TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Nondualism
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I'm contesting that non-dualism could have an effect on the physical output of science as a whole. So far, you're yet to provide any examples of this.

i posted an experiment earlier - what other sort of physical output are you looking for? A new cellphone? Why are you so concerned with 'physical output'? don't you think that as a species we have come to a point where we are advanced enough to realize other less gross forms of scientific output and human progress? What about understanding, ethics, philosophy, ecology?

The industrial revolution took place in the 19th century, not the 21st.

Developments in science originating from the perspective of nondualism will be of a fundamentally different character than that of a dualistic science. It does not mean that we can't have both. They are both 'useful' in their own ways, and that 'use' is completely dependent on one's own perspective. If you care about cell phones and keeping your muscles toned, or otherwise...

reminds me of a great quote by Muhammad:

"if i had two loaves of bread i would trade one for hyacinths to nourish my soul."


in any case these are cutting edge movements in science (despite being decades old), and with all of the red tape involved in the academic process and scientific method it will be some time before we see lots of 'concrete' results of this mode of science. But as I said, it's very likely that the results will be of a fundamentally different character that will have more to do with the changing inner landscape of man's understanding of himself and his relationship to the world than the discrete, 'physical' achievements of yesterday, and so it may prove difficult in to grade them as 'achievements' according to the existing industrial-corporal rubric.

It would be similar to asking a caveman the worth of the iphone to him in his daily life and context.

in other words, nondualistic approaches to science will become more apparent and 'useful' as mankind grows (and develops the faculty to perceive the changes and develops the uses themselves!)

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec i posted an experiment earlier - what other sort of physical output are you looking for? A new cellphone? Why are you so concerned with 'physical output'? don't you think that as a species we have come to a point where we are advanced enough to realize other less gross forms of scientific output and human progress? What about understanding, ethics, philosophy, ecology?

Firstly, no, I don't think we have progressed beyond physical output. There are people starving around the world, pollution is growing more intense and there are diseases still unconquered. Pondering the intricacies of philosophy and ethics are not going to solve these problems, at least not directly.

Once we have solved these problems we will have all the time in the world to consider the nature of our existence.

As for your experiment:

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec 'essentially' read this http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1 In layman's terms - this experiment allowed the observers to affect events in the future even after they should have been, for lack of a better term 'fated' to result in a certain way. The delayed choice experiments, variations on the original double slit experiment, show that there is a tangled relationship between the observer and the observed, that their boundaries dissolve, one might say 'there is only the observing'. It is impossible, on the quantum level, to observe something without affecting the observed. This is essentially 'monism', and by that I don't mean your philosophy textbook definition, but just literally that there is only one truth from which any semblance of dualism is merely a latent effect or epiphenomenon of perspective or scale.

That relates to advaita only in an incidental way. Advaita is a mystical/philosophical world view which deals with concepts and ideas. The above experiment has to do with quantum physics, which:

a) Deal with physicalities and mathematics, the traditional opposites of what you're talking about (BUT THERE ARE NO OPPOSITES, ONLY WHOLES!).

b) Recognise that objects or events can influence one another in intrinsic ways we do not yet understand. The theory does not presume that the objects or events are part of a greater whole, or not fundamentally separate from one another. If you believe that experiments such as the one above and the 'double slit' experiment are proof of non-dualism, then that is just your interpretation, because of a majority of the people conducting the experiments would not agree with you. Keep in mind that these people understand the experiments, they're not just faux-intellectual reading PDFs about them on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec The industrial revolution took place in the 19th century, not the 21st.

Yes, and we're still trying to correct that mistake. You can't reverse physical mistakes with philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Developments in science originating from the perspective of nondualism will be of a fundamentally different character than that of a dualistic science. It does not mean that we can't have both. They are both 'useful' in their own ways, and that 'use' is completely dependent on one's own perspective. If you care about cell phones and keeping your muscles toned, or otherwise... in any case these are cutting edge movements in science (despite being decades old), and with all of the red tape involved in the academic process and scientific method it will be some time before we see lots of 'concrete' results of this mode of science. But as I said, it's very likely that the results will be of a fundamentally different character that will have more to do with the changing inner landscape of man's understanding of himself and his relationship to the world than the discrete, 'physical' achievements of yesterday, and so it may prove difficult in to grade them as 'achievements' according to the existing industrial-corporal rubric. It would be similar to asking a caveman the worth of the iphone to him in his daily life and context. in other words, nondualistic approaches to science will become more apparent and 'useful' as mankind grows (and develops the faculty to perceive the changes and develops the uses themselves!)

