Intuition And Logic

[Thomas Knierim]

It seems that logic and intuition are two different modes of thinking from which we are able to derive knowledge. Intuition is immediate, like an idea or an image that suddenly pops into our mind. It is gained effortlessly and apparently by chance. Intuition seems like meta-logic that leaps directly from the question to the answer. The problem is that we come by this knowledge without context, therefore it is difficult to "corroborate". Since we cannot trace the origin of the answer, we cannot verify it by making connections to other contents of thought. Logic, on the other hand, is methodical thought. Logical deductions are sequences of thought that lead from the question to the answer step by step. Logic can be expressed in natural language, or in formal notation such as in mathematics. Logical sequences are transformations of sentences (=assertions) performed in compliance with a given set of rules. These rules are defined by formal logic.

It was the study of formal logic that brought me to think that logic is based on intuition. Almost everyone is able to judge whether a simple sequence of assertions is logical or not. For example, consider the sequence "All Russians were revolutionists, and all anarchists were revolutionist, therefore, all anarchists were Russians." It may appear credible at first, but if you look closer at the sentence, it is obvious that it violates logic. The sequence is an example of a syllogistic error with an undistributed middle (anarchists). Such mistakes are common in speech. The attentive listener is able to spot them.

In fact, most of us are capable of recognizing such a logical error immediately on account of a mental capability we call reason. Reason has been used since the beginning of mankind, however, it took more than two thousand years for the system of formal logic to evolve from Aristotelian syllogisms to today’s body of formal logic, including formal reasoning, predicate logic, and propositional calculus. If you look at the deduction rules in formal reasoning, you will find that these rules are atomic. This means they are neither broken down into smaller operations, nor are they based on external assertions. Each of these rules is complete. Each of these rules is evident. They cannot be questioned. But, how comes this? Which faculty of mind is responsible to understand these atomic rules. The answer is, of course, intuition. The rules of formal logic which have been distilled into a complete set of logical operators are small, formalized pieces of intuition. Repeatable chunks of intuition. Logical reasoning is the mode of thought suited best to the normal mode of human consciousness. We can use these rules to create complex theories in the same way brick stones are used to build large buildings.

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

Would you consider intuition and "gut instinct" the same thing?
:huh: :unsure:

[Thomas Knierim]

Yes. Intuition, instinct, gut feeling, hunch, ideas - it's all the same.

Cheers, Thomas

[a random hack]

Isn't logic a way of describing/ rationalising intuition?
Or did you already say that?
:rolleyes:

[Polaris]

I saw a TV show once several years ago, and unfortunately I can't remember what it was called and everything said but I seem to recall that after studying initial reactions to intuition and the final outcome, that it was determined that in most cases one should trust their intuition.

The example I recall was when a woman ignored her gut instincts to flee when a strange car pulled up in front of her country home and the occupants asked for directions. Even though her first instinct was to run she discounted it as foolish and ended up getting assaulted. There were several examples of that nature.

I'm not sure how really "scientific" the show was but it was interesting entertainment.

Interesting to note, however, that if I followed my first gut instinct I'd never set foot on an airplane of any kind. Yet I do fly when I have to, although I do so "white knuckle" style :( :o

[rich]

Instinct and gut feeling?

Who is it to say, that it is not an alert signal from a source outside of yourself, communicating with your mind,
to protect you from an imminent danger, or just to communicate with you. Period.? :unsure: :rolleyes: ;) :P

[a random hack]

Sure Polaris, if we fled every time e saw a strange car, we could be pretty sure of not getting assaulted by the occupants, but by the same token, we may never make any new friends either...
rich,
Seems that the only time we remember not following our gut, is the one time some bad thing happens...
If only I'd put that lottery form in that one time my numbers came up, I'd be a 'rich' man :lol:

[Polaris]

Instinct and gut feeling?

Who is it to say, that it is not an alert signal from a source outside of yourself, communicating with your mind,
to protect you from an imminent danger, or just to communicate with you. Period.?

Interestingly enough I have had several occasions in my life where instinct/gut feelings were , well, ESP-ish.

When I was about 10 I was driving in the car with my father and brother and sister to the local ski hill where we locked our ski equipment in a storage locker. As I was sitting there I got the overwhelming feeling that my ski poles were being stolen. I said out loud "I think my ski poles are gone." and of course I got some ribbing from my older siblings for being weird etc... Sure enough, when we got there my ski poles were gone. The fact that I got to enjoy the old "I told you so" made the loss more tolerable. Plus Dad bought me new poles... so it was ALL good.

Things like that have happened to me on several occasions in my life and the point of my little tale is that, Rich, I think you may be right. I think the source for many of these intuitive gut feelings is external.

My husband works with a lady who swears she can see people's auras and can tell by the colour and intensity of their aura their mood and how they are feeling. She freaked my husband out one day by telling him he should go take something for his headache when he never told anyone he had a headache.

Certainly I get vibes from people.

Auras and vibes. Does anybody know anything about these things?

[rich]

Polaris,

A similar story as yours, only, mine was revealed in a dream.

Years ago, when I worked in New York State, the company I was working for, was going to open a new division in Florida, and entire group was told that some of the people working in NY would be transferred to Florida. Many of us were wishing for being transferred.

A person whom I hardly knew at all, I dreamt was going to be transferred. A couple of days later, the formal annoucement of his transfer was made. I did not have any inside knowledge that he would be chosen to go.

Still wondering how I knew. A mystery. B)

[sylph]

re: the atomic components of formal logic

yes, and how do we know deductive logic always works? because it always has in the past (an inductive argument). :ph34r:

[rich]

Sylph,

Many times, we do not knowwhat the outcome will be. B)

Many times, one must learn via trial and error. :unsure:

If you do not have the time for trial and error, guess you go with gut feeling, crossing your fingers, and tongue on cheek, hoping for the best.
Sometimes your lucky. :D :P

[Ronagon]

Thomas,

Logic is perhaps the best tool for survival, but I also think that intuition always arises after the initial and awkward acquisition of skills and understanding, that begin with logic.

Take babies, for example. Initially, everything is a conscious chore for them, very awkward. But after a time, the processes become automatic and "intuitive".

That's the way it is with the development of any skill... And I think that's the relationship between logic and intuition.

[Ronagon]

One other thing...

Logic does have its drawbacks, though.

An overemphasis on logical validation and analysis of everything, can make a person stressed-out and hypervigilant.

If we don't know all of the factors at work in the world, we can easily come to false and overly horrifying conclusions. We can develop paranoia and psychosis.

That's what happened to John Nash, if you read his biography... NOT THAT STUPID MOVIE.

At some point, you have to take a leap of trust and just turn your brain on low.

[Polaris]

If we don't know all of the factors at work in the world, we can easily come to false and overly horrifying conclusions. We can develop paranoia and psychosis.

That's what happened to John Nash, if you read his biography... NOT THAT STUPID MOVIE.


I never read the book but I did see the stupid movie which I enjoyed... but mostly because of Russell Crowe (confessions of a mid-aged house-wife ;) ). I was under the impression that John Nash's psychosis was the result of a chemical imbalance and no matter how how low a setting he turned his brain on he still would have suffered from mental illness. :huh:

[sylph]

Originally posted by Ronagon@Jul 26 2003, 10:50 AM
An overemphasis on logical validation and analysis of everything, can make a person stressed-out and hypervigilant.

If we don't know all of the factors at work in the world, we can easily come to false and overly horrifying conclusions. We can develop paranoia and psychosis.
yeah, i used to be exactly like that when i was a kid. :blink:

[sylph]

Originally posted by Ronagon@Jul 26 2003, 10:45 AM
Take babies, for example. Initially, everything is a conscious chore for them, very awkward. But after a time, the processes become automatic and "intuitive".
Yeah, when I was a child, I had no intuition, and relied almost exclusively on logic, which really messed things up a few times when I didn't take all the factors into consideration. :ph34r:

However, one cannot have logic as the first principles. No one can be born knowing the operations of formal logic, especially without some content to operate on. How can you learn anything, if you have no equipment to learn or interpret empirical knowledge/experience?

This is where intuition comes in, the kind that is hard-wired from your genes.

In the same line, humans have the innate capacity to learn human language. One cannot learn all the rules of grammar from trial and error; there must be some hardwired equipment that enables us to learn something as complex and dynamic as human language. (Refer to current studies in linguistics.)

[sahyo]

:)


humans have the innate capacity to learn human language.


only 'seems'


cannot learn all the rules of grammar from trial and error


yes can, though wouldn't say is "learn all the rules of grammer from trial and error"

[sylph]

Noam Chomsky and Universal Grammar: A Basic Introduction

According to Noam Chomsky, basic language structure resides internally and basic patterns are innate to human beings. This theory is termed universal grammar. Chomsky's definition of universal grammar is "the system of principals, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages…the essence of all human languages." Essentially, what is being said is that humans, when born, have a set of rules already built into them. These rules allow human beings the ability to learn any language...

- Read whole article (http://www.geocities.com/linguist_resource/intro_ug.html)

the above is a geocities site, but i think it is a good and accurate introduction to Chomsky's theory. what i am majoring in relates to this, so that is why i am so interested in it. :)

[sahyo]

Originally posted by sylph@Jul 27 2003, 09:27 PM



Noam Chomsky and Universal Grammar: A Basic Introduction

According to Noam Chomsky, basic language structure resides internally and basic patterns are innate to human beings. This theory is termed universal grammar. Chomsky's definition of universal grammar is "the system of principals, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages…the essence of all human languages." Essentially, what is being said is that humans, when born, have a set of rules already built into them. These rules allow human beings the ability to learn any language...

