|
Nondualism (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you mean like binary which arbiter alluded to earlier? ;)
if this is indicative of "nondualism" then i can't say im particularly enthused by what it has to offer as an overarcing ism. |
No way man my computer uses non-dualistic quantum states instead of 1s and 0s. For example I simultaneously replied and didn't reply to your post. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
if this is indicative of "nondualism" then i can't say im particularly enthused by what it has to offer as an overarcing ism. |
lol, that's non indicative. 'non dualism' is a very broad term obviously, and that is a bunch of malarkey. This isn't a religion or a theory - it's a broad philosophical stance that says there is no difference between the observer and the observed. Some religions happen to have this position, and some scientists do as well. Anything else beyond this is mere interpretation, whether it comes from insight or from looking at a dial of some instrument, it all is filtered through the mind as such can only ever be a concept.
domesticated, your play on words is cute, but seriously irrelevant, since the large part of the cutting edge scientific community is most likely not catholic, nor does homosexuality or political party have anything to do with anything.
however, investigating the intrinstic role of an observer in a scientific experiment as part of a larger total system seems much more relevant...
i'm not sure what you are trying to prove, other than it is possible to replace words in a quote, and that is something no one has contested here. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
lol, that's non indicative. 'non dualism' is a very broad term obviously, and that is a bunch of malarkey. This isn't a religion or a theory - it's a broad philosophical stance that says there is no difference between the observer and the observed. Some religions happen to have this position, and some scientists do as well. Anything else beyond this is mere interpretation, whether it comes from insight or from looking at a dial of some instrument, it all is filtered through the mind as such can only ever be a concept.
domesticated, your play on words is cute, but seriously irrelevant, since the large part of the cutting edge scientific community is most likely not catholic, nor does homosexuality or political party have anything to do with anything.
however, investigating the intrinstic role of an observer in a scientific experiment as part of a larger total system seems much more relevant...
i'm not sure what you are trying to prove, other than it is possible to replace words in a quote, and that is something no one has contested here. |
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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
No way man my computer uses non-dualistic quantum states instead of 1s and 0s. For example I simultaneously replied and didn't reply to your post. |
:haha: :stongue: |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
:haha: :stongue: |
It's all very well to laugh now that you've altered the outcome by observing it.. :rolleyes: :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| nefardec |
| 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!) |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| 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. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
|
your first homework assignment is to read a book by david bohm called 'wholeness and the implicate order'. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| 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. |
|
|
| costizzle |
| 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. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
