains a cop-out term used by disappointed god botherers.
In other words free will aint gunna keep perps out of jail but I can't speak for purgatory.
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Oct 30, 2018 10:32:28 GMT 10
Now, you may wish to say that this is all tosh - and maybe it is, I don't care - but it's really not enough to say that and advise me (and those who ask themselves the same questions) to run down to the bookstore and buy up stuff on Natural Selection or whatever subject you think is relevant. If you want to enlighten me, make a contribution to the topic - I need to hear the arguments either for or against free will and/or the relevance of consciousness to it. Do we have it or not? Dear Angels and little Saints ... ?? I'm trying to say that all our reactions and responses are driven by Natural Selection. That means we don't have free will and we don't have no-free will. We have a third thing which is neither of the above. We are biological dynamic beings and operating in an eco-system, we are just a part of this system. Where we affect the operation and the operation affects us. Just a cog. We are not driven to act rigidly and to a pattern, nor blossom uncontrollably and uncertainly. There is no past and no future. There is only the present, we're in it, no choice. Does a bee have free will? A Leopard? Free-will is nonsense, just as a state of grace is nonsense. You have to premise that it exists before you can decide if you have it. Answer this, if you haven't got it, where is it? It's a ludicrous concept. Haven't you noticed, that even in your opening post you were powerless to define it. There is no free-will, no no-free-will .. there is just the dynamic caprice of Nature. Free-will is a theist proposal. A theist belief. Thanks, Greg, for your statement. Whether we neither have nor have not free will, or whether we both have and have it not I'm not sure. The idea attracts, though I don't know that it's related to the relative significance of our individual being in the great cosmos of being. It either exists or it doesn't. If a tiger has free will why wouldn't a flea? Are there gradations of free will? One might think that a tiger has more than a flea and a human more than a tiger, but this exercise of will is still constrained by the framework of possible alternatives that each functions in, isn't it? To have a consistent ontological basis for whatever one thinks about freedom of will, Tute suggests we start with the ontological non-dualism of Advaita Vedanta**. (I think that's where I start, too.) The best alternative, I think, would be to start from Emergentism, or Physicalism##, also non-dualist. I think that's where Greg starts from. One is Idealist; the other Materialist. Neither is tied to any theistic or paradisiacal soteriology (philosophy of salvation), so the ethical outcomes of either ontology should be the same for each - based on culture, upbringing, life-experience and reflection. Idealism, physicalism - to me here in the forest it's all same-same. I don't mind. After all, it's the thinking about it that counts, not the outcome (and the thinking only counts because it's just something we like to do). We shall not cease from explorationAnd the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. ..................And all shall be well andAll manner of thing shall be wellWhen the tongues of flames are in-folded Into the crowned knot of fire And the fire and the rose are one.
(T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding) ** Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hindu philosophy and religious practice, and one of the classic Indian paths to spiritual realization. The term Advaita refers to its idea that the soul (true Self, Atman) is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman). The followers of this school are known as Advaita Vedantins, or just Advaitins, and they seek spiritual liberation through acquiring vidyā, meaning knowledge, of one's true identity as Atman, and the identity of Atman and Brahman. (Wikipedia) ## In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical. Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. (Wikipedia)
|
|
|
Post by tute on Oct 31, 2018 6:45:52 GMT 10
Hmmm….. sometimes I wonder where the folk within this forum gather the info that enables their judgments…
For example this extract from a post recently….. Quote:
'Dear Tute, please don't give me your pseudo-quasi-misinformed religious ideas on Science (capital S) because you have no answers either. The best you've got is the de-bunked theory of Intelligent Design. Your premise is that there is a Universal Intelligence (conscious) that's gunna, or can, or will, on the unknown day of ressurection reveal all and confound the wisdom of the wise.'
At no time has Tute ever maintained or mentioned that a Universal Consciousness has anything remotely to do with the Resurrection; or that the combined Universal Consciousness can possess any capability beyond that which can be collectively apportioned. (FFS.. are libraries…or any repository of collective knowledge; or the collective will of any given number of people intent on a specific task, suddenly become non existent. With all due respect, I may have made reference to the Universal Consciousness as being integrated into the power of prayer (or will) coincidently the topic under discussion within this thread.
Then in the next paragraph… quote:
'The simple facts are: neither you nor Epic can provide an account of life or the cosmos that does not rely on a whole host of mysterious ephemeral spirits. And your appalling lack of understanding means you fill the vacant gaps in your theories with non material values like the 'universal consciousness'.
Is this last paragraph not one of the pot calling out the kettle. It is true that I have never spared my distaste and condemnation for the more often than not arrogant/ignorant atheist.
Irrespective of the fidelity, I still often rejoice over the atheists inability to function with the grey matter that the providence they deny has bestowed on them.... or then again... perhaps it didn't.
But no matter.... I guess a little bit of rebounding flack can be expected and hence justified.
