|
Nondualism (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Domesticated |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| 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'. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| 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. |
|
|
|
| Domesticated |
| 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'. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| 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. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| 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. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| 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... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| 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 - , i am so ing excited for you. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 - , i am so ing 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 ;) |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
