Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
You're going to have to define those "simple, abstract universes" for me, then convince me that those are the only universes there could be, keeping in mind that "the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine." (Which is why empiricism is so important.)
Hi Fivebells
I started writing a reply to you which turned into my next essay which I have been meaning to write for ages, so Ill get it all down in that and hopefully that will make it all clear:)
It does, I believe, what science do you believe shows it doesn't?
Science has not shown that mind is equivalent to physical process. There are just theories upon theories. Contradictory theories and a great vacuity of definitions of what the mind is.
More recent developments in neuroscience are now stating that mental experience itself changes the function of the brain - in very drastic ways.
You will enjoy these lectures if the topic of what is mind interests you:
As an aside, Suppose, I "saw my past lives" in meditation, I personally wouldn't have any justification to believe they were not a mind originated hallucination. If you would, that's fine.
Of course you would think that, because you don't know anything about meditation.
However, an ordinary person in ordinary conditions will not hallucinate. In the same way, a superhuman concentration and clarity of mind will not hallucinate. This is because the conditions for such things are exactly other than those that bring about hallucinations.
I will be publishing the Second essay very shortly, it will be a stepping stone (I hope) too seeing clearly what I mean. It will also explain Single Point Universes:)
Science has not shown that mind is equivalent to physical process. There are just theories upon theories. Contradictory theories and a great vacuity of definitions of what the mind is.
There is an easy mistake to make here in talking of "equivalence" when what we really mean are terms like:
Well at your prompting I have stared getting it all out of the neurons and into the pixels and words:)
That was an interesting article, but I think I've gone about as far as I want to with this. If I was going to try to characterize myself philosophically, I guess I'd say I'm a pragmatist. I gather there's a group of philosophers who call themselves pragmatists, but I don't know anything about them, and they're probably not what I mean. I mean I'm primarily interested in praxis. Because of that, I'm an empiricist. Thought experiments don't really interest me much. Too easy to fool yourself into pursuing a useless self indulgence.
Your essay would benefit from an introduction outlining your intentions and key points.
That was an interesting article, but I think I've gone about as far as I want to with this. If I was going to try to characterize myself philosophically, I guess I'd say I'm a pragmatist. I gather there's a group of philosophers who call themselves pragmatists, but I don't know anything about them, and they're probably not what I mean. I mean I'm primarily interested in praxis. Because of that, I'm an empiricist. Thought experiments don't really interest me much. Too easy to fool yourself into pursuing a useless self indulgence.
Your essay would benefit from an introduction outlining your intentions and key points.
LOL!
You know you ask me a question and I start to answer it, thinking about nothing else pretty much for nigh on two weeks and then when you haven't even had the answer you terminate your curiosity.
Well, tell me briefly and convincingly why you think you can get away without empiricism, and I'll take a look, if I'm convinced. Your argument looks like masturbation, and I don't have time to be led up a garden path. Sorry you've done all this possibly fruitless work, but you're not addressing my central concern, here. A tighter feedback loop might have saved you some effort.
Well, tell me briefly and convincingly why you think you can get away without empiricism, and I'll take a look, if I'm convinced. Your argument looks like masturbation, and I don't have time to be led up a garden path. Sorry you've done all this possibly fruitless work, but you're not addressing my central concern, here. A tighter feedback loop might have saved you some effort.
I have never said there are no empirical truths or knowledge, clearly they are. Clearly they are not the only truths. is 1+1=2 empircale? No.
Can you tell me what my argument is that looks like masturbation? Because I havent actually stated an argument:)
Nor any beliefs of mine, at least not in the Essay you have just read.
No need to appologise by the way, I dont find this work fruitless!
And even if it is an abject failiure I'm a big beliver in this:
"Work hard for the sake of the Dharma." Rinpoche
Often I think even New Buddhists forget the literal meaning of Dharma, "Truth". That's all I want to find:) And If I do, I want to be certain of it.
Yeah, I don't care about 1+1=2, even though I'm a mathematician/statistician. I often do care about numbers of objects as they arise in experience, but I'm not interested in reifying the abstraction.
Comments
Hi Fivebells
I started writing a reply to you which turned into my next essay which I have been meaning to write for ages, so Ill get it all down in that and hopefully that will make it all clear:)
That's a big hope!:)
Be back soon!
Peace,
Mat
More recent developments in neuroscience are now stating that mental experience itself changes the function of the brain - in very drastic ways.
You will enjoy these lectures if the topic of what is mind interests you:
Daniel J. Siegel, M.D
Alan Wallace, Ph.D
Of course you would think that, because you don't know anything about meditation.
However, an ordinary person in ordinary conditions will not hallucinate. In the same way, a superhuman concentration and clarity of mind will not hallucinate. This is because the conditions for such things are exactly other than those that bring about hallucinations.
Hi Fivebells
Well at your prompting I have stared getting it all out of the neurons and into the pixels and words:)
Thought Experiment One: The Glove Game
I will be publishing the Second essay very shortly, it will be a stepping stone (I hope) too seeing clearly what I mean. It will also explain Single Point Universes:)
Thanks
Mat
There is an easy mistake to make here in talking of "equivalence" when what we really mean are terms like:
"dependent on"
"determined by"
"supervienient on"
"emerged from"
The point is, science is not compatible with the idea that there is a dualistic substance.
Absolutly! And some of the ways people are linking QM with this are also facinating and profound (Dennet, Penrose..)
>>>Of course you would think that, because you don't know anything about meditation.
Not true at all:) I have been practising it for many years, I am just not very good at it:)
Best wishes
Mat
Your essay would benefit from an introduction outlining your intentions and key points.
LOL!
You know you ask me a question and I start to answer it, thinking about nothing else pretty much for nigh on two weeks and then when you haven't even had the answer you terminate your curiosity.
Have fun! Im really laughing here! ha!
Mat
I have never said there are no empirical truths or knowledge, clearly they are. Clearly they are not the only truths. is 1+1=2 empircale? No.
Can you tell me what my argument is that looks like masturbation? Because I havent actually stated an argument:)
Nor any beliefs of mine, at least not in the Essay you have just read.
No need to appologise by the way, I dont find this work fruitless!
And even if it is an abject failiure I'm a big beliver in this:
"Work hard for the sake of the Dharma." Rinpoche
Often I think even New Buddhists forget the literal meaning of Dharma, "Truth". That's all I want to find:) And If I do, I want to be certain of it.
Salome Dharma Sukkha
Mat