- Read whole article (http://www.geocities.com/linguist_resource/intro_ug.html)

the above is a geocities site, but i think it is a good and accurate introduction to Chomsky's theory. what i am majoring in relates to this, so that is why i am so interested in it. :)



noaming only thinking'guessing'theory

sylph believe Essentially, what is being said is that humans, when born, have a set of rules already built into them?

basic language structure resides internally and basic patterns
wasn't innate asheera...

wasn't born, have a set of rules already built into either

:D

[sylph]

yes, it's just a theory, but from studying linguistics, and all the previous theories that came before, chomsky's theory is so right.

i don't have enough energy or time to explain it all, but at least i can introduce it here for you to consider.

perhaps, it does not apply to asheera, because asheera does not speak grammatically. ;) :lol:

[Thomas Knierim]

Chomsky rocks!!!

Twelve years ago I worked on automated fulltext translation systems using Chomsky's grammar trees for syntactical analysis. Never found the time to teach the software Wittgenstein, though. :D This means it couldn't do semantical checks which led to the embarrassing problem that homonyms could not be resolved. Today fulltext translation systems can do that.

Cheers, Thomas

[sylph]

12 years ago?!?! how old are you? or, how old were you?

[rich]

Sylph,
Pardon Mr Butinsky for butting in, buttttttt, case in point is if Thomas
can't remember that far back, here is info.

buttttt, you'll have to figured out the math. :D :P ;)

Thomas Knierim
Active Stats
Total Posts: 57
( 5.28% of total forum posts )
Posts per day: 1.2
Joined: Jun 12 2003, 09:22 PM
Most active in: Help Desk
14 posts in this forum
( 27% of this member's posts )
User's local time No Information
Communicate
Email: Click Here
AIM Name: No Information
ICQ Number: No Information
Yahoo Identity: No Information
MSN Identity: No Information
Private Message: Click Here
Information
Home Page: http://www.thebigview.com
Birthday: 2 May 1965
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Interests: Running this website.
Posting Details
Member Group: Admin
Member Title: Administrator
Avatar:
Signature:
<< back
[ Copyright | Board Archive | Table of Contents ]




Powered by Invision Power Board v1.1.2 © 2003 IPS, Inc.

[sahyo]

sylph :D


Essentially, what is being said is that humans, when born, have a set of rules already built into them?



sylph thinkingbelieving
"when born have a set of rules already built into them"?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Jul 16 2003, 08:08 PM
It seems that logic and intuition are two different modes of thinking from which we are able to derive knowledge. . . .

It was the study of formal logic that brought me to think that logic is based on intuition. Almost everyone is able to judge whether a simple sequence of assertions is logical or not. . . .
Hi Thomas -

The notion that the human capacity for Intuition underlies, and thus 'gives rise' to, the human capacity for logic is a very interesting one. If one assumes that to be the case, then, the idea that (such) Intuition is a human capacity, I think, totally obviates the 'need' to postulate any kind of built-in 'language-enabling' 'wiring' or capacity for 'rule-patterning' of any kind.

I went back to see what I had written in my 'world-view' book, pertaining to Intellect and Intuition. Among other tit-bits, I came up with the following piece which simply view-treats Intellect and Intuition as 'separate' human faculties. It is from an an 'advice'-and-'encouragement' section:

. . . continue to scrutinize and contemplatively explore happenings and trends, with a view towards comprehending what is psychospiritually occurring in[note1] and to[note2] you and those you are involved with and connected to. Because psycho-spiritual factors are not physically observable,[note3] even those who are gifted in this respect have to exercise and learn, via practice and review, to coordinate the operation of the 'eye' of their Intellect with the 'ear' of their Intuition in order to become adept at making pertinent deductions and inferences.[note4] As time goes on, you will be more and more able to diagnostically discern what is going on in your and others' being-and-becoming process and know what will be most constructive.
------------
Notes
1: I.e., personal thoughts, emotions, expectations, motives, wishes, etc.
2: I.e., influences stemming from the thoughts, emotions, expectations, motives, wishes, etc. of others.
3: "Eye hath not seen nor ear heard…the deep things of God …because they are [psycho]spiritually discerned." (I Corinthians; 2:9-14.)
4: Just establishing a frame of reference and placing things in perspective isn't enough. To reach ‘right understanding’, one must also develop a 'feel' for the way psychospiritual dynamics operate, as is evidenced by the fact that many clever scholars, geniuses even, arrive at faulty conclusions and make quite foolish decisions in their relationships with others.

All that jogging my 'memory' of that 'vision', the way I saw things, I guess, :) is that Intellect and Intuition were fairly independent, or at least each quite different, human 'capacities', or 'abilities', or 'capabilities', or sump'm like that. :) Intellect involves 'logical processing'; Intuition, is some kind of 'direct', some like to use the term 'spiritual', 'apprehension'. That the latter is certainly not 'dependent' on the former is evidenced by the incredible performances of Autistic Savants who, as depicted in the movie Rainman ( I think? that was the name) with Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, are able to 'arrive at' 'answers' (i.e., they 'pop into' their 'minds'), which literally would require Intellect to do 'cartwheels' to get to, through very simple faith-based query (i.e., 'opening' their 'minds' to the 'answers').

I think that most of us are so 'snowed by' logic (i.e., the 'operation' of Intellect) that we get 'hung up' on the notion that logic is the only way to arrive at 'reliable' 'answers'. We don't have enough faith in Intuition to (re?)activate (i.e. pay close attention to and experiment with) and learn to masterfully utilize this innate capacity of ours, though I suppose it's never too late for anyone to begin to play-learn in this regard. One caveat, I think, bears being presented along with this, however: IMO, Intuition is just as, if not more, susceptible to 'arriving at' distorted or biased 'conclusions' as Intellect – 'desirous' or 'aversive' e·motionality 'sways' both what one 'imagines' and 'rationalizes' (and consequently 'believes') to be 'the' Truth.

David

[sylph]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 29 2003, 11:57 PM
sylph thinkingbelieving
"when born have a set of rules already built into them"?
yes, sort of... that is, humans have certain general rules that allow them to generate the specific rules of a language.

the general rules that are hardwired is called "Universal Grammar", because it is universal to all humans and all languages. when a human is an infant, it knows Universal Grammar (UG). when the infant is exposed to a specific language, it somehow fits into one of the templates of UG, so that is how they can figure out the grammar of the specific language.

[sylph]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 29 2003, 11:57 PM
sylph thinkingbelieving
"when born have a set of rules already built into them"?
yes, sort of... that is, humans have certain general rules that allow them to generate the specific rules of a language.

the general rules that are hardwired is called "Universal Grammar", because it is universal to all humans and all languages. when a human is an infant, it knows Universal Grammar (UG). when the infant is exposed to a specific language, it somehow fits into one of the templates of UG, so that is how they can figure out the grammar of the specific language.

[sylph]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Jul 29 2003, 08:56 AM
Chomsky rocks!!!
you mean Chomsky Rules! :D

yes, chomsky is definitely cool. B) he's like einstein. in addition to being super-smart, he is deeply concerned with morality & politics.

[sahyo]

"the system of principals, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages…the essence of all human languages."


chomsky wrote thinking"system", not fact

:)

[sylph]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 31 2003, 03:36 AM
chomsky wrote thinking"system", not fact

:)
:huh: what do you mean?

do you mean that because it is a system (like as with a theory), it is not a fact?

no... i don't think it's coherent to compare these two things... a theory is not a fact. :huh: but facts are based on theories, and theories are based on facts. :D

[sahyo]

i don't think it's coherent to compare these two things... a theory is not a fact.


"things"?

was "comparing"?


but facts are based on theories, and theories are based on facts.


no

[rich]

butinsky butting in again,
but asheera does not post
via theory. asheera posts
via f/act/ual experience.
but asheera will have
to write
about
it.
:)
butting out now.

[sylph]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 31 2003, 09:07 AM

but facts are based on theories, and theories are based on facts.*


no
facts are based on theories:
we know for a 'fact' that the earth revolves around the sun. but this is based on copernican's theory. and this is based on the theory that there is motion, that there is gravity, etc., which are theories.
(and the geocentric view (i.e., the sun revolves around the earth) of the world used to be considered 'fact' a long time ago.)

theories are based on facts:
we make our 'theories' based on observation we assume to be fact. we do experiments, we observe, and then we form hypotheses to account for the 'facts' that we observe.

theories are just frameworks we use to look at the world.

facts are just first principles we must assume to be true.

can we really 'know' anything to be true with certainty? no, but all we can do is provide proper justification for our beliefs. :)

[...]

can we really 'know' anything to be true with certainty?

Indeed, we can't know anything for sure as long as we are convinced there's an owner of knowledge, instead of knowing.

no, but all we can do is provide proper justification for our beliefs.

When beliefs are irrelevant, justification is irrelevant...

[rich]

The source, ( if any ) of knowledge we do not know, is not as important as realizing that, we/I, do not know it all. :) -_-

[sylph]

Beliefs are not irrelevant. They are all we have to go by. Without beliefs, you might as well lie there, motionless and unblinking.