I had given this contributing poster more credit for expertise, depth of knowledge as well as a prowess in comprehending the complexities of the cosmos. Its rather dismaying then to witness this defective harangue of nonsense centered on spiritual double speak. Would you like to try again Greg ? I could have appreciated those comments more if the portrayal of that flack was accurate, I am also amused with the depiction of ephemeral spirits dominating mine, (as/or indeed Epics) life within this cosmos. Back in the BB days Col used to rant on about the graveyard switch…. Anyone that dared mention alternative beliefs/religion was condemned to his personal vision of spirits…. with woo woo noises in perfect timing to the rattling of his pill box accompanied on the side by an ancient ex court house word processor.
I know we are getting on a bit.... and those primordial instincts are subject to change, but you don’t fit that woo woo bill as a means of producing hallucinating interpretive's .... do you?
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Oct 31, 2018 9:45:14 GMT 10
If my flack is inaccurate it's because you never actually take a stand. You never give an account of your views on the Universe, life n all that.
You believe in a universal consciousness, because you've said so before, even on the ol' shed-on-line. This consciousness must exist, would still exist, even if Earth and everything in it, on it, was vaporised. True or False? Please answer this clearly.
Does your Universal Consciousness have the status of Entity, or just the combined knowledge of humans currently alive. Please answer this clearly.
After all, it could hardly be a universal consciousness if it relied on at least one human being alive to maintain it, could it?
So please give some account of how you see the process working? Don't be shy!
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Oct 31, 2018 20:42:12 GMT 10
This [universal] consciousness must exist, would still exist, even if Earth and everything in it, on it, was vaporised. True or False? Please answer this clearly. Does your Universal Consciousness have the status of Entity, or just the combined knowledge of humans currently alive. Please answer this clearly.
I like these questions, and the context in which they appear. The first question reminds me of the philosophical thought experiment, "If a tree falls in a forest and there's no sensate being around to hear, does it make a sound? There's some discussion of this on Wikipedia. Here's an extract from the article "If a tree falls in a forest". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forestCan something exist without being perceived? – e.g. "is sound only sound if a person hears it?" The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces involves the existence of the tree (and the sound it produces) outside of human perception. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists. It is human beings that are able to perceive it. George Berkeley in the 18th century developed subjective idealism, a metaphysical theory to respond to these questions, coined famously as "to be is to be perceived". Today metaphysicists are split. According to substance theory, a substance is distinct from its properties, while according to bundle theory, an object is merely its sense data. The definition of sound, simplified, is a hearable noise. The tree will make a sound, even if nobody heard it, because it could have been heard.
My tentative answer for now is that if one presumes there is a universal consciousness, or unified field of consciousness, then that consciousness underpins all phenomena. It is not dependent on phenomena. It's irreducible. How that can be is unknown; it's only knowable - if knowable at all - by inference from the existence of conscious phenomena. If there is no universal/unified field of consciousness, then consciousness is simply an epiphenomenon of each individual sensate being's brain. And if that is so, then there can be no "combined [superordinate] knowledge of human beings currently alive". How would the consciousness of each human being (or other sensate being) 'combine'? What would be the mechanism?
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Nov 1, 2018 5:21:50 GMT 10
I do agree!! OUR aim is to produce & post posts to share OUR Knowledge and to maintain 3763 years old discussions/dissertations...ALIVE!! Pedro
PS. There is NO immediate need to agree on ANY of OUR ideas/beliefs !!
|
|
|
Post by tute on Nov 1, 2018 6:04:49 GMT 10
Greg, if its all right by you I don’t think I will fall for the check box routine, mainly because the premise’s of first order logic that make up the parameters of what Epic has now also introduced to our discussion… serve only to confuse; and like Pedro, I am confused enough. As to my personal persuasion (belief) relating to the realm of the cosmos, I am only prepared to add that to satisfy my past curiosity it has always been one of cynicism with a preference for what is not, rather than what is, so as to arrive at any personal faith thereto.
