" ... ancient methods of fully understanding a complete thought."
One of which as defined in Patanjal Yoga :
Savitarka Samadhi |
|
Nirvitarka Samadhi | pertaining to gross material objects
Savichar Samadhi |
|
Nirvichar Samadhi | pertaining to subtle mental ( subjective )
objects
and, Kaivalya Samadhi >>> the Supreme Truth of truths.
On Nov 26, 8:26 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes Neil, it is common to not have enough ‘facts’ to make wise
> decisions. In fact, some people do consciously withhold, some lie,
> some are ignorant, some obtuse…and this is just with themselves! Of
> course there are those who suggest one can never have enough in the
> way of facts to make a good decision. I don’t agree. And, there are
> ancient methods of fully understanding a complete thought.
>
> On Nov 25, 5:36 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Spent the evening updating my new (old) computer. It can be difficult
> > enough learning this kind of stuff, let alone fangle qualia arguments
> > or unravel the balance sheet at the Bank of England to discover how
> > much they were really lending to our wonder bankers. It's clear on
> > this last one that institutional insiders knew the BoE was lending
> > much more to banks than it was letting on in public and the laymen on
> > the public accounts committee in Parliament were so lay they didn't
> > know despite their claims to 'expertise'. Much of what troubles me
> > about subjective decision-making is that it is routine to hide facts
> > we need to make sensible decisions. How might we include this fact in
> > a broad sense in our personal development?
>
> > On 25 Nov, 23:58, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The truth of theories is generally accepted as less reliable than
> > > evidence in epistemic risk. Theories are under-determined by
> > > evidence. Sagan may have put this in a simple manner.
> > > I wonder, Bill and all, how we deal with the esoteric. It can be a
> > > pettyfogging backwater for years and then produce something
> > > insightive. Much of the time it is a distraction from simpler truths
> > > we need to get into our practices, or becomes fodder for the swanker.
> > > It gets in the way, too often, of our personal views, expressions of
> > > what we are as people. I've had a framework in mind for some time
> > > that allows us some protection from gullibility and being gulled. As
> > > you say Orn, there are people who can't even read, let alone classes
> > > of recalcitrant undergraduates in our silver spoon societies.
> > > Eduication has caused a lot of damage, not least in telling so many
> > > their ideas aren't worth spit. I believe (mostly) we should tell
> > > others that their idea is a cow if we think it is - but what oif the
> > > questions about how to do such? I can write academic papers in an
> > > afternoon, but generally don't because they say nothing (as you
> > > rightly guessed of that one on PTSD). Yet we can spark a few ideas
> > > and see people change and do different things. This latter has been
> > > lost under the mounds of paper that academics make their livings
> > > sleeping on.
>
> > > On 25 Nov, 19:07, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > In a different group, I did some research about a popular atheist,
> > > > Carl Sagan. In closing I added the following.
>
> > > > “Do the ideas we believe about the world truly correspond well with
> > > > and reliably represent the world we actually inhabit?
>
> > > > The late Carl Sagan–in an interview with questioners in an audience
> > > > asking about seeing truth–suggested that "A simple question: How can
> > > > we recognize the truth? It is, of course, difficult. But there are a
> > > > few simple rules. The truth ought to be logically consistent. It
> > > > should not contradict itself; that is there are some logical
> > > > criteria.
> > > > It ought to be consistent with what else we know."
>
> > > > "We know a great many things–a tiny fraction to be sure, of the
> > > > universe, a pitifully tiny fraction. But nevertheless some things we
> > > > know with quite high reliability."
>
> > > > The more badly we want to believe it, the more skeptical we should
> > > > be.
> > > > It involves a kind of courageous self-discipline.
>
> > > > I think those three principles at least will winnow out a fair amount
> > > > of chaff. It doesn't guarantee that what remains will be true, but at
> > > > least it will significantly diminish the field of discourse."
>
> > > > In response to a physicists prompt Sagan said: "So do I," referring
> > > > to
> > > > the questioner's point: "I don't believe as a physicist that physics
> > > > deals with the truth. I believe that it deals with successive
> > > > approximations of the truth."”
> > > > - Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience, ed. Ann
> > > > Druyan,
> > > > New York: Penguin Press, 2006, pp. 229-230, 239.