[sahyo]

loving need beliefs?, sylph :)

[sahyo]

Indeed, we can't know anything for sure as long as we are convinced there's an owner of knowledge, instead of knowing.

anything?

knowing?

:)

[sylph]

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 1 2003, 12:53 PM
loving need beliefs?, sylph :)
loving?

thinking.

[sonrisa]

Sylph, just now got around to reading your Chomsky link. I have only read his anti-war stuff, so that was interesting for me to read his views about something so unrelated. Thanx for putting up the link. :)

[sahyo]

all we can do is provide proper justification for our beliefs.


"proper justification" for 'fearthought"beliefs"? ;)

[...]

Beliefs are not irrelevant. They are all we have to go by. Without beliefs, you might as well lie there, motionless and unblinking.

Why do you think that? Beliefs are mere interpretation, whilst knowing isn't...

[sylph]

Originally posted by ...@Aug 2 2003, 11:12 PM
Beliefs are mere interpretation, whilst knowing isn't...
You can never truly 'know' something with certainty. Everyone used to 'know' that the sun revolved around the earth, with 'certainty'. But nowadays, we consider it an archaic 'belief', a wrong 'interpretation' of the universe.

What if you are trapped in the Matrix? You think you 'know' what chicken tastes like, who your president is, what year it is, etc., but in reality, none of that exists, and you are merely a body in a vat!

[a random hack]

So why are you so attached to your beliefs (aka 'knowledge')?

[rich]

Originally posted by sylph@Aug 1 2003, 07:52 AM
Beliefs are not irrelevant. They are all we have to go by. Without beliefs, you might as well lie there, motionless and unblinking.
Sylph,
I tend to agree with what you posted, partly because of the attitude of those who disagree with your view, thinking they are so right, without even stipulating, they may be wrong.

There are many fine people who have dedicated their lives to doing good, without thinking of themselves being above anyone else. Their
only aim in life is to do good. I think you will find people life that among all of us.

So believe in what ever brings you comfort. :)

[a random hack]

Being silent is no guarantee for staying out of trouble, but it is less of a risk.

[...]

You can never truly 'know' something with certainty. Everyone used to 'know' that the sun revolved around the earth, with 'certainty'. But nowadays, we consider it an archaic 'belief', a wrong 'interpretation' of the universe.

Beliefs are shapeshifters that fits comfortzones to a tee, but intuitive knowledge [ownerless] has nothing to do with beliefs.

What if you are trapped in the Matrix? You think you 'know' what chicken tastes like, who your president is, what year it is, etc., but in reality, none of that exists, and you are merely a body in a vat!

What if the 'you' that thinks exists has no real validity, no control whatsoever, what if that 'you' is a belief?

[sylph]

I think; therefore, I am.

[...]

I think; therefore, I am.

What are you when thought ends?

[DavidS]

What follows is a fascinating (that is, I personally found it so) excerpt from Roberts Anton Wilson's QUANTUM PSYCHOLOGY: How Brain Software Programs You and Your World.

To 'set the stage' for the Mind's eyes here [smile], let me preface the excerpt by transcribing the text on the back cover of the book, which I enthusiastically recommend to anyone who enjoys splish-splashing around with 'meaningful' (to those who've developed a taste for, and so savor, these) linguistic·logical abstractions (as I do).

Throughout human history, thoughts, values and behaviors have been colored by language and the prevailing view of the universe. With the advent of Quantum Mechanics, relativity, non-Euclidean geometries, non-Aristotelian logic and General Semantics, the scientific view of the world has changed dramatically from just a few decades ago. Nonetheless, human thinking is still deeply rooted in the cosmology of the middle ages. Quantum Psychology is the book to change your way of perceiving yourself – and the universe – for the 21st Century. Some say it is materialistic, others call it scientific and still others insist it is mystical. It is all of these – and none.

"Wilson managed to reverse every mental polarity in me, as if I had been pulled through infinity. I was astonished and delighted." – Philip K. Dick, author of Blade Runner

"Erudite, witty and genuinely scary ..." – Publisher's Weekly

"Dazzling . . . the most thrilling tilt-a-whirls and daring loop-o-planes on the midway of higher consciousness." – Tom Robbins

"The man's either a genius or Jesus." – Sounds (London)

"What great physicist hides behind the mask of Wilson?" – New Scientist

Novelist, Teacher and Former Playboy Editor Robert Anton Wilson is the author of the Cosmic Trigger trilogy; The New Inquisition; Reality Is What You Can Get Away With; the Illumatus! trilogy (with Robert Shea); [etc., etc., etc.] and many other works.

Here's the excerpt – enjoy the tell-and-show!

Chapter Five: How Many Heads Do You Have?

Borrowing a joke (or a profundity?) from Betrand Russell's Our Knowledge of the External World, I will now demonstrate that the reader has two heads.

According to common sense, and the consensus of most (Occidental) philosophers, we exist "inside" and "objective universe", or – to say it otherwise – the "objective universe" exists "outside" us.

Very few people have ever doubted this. Those who have doubted it have arrived, inevitably, at highly eccentric conclusions.

Well, then, avoiding eccentricity and accepting the conventional view, how do we know anything about that "external universe"? How do we perceive it?

(For convenience, I will consider only the sense of sight in what follows. The reader can check for himself, or herself, that the same logic applies if one changes the terms and substitutes hearing or any of our other senses.)

We see objects in the "external universe" through our eyes and then make pictures – models – of them in our brains. The brain "interprets" what the eyes transmit as energy signals. (For now, we ignore data that shows the brain makes a gamble that it can interpret these signals.)

Again, very few Occidentals have doubted this, and those who have doubted it all arrived at strange and incredible alternatives.

So, then, we live "inside" and "external universe" and make a picture or model of it "inside" our brains, by adding together, or synthesizing, and interpreting, our pictures or models of parts of the universe called "objects". Then, it follows that we never know the external universe" and its "objects" at all. We know the model of the "external universe" inside our brains, which exist inside our heads.

In that case, everything we see, which we think of as existing externally, actually exists internally, inside our heads.

But we have not arrived at solipsism, remember. We still assume the "external universe" from which we started. We have merely discovered that we cannot see it or know it. We see a model of it inside our heads, and in daily life forget this and act as if the model exists outside our heads – i.e., as if {1} the model and the universe occupy the same area of space ([the following refers to a preceding 'point' he made:] as our map that tries to show "all" about Dublin would occupy the same space as Dublin) and {2} that this space exists "outside".

But the model and the universe do not occupy the same space and the space where our model exists can only be located "inside" our brains, which exist inside our heads.

We now realize that, while the universe exists outside, the model exists inside, and therefore occupies much less space than the universe.

The "real universe" then exists "outside" but remains unexperienced, perhaps unknown. That which we do experience and know (or think we know) exists in local networks of electrochemical bonds in our brains.

Again, if the reader cares to challenge any part of this, she or he should certainly try to imagine an alternative explanation of perception. It will appear, or it has always appeared to date, that any and all such alternatives sound not only queerer than this but totally unbelievable to "people of common sense".

Well, to proceed, we have now an "external universe", very large (comparatively speaking), and a model of the same, much smaller (comparatively speaking), the former "outside" us and the latter "inside" us. Of course, some correspondence or isomorphism exists between the "external" and "internal" universes. Otherwise, I could not get up from my chair, walk to the door, do down the hall and accurately locate the kitchen to get a cup of coffee from something I identify as Coffee Maker.

But where does our head exist?

Well, our head obviously exists "inside" the "external universe" and "outside" our brain which contains the model of the "external universe".

But since we never see or experience the "external universe" directly, and only see our model of it, we only perceive our head as part of the model, which exists inside us. Certainly, our perceived head cannot exist apart from our perceived body as long as we remain alive, and our perceived body (including head) exists inside our perceived universe. Right?

Thus, the head we perceive exists inside some other head we do not, and cannot, perceive. The second head contains our model of the universe, our model of this galaxy, our model of this solar system, our model of Earth, our model of this continent, our model of this city, our model of our home, our model of ourselves and atop our model of ourselves a model of our head. The model of our head thus occupies much less space and out "real" head.

Think about it. retire to your study, unplug the phone, lock the door and carefully examine each step of this argument in succession, noting what absurdities appear if you question any individual step and try an alternative.

Let us, for Jesus sake and for all our sakes, at least attempt to clarify how we can have two heads. Our perceived head exists as part (a very small part) of our model of our universe, which exists inside our brain. We have already proven that, have we not? Our brain, however, exists inside our second head – our "real" head, which contains our whole model of the universe, including our perceived head. In short, our perceived head exists inside our perceived universe which exists inside our real head which exists inside the real universe.

Thus we can name our two heads – we have a "real" head outside the perceived universe and a "perceived head" inside the perceived universe, and our "real" head now appears, not only much bigger than our perceived head, but bigger than our perceived universe.

And, since we cannot know or perceive the "real" universe directly, our "real" head appears bigger than the only universe we know and perceive – our perceived universe, inside our perceived head.

The reader might find some comfort in the thought that Bertrand Russell, who devised this argument, also invented the mathematical class of all classes that "do not contain themselves." That class, you will note, does not contain itself unless it does contain itself. Also, it does contain itself if and only if it does not contain itself. Got it? don't[/u] 'get' the 'it' he refers to ... at least not as far as I 'know'! :wacko: ]

When not busy crusading for rationalism, world peace, common decency, and other subversive ideas, Russell spent a lot of time in the even more subversive practice of inventing such logical "monsters" to bedevil logicians and mathematicians.