Plus, I have only ever maintained that I am a seeker. No more, no less…. Consequently the reliance on your memory for my past modus operandi are doubtful, though hopefully the information included below fits the purpose to where I/we are now at….. this article gives good account, it also makes perfect sense to me…. I shall also include an Advaita Vedanta article that would be best read in conjunction…. (should I be able to find the said segment amongst my archives)
By no means would these articles or the authors total my beliefs, nor should they be construed as any form of gospel... however they do and would lead in part, or give basis to my position and opinion
Quantum Entanglement The Universal Consciousness Jason Lincoln Jeffers Einstein once said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” What if science, philosophy, and spirituality have been on tangential paths in their pursuit of the truth about creation, each one stemming from distinct perceptions of reality but ultimately converging at a singular point of divine truth? I believe that it’s just a matter of time before a unified field theory or “one theory of everything” is proposed and proven to be true. There is indeed a divine order to the cosmos, an underlying intelligence. Some define this intelligence as physics and leave it at that. But is it so hard to comprehend that science and divine intelligence (God) are one and the same? After all, in the end, everything stems from the Source. In quantum mechanics there is a property known as entanglement or non-local connection. This is not a theory but a real phenomenon. The physicists John Bell and Alain Aspect established that the universe at its most basic level is nonlocal. It proves that information doesn’t need to travel from point A to point B because it doesn’t need to travel at all. It exists everywhere, omnipresently. This interpretation presents us with the vision of a participatory universe in which everything is interconnected and interdependent; a seamless Whole. Einstein called entanglement “spooky action at a distance,” and it has been demonstrated repeatedly through experimentation. It is the way in which two or more particles of energy sharing common origins become correlated to predictably interact with each other, even if these particles are separated over large distances. In other words, they remain interlinked, interconnected, one with each other, even though they appear to be separate. What’s truly amazing about their entanglement is that their communication is much faster than the speed of light. It appears to be operating instantaneously, at the speed of, well, thought. It’s as if the space-time in between the two objects being measured doesn’t even exist. Perhaps this is because these interacting objects are connected somewhere beyond the realm of form. Or in a word: Consciousness. In a sense, the human body is quantum entangled with the Earth because the body responds to the Earth’s natural biorhythms and circadian cycles. No doubt, the female’s menstrual cycle is quantum entangled with the cycles of the Moon. The ancient art of astrology is an example of quantum entanglement with the planets, stars, and constellations of the heavens. In his September 19, 2009 Sirius XM radio show, Deepak Chopra interviewed physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, and commented on this nonlocal phenomenon, saying, “You know, the more I hear about quantum entanglement, it sounds like a mathematical description of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence.” Dr. Kaku responded, “That’s what it leads to. Their theory says that I exist because you look at me, somebody looks at you so you exist, so who looks at her? Who looks at us? Well, God.” Quantum physics was discovered through the study of the motion of elementary particles at the atomic and subatomic level, so it is assumed that this nonlocal phenomenon must also be confined to the submicroscopic world. I believe this to be a narrow-minded view of what entanglement is really revealing to us. Nonlocal connections between humans have been experienced in such phenomena as synchronicity, mental telepathy and psychic phenomena. Mystics, oracles, artists, yogis, sages, and shamans have been transcending the local mind and accessing nonlocal Unity Consciousness for millennia. The property of quantum entanglement is clear evidence in support of Unity Consciousness. It demonstrates that the world of form (space-time) is preceded by a "behind the scenes" mind. How else can these particles interact as if a Unified Field of Consciousness didn’t exist? The property of entanglement even defies Einstein’s theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Mind before matter is the correct order of the equation to creation, not matter manifesting itself randomly or spontaneously before mind. Physical matter is nothing less than an expression of divine intelligence giving it the command: “Make it so.”
|
|
|
Post by tute on Nov 1, 2018 6:19:47 GMT 10
Further to my last post its all food for further thought.... read and enjoy. You may find as I have done.... it fits perfectly with quantum physics.
Until the last century, the theoretical framework of Advaita Vedanta (theory of non duality) was preserved and presented mainly within the esoteric spiritual teachings of India. Traditionally, these non-dual teachings were not imparted freely. An apprenticeship of twelve years of service to a spiritual teacher or guru was customary, after which the guru determined if the student was ripe to be introduced to the non-dual perspective. While this might seem extreme in the current freedom-of-information era, the practice nevertheless did contain its own wisdom. The pointers of non-duality are of little use to the immature mind and, in most cases, have an adverse effect and actually delay spiritual maturation. It is essential to work from the level of consciousness at which one has stabilised. The hallmarks of an immature seeker include wanting to bypass the proper development of ego in order to avoid confronting the shadow aspects of the psyche and lacking the capacity to perceive one’s own whereabouts on the progressive path. For example, on being told that ‘you are God’, or that ‘there is nothing to do’, or that ‘you do not exist’, etc., they grasp at these concepts and overlay them on unexamined, personal beliefs in separation. In Advaita Vedanta, there is no support for the immature seeker and when resistance to what is presented by the teacher builds, the ego defends itself in every possible way. Thus a new form of suffering – spiritual