A careful reading of the above might raise the question of what body parts the Ethics Committee thought to eat. We could assume they were a bunch of prawns and mioght as well have asked what an Orn tatsed like.
On 26 Nov, 16:21, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > *laughing* > > I once heard Hell defined as an interminable committee meeting. Just > when you think you're starting to get somewhere on something, Satan > pipes up, "Mr. Chairman, with regard to the subject being discussed, I > would like to raise a point of order ..." Personally, I think he feels > most at home as a member of an Ethics Committee (where he's usually > the member appointed by the people financing the business, with an > unwritten veto-right). > > Francis > > On 26 Nov., 16:54, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The classic modern argument for at least some subjective knowledge > > (for facts only to be apprehended from subjectivity) is in Nagel, Th., > > 1974, “What is it like to be a bat?”, Philosophical Review 83: 435– > > 50. I was looking more recently at a prawn that can see in 16 > > colours. I can tell you how I can reasonably validate that it does > > (behavioural observations), but which amongst us can say what the > > subjective experience of such colours is for the prawn? We can, of > > course, compare and contrast the reception mechanisms. > > I can see a meeting of the Ethics Committee looming already. The > > conversation might run like this: > > > 'So what do you want to do now Neil'? > > 'Study Orn's brain'. > > 'How'? > > 'Dice it'. > > 'Why'? > > 'To compare it with prawn brains'. > > 'Would you intend to dice the prawn brains too'? > > 'Most certainly'. > > 'Thank you doctor, we will inform you of the decision in writing'. > > > Some months later, long after actual experiments have been done, a > > letter will arrive in my pigeon-hole. 'My dear Neil, the committee > > struggled long and hard on the fate of the prawns and some thought > > your methods a tad cruel. After months of deliberation we are hungry > > and have decided to give your research the green light, with the > > proviso you organise a barbecue with the unwanted body-parts. By the > > way, old boy, what is an Orn?' > > > Some think the ancient wisdoms have bee subjected to fair and > > considerable criticism over many centuries and have been discarded > > because they are dross, classic examples of circular thinking and > > words to catch the gullible. We should be open to this. The > > literature is vast. I'm aware of ten books and over 100 papers on > > 'The Matrix' and this nears out for all kinds of trivia. > > > On 26 Nov, 15:10, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You forgot the bathchairs and Zimmers Gabbers, and bring some of those > > > dry biscuits everyone tries to feed to old people. I don't advise > > > sharp sticks, as we might get poked back. > > > > I think Orn is right about trying for something in immediate > > > experience and beyond 'normal experience'. I could, of course, > > > produce a long line of idiots who tried this out and ended-up at Her > > > Majesty's Pleasure as we have banned the possession of 'relevant > > > substances'. In conversation with one speedball freak, he was very > > > disappointed his illegal experiences did not match mine after a mere > > > period of sensory deprivation. I assume we mean something else. > > > > Justin is probably wrong on what Western philosophy has been up to, > > > and when it started the 'Eastern turn' - the Greek origins themselves > > > are false (much is plagiarized from earlier civilizations) and much > > > more Middle Eastern than we understand now. I may be able to explain > > > this, but I'd be much more interested in the difference between us in > > > experiencing the ancient readings. I find them and most philosophy > > > dull! Husserl is claimed by many and read by almost no one - he's an > > > agony. He is the standard reference for half-wit researchers claiming > > > qualitative research is something science doesn't do. In fact, he is > > > just a convenient and tame source, an excuse for not finding out how > > > hard science is to do. What could e more qualitative than thinking > > > about what light actually is, including whether it is 'real' or not? > > > There remains something important in what Justin says, but I don't > > > feel we necessarily dismiss ancient wisdom and texts lightly. Some of > > > this reminds me a bit of debriefing detectives who have been out doing > > > the leg-work. Many will come up dry, but knowing what has been > > > explored does aid the enquiry. > > > > On 26 Nov, 13:48, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Wanting to discriminate between dissolution and disillusion sometimes > > > > demands the call for an hearing aid, is what I understand. > > > > > On 26 Nov., 13:40, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You got all that right DJ - the problem with competitive learning and > > > > > rewards as one of human interests. The idea is to make the choice > > > > > available in decision at the personal level coincide with public > > > > > interest. I'd go some way down this route, but we need a fix on > > > > > personal virtue. Orn and Vam often seem to be saying the answers are > > > > > more in the latter. The ancient wisdoms have, of course, been around > > > > > a long time. Are they solutions or part of the problem? I used to > > > > > love cricket, but have seen this fine tradition lapse under > > > > > competitive pressures. One can play for the wrong reasons. > > > > > > On 26 Nov, 06:04, dj Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