Retrning to our two heads: Lord Russell never carried this joke, or this profound insight, beyond that point. With a little thought, however, the reader will easily see that, having analyzed the matter this far, we now have [i]three heads – the third containing the model that contains the "real" universe and the "real" head and the perceived universe and the perceived head. And now we have thought of that, we have a fourth head. . .

And so on, ad infinitum. To account for our perception of our perception – our ability to perceive that we perceive – we have three heads, and to account for that, four heads, and to account for our ability to carry this analysis onward forever, we have infinite heads. . .

A model of consciousness which does arrive, very rigorously and with almost mathematical precision of logic, at precisely this infinite regress appears in The Serial Universe by J.W. Dunne, who uses time instead of perception as his first term but still arrives at the conclusion that we have, if not an infinite series of heads, and infinite series of "minds".

[Some text, referring to a couple of 'points' made earlier in the book, is omitted here.]

Alfred Korzybski, mentioned here several times (and a strong influence even when not mentioned), urged that our thinking could become more scientific if we used mathematical subscripts more often.

Thinking about this one day, I came up with the following analog of Dunne's argument without even using his infinite time dimensions:

I observe that I have a mind. Following Korzybski, let us call this self-observing mind, mind[sub]1.

But I observe that I have a mind that can observe mind[sub]1. Let as call this self-observing mind, mind[sub]2.

Mind[sub]2 which observes mind[sub]1 can in turn become the object of observation. (A little experience in Buddhist self-observation will confirm this experimentally.) The observer of mind[sub]2 then requires its own name, so we will call it mind[sub]3.

And so on . . . to infinity, once again.

Of course, having mentioned Buddhism, I might in fairness add that the Buddhist would accept "I observe that I have a mind." The Buddhist would say "I observe that I have a tendency to posit a mind." [;) to asheera et al.]

But that, perhaps, allows the felix domesticus to escape the gunnysack. . . Schrodinger's Cat (mind-experimentally unobserved, but 'known' to be in either a "dead" or "alive" state, in a box)]
==========
I personally don't 'know' how things like 'intuition' and 'direct knowing' fit in, or don't, with all this. I am with sylph, though, as far as thinking ('knowing'?, 'intuiting'?) that some 'beliefs', whether these be 'conscious' or 'unconscious', necessarily underlie such mode(s?) of 'perception' as well. According to Seth (in Jane Roberts' Seth Speaks), all 'systems' of 'reality' (and there are many quite different co·existing ones we are operational in and 'part' of, our dream-state 'reality', where the 'rules' are quite different from our waking-state 'reality', being one such) have certain 'built in' 'root assumptions', which IMO amount to 'beliefs'; they – such/any 'systems' of perceived-n-experienced 'reality' – wouldn't/couldn't 'be' what they 'are' and 'operate' as they 'do' otherwise. At least, that's how I interpret what 'he' says. And this makes 'perfect' (logical? intuitive?) 'sense' to 'me'.

- Mind[sub]David :ph34r: :lol:

[sahyo]

I observe that I have a mind. Following Korzybski, let us call this self-observing mind, mind[sub]1.

But I observe that I have a mind that can observe mind[sub]1. Let as call this self-observing mind, mind[sub]2.

Mind[sub]2 which observes mind[sub]1 can in turn become the object of observation. (A little experience in Buddhist self-observation will confirm this experimentally.) The observer of mind[sub]2 then requires its own name, so we will call it mind[sub]3.

And so on . . . to infinity, once again.

Of course, having mentioned Buddhism, I might in fairness add that the Buddhist would accept "I observe that I have a mind." The Buddhist would say "I observe that I have a tendency to posit a mind."




See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views

saraha - 'treasury of songs'


When the mind ceases thus to be mind,
The true nature of the innate shines forth

saraha - 'treasury of songs'




david ;)

[Thomas Knierim]

David: Of course, having mentioned Buddhism, I might in fairness add that the Buddhist would accept "I observe that I have a mind." The Buddhist would say "I observe that I have a tendency to posit a mind."

Among other things, the mind posits itself, or alternatively the appendant thinker ("I think therefore I am"). The mind posits all nouns. But, we know that nouns are abstractions (identifications, patterns, perceptions, qualia), i.e. things that we cogitate / make up, while verbs describe experience more directly. Yet, language would be quite flat and boring without nouns, wouldn't it? Nothing speaks against making use of them, unless of course one is -like Plato, Descartes, or Kant- given to the belief that they actually exist. Of course they do exist and yet they don't.

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

verbingnoun
nouningverb
nouning

birding
skyingbird
birdskying
etc

:)

[rich]

asheera asheera-ing

wow wowing

sing song
songing
singing ;) :D

[sahyo]

;)

(etcing
without
etc)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 6 2003, 01:16 AM
See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views

When the mind ceases thus to be mind,
The true nature of the innate shines forth
I fully understand and appreciate (at least I 'think' I do ;) ) the fact that 'mind' and 'thought' may be a kind of dynamic-duo 'nemisis' to folks who are emotionally 'troubled' by what takes place in that arena, i.e., whose thoughts are 'conflicted' and 'turbulent', and therefore emotionally (or 'spirit'ually) 'disturbing' and 'upsetting'.

However, having come to terms with and resolved all that I have found 'disturbing' and/or 'upsetting', with the aid of mind and tool of thought no less, I now perceive and experience the 'world' of thought in the 'domain' of mind pretty much the same way I experience 'nature' - 'mental' breezes blowing, waters flowing, clouds forming and changing form as they skud across the mind's sky, 'animations' displaying and interacting in ways every bit as 'beautiful', 'exciting', and glad-to-be-alive-and-here-to-experience an, on occasion, to engage with them as what happens in any gloriously natural habitat.

Me thinks 'Buddhism' is 'limited' by the FOCUS on ENDING 'suffering' - once one has 'mastered' that (whatever one's 'method' and 'path'), there is much joyful and jubilant Life-affirmation and Life-expression be found and 'lived' in the domain of mind and thought, for those who have what it takes to be joyful and jubilant in such modality. At least, that's where and, as they spill over into my 'feelings', how I reach·get a LOT of blissful ya-ya's.

In may case, I am happy to report, the "true nature of the innate" shines forth in the domain of mind-n-thought as well -- based on my experience, IMO, the 'innate' can 'truly' 'zen'-surf in this arena.

Not everyone's "meat", I realize.

"When mind ceases thus to be mind" is just one of many 'ways' whereby human conscious may witness and experience "the true nature of the innate." A good 'preliminary' step to being such a 'witnesser' and experiencer' WHATEVER the venue and dynamic. No 'need' to stop there, however, unless that's a 'far' as one wants to go, or as 'close' as one want to get.

Lot's more on the smorgasbord to be enjoyed -- IMO, 'Buddhists' as a group could benefit from realizing this -- there's more to Life than 'ending' 'suffering' and being happy with THAT -- in my experience, and therefore 'opinion', of course.

Simplisitcally and 'false'-dichotomously put, 'Eastern' spirituality = "left foot"; 'Western' spirituality = "right foot".

Really cut-loose-dancing requires both, IMO. I 'see' asheera's mind-thought-stream in this 'light' - "No mind, No thought" NOT a 'true' (at least not a 'fully' true) characterization of her or anyone else's posts here, IMO.

It's ALL 'nature', y'ALL :lol: - the 'light' of the 'innate' shines forth in EVERY venue - may be 'cloaked' in 'darkness' in every venue as as well - I've met a few 'toughtless' folks whose 'light' struck me as being completely 'encapsulated' by 'darkness'.

'Give up' mind and thought often parrotted about as a general prescription, like "Just say no" to sex if you're a 'juvenile'. Mind-thought and sex-passion both seen as 'unmanageable' and 'dangerous' - MAY be, but NOT NECESSARILY so if one is 'wisdom-mature'. And how does a 'youngster' learn to 'maturely' "handle" his or her 'sexuality'? 'Guiding' suggestion are OK, but when all a 'kid' hears his/her parents advocating is the 'no sex' prescription, watch out!

Yet, language would be quite flat and boring without nouns, wouldn't it?
You can say that again, Thomas! - and not just 'language' - noun-thoughts intricate part of a lot of LIFE - which may become quite flat and boring as well if one 'religiosly' avoids all such 'differentiation'.

Nothing speaks against making use of them, unless of course one is -like Plato, Descartes, or Kant- given to the belief that they actually exist.
But the thoughts associated with 'them' mind-entertained nouns, like a quantum-probability energy-cloud, DO existin a very alive way - at least, I think :), for example, that the 'thoughts' that go on in my 'mind', say, about asheera (or anyone else here, even if 'named' "...") are quite real and have a dynamic impact on the flow of the comm·uni·cational stream that's going on.

How thinkest your mind about this? :lol:

Whew, I sure 'went off' on that one -

hehehe .... David having fun doing his kind-o-dance 'jig'.

[DavidS]

P.S. regarding the Eastern "left-foot" and Western "right-foot" notion, or 'noun'tions ? :) :

IMO, it is possible (they 'help' and 'allow' one) to stand 'up' i.e., to 'see' and derivatively 'be' and 'do' more (I speak in qualitiative terms, where 'more' might be considered 'better') 'using' either ...