Don't try and paint me as someone obsessed with superficiality such as the size of my muscles and owning the newest cell phone. Reading books on Indian mysticism doesn't suddenly increase your moral clout; on the contrary they make you look like someone struggling desperately for identity within their own culture.

I ask for physical examples because I am a positivist. As I said, philosophy is useful for changing man's social organisation and improving our interpersonal relations or views of the world. However, in regards to science, a wholly physical discipline, I fail to see what philosophy offers.

"fundamentally different character that will have more to do with the changing inner landscape of man's understanding of himself and his relationship to the world than the discrete, 'physical' achievements of yesterday." Can you please provide an example of this?

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec reminds me of a great quote by Muhammad: "if i had two loaves of bread i would trade one for hyacinths to nourish my soul."

Reminds me of another great quote by Muhammad:

"float like a butterfly, sting like a bee."

He's trying to express the non-dualism of the world and how we should be able to maintain two states at once, though still remain as a whole ourselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated

your first homework assignment is to read a book by david bohm called 'wholeness and the implicate order'.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec your first homework assignment is to read a book by david bohm called 'wholeness and the implicate order'.

I'll read that if you agree to stop using other people's words as a crutch for the deficiency of your own.

not only do we all have a dualistic nature, but we also tend to categorize things in reductive ways. saying this is this and not that. when in fact it is many things and to classify it as something takes away its essence of being.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I'll read that if you agree to stop using other people's words as a crutch for the deficiency of your own.

using other people's words to make your point is the basis of academia. granted, this is a trance messageboard, and i'm not going to pull out my citations, card catalog, and bibliography, but do seriously think that any thought is truly original?

the only reason i mention the bohm book is you make it seem like I am the one coming to some conclusion (which I am not), but there are many people with better credentials than me raising the same questions.

also, the minute i say something of my own invention of course you would attack me for not having sources or references or for having a fringe opinion.

at least i find your constant, useless, undirected curmudgeonry (that's my own word) somewhat entertaining, otherwise it might be really tiresome.

for someone who accuses another of using other people's words as a crutch, you sure have a lack of your own original contributions. literally everything you post is a remix or refutation of another post.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec using other people's words to make your point is the basis of academia.

I know, I've always despised it. Besides, in academic writing you quote others and then outline why you agree or disagree with them, not use direct quotations from others and say 'this is correct' with no justification.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec the only reason i mention the bohm book is you make it seem like I am the one coming to some conclusion (which I am not), but there are many people with better credentials than me raising the same questions.

You may not have come to the conclusion yourself, but you're still supporting it, which makes you liable to defend it.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec also, the minute i say something of my own invention of course you would attack me for not having sources or references or for having a fringe opinion.

Of course, I'd totally go against my own convictions just to win a cheap point. I ask for sources when statistics or particular experiments are mentioned, but never for opinions.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec for someone who accuses another of using other people's words as a crutch, you sure have a lack of your own original contributions. literally everything you post is a remix or refutation of another post.

How does refuting someone else's point make your own words any less original? Again, I remind you that you're the one supporting non-dualism. Were I the person making a claim then you would be the 'unoriginal' one debating the merit of my posts.

There's a very easy way to shut me up. Just provide one example of how non-dualism could physically change science.

"A totally different approach..."

or

"A revolutionary way of thinking..."

are not answers.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated There's a very easy way to shut me up. Just provide one example of how non-dualism could physically change science. "A totally different approach..." or "A revolutionary way of thinking..." are not answers.

you're quite self-important, aren't you?


since you have made the positive assertion that those are not answers, prove to me why they are not answers.

also, define 'physical' and explain why it is important to 'physically change science' and what that actually means in every single case imaginable. why do some things physically change science and not others? where is the line drawn?

after you have defined this, then we can talk about the same thing.

Science has a way of working. It proceeds first with intuition or unexpected discovery and then with observation and testing. In order to observe or test something, if this is what you mean by physical, you have to either decide to observe it or unexpectedly happen upon observing it.

If Galileo had never come up with the idea of looking through a telescope, he would not have observed jupiter and formulated ideas about celestial bodies. The very notion that one could think of the stars and planets as distant objects in outer space was in itself revolutionary and later came to 'physically change science'.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec since you have made the positive assertion that those are not answers, prove to me why they are not answers.

If I were to say to you "you should get tennis coaching, it will completely change your approach to the game and revolutionise your modes of thought," would you take this as an answer over something like "a tennis coach would be able to improve your technique through watching you play and modifying your racquet movements, meaning you'd hit harder and more efficiently."

In the same vein, you're giving me a vague assurance that non-dualism has the capacity to change science, but no explanation of how. Were you to provide a decent example, I'd listen and perhaps concede I was wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec also, define 'physical' and explain why it is important to 'physically change science' and what that actually means in every single case imaginable. why do some things physically change science and not others? where is the line drawn?

