PWQs

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:

Well, that rather depends on what sort of picture emerges. There is a tendency in some circles round here to assume various things which aren't neccesarily true - e.g. that all religions are equally meaningless and equally wrong, that all metaphysics are equally meaningless and equally wrong, that nobody actually experiences any sort of paranormal phenomena, that the laws of reality work the same for everybody and do not depend on belief or expectation, and, basically, that there is no "bigger picture" to be found. I get the impression you are more of a fence-sitter, at least on some of the above issues.

I don't think it depends on what sort of picture emerges. You still have no way of knowing whether the picture represents anything other than your own personal cobbled-up metaphysics.

What I am trying to say is that it is my opinion that what would result from such an investigation is not a potpourri at all, but rather a few rather profound inevitabilities which have been continually re-interpreted in different ways and different times for different sorts of ears. Rather than a pot-pourri we find the same ideas represented in many different ways. We need to look through the surface and try to find the common threads that lie beneath.

What will result is some kind of matrix/global consciousness/metamind/god/pure being thing that behaves like a computer and thus provides abundant memory, interconnection, and computational resources to solve all tough problems. See my signature.

There has been a great resistance to this from the 'skeptics' on this board. There has been a tendency to argue that everything outside science is meaningless, and therefore of no interest. Certainly with regard to mysticism, most of its detractors understand either very little or not at all (except Franko who is a special case). IMO if those people actually took a little bit of time to investigate it a little more closely they may find reasons to change their outlook. But its safer to argue it is meaningless from the useful vantage point of knowing nothing whatsoever about it.

You have no idea how much time people have spent investigating these things.

We may be talking at cross-purposes here - I jumped in having missed a couple of days posts. All I am saying is this : If the Yogi experiences the Unity of his own consciousness with all other consciousness - if his consciousness fuses with the Metamind - then all of the scientists running around with probes aren't going to be able to know what the Yogi knows. But the Yogi himself will have no doubt what he is experiencing, based on the fact that he has becomes joined with Beingness itself - he has BECOME Everything. And this is what mystics have claimed throughout the centuries. Such an experience is difficult to mistake, no? You can lie about it I suppose, but if it actually happened to you there wouldn't be much room for doubt, would there?

Sure there would. I spent years in the Transcendental Meditation movement, meditating my brains out and talking to all sorts of people who were supposed to be a various levels of consciousness. I had some beautiful experiences, such as realizing that even if was the last person in the universe, I would still have the stars as company. I see no reason to believe any of that was more than the workings of my imagination.

~~ Paul

 

[Guest]

Paul

What will result is some kind of matrix/global consciousness/metamind/god/pure being thing that behaves like a computer and thus provides abundant memory, interconnection, and computational resources to solve all tough problems.

Yes, something like that will result.

You have no idea how much time people have spent investigating these things.

Well, I wasn't referring to yourself. But I think I have a pretty good idea how long some of the others have spent investigating these things - the ones who think 'mysticism' is indistinguishable from Bill and Ben the Flower Pot Men.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We may be talking at cross-purposes here - I jumped in having missed a couple of days posts. All I am saying is this : If the Yogi experiences the Unity of his own consciousness with all other consciousness - if his consciousness fuses with the Metamind - then all of the scientists running around with probes aren't going to be able to know what the Yogi knows. But the Yogi himself will have no doubt what he is experiencing, based on the fact that he has becomes joined with Beingness itself - he has BECOME Everything. And this is what mystics have claimed throughout the centuries. Such an experience is difficult to mistake, no? You can lie about it I suppose, but if it actually happened to you there wouldn't be much room for doubt, would there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sure there would. I spent years in the Transcendental Meditation movement, meditating my brains out and talking to all sorts of people who were supposed to be a various levels of consciousness. I had some beautiful experiences, such as realizing that even if was the last person in the universe, I would still have the stars as company. I see no reason to believe any of that was more than the workings of my imagination.

Well, I have never really meditated. I am hyperactive and find meditation almost impossible. I found my own path to subjective confirmation of some of these things. There is a limit to what can be rationalised. But that's ancient history....