But, if one relies on either one alone, one is, in effect, again IMO, creatively 'hobbled'. At most, one can either-thereby be 'happy' where one is 'stationed' (in the 'Eastern' foot case) or (in the case of the 'Western' foot) 'hop' and 'crash' about.

Or so 'I', or the mind-part of the life-thang 'in' 'me' thinks . . . and therefore 'intuitively' heart-feels . . . or 'intuitively' feels and therefore thinks . . . can't separate one from another as both are irrevocably interconnected parts of Life and Living . . . or that's how the mind-part of the life-thang 'in' 'me' thinks . . . and therefore 'intuitively' heart-feels . . . or 'intuitively' heart-feels and therefore mind-thinks . . . again, can't separate one from another.

The way things look-n-feel to me, it amounts to a 'travesty' (of Life!), in the sense of precluding real mastery of, or adeptide in relation to the Life-Force, whether this be called 'God', something else, or just remain un-noun-'named', to conceptually 'disconnect' them or make one more 'primary' than the other.

Different strokes for different folks, however. One has to first be able to 'stand' before one can 'walk', let alone 'run' and 'leap'-dance about - without 'smashing' into things and 'squelching' them or, worse, 'messing' them up, that is.

:lol:

[sahyo]

:D

I now perceive and experience the 'world' of thought in the 'domain' of mind pretty much the same way I experience 'nature' -

"preceive"?...."experience"?...."domain"?

'mental' breezes blowing, waters flowing, clouds forming and changing form as they skud across the mind's sky, 'animations' displaying and interacting in ways every bit as 'beautiful', 'exciting', and glad-to-be-alive-and-here-to-experience an, on occasion, to engage with them as what happens in any gloriously natural habitat.

"occasion"?...."them"?....separate? "habitate"?

Life-affirmation and Life-expression be found and 'lived' in the domain of mind and thought,

"affirmation"?....which needs affirmation?

"domain"?

In may case, I am happy to report, the "true nature of the innate" shines forth in the domain of mind-n-thought as well -- based on my experience, IMO, the 'innate' can 'truly' 'zen'-surf in this arena.

"domain"?

"innate" "in this arena"?....separate?

"When mind ceases thus to be mind" is just one of many 'ways' whereby human conscious may witness and experience "the true nature of the innate." A good 'preliminary' step to being such a 'witnesser' and experiencer' WHATEVER the venue and dynamic.

"When mind ceases thus to be mind" not 'a-way'

"'preliminary' step to being such a 'witnesser' and experiencer'"?....separate? "witnesser"? experiencer"?

No 'need' to stop there, however, unless that's a 'far' as one wants to go, or as 'close' as one want to get.

"one"?

"far"? "to go? "close"? "to get"?

It's ALL 'nature', y'ALL - the 'light' of the 'innate' shines forth in EVERY venue - may be 'cloaked' in 'darkness' in every venue as as well - I've met a few 'toughtless' folks whose 'light' struck me as being completely 'encapsulated' by 'darkness'.

"EVERY"? "venue"?

'Give up' mind and thought often parrotted about as a general prescription,

does:

"See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views"

<span style='color:gray'>say to "'Give up' mind and thought"?

"When the mind ceases thus to be mind,
The true nature of the innate shines forth"

say which is called "innate" light without "darkness"?



ps: "buddhist"?</span>

[rich]

Maybe I try to read, or imagine too much between David's eloquent words and asheera's invitative responses.

However, though interested in the interplay between the two of you, I am afraid I have nothing to contribute to the discussion.

Yep, on other forums, have threatened leaving, though never have.
Similar reason; i.e.; personal involvement, though not really personal.

Anyway, not much pleasure posting here. ; <_<

[rich]

previous post deleted.

not abe to remove it.

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Aug 7 2003, 09:40 PM
previous post deleted.

not able to remove it.
Unlike a piece of paper which you can always destroy, what one writes on internet forums like this, may still be viewed until the consumation of this world. After that, it may still be viewed in my mind, i.e.; if I am around. ;)

Let the lesson be, think before you write.

[sylph]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Aug 6 2003, 09:10 PM
... unless of course one is -like Plato, Descartes, or Kant- given to the belief that [nouns] actually exist. Of course they do exist and yet they don't.
There's something so true about that, but I can't put it into words... It seems 'intuitively' true to me. :lol:

So does that mean I exist, and yet I don't? :huh:

Descartes' argument ties into language... and ties into logic... but is there anything intrinsic about these things? :huh:

[sahyo]

say which is called "innate" light without "darkness"?



was to read:
say which is called "innate", light without "darkness"?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Aug 6 2003, 09:44 PM
Anyway, not much pleasure posting here.
I 'get' that asheera's and my 'counterpoint'-syncopated jam-session not 'enjoyable' for you, rich. But if you, perchance, ex·peer·ience as 'unpleasant', remember, it's just two 'musicians' bounce-playing off of one another's rhymes and associated reason(ing)s, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe, you come to the 'concert' too 'seriously'?

Similar reason; i.e.; personal involvement, though not really personal.
Could you elucidate? What you mean not clear to me . . .

David

[rich]

david,
my fault in having sickmindfearthinkingmoodswings, @ times.Now OK.

good wishes, dave
love,
rich :) ;)

[DavidS]

Hi asheera -

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 6 2003, 05:19 PM
"perceive"?...."experience"?...."domain"?
'My' 'I' says yes, yes, yes 'cuz such references are quite meaningfull to 'me'.

Ditto your other "?" queries.

David: Life-affirmation and Life-expression be found and 'lived' in the domain of mind and thought,
asheera: "affirmation"?....which needs affirmation?
"Need"? :lol: Did I say 'need'? IMO, "affirmation" can be shared and joyed in and of itself as well as dance-leaped from . . . by any who like sharing and enjoying such 'things' and desire/wish to dance-leap so, that is.

asheera: "innate" "in this arena"?....separate?
In a "manner of speaking", yes - but I also stated "in all arenas", or meaning-piggybacked words to that effect. Not everyone's 'manners' tho - hence, my added 'cup o' tea' commentary.

asheera: "When mind ceases thus to be mind" not 'a-way'
I agree. Again, my comments only a manner of speaking, possibly pertinent to those who 'think of' and 'practice' it as 'a way' of getting to the 'point' of wholeheartedly (mindlessly?) accepting/embracing what is as is (from a 'point' of not 'personally' being so accepting/embracing.

David: 'Give up' mind and thought often parrotted about as a general prescription,*
asheera: does: "See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views" say to "'Give up' mind and thought"?
You are 'right' (IMO :D ), it doesn't 'say' that. Implicitly though, at least to me, since I think ;) of 'mind' as the 'origin' or 'originator of 'thought', the statement, "When the mind ceases thus to be mind, The true nature of the innate shines forth," suggests (no?) that 'mind' (viewer) and 'thought' (views) are necessarily 'impediments' to the "innate" (HOWEVER one 'characterizes' or doesn't 'characterize' this -as 'light', 'darkness', both, or entirely else) 'shining forth' (where? in 'existence'? 'consciousness'? SOME when and here? EVERY when and where? VOID-where maybe? doesn't matter).

My 'main' meaning-point, which is similar to the one made by the song Sammy Davis, Jr. sings in the Porgy & Bess movie pertaining to everything said in Bible being considered (absolutely) "the Word of 'God' " as stated, was that "It ain't necessarily so." - IMO, based on my personal observations and experiences, of course. That's all.

David :)

[sahyo]

hi'david'ing

leaking responsings the post

....happens which asheera calls "dizzynotdizzy" when reading-responsing many words....now veryverydizzynotdizzy reading-responsing....sometimes can't until not so veryvery

not editing to simplify :)

"perceive"?...."experience"?...."domain"?
'My' 'I' says yes, yes, yes 'cuz such references are quite meaningfull to 'me'.

Ditto your other "?" queries.

is "meaningfull" "affirmation"ing "My"I"me"?

David: Life-affirmation and Life-expression be found and 'lived' in the domain of mind and thought,
asheera: "affirmation"?....which needs affirmation?
"Need"? :lol: Did I say 'need'? IMO, "affirmation" can be shared and joyed in and of itself as well as dance-leaped from . . . by any who like sharing and enjoying such 'things' and desire/wish to dance-leap so, that is.

no didn't say "need", but "affirmation" not needed unless thinking'separating'whichnot and so thinking'need'....which is to 'affrim'?

[sahyo]

asheera: "innate" "in this arena"?....separate?
In a "manner of speaking", yes - but I also stated "in all arenas", or meaning-piggybacked words to that effect. Not everyone's 'manners' tho - hence, my added 'cup o' tea' commentary.

which thought"in"all"arenas"whichnot?

asheera: "When mind ceases thus to be mind" not 'a-way'
I agree. Again, my comments only a manner of speaking, possibly pertinent to those who 'think of' and 'practice' it as 'a way' of getting to the 'point' of wholeheartedly (mindlessly?) accepting/embracing what is as is (from a 'point' of not 'personally' being so accepting/embracing.

mind "practic"ing "ceases thus to be mind" "as 'a way' of getting to the 'point of...." willnot cease "thus to be mind" (not words which would use, since which is to cease)

"mindlessly"ing ;) not think"accepting/embracing"?

[sahyo]

cannot responsing rest of post for abit :)

[rich]

asheera, rest a bit, much energy spouting from David S.