bypassing – is created, whereby spiritual teachings are used as an avoidance of egoic issues. Ironically, this strategy has emerged as a dualistic counterbalance to the contemporary, global availability of non-dual teachings and perspectives. Immature seekers with no knowledge of the subtleties of mind dismiss as madness what they do not understand. The teachings and actions of the teacher are interpreted perversely and misunderstandings happen. Concepts are inappropriately applied and projections are placed on the teacher. This is caused by a subtle self defense mechanism and in defending itself, the seeker’s ego is strengthened. All of this is simply because mind is not yet sufficiently turned inward. An immature mind seeks outward resolutions, a mature mind listens within. Everything in the phenomenal world has its place, just as every pointer to that which is beyond mind is useful in its own time. Maturation of mind continues indefinitely until all beliefs in separation are dissolved. The discernment to know when to effectively use and when to drop spiritual practices is not available in the immature mind. Consequently, certain spiritual techniques such as of self-enquiry cannot ‘work’ until the seeker is ripe. In the absence of the traditional teacher-student or guru-disciple model, the seeker must self-navigate their spiritual evolution. Immature seekers also often pursue a spiritual teacher in search of love and acceptance. However, without sufficient self-awareness, they fail to recognize this motivation and so their innate lack of self-love perpetuates itself. Inevitably, they find reasons to later reject the teacher, since an immature mind always demands conclusions – about themselves and about their teacher –in an effort to validate and defend the fragile ego. The dualistic polarities of right and wrong, real and fake, manifest in full force so long as the ‘I’ concept seeks its footing in often misinformed, personal opinions. Frequently jumping from one teacher to another, such seekers can understand neither the teachings nor the teacher due to their substratum of immaturity. In India, the theory of non-duality is housed within Hinduism. Prayer, yoga, service, the cultivation of devotion, and the practicing of good works are not seen in any way as being in opposition to the ultimate realization of Truth. All levels of maturation are accommodated within this unified system. When mind is not yet ready to respond to non-dual pointers, then these spiritual practices have their place. Currently, there is such an abundance of options in the West that it is not clearly seen that every spiritual practice of merit ultimately prepares mind for its own dissolution. As each practice has its place in the greater scheme of things, it is important to participate in spiritual practice with the ultimate goal in view. For example, exploring past lives can either build-up the sense of ‘I’ or dissolve it. Let the central focus be the seeing through of false identification with the body-mind organism. In all of this, the wise option is to follow what makes sense internally and not to pursue a conceptual explanation merely attractive to mind. Allow your spiritual practice to be guided not by desire, but by an intuitive sense that there is a refinement or purification of mind inherent in it. Whatever reduces the sense of the personal ‘I’, whatever reduces identification with thought, is indeed a useful practice. All of this activity will eventually spin itself out. It is important for this maturation to unfold naturally, since the organic falling away of spiritual practice happens only when mind is appropriately ripe for the attitude of non-duality to take hold. In all of this, the paradox cannot be avoided that the realization of Truth is not dependent on any spiritual practice or maturity of mind. The dance of the progressive path happens in time and space, which itself is the product of erroneous thinking and misidentification. This misunderstanding gives rise to the idea of a personal ‘I’, an imagined individual trying to reduce himself in order to remember who he is. The reduction of the ‘I’ is in fact not directly related to the seeing of Truth – it is simply the activity that happens as the illusion of life is weakening. Recognizing the falsity of the personal ‘I’ together with ceasing to be able to believe in its existence reveals Truth. In spiritual teachings of both East and West the direct path is appropriate for those who are mature in mind and therefore ready for transcendence of dualistic thought. Many seekers in the West have said that taking the direct path disables them from effective daily functioning and that the supportive context of an ashram would provide an appropriate context. In rare cases this is true, however usually fear and avoidance of the unknown underpin this excuse. Fear lurks in the fact that the direct path does not make allowances for the personal ‘I’. Irrespective of the practice advocated, the direct path offers no result or conclusion: it can at best be described as a technique which destroys the idea that there is someone using it. To put it another way, it is recommended to pay no attention to mind, as though having zero tolerance for the appearance of the illusory world. Hence the significance of silence. Any movement of a personal ‘I’ simply endorses the idea that there is an ‘I’ who is ultimately seeking Truth. Non-duality emphasizes (and the direct path reveals) that there never was an ‘I’, that the very idea of anything existing is false. There is nothing of any substance or authenticity in whatever appears as real. The immature mind interprets this suggestion (pay no attention to mind, as though having zero tolerance for the appearance of the illusory world) as a practice of having a zero tolerance attitude, and this in turn strengthens the idea of an ‘I’ doing something to gain something better. And so it can be said that spiritual practice can indeed help to dissolve the ‘I’ but without proper understanding, it can also perpetuate the ‘I’. It is wise, therefore, to participate in spiritual practice aware that it cannot of itself lead to the recognition of Truth. And yet, phenomenally there is great value in reducing identification with thoughts and thus lessening beliefs in duality. Let spiritual practice continue until it is seen to be a happening in consciousness and that you are not the one practicing. When there is no attachment to the spiritual practice, this shift can come about. Let it be seen that everything happens by itself, and that there are no individuals doing any of this. For