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Luci

We may be talking at cross-purposes here - I jumped in having missed a couple of days posts. All I am saying is this : If the Yogi experiences the Unity of his own consciousness with all other consciousness - if his consciousness fuses with the Metamind - then all of the scientists running around with probes aren't going to be able to know what the Yogi knows. But the Yogi himself will have no doubt what he is experiencing, based on the fact that he has becomes joined with Beingness itself - he has BECOME Everything. And this is what mystics have claimed throughout the centuries. Such an experience is difficult to mistake, no? You can lie about it I suppose, but if it actually happened to you there wouldn't be much room for doubt, would there?

That's great because we can have such proofs. If I find the time I'll send you links to the actual experiments.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:

Yes, something like that [global computer] will result.

Way too easy. Solves every unsolved problem at the stroke of a thought.

~~ Paul

 

[Guest]

UcE said:
Way too easy. Solves every unsolved problem at the stroke of a thought.

~~ Paul

Does it?

Does it solve the problem of whether we have Free Will?
Does it solve the mystery of what time is? Beginning? Ending?
Does it solve the problems of the conflicting needs of Unity and Individuality?
I think it leaves us with a different sort of problem.

And does the fact that it 'easily' solves many of the problems bugging materialism make it false?

Often it is the simplest answer which is closest to the truth. Not always, but the fact that this seems "too easy" from the POV of a materialist does not neccesarily mean it is incorrect.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:

Does it solve the problem of whether we have Free Will?
Does it solve the mystery of what time is? Beginning? Ending?
Does it solve the problems of the conflicting needs of Unity and Individuality?
I think it leaves us with a different sort of problem.

Yup, solves all those problems. Think of the solution you like, the global computer can do it that way. Well, except possibly for the conflicting needs, which I don't understand.

And does the fact that it 'easily' solves many of the problems bugging materialism make it false?

Nope, it might be correct. But meanwhile it's vapid, unfalsifiable, and unsatisfying.

Often it is the simplest answer which is closest to the truth. Not always, but the fact that this seems "too easy" from the POV of a materialist does not neccesarily mean it is incorrect.

Well, I don't think it's as simple as you believe it is, because if you really want to answer specific questions, you have to get down to details. But it might be correct.

~~ Paul

 

[Guest]

Paul

Yup, solves all those problems. Think of the solution you like, the global computer can do it that way. Well, except possibly for the conflicting needs, which I don't understand.

Well, the conflicting needs thing is, IMO, what ultimately provides the insight into why things are the way they are. Free Will comes into this also. In a way, you can have Free Will or you can have your individuality (see : Franko).

There is also a parallel with left/right politics - the rights of the individual and the common good of the collective. Which is why politics must not mix with mysticism. It may seem like a trivial detail, or hard to understand, but I think it is extremely relevant.

 

[Loki]

uce,

In short we must spread out all the pieces of our jigsaw and try to grasp the bigger picture, instead of just categorising the pieces and hoping to find the answer by analysing each piece on its own.
...
What I am trying to say is that it is my opinion that what would result from such an investigation is not a potpourri at all, but rather a few rather profound inevitabilities which have been continually re-interpreted in different ways and different times for different sorts of ears.
...
There has been a great resistance to this from the 'skeptics' on this board.

Sounds fine, but if I exhibit 'resistence' to this approach it's based mainly in the fact that it simply doesn't seem to work at all! Rather than a 'few rather found inevitabilities', we do indeed seem to get a potpourri. Uce, Franko and Christian all espouse an approach to "life" that incorporates "non-physically verifiable" concepts - and you all differ wildly on both the funsamentals and the details. Even "free will" is not a constant amongst the "subjective is truth" mob.

 

[Guest]

uce,


Sounds fine, but if I exhibit 'resistence' to this approach it's based mainly in the fact that it simply doesn't seem to work at all! Rather than a 'few rather found inevitabilities', we do indeed seem to get a potpourri.

Depends where you look, and how you look.

Uce, Franko and Christian all espouse an approach to "life" that incorporates "non-physically verifiable" concepts - and you all differ wildly on both the funsamentals and the details. Even "free will" is not a constant amongst the "subjective is truth" mob.

Even among these three there are commonalities. You have to find your own way through religion and philosophy. I think it has to be that way. You have to figure out how all these views fit together. You have to understand why Franko really is is the way he is, and why I am the way I am, and why Christian is the way Christian is. And Win. And II. And JK. And even VD ( ) Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

You know that it is not neccesarely true.

 

[Guest]

You know that it is not neccesarely true.