Wonder why full Arizona moon was mentioned in Religion Forum? :blink:

Invite? :unsure: ;)

Proceed slowly and wisely. :huh:

Oh well, will MMOB. :wacko:

Best Wishes,

Love,

[sylph]

yes, DavidS, you are quite long-winded! ;)

the volume of your posts is overwhelming to me. :wacko: :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by sylph@Aug 8 2003, 08:08 PM
yes, DavidS, you are quite long-winded! the volume of your posts is overwhelming to me.
Hi sylph (et al.) -

Thanks for the feedback - if 'too much' to chew on in one bite, maybe just sample-nibble. I also, for instance, find asheera's word-dance overwhelming at times, meaning difficult if not impossible for me to de·cipher. So I just 'play' with what 'spontaneously'' photo-develops in my mind in response to her word-stimulus.

If you (anyone) really wants to 'get' my 'points', and there's no reason why anyone should want to unless he/she thinks there's something 'in it' for him/her, maybe try the re·reading slowly, and possibly repeatedly, approach. Have been told by several (in past engagements/encounters) that they have found such 'necessary' at times.

My style is my style, as asheera's is hers, as rich's is his, and yours is yours - all expressions of 'peculiar'-personality-outlet for universal mind/spirit-organic 'essence' (a manner of speaking, based on my 'belief' that such an essence-thing 'really' exists 'in' and expresses itself 'via' people).

Please believe me when I say that I have often tried to write 'differently' for other folks' sake in the past. Have found that 'me' always reverts to being 'me' in this regard (maybe because it doesn't really want to 'accommodate' to others desires and wishes, or maybe simply because I is what I is and that's all there is to 'me').

Suggestion: it ain't worth 'efforting' to understand specifically what I (or anyone else) say(s) unless that's your bag at the moment. Just 'go' with what you 'naturally' think and feel in stimulus-response, including "This is too overwhleming-much, I've had enough of it!", if and when that's the experiential case.

Sympathetically, David :)

[DavidS]

P.S. to sylph: Is there any particular 'piece' of what I have written which you'd like me to (try to) simplify-clarify?

[sahyo]

....happens which asheera calls "dizzynotdizzy" when reading-responsing many words....now veryverydizzynotdizzy reading-responsing....sometimes can't until not so veryvery wasn't commenting davidwriting

was saying asheera not reading-writing-typing like most people....most people thinkseparate-meaning-whichnot, thinkseparating-direction-whichnot, when reading-writing -typing....happens is almost impossible asheera-reading-writing-typing....wordmarkings-nomeaning, and almost cannot hands-fingers for typingkeyboard and clickingscreen, so happens dizzy which not dizzy, which cannot describe, and tired

davidwritings-'silking'streaming-expressing

:D

[sahyo]

:o word 'guru' happened like rich posted....hehe

[sahyo]

rest a bit, much energy spouting from David S.

thanks richie, but not need to rest david'ingsing'ingdanc'ing

Proceed slowly and wisely.

no where to "proceed" and not thinkliving "slowly" "wisely"

:)

[sahyo]

find asheera's word-dance overwhelming at times, meaning difficult if not impossible for me to de·cipher.

"de·cipher" not important, david'ing....does thinking'try' to de·cipher breath'ingsing'ingdanc'singeat'ingsleep'ingwalk'in gswimm'ing? ;)

So I just 'play' with what 'spontaneously'' photo-develops in my mind in response to her word-stimulus.

:D

[sahyo]

David: 'Give up' mind and thought often parrotted about as a general prescription,*
asheera: does: "See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views" say to "'Give up' mind and thought"?
You are 'right' (IMO :D ), it doesn't 'say' that. Implicitly though, at least to me, since I think ;) of 'mind' as the 'origin' or 'originator of 'thought', the statement, "When the mind ceases thus to be mind, The true nature of the innate shines forth," suggests (no?) that 'mind' (viewer) and 'thought' (views) are necessarily 'impediments' to the "innate" (HOWEVER one 'characterizes' or doesn't 'characterize' this -as 'light', 'darkness', both, or entirely else) 'shining forth' (where? in 'existence'? 'consciousness'? SOME when and here? EVERY when and where? VOID-where maybe? doesn't matter).

'not translated' words not read like 'translated' words....which quoted, 'perfum'ing', and 'not meaning'....wouldn't use same words which quoted, so they not read like davidreading-thinking'meaning'....however, no matter which words would use, words not say, and most people would read thinking'meaning' and miss 'perfum'ing' ;)

My 'main' meaning-point, which is similar to the one made by the song Sammy Davis, Jr. sings in the Porgy & Bess movie pertaining to everything said in Bible being considered (absolutely) "the Word of 'God' " as stated, was that "It ain't necessarily so." - IMO, based on my personal observations and experiences, of course. That's all.

remember sammy davis jr song when davidquoting? ;)

:)

[sylph]

Originally posted by DavidS@Aug 9 2003, 10:50 AM
Suggestion: it ain't worth 'efforting' to understand specifically what I (or anyone else) say(s) unless that's your bag at the moment. Just 'go' with what you 'naturally' think and feel in stimulus-response, including "This is too overwhleming-much, I've had enough of it!", if and when that's the experiential case.
DavidS :)

see, you speak like asheera (with your hyphenated words/meanings), except your posts are essay-length. which is overwelming-much, to me. :D

there isn't any specific 'piece' i want to request further explanation... it's just that, to me, it seems you are used to writing essays, and you are transferring that to a discussion forum. imho, i think forums should be sample-nibble, as if it was a live symposium, rather than an hour-long speech.

imho, long essays belong on separate webpages (which you have...).

for discussion board, would like to simulate discussion-feeling... back-and-forth interplay/rebuttal.

but of course, if that's just 'you', i have no place to criticize your style. ;)

[sonrisa]

I agree with Sylph, tho to be fair, I must point out that David isn't the only offender- Vicente can get very long winded, tho I do have to admit that when he gets on a rant they make for amusing reads. :)

[sahyo]

'perhaps'
people which not 'enjoy' which david posts
'could?'
read'listening'-snifflessingsniffingperfuming :D
instead
thinking'trying'-understanding

(shouldshouldn'ts 'how' david posts,
'not')

[sahyo]

singingsonging cares not the song
though songing

[DavidS]

David sees davidsongs as sometimes 'concert', with 'melodies' and 'themes' sometimes repeated and elaborated on in juxtaposed variation, and sometimes single drum-roll length 'soundbite', with one or maybe two 'vital' sound-elements, as here. Of course, this is not meant to imply his 'concerts' are anywhere near as intelligent or enjoyable as someone like Beethovens'.

Movement made only of small sound-elements spontaneously popping about strikes david as pretty much just being 'noise-chatter'.

Different strokes for different folks 'spains it all. ;) IMO, plenty of ROOOOM for all kinds of sound-makers and sound-listeners here.

Thanks for keyboarding the 'run' of observations, asheera -

David :)

[fu*]

Post for posting sake.

These "rules" of posting, only rules with--in--I/you.
Some seem to have rules for others.
Some have rules for his/her"self",,,,, Hi Richie ;)
both...tooooo bad.
Post, dont post.
Who freeking cares!!!
you/me posting to self, without even knowing self.

So if we are setting rules for posting........ how about this one.....
Post whatever you want, whenever you want. Make it long, make it short. Be kind, be tough. Post on the spur of the moment, post long thought about. Post bullshit, post "truth". Post in a language never heard before, or post in accepted english.

The reading of post rules may be a little harder to understand. What may be uncomfortable for you is a little hidden part of yourself that needs to be recognized. So look hard at self...self...self.


FU

[rich]

So if we are setting rules for posting........ how about this one.....
Post whatever you want, whenever you want. Make it long, make it short. Be kind, be tough. Post on the spur of the moment, post long thought about. Post bullshit, post "truth". Post in a language never heard before, or post in accepted english.

The reading of post rules may be a little harder to understand. What may be uncomfortable for you is a little hidden part of yourself that needs to be recognized. So look hard at self...self...self.

FU

Dear FU,

In the same post, quoted above, FU also posted, [b]Post for posting sake.

These "rules" of posting, only rules with--in--I/you.
Some seem to have rules for others.
Some have rules for his/her"self",,,,, Hi Richie
both...tooooo bad.
Post, dont post.
Who freeking cares!!!
you/me posting to self, without even knowing self.



First thing Richie will mention in this post, if you, or anyone does not freeking care whether I post or do not, just tell me, I do not wish to force
anyone's eyes to be forced to read the crap I post.

Is anyone still reading?

Ifff.. then, will say, the hardest thing in the world to know, is thyself.

I do not want to fake me as a person that am not. Agewise, am old man, who becomes depressed at times, while at other times become very elated. IOW, moody or senility? :unsure: . Guess it would be called erratic behavior. :o

Voluntarily turned in Drivers License last week. Paying too much car insurance for carrying me as driver :angry: . I have to depend on my wife to drive me around, and she doesn't like driving to other nearby small cities.

Very nice avatar FU. Is that a photo of youself? Maybe some day I will take a picture of me, though there is a resemblance to self, in my present avatar. ;) My Fondest Wishes,

[a random hack]

So look hard at self
aye, so where's that then?

[rich]

Random, To answer your question, it is no where, like everything else is.

Allow me to post a lesson in punny nonsensical high school logical riddle, that was circulating around in the late 1930's and early 1940's. If you do not follow it, do not feel bad, 'cuz it is very outdated.