those drawn directly to the experience of non-dual perspective (as opposed to beliefs/ideas about it), be aware that there is no formal context in this framework to allow for a maturation of mind. Recognize that both spiritual and religious practices have their place in enabling each seeker to respond optimally to an internal pull, and that it is up to seekers to find their own way of engaging with teachings delivered in this manner. Likewise, non-duality must be considered as a disposition of the mind. It is not appropriate for application to worldly affairs, and the wisdom to deal with such matters must therefore be developed independently. This approach ripens the intellect to the point of being able to yield to a non-dual perspective, and it is your responsibility to discover what works for you. In spite of all of this, how could you ever imagine to be apart from Self? To be what it is that you are requires no effort because you are always that which is prior and beyond all concepts. You cannot be other than that. Yet so long as you imagine yourself to be other than what you are, the spiritual search has its place. To know that which you are, there must be two selves for one to know the other. The search for Truth does not end in finding truth phenomenally: there is nothing gained anew in Self-realization. All that happens is the complete dropping of entangled engagement with thought. Thus what is called ignorance (in a spiritual context) is but the unsatisfactory attempt to identify Self with what is not Self. Your intellect, and the one that suffers from the desire to find Truth, must realize that what can be known is only what you are not. In this knowledge all that presents as phenomenal reality is laid bare in the seeing that this cannot be what you are. Attachments to the false individual persona must fall away. What remains cannot be known by that same faculty which has brought you this far. Intellect can only operate in the context of subject and object. Within this dichotomy, there must be something to be known or understood and a separate individual with something to gain in acquiring this knowledge. Let all ideas drop about enlightenment and retain the sense of direction which arises from this goal. Seeing through the goal oriented, task driven cultural conditioning from the West marks a shift from immature to mature mind. Allow a softness to arise in place of the eager and greedy seeking of the highly sophisticated tool which is mind. Develop the wisdom to know when to pick it up and when to lay it down. Anything that can be known cannot be what you are. What you are is prior to all dualistic explanations and pointers. Self is within the direct experience of all, but not as one imagines it to be. In the absence of all phenomena, imagination and intellect have no place. Self is only as it is. Whatever your cultural context or your spiritual leanings be honest with yourself and take the steps that are appropriate for you because they make sense to you, whether appearing as rational or irrational. Don’t ponder on this or try to figure it out. It is not understandable at any level deeper than intellectual theory. Mind cannot fathom beyond this because, to do so, intellect requires an object of perception for its activation in thought. Understand and accept the role and limits of the enquiring mind. It is a tool that serves well on the progressive path in any culture. When identification with the body and thought ceases, it is understood that Truth is never lost or found and what you really are simply reveals itself
|
|
|
Post by forge on Nov 1, 2018 6:45:16 GMT 10
++++++++++++++++++++++ Oh Dear, Deary ME & FORGE & Pedro!! How much time are WE allowed to READ & PONDER COMMENT on SO MUCH Knowledge & Informations??? Approx. …MORE or LESS than 2 months? Do/Must WE read ALL the lines of a post or….could we read 2 lines and ignore the next 20? THANKS to You & ALL
Snip snip snippety snip (reduced from 7K+ Double post words)
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 1, 2018 7:25:45 GMT 10
Greg, if its all right by you I don’t think I will fall for the check box routine, mainly because the premise’s of first order logic that make up the parameters of what Epic has now also introduced to our discussion… serve only to confuse; and like Pedro, I am confused enough. As to my personal persuasion (belief) relating to the realm of the cosmos. By no means would these articles or the authors total my beliefs, nor should they be construed as any form of gospel... however they do and would lead in part, or give basis to my position and opinion Mind before matter is the correct order of the equation to creation, not matter manifesting itself randomly or spontaneously before mind. Physical matter is nothing less than an expression of divine intelligence giving it the command: “Make it so.” It seems to me that your belief, however tentatively expressed relies heavily on Quantum Entanglement. Both Bell' theory and the Aspect experiment showed very very clearly that there was zero causation only corellation between the sistered particles. You have interpreted it, as Einstein did, as most everyone does, as causation. We don't have to argue about Entanglement. But it's sufficient to point out that without causation all the rest of your post becomes invalid. I don't mean this in a hurtful way, just that your explanation cannot be right because the premise of causation in entanglement is false.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 1, 2018 7:33:08 GMT 10
Dear Epic,
Isn't the simple explanation the truest reality?
A Tree, made of particles, topples in the forest. Disturbing air particles all around it and producing 'sound'. Regardless of a witness being present. Change has occurred, that's all.
There is no reason at all to philosophise over this. It requires no intellect to moralise over the result or non-result, does it? And yet for you, the story of the tree falling without witness presents a number of different outcomes. And you can't choose between them. Why?
There is a physical reality ... and there is a philosophy of physicalism, in my opinion, unecessary.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 1, 2018 7:34:43 GMT 10
Dear Pali,
Please stop double posting the posts, however boring you may find them. We like them long and full of bullshit, but we only like them once.
Admin monkey.
|
|
|
Post by tute on Nov 1, 2018 8:14:16 GMT 10
Greg that’s a weak as piss explanation ….. you obviously did not read the extract from the Advaita Vedanta article and cross reference it to the article on Entanglement …..
