Oh......... On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Vamadevananda <[email protected]>wrote:
> " ... 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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > -- 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.