The question is, Why are fire engines painted red?

It starts like this,

1+1=2
2+2=4
three 4's are 12.
12" is a ruler
Queen Mary is a Ruler.
Queen Mary is a ship.
Ship's sail the ocean,
Fish sail the ocean.
Fish have fins,
Russians fought the Finns,
Russians are always rushin
Fire engines are always rushin
Russians are red. Fire engines are red
That is why fire engines are painted red.
:wub:

[a random hack]

That is why fire engines are painted red.
:wub:

So how do you explain your face?
:lol:

Random, To answer your question, it is no where, like everything else is.

If that's true, how am I supposed to look at it? :wacko:

[rich]

Random,

I'm straight!

Forget the hearts, my face is flustered, and was posted because of the embarassment felt by posting that old riddle. :o :blink: :angry: :) ;)

[a random hack]

I'm straight!


You sure?
Ah, your business either way.

Forget the hearts, my face is flustered, and was posted because of the embarassment felt by posting that old riddle.

I was hoping for some more poetry... (hint, hint) :D

[sylph]

sorry, i didn't mean to criticize. i was just expressing my initial reaction... (freedom of speech goes both ways ;) )

of course i didn't expect DavidS,or whoever,to actually comply with my 'commands'... it was just IMO.

as well, i have a short attention span, which may also explain my POV... :D

[rich]

A Random Hack,
:lol: ;)
Consideration
of your identification
My deliberation.
::::regarding :::: :o
Hack hints for a poem,
Hack is no inspiration,
To my frustration.
::::anticipation that :::: :rolleyes:
Sonrisa and Sylph
Polaris and asheera,
please heed Hack's poem hint.

[DavidS]

Hi hack - I'm assuming your question was a sincere one ...

Originally posted by a random hack@Aug 11 2003, 08:54 PM
If that's true, how am I supposed to look at it? :wacko:
Maybe with your "mind's" 'eye' - something which is also 'invisible' (like sub-sub-atomic wave-particle entiies), but which may be 'posited' and then 'detected' by the 'trail' in creates in terms of personal realizations?

Some prefer to (intuitively) 'feel' instead of (mentally) 'look', maybe because they think that 'way' of 'detecting' the presence of 'invisible' somethings is more reliable/trustworthy, and that the 'mind' way of 'detecting' is too riddled with 'illusions'.

Some use both 'ways', each to the best they can, to 'see' or 'feel' if their respective 'detections' confirm each other, or maybe to get a more 'stereosscopic' 'sense' of whatever the 'invisible' thang they're look-feeling at or into is 'really' all about, or maybe 'more'-really than one can realize via either 'way' alone.

FYI, many 'students' of what the mind-concept and 'self'-concept refer to have come to the conclusion that they are 'non-local' - that is, that they are 'present' EVERYWHENANDWHERE (like a wave-form which just stretches on and on in all directions and backwards as well as forwards in time) even though its also NOWHERE ('in 'particular', that is) as richie says, though I'd also say its' NOWHEN (in particular) as well, but 'in' a CONTINUALLY/ETERNALLY ongoing NOW.

I must say, that ever-flowing NOW concept sure resonates and strikes a chord in 'me' because that's how I EXPERIENCE my 'self' as ACTually alive-being.

At least, that's how such matters 'look' through my mind's eye 'lens'.

I hope you find the 'perspective' interesting enough to 'play' with - at least, as a 'hypothetical' game-universe. I certainly have found it a LOT of FUN (to so 'envision' such matters and 'play' 'in' the 'vision', that is).

- David

[DavidS]

Originally posted by sylph@Aug 12 2003, 04:17 AM
of course i didn't expect DavidS, or whoever, to actually comply with my 'commands'
Didn't think or feel that you expected so either, sylph - what I actually thought-n-felt was that you were 'giving' me 'nudge' with some 'rationalization' to give the 'nudge' a little 'weight', in case I was 'receptive' to moving in the desired direction. I took your and others' expressed 'desires' in such regard 'seriously' enough to have given them/it genuine consideration. Who knows, there may be 'manifest' 'signs' that what was 'said' had a 'siginficant' in·fluence without 'me' compromising my 'self'? Wouldn't that be nice! Time will tell.

In any event, "No 'harm', no 'foul'." I hope my answers were received in the spirit in which they were meant.

... it was just IMO.
That's the 'bottom line' for everyting that's expressed here . . .
. . . IMO :lol:

[a random hack]

Thanks rich and DavidS,

Regarding my own question, I use both 'my' mind and 'my' heart-reaction to 'see' the Self which could be said to reside either at the apparent point of reaction('me', in this case), or at the apparent point of origin('you').
:)

[sahyo]

Thanks for keyboarding



thanking :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Aug 12 2003, 05:35 PM
Regarding my own question, I use both 'my' mind and 'my' heart-reaction to 'see' the Self which could be said to reside . . . .
Nice to know you're aboard - "the good ship Lollypop," that is. :D

[a random hack]

:lol:

[rich]

:))0(
hihack,
What hidden meaning behind those symbols?
The Hack Knows.
eh heh heh hee ha hohahar hohee har hohehar hodeehohoteeheehar

[a random hack]

:):( symbols meaning 'happy, sad'. Couldn't find 'laughing, crying', you see?

[rich]

OhOops, eyes are failing. Maybe I am talking about symbols in your
signature.

when i try :, I get ):(, but in sigs, smilies do not work.

i.e.; )o(( btw, what symbols used in sig?

a true hour glass figure. But what is its meaning? :unsure:

Shall not repeat that madman laugh. :lol: ;) OK, its your signature,
so sorry hack. :(

[Polaris]

Getting back in the swing of things from various summer related interruptions... B)

There's a one page article in the September 2003 issue of National Geographic which lightly touches on the subject of intuition and logic and how these two elements factor into our ability to analyse risk.

Read it HERE (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/resources_who.html). :)

[a random hack]

Rich,

The sig reads : ) : ( , but thinking of changing for something equally witty. :lol:

Thanks for article, Polaris, was like cotton candy for the brain <eases a gentle sigh of contented brain relief> :)

[Polaris]

In that National geographic article there's a paragraph that says this:
In another experiment clinicians were far more likely to release a mental patient from a hospital if told he had a 20 percent chance of becoming violent than if told 20 out of 100 such patients would become violent. The second scenario, though statistically equivalent to the first, created a visual image of violent patients.

The article suggests that a single patient who has a 20% chance of becoming violent is statistically the same as having 100 patients, 20 of whom would become violent.

Does than sound right to you?? I don't think those two things are statistically equivalent at all. On one hand you have one person with a 20% "chance" of becoming violent and on the other hand you have 20 people who "would" become violent.

One fellow had an 80% chance of being peaceful while 20 people had a 100% likelihood of becoming violent.

Who would you rather take your chances with in a dark alley?
:huh: :blink:

[rich]

I would rather take my chance wih one against me, rather than 20. :D

Each patient should be individually evaluated, rather than evaluated as a group, i.e.; when considering releasing a patient.

In another experiment clinicians were far more likely to release a mental patient from a hospital if told he had a 20 percent chance of becoming violent than if told 20 out of 100 such patients would become violent. The second scenario, though statistically equivalent to the first, created a visual image of violent patients.

[a random hack]

Polaris,
Same thing, stated differently (I hope). But I see what you saying, it's definitely badly worded statistics. More correct to state something along the lines, 'Based on previous case study experience for patients with this type of disordered mental functioning (and noting the emotive connotation, and implied impairment, relating to the word 'patient', etc. :) ), there is a 20% chance that this patient may become violent (in these circumstances)'. Or if you wanted to lock up the patient, 'Based on previous case study experience for patients with this type of disordered mental functioning, 20 out of 100 became violent (under these circumstances)'.
Hell, you don't want statistics getting in the way of public safety, do you? ;)

Always wary of statistics which make blanket generalisations, especially where no sample size or testing methodology is indicated. Sure 9 out of 10 dentists use toothbrush X, but who said dentists had good teeth? Which ten dentists did they survey, the ones employed by brand X? And what do they use the toothbrush for, anyway? Brushing their hampster?

Who would you rather take your chances with in a dark alley?
Not the psychiatrist, that's for sure. :) But prefer not to tak chances in dark alleys anyway :lol:

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris: One fellow had an 80% chance of being peaceful while 20 people had a 100% likelihood of becoming violent.

Still, there is no difference, since we don't know which 20 people have a 100% likelihood of becoming violent. The terms 20% and twenty out of hundred are mathematically equivalent. Funny that people react differently to these two expressions - that strikes me as fairly irrational.

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

Thomas, I think Random has it right. It's badly worded.. for me at least. It's not the 20 out of 100 or 20% I have trouble with.

In another experiment clinicians were far more likely to release a mental patient from a hospital if told he had a 20 percent chance of becoming violent than if told 20 out of 100 such patients would become violent. The second scenario, though statistically equivalent to the first, created a visual image of violent patients.

It's the use of the words "chance" and "would". That's my hang-up. Semantics. :blink: :(

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Aug 22 2003, 08:46 AM
It's the use of the words "chance" and "would". That's my hang-up. Semantics. :blink: :(
Reminds me of a purported conversation I dimly recollect from one of Castaneda's books. Let me retell the story as I, possibly incorrectly, recollect it with the words "chance" and "would" inserted at particular points.