>
> > > >http://web.rollins.edu/~jsiry/PHYSIS.HTML
>
> > > > On Nov 25, 10:19 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > These philosophical issues are deeply misunderstood, not least by
> > > > > practitioners of them. When we unpick rationalities we usually
> > > > > discover them to be less rational than we had hoped or thought. This
> > > > > is an unlikely place for 'answers' as you rightly point out Orn. On
> > > > > the notion of even 'smelling' differently from someone else (not as a
> > > > > result of body odour) DJ, the point is merely that this could be the
> > > > > case in argument such as that around qualia. On Levine, one can
> > > > > easily point to recent attempts to create life at Harvard in which
> > > > > fatty-acids form 'cell-membranes' on contact with water - there is a
> > > > > complex chemo-mathematical explanation of this, yet it falls short of
> > > > > all kinds of other questions we can raise. Science does tend to
> > > > > support that perception depends on the receiver, that it is
> > > > > 'computational'. Other thought experiments include how a Martian with
> > > > > no notion of empathy and so on could understand a memorial service.
>
> > > > > My eventual view is that we are broadly incapable of rational action
> > > > > because we can't recognise the extent to which we are driven and
> > > > > individuated - in short are kept several shillings short of the full
> > > > > quid by basic issues in competition rather than solidarity. There is
> > > > > a paradox - I loathe individualism yet yearn to be free as one. I
> > > > > would restrict life in terms of population control, in order that life
> > > > > could be worthwhile. I believe we could establish an acceptable
> > > > > rationality by taking account of big and brutal facts, but in the end
> > > > > people have to grok this. I wonder what the average person
> > > > > experiences of revealing self in company?
>
> > > > > On 25 Nov, 09:57, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > At the risk of appearing extremely naïve and ignorant, I question
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > I can only guess is the prevailing view of the ‘hard problem of
> > > > > > consciousness’. As I dog paddle, no, merely wade in the shallows of
> > > > > > the ocean of western qualia, ….I stumble across Joseph Levine: “…our
> > > > > > knowledge of chemistry and physics makes intelligible how it is that
> > > > > > something like the motion of molecules could play the causal role we
> > > > > > associate with heat…. Once we understand how this causal role is
> > > > > > carried out there is nothing more we need to understand.” (Levine
> > > > > > 1983) To this I reply balderdash!
>
> > > > > > A quick look at Popper finds his formula:
> > > > > > PS1-->TT1-->EE1-->PS2
>
> > > > > > Here he assumes that PS2 in fact is ‘more applicable’ than PS1
> > > > > > apparently by fiat. Further, even his own notion (requirement?) of
> > > > > > falsifiability does not seem to apply! At least he does soften the
> > > > > > more fanatical views of materialists.
>
> > > > > > I may just have to learn something here. So far, it is all too easy
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > just throw raspberries. Perhaps in time, it will not be a painful,
> > > > > > however, for now, I still need water wings. As a not too small
> > > > > > aside,
> > > > > > I am quite happy that I’ve explored much of this territory without
> > > > > > drinking the Kook-Aid of previous dogmatic views.
>
> > > > > > More from the stoned philosopher….errrr, philosopher’s stone
> > > > > > anon! ....after I purchase a snorkel... [yawn]
>
> > > > > > On Nov 24, 11:57 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > It is great to read these issues from you Neil! All too often,
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > (appropriate) skepticism reduces most to an absurd and quickly
> > > > > > > rejected state. Here, with just the few sketches by you of areas
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > western philosophy, I have been given a taste of and arrows to new
> > > > > > > (for me) areas of study even though the term is not new. It
> > > > > > > merely is
> > > > > > > not a part of my vocabulary yet. Upon a quick perusal of things
> > > > > > > qualia, almost immediately I shut down knowing from the first few
> > > > > > > words that it is an area where no one seems to know anything no
> > > > > > > matter
> > > > > > > how complex, simple or even simplex the presentation! I will say
> > > > > > > this…
> > > > > > > most texts by the classic Buddhist philosophers start at knowledge
> > > > > > > points that are leaps and bounds above what little I have read in
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > western arena so far.
>
> > > > > > > Your binary (black/white) thought experiment reminds me of one of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > spiritually based tribes hidden deep in the forests of South
> > > > > > > America.
> > > > > > > Ignoring the obvious sexism, they place their baby boys in a cave
> > > > > > > where they are tended for in almost total darkness for the first
> > > > > > > hand
> > > > > > > full of years of their lives. Then, in a ritual of coming of age,
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > are led outside blindfolded and at the proper point the blindfold
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > removed. It is reported this is a transformative and pivotal
> > > > > > > point of
> > > > > > > their lives. I have no doubt at all of this. What a marvelous
> > > > > > > awakening ….seeing sunlight for the first time ever, trees,
> > > > > > > mountains,
> > > > > > > the sky etc. In a way, this seems a preferable ritual for
> > > > > > > humanity in
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