Causation has SFA to do with it…. Causation belongs to materialistic realism…. you will need to try harder .... again!
In the absence of all phenomena, imagination and intellect have no place. Self is only as it is. Whatever your cultural context or your spiritual leanings be honest with yourself and take the steps that are appropriate for you because they make sense to you, whether appearing as rational or irrational. Don’t ponder on this or try to figure it out. It is not understandable at any level deeper than intellectual theory. Mind cannot fathom beyond this because, to do so, intellect requires an object of perception for its activation in thought. (see causation) Understand and accept the role and limits of the enquiring mind. It is a tool that serves well on the progressive path in any culture. When identification with the body and thought ceases, it is understood that Truth is never lost or found and what you really are simply reveals itself
And as this is also concurrent....as moderator you could wipe out those useless repeats.... you would only have to do it once.
Within the pages of this forum dwell a small group of regular contributors that share varying degrees of aptitude and knowledge. Ironically often notated and heralded by one herein; Padre Pedro Pali de Forge. Now I should imagine that being reasonable men of sense, wit and merit we have collectively made allowances for any of those contributors that don’t quite make the ‘grade of lucidity’ as being the non written guideline for acceptance of post donations herein. However….. something is seriously amiss in the lucidity stakes when we can get a post with a word count muster of 7155 with absolutely no reference as to why it warrants the space other then a vague reference to the fact that if it has appeared in our pages of nonsense disguised as knowledge prior, then it must be fair game for a word for word nonsense repetition….
Sadly one has to question the wilderness that produces such page consuming donations.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 1, 2018 10:23:06 GMT 10
Dear Tute
I have asked Pali to stop double posting.
I don't think my post is piss-poor. What I'm trying to say about Entanglement is this.
It has been positively proven that there is no linkage, connection, cause, or relationship between the two 'entangled' particles. That fact that corellate is explained (today) by a skewed sample. That is, the initial proponents of a connection between the two particles (Einstein, Podolsky an Rosenberg) were only accounting for a percentage of the particles examined. When the sample is taken (Bell, Aspect) then it turns out there is no entanglement at all.
As you referenced entanglement in your post linking it to a universal consciousness .....
'Quantum Entanglement The Universal Consciousness
In quantum mechanics there is a property known as entanglement or non-local connection. This is not a theory but a real phenomenon. The physicists John Bell and Alain Aspect established that the universe at its most basic level is nonlocal. It proves that information doesn’t need to travel from point A to point B because it doesn’t need to travel at all. It exists everywhere, omnipresently. This interpretation presents us with the vision of a participatory universe in which everything is interconnected and interdependent; a seamless Whole.'
As I said, there is no linkage between particles, there is only corellation if you skew the sample being observed.
WIKI: In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other. That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy
You are assuming causation, but there is inly corellation between entangled particles.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 1, 2018 10:56:42 GMT 10
Dear Tute,
I have read, in entirety, your post on the Advaita.
But your post does not exactly say what the Advaita proposes. It is more a treatise on why the acoloyte fails in the approach or understanding to the Advaita. It warns the acoloyte of all the pitfalls and misconceptions the acoloyte will encounter on the road to understanding.
But it does not say how the Advaita accounts for the Universe?
(I have snipped Pali's 7k post)
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 1, 2018 11:17:48 GMT 10
Dear Epic,
As one who moralises or ponders at length on subtle semantics and how different interpretations can have differing reality outcomes ... in a sense.
I would like you to seriously give this interpretation your best ponderation .. I'm not asking you accept it, just that you do your best to understand it's implications.
This is about as philosophical as I allow myself to become. (I believe philosophy is misleading, like astrology, like alchemy, it's time is past) I would be interested in your critique of this following explanation.
Earlier you posted that I saw a 'oneness' and not a duality.
The first person to ever recognise this was Mary the Phrophetess .. tho who she was is unsure .. but Democritus (a contemporary, and possibly a student of Mary) said 'Nothing exists except Atoms and the void, all else is human opinion'
Democritus also said that everything we perceive is a result of atoms colliding and producing outcomes combined of chance and necessity. These are very powerful statements confirmed by QM today.
QM and Compositional Nihilism confirm Democritus' statements.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Nov 1, 2018 13:07:02 GMT 10
Sorry,Sediba. THY WILL....will be done...HERE & NOW!! I have OVERDONE...IT! It will not happen again. I was...pretty silly to behave as/like a...silly person.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 1, 2018 16:47:46 GMT 10
Sorry,Sediba. THY WILL....will be done...HERE & NOW!! I have OVERDONE...IT! It will not happen again. I was...pretty silly to behave as/like a...silly person. Cool bananas Admin monkey
|
|
|
Post by tute on Nov 1, 2018 17:26:11 GMT 10
Greg...
What is this BS about ‘causation’….. it is no more then a term in linguistic subterfuge. You will need to join Col or Epic for support and approval if you are going to continue with such countenance.
Speak to me about what is not…. not a load of gibberish concocted with double speak associations of academic compositional nihilism.
What is still in disorder here is the debatable but still recognizable transcendence between the self… whom is …. and the self whom is not.
To associate with whom is… then you go to the non-eventful (we do the thinking for you) style of teaching to gain limited metaphysical knowledge . But should you wish to associate with both identities; that being; who is, and who is not, then as I have said you can find suitable explanations within the likes of the Advaita Vedanta. Zen is also another medium that deals in such enlightenments, but because of their traditional methodology do not come up with updated versions of where its all at. Not withstanding that they are still on the button in the 'self' department.
So…Where is it, that one goes to find out the modern isolated self… whom is still not! then you go to QM.
Therefore Greg, you are quite correct when you quote Democritus … ‘Nothing exists except Atoms and the void, all else is human opinion’…. the same difference is also notated within the Vedanta! And of course, Zen… ….get with it lad. Causation… my arse. I inadvertently led you astray when I highlighted in bold a reference to causation within a recent post. I should not have done that with out a lengthy explanation for the alteration.
Hmmmm…. Some how I feel the need to reiterate….. causation belongs in the field of materialistic realism along with such ramblings as compositional nihilism….
....Or translated into Vulcan speak …..confined to the realms of human opinion.
|
|
|
Post by qjumper on Nov 1, 2018 17:41:59 GMT 10
Lotsa mileage from this subject. Congratz
The forgotten fact is none of us really know much at all about anything. All our so called knowledge (facts) are established by someone else and written down then passed on like Chinese Whispers (aka hearsay)
It does not matter if it is how electricity works, electron flow/bump-up or what causes rust or which came first the chicken or the egg. Or creationism or evolution. None of us really know anything but we all learn from hearsay.
Some things make more sense than others but of the total amount of knowledge that we have, only the "wet paint" and "hot do not touch it" are what we have first hand experience with.
No wonder we are susceptible to advertising we are programmed to believe hear-say.
|
|
|
Post by tute on Nov 2, 2018 7:38:03 GMT 10
Lotsa mileage from this subject. Congratz The forgotten fact is none of us really know much at all about anything. All our so called knowledge (facts) are established by someone else and written down then passed on like Chinese Whispers (aka hearsay) It does not matter if it is how electricity works, electron flow/bump-up or what causes rust or which came first the chicken or the egg. Or creationism or evolution. None of us really know anything but we all learn from hearsay. Some things make more sense than others but of the total amount of knowledge that we have, only the "wet paint" and "hot do not touch it" are what we have first hand experience with. No wonder we are susceptible to advertising we are programmed to believe hear-say. ...................................................................................................................................
Yeah Col… and in so doing (contributing) I do my best to remove the atheistic pains in my butt. For the record though, I would no sooner be opposed to a Nihilistic view any more then that of a Seventh Day Adventist.
And so the saga of Free Will continues…. For those still interested you can consult Wiki for the following revelations… I have a premonition that Pedro will come up with 2 million googilised versions… fortunately he can no longer post them all at once.
Dear Greg, from Wiki quote: The obvious objection that can be raised against nihilism is that it seems to posit far fewer objects than we typically think exist. The nihilist's ontology has been criticized for being too sparse ….. blah blah etc etc
And so we get to…Van Inwagen's view Peter Van Inwagen maintains that all material objects are mereological simples with the exception of biological life such that the only composite objects are living things. Van Inwagen's view can be formulated like this and…. Blah blah…etc etc …..Van Inwagen's argument against nihilism can be characterized as such:
1. I exist 2. I am not a mereological simple 3. At least one object exists that is not a mereological simple 4. So, nihilism is false In addition to allowing for the existence of trees, cats, and human beings, Van Inwagen's view is attractive because it inherits nihilism's elegant solutions to traditional problems in mereology like the Ship of Theseus and the problem of the many….. (The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object) ……that get "caught up" in a life. For example, if a cat takes a breath and inhales a carbon atom, it is unclear at what point that atom becomes officially incorporated into the cat's body….. blah blah etc etc.
End of quote. I should imagine that a tree falling alone in a forest could have implications with the Theseus analogy.
With all due respects Greg, as I had quickly concluded in my last post …. compositional (mereological) nihilism is a refuge for scientific hoo ha. Though I must be fair, some of the la la fraternity can be forthright and say… an alternative force exists but we cannot explain it.
Ah well; one of those damned metaphysical entities perhaps…. Much like a Universal consciousness…. But not like a Theseus paradox whereby you need a component to obtain an outcome. Causality fits in there… somehow
So if we are to continue and its to be wotsnot (that does not exist in this reality) speak to me in scientific terms of what is not…. What is it that cannot be divulged about what is not. The not must exist, bare bold simplistic reason tells you that it is there…because the basic and simple physics that operates within the materialistic solid state of now! Says, you cannot have a force without an opposing force. Which equates to; if I have something (I am assuming particle matter) the only way it is there is there is an equal nothing that underpins such existence. Now I can see that, as it also explains the origin of the species…. When it all gets boiled down it was not really there. Heh heh.