The theory of relativity was just thoughts, but it had a concrete physical output that could be proven. We could perform experiments to show it in practice, and we have used it for applications like nuclear reactors or rocket calculations.

It is important to physically change science because:

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Firstly, no, I don't think we have progressed beyond physical output. There are people starving around the world, pollution is growing more intense and there are diseases still unconquered. Pondering the intricacies of philosophy and ethics are not going to solve these problems, at least not directly.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Science has a way of working. It proceeds first with intuition or unexpected discovery and then with observation and testing. In order to observe or test something, if this is what you mean by physical, you have to either decide to observe it or unexpectedly happen upon observing it. If Galileo had never come up with the idea of looking through a telescope, he would not have observed jupiter and formulated ideas about celestial bodies. The very notion that one could think of the stars and planets as distant objects in outer space was in itself revolutionary and later came to 'physically change science'.

Yes, I completely agree. What I'm asking for is for you to provide an example of the theory or thought in practice. Provide 'the telescope'.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Yes, I completely agree. What I'm asking for is for you to provide an example of the theory or thought in practice. Provide 'the telescope'.

all i am saying is that we have the idea, but we don't have the telescope yet! This is the revolutionary idea that would cause us to build this metaphorical 'telescope', and the reason we should build it is no different than the reason galileo built his real telescope, and surely one of those reasons is pure curiosity.

You're asking the wrong person for the telescope, I am an architect and designer, not a well-funded physicist and researcher. This does not exclude me from being able to have ideas or share others' ideas.

What you're asking me is similar to asking someone to explain how to build a stradivarious violin and design a concert hall because they like to listen to Igor Oistrakh. I don't have to understand the whole thing by all of its parts in order to appreciate its beauty.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec all i am saying is that we have the idea, but we don't have the telescope yet! This is the revolutionary idea that would cause us to build this metaphorical 'telescope', and the reason we should build it is no different than the reason galileo built his real telescope, and surely one of those reasons is pure curiosity. You're asking the wrong person for the telescope, I am an architect and designer, not a well-funded physicist and researcher. This does not exclude me from being able to have ideas or share others' ideas. What you're asking me is similar to asking someone to explain how to build a stradivarious violin and design a concert hall because they like to listen to Igor Oistrakh. I don't have to understand the whole thing by all of its parts in order to appreciate its beauty.

Okay, well I suppose that ends our discussion.

However, you don't need to know how to build a violin or a telescope to understand their function and relate it to others.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated However, you don't need to know how to build a violin or a telescope to know what they are and relate the concepts to others.

except if it hasn't been invented yet...

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Okay, well I suppose that ends our discussion. However, you don't need to know how to build a violin or a telescope to understand their function and relate it to others.

i think you're blatantly ignoring the benefits of rampant masturbation brought to us by the nondualists.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i think you're blatantly ignoring the benefits of rampant masturbation brought to us by the nondualists.

fixation on any concept is masturbatory. why are you just picking on one of them when there are so many more to pick on? there are so many snarky posts on messageboards to be made - fuck, i am so fucking excited for you.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec fixation on any concept is masturbatory. why are you just picking on one of them when there are so many more to pick on? there are so many snarky posts on messageboards to be made - fuck, i am so fucking excited for you.

imo philosophy goes above and beyond the call of needful masturbation. that's why my comments normally turn up in the philosophy threads now, don't get me wrong, i think there are many kinds of thought that are too far beyond my capabilities (or interest) to understand, and while i bag philosophy as a whole i know it certainly has merit. but im just not sure what nondualism is doing for me right at this minute, that's all

Nondualism in science has fairly obviously not yielded any perceptible results and it will not do in the future, because there is actually nothing new, promising or exciting about it at all.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J there is actually nothing new, promising or exciting about it at all.

I think you're essentially right on all counts, and that's actually why I find it more interesting than anything 'exciting' or 'promising' or 'new'. Things like that tend to be distracting and limited temporally. I prefer simple, self-evident, and timeless...

I've always felt that Reality or 'truth' ought to be rather boring - like that old saying 'nothing new under the sun'.

however, I think that exciting and new things will still come out of scientific inquiry under the influence of nondualism, as scientists begin to devise experiments and devices to examine the world as inseparble from the scientists themselves. I don't think any of us here are knowledgeable or insightful enough to know what those experiments will be and what exciting new things would come, but I think it is fairly obvious that there exists plenty of uncharted scientific territory in this area, more specifically related to consciousness.

Now another question is whether these 'new' and 'exciting' things are 'important' or just another distraction keeping us from appreciating the world for what it really is

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.