Castaneda, arguing with Don Juan' s statement that bullets could not kill him, says something like: "But if you were walking down a street and there was a crack-shot sniper on a roof top who shot you in the heart, there's no chance you would survive!"

Don Juan, presumably referring to his psychic abilities, answered, "But I wouldn't be walking down that street!"

Something in there to untangle the semantics maybe, but I can't tell fersure. :) - David

[Polaris]

A couple of years ago I went to a farewell party for a girl who was moving away. The host had arranged for a psychic to attend as entertainment. As the party droned on the psychic never showed up. People speculated that she had perhaps been in a car accident on her way over but we joked that surely she would see it coming and be able to avoid it. In the end it turned out she just forgot.

So, just for fun, if a psychic woke up one day and foresaw themselves being in a car accident, would they be able to change the course of the future and avoid the accident completely or would the glimpse into their future include the fact that they are psychic and CAN see the future and that regardless of being able to see the accident they are still unable to avoid it? :rolleyes: ;)

[rich]

Hi Polaris,

Interesting question. I suppose an answer may be, how much credance the psychic has in his own predictions.

IOW, if his prediction batting average is 1.000: do not travel g under any circumstances.Pay heed to your dream.

Batting below .250, travel, You have a pretty good chance of surviving.

Batting between .251 and .999, Your call, since you are not perfect, six of one, a half dozen of the other, what do you have to lose, your life? :lol:

[a random hack]

There feels to be more certainty in a 'would' than a 'could', I guess. Points us in the direction of more careful use of the language, hopefully (or 'right speech', as the Buddhist eightfold path has it.)

Imagine, a forgetful psychic, how confusing would that be?..... Actually, maybe that explains deja-vu

[vicente]

volume of universe = 1.2 X 10^79 (79 zeros) cubic meter
volume of earth = 1.08 X 10^21 cubic meter
volume of smallest atom (Helium) = 1.24 X 10^-35 cubic meter

simple calculation will show that what earth is to the universe is smaller than the smallest atom is to earth.

Imagine, a old white hair dude who collects virgins from those who pillage in his name,...lets say he lives in Washington DC.

Now imagine all 6 billion people praying to that dude from an atom at the bottom of the China Sea.

LOL
:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Dec 10 2003, 02:12 AM
volume of universe = 1.2 X 10^79 (79 zeros) cubic meter
volume of earth = 1.08 X 10^21 cubic meter
volume of smallest atom (Helium) = 1.24 X 10^-35 cubic meter

simple calculation will show that what earth is to the universe is smaller than the smallest atom is to earth.*
. . .
Now imagine all 6 billion people praying to that dude from an atom at the bottom of the China Sea.
IF (and this is a BIG 'if') one 'confines' oneself to/in a three dimensional de·finite·ion of That Which Is, d/b/a ALL [/B] That Is (such being 'my' notion ;) of 'God' ), vicente, the 'logical' 'argument' you present might hold water -- that is, also assuming what is called 'prayer' (i.e., psychospiritually focused desire and intention) is some sort of 3-D, or even a 4-D (including 'time' as a 'dimension') 'impetus', which de·finite·ional assumption is itself, to say the least, quite questionable.

Please note, I am not saying that I think the 'picture' presented ideas in the following excerpt from an article appearing in the current issue of Four Corners Magazine (distributed as a freebie in my neck of the woods) is necessarily a 'true' de·script·ion of Reality either – it is an 'unsubstantiated' theory, at least at this point in time, as far as I am concerned. For one thing, I don't know enough about 'String Theory' to be able to assess the degree to which it's axiomatic constructions dovetail with what modern physicists are 'figuring' as being 'evidentially' supported. BUT assuming what's presented corresponds to the 'truth' of the matter in significant ways, your logical-argument-construction wouldn't hold water. Of course, that doesn't mean that the 'point' you make is necessarily 'invalid'; just that it is conceivable that it may not be on the mark.

Ahhh, the a·maze·ing labyrinthian 'conclusions' axiomatic conceptions can lead 'logical' thought into! But I thought your kind of mind might have some fun with it, nevertheless. I hope you enjoy reading/contemplating the 'view'

The article is titled, Hyper-Dimensional Physics and the Knights Templar, written by Nassim Haramein, Director of The Resonance Project. I am quoting the Hyper-Dimensional Physics part of the article, along with its preamble:

Although the word hyper-dimensional physics may seem to descsribe something of great complexity, its actual meaning is quite simple: The physics of all dimensions beyond the first three spatial dimensions, or, if you like, the physics of dimensions beyond 3D. But what do we know about dimensions, and what are the fundamental axioms from which we derive our understanding of them?

From high school, students are taught that dimension zero is a point and that it does not exist; that dimension one is a line made out of points and that it does not exist ether. The teacher may then draw a plane made out of lines, which is called dimension two, and, since it is said to have no volume, it has no existence as well. Finally six planes are put together to form a cube, which, we are told, generates the 3D reality we exist in. The question is, if the point makes the line, which makes the plane, which makes the cube, how does one get existence from no-existence four times over?

The solution is simple and has been an integral part of this research from an initial realization that occurred over 30 years ago – the point is the only thing that exists because it contains all other potential realities; all other dimensions. So, if each point contains all vector potential, then all points in space contain all information [my added emphasis and underscore, as in the case in later boldfaces and/or underscored text segments] – infinite curvature – and the universe is no longer only expanding but contracting within each point to infinity, thus generating a feedback loop of information transfer between infinitely big and infinitely small.

Why is this new approach significant? It allows us to describe the relationship between any point in the universe and all other points. As a result of this relationship, we can derive a scaling law, such as the one we recently presented to the American Physics Society, which unifies cosmological size objects to atomic and sub-atomic particles in a coherent manner. This generates a uniform and unified view of the fundamental dynamics under which the universe creates reality. Integral to this theory is the concept that, if each point contains an infinite number of points, the relationship between these points, in terms of scale in the universe, would be best represented by the geometric nature of the nonlinear mathematics of fractal systems. In short, this paper not permitting the elaboration of details, much observation, which includes recent data imagery from various large telescopes, including the Hubble, has been supporting the concept that there is a fundamental nonlinear geometric component present at many scale levels, from the way super clusters of galaxies arrange themselves, to how matter generates molecular and atomic structures. It is our belief that the geometric nature of the universe is a direct result of this fundamental, nonlinear, fractal geometry being embedded in the very fabric of space and time, implementing and directing the scale and the position of the points that we observe as reality, i.e., atoms, planets, suns, galaxies, and so on.

The next question that arises is, what is the fundamental structure of space, or, in more technical terms, what are the fundamental parameters of the vacuum? This research identifies the geometric relationship between space (the vacuum) and matter as a fractal tetrahedral array circumscribed by a sphere. [ :wacko:] The vector lines of forces generated by the geometric array is the vacuum geometry, and the sphere is the waveform resulting from the fluctuation of space. [ B) ]This we observe as reality, i.e., the radiating surface of the sphere we call the sun, or the surface of a planet, or an electron cloud. The geometric relationship to the waveform is non-linear, since it is fractal with spheres, from infinitely big to infinitely small, embedded within each[b] other, in [b]all directions, thus creating the experience of reality.

=========

Zowieeee! :lol:

[slayer]

Originally posted by Polaris@Aug 23 2003, 02:07 PM
A couple of years ago I went to a farewell party for a girl who was moving away. The host had arranged for a psychic to attend as entertainment. As the party droned on the psychic never showed up. People speculated that she had perhaps been in a car accident on her way over but we joked that surely she would see it coming and be able to avoid it. In the end it turned out she just forgot.

So, just for fun, if a psychic woke up one day and foresaw themselves being in a car accident, would they be able to change the course of the future and avoid the accident completely or would the glimpse into their future include the fact that they are psychic and CAN see the future and that regardless of being able to see the accident they are still unable to avoid it? :rolleyes: ;)

Polaris,

I want to respond to your question since it's roughly the same question that comes up in the problem of free will.

First we'll need to define "'future."

By "future" (as in 'she looks into the future') you mean what will come to pass. Otherwise, if she looks into the 'future' and that doesn't end up happening, then, I want to say that she hasn't looked into the future. It's not the future unless it comes to happen.

I claim that the psychic, seeing the future (that is, seeing her car acccident occurring on Tuesday, say) can't do anything to avoid that accident on Tuesday.

If she somehow avoids the accident on Tuesday, or it doesn't occur for whatever reason, then what she saw wasn't the future; because by stipulation what she saw must come to pass.

This similar question comes up with the problem of free will. Let me formulate it for you, and if people want to comment on it, then perhaps this will lead to a better understanding of your question about the future and whatever one can do if they could see the future.

The problem includes God, so let's stipulate some qualities that God has. Mind you, I'm not saying these are the qualities that God has, or that there is only one god, or that this is the only god there can be, -- I'm not even saying there is a god --- but that given that you think your (one) god has these qualities, then there's a philosophical problem which has been debated for thousands of years.

By stipulation, God is all-knowing. By all-knowing, we mean that he knows the past, present, and future of all things. For example, all the things you've done, are doing, and will do.

By all-knowing, we mean that he cannot be mistaken about what will happen. For example, if he thought you would get married tomorrow, and then you didn't get married tomorrow, he would be mistaken about the future. The future, as we've defined above, must come to pass. So if God