But if we are going to happily speak in terms of Quantum Physics, along with the entanglement it sustains and whereby there is only a wave of now that can be contended with. Why is it that we are continually sidetracked with the fossilized narratives of yesterday. For example: I am a practicing nihilistic (composed of particles) at this moment and therefore cannot abide/recognise/include at this juncture of the discussion of the metaphysics that are actually dictating my very being. Or put into realistic terminology… The fulltime/realtime implications of QM
Hmmmm sumting funny goin on….. I think I read something like this in a Bible somewhere. Though I have preference for the Vedanta or Zen, should I feel a now coming on.
|
|
|
Post by qjumper on Nov 2, 2018 9:03:54 GMT 10
But are we all dead and this is heaven - I might go and look for some virgins.
|
|
|
Post by tute on Nov 2, 2018 10:19:58 GMT 10
But are we all dead and this is heaven - I might go and look for some virgins. Good luck with that..... you will have to get one on the way to school
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 2, 2018 13:41:11 GMT 10
Dear Greg, from Wiki quote: The obvious objection that can be raised against nihilism is that it seems to posit far fewer objects than we typically think exist. The nihilist's ontology has been criticized for being too sparse ….. blah blah etc etc And so we get to…Van Inwagen's view You're jumping way too far ahead. I'm not a nihilst according to the definition of nihilism: 'Nihilism is the philosophical viewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value' Many things hold value for me, compositional things even. But, physically the only things that exist are primal entities, and every aggregate of primal entities does not produce a new complex-entity. The creed of compositional-nihilism supports, as physical reality, prime entities. But compositional-nihilism, tho very different from all other philosophys of Nihilism, is still a philosophy. I'm a realist, the only things that exist are physical. All else is opinion/perception. But further, my post was addressed to Epic (tho you are welcome to critique it too) But the condition of critique was, whether you believe it or not, that you take the time to understand it. You don't appear to understand it. As for Van-wagen's opinion ... think about it, it's blatantly stupid. How can life be a primal entity .. ? It's beyond stupid. But it's your only recourse.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 2, 2018 17:53:59 GMT 10
So if we are to continue and its to be wotsnot (that does not exist in this reality) speak to me in scientific terms of what is not…. What is it that cannot be divulged about what is not. The not must exist, bare bold simplistic reason tells you that it is there… because the basic and simple physics that operates within the materialistic solid state of now! Says, you cannot have a force without an opposing force. Which equates to; if I have something (I am assuming particle matter) the only way it is there is there is an equal nothing that underpins such existence. Bare bold simplistic reason tells me that if there is a something, then surely there must be a nothing. But reason is wrong. You have yet to be introduced to the concept of a scalar field. It is not an easy concept. But, as you are so anti-science I would have thought you would have known at least what Science propounds before you heaped shit on it as you do. So, are you telling me that science is bunk and something must come from nothing, and nothing exists?
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Nov 3, 2018 5:10:52 GMT 10
It seems ALMOST certain that WE do/can ejoy OUR Free Will...FREE wheeling our WILLing production of FreeWilling posts! Let US hope that the Dissertations on Free Will WILL last another 367 years...past the 3983 Discussion Era of Free & Will!!
|
|
|
Post by qjumper on Nov 3, 2018 8:15:48 GMT 10
Just to put things straight Greg.
Science, as I know it, is a broad term for the continuing process of learning about the technicalities of the mundane things around us and their compound interactions. It usually starts with a hypothesis and by experimentation or computer modelling the hypothesis is "proved" to be true or untrue.
Applied science comes next - where we use our findings to achieve some particular result but the spin-offs (side affects) are always looming.
So if we revere any modelling technique or hypothesis then we could suffer a disappointment either by side effect or mistaken of fact.
Scientists consider a failed hypothesis to be progress, none the less, and more often than not, research produces an unexpected benefit.
The base of the pyramid (the foundation if you like) comes down to the good old "which came first the chicken or the egg" We all know evolution is real, my generation is shorter in stature than the next and so on.
What we will never know is where the seed for everything came from, because science/logic as we know it does not work with "which came first the chicken or the egg".
Our brains trusts have tried everything in the modelling department but the only thing they can find that will start from nothing is in fact nothing.
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Nov 3, 2018 9:28:24 GMT 10
Sorry, Guys. This thread has got away from me. I'm getting ready (which includes getting Mrs Epic ready) to go to Bangkok on Monday morning, so most likely won't be able to add anything until I'm there.
Thanks for the contributions. They've been at a very high level, I think. Certainly some of the strands are beyond me.
Will be calling in from Bangkok in a few days.
Cheers Epic
|
|