The truth can be found, Lucifuge. If you think that nobody has found it then that is your choice.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The truth can be found, Lucifuge. If you think that nobody has found it then that is your choice.

No, no no, UCE. My comment is that not neccesaily the truth cam be foun in the middle of two opposite beliefs. Sometimes, the truth is one of these.

 

[Guest]

No, no no, UCE. My comment is that not neccesaily the truth cam be foun in the middle of two opposite beliefs. Sometimes, the truth is one of these.

Maybe. But then perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Loki said that trying to investigate philosophy and religion without the aid of objective science just resulted in a pot pourri of conflicting beliefs. I'm not sure it is a pot pourri so much as many different perspectives on the same basic truths. Certainly I think that several of the persons on my list know considerably more than they let on, and for different reasons. Perhaps you have to understand the motivations of person concerned to understand their take on philosophy. To understand Frankos stated position it is neccesary to understand, at least to an extent, Franko. I'm not sure many people round here do, as was so eloquently expressed by Pillory in a recent opening post.

 

[Loki]

uce,

Loki said that trying to investigate philosophy and religion without the aid of objective science just resulted in a pot pourri of conflicting beliefs.

Actually, it was Paul who started this particular sub-thread about "non-objective" processes leading to a potpourri of concepts (some contradictory) that have essentially equal "truth-value". Anyway, the only point I'd add is that I *do* think that objective science has limits, and humans can entertain thoughts and beliefs beyond this - but I don't see the point in trying to declare such things as "the truth".

I'm not sure it is a pot pourri so much as many different perspectives on the same basic truths.

Well, we'll just have to disagree. I think you're falling for the same old human fault of "pattern-matching". You're finding the hits in different concepts, and ignoring the misses. I have no doubt that you can find "common ground" with someone like Christian - but so can I. Problem is, the common ground you find is not the common ground I find - and may even be contradictory.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Maybe. But then perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Loki said that trying to investigate philosophy and religion without the aid of objective science just resulted in a pot pourri of conflicting beliefs. I'm not sure it is a pot pourri so much as many different perspectives on the same basic truths. Certainly I think that several of the persons on my list know considerably more than they let on, and for different reasons. Perhaps you have to understand the motivations of person concerned to understand their take on philosophy. To understand Frankos stated position it is neccesary to understand, at least to an extent, Franko. I'm not sure many people round here do, as was so eloquently expressed by Pillory in a recent opening post.

UcE:

Do you think that the person can add to the idea? I mean, the idea, as an abstract expression of a tought, can be modified with the understanting of the person having the idea? Don't you think that, if it is needed, then the idea is incomplete?

 

[Guest]

UcE:

Do you think that the person can add to the idea? I mean, the idea, as an abstract expression of a tought, can be modified with the understanting of the person having the idea? Don't you think that, if it is needed, then the idea is incomplete?

Quite probably there is no 'complete' way to linguistically describe 'the Truth'. It is always filtered through personalised goggles. Therefore grasping this Truth involves both an awareness of your own goggles and of the goggles of others. I am glad of those goggles. I don't want to be blinded.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Quite probably there is no 'complete' way to linguistically describe 'the Truth'. It is always filtered through personalised goggles. Therefore grasping this Truth involves both an awareness of your own goggles and of the goggles of others. I am glad of those goggles. I don't want to be blinded.

I wasn't talking about "The Truth (tm)". I was talking about an idea. If what you say is correct, then there is no point into studying, reading or communicating anything more profound than "I'm hungry".

 

[Guest]

I wasn't talking about "The Truth (tm)". I was talking about an idea. If what you say is correct, then there is no point into studying, reading or communicating anything more profound than "I'm hungry".

Same is probably true of any 'idea'.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Same is probably true of any 'idea'.

Then ,what is the point to discuss anything?

Also, how can we advance science and technology if, pe, to understand GR you should have to read the life of Albert Einstein and know his personality and mind? I don't get it.

 

[synaesthesia]

Also, how can we advance science and technology if, pe, to understand GR you should have to read the life of Albert Einstein and know his personality and mind? I don't get it.

Although it's not strictly necessary, I do not think we should underestimate the importance of this sort of contextual information to scientific progress. Science is, after all, a process not an end result. To understand scientific findings, the study of the process behind them may prove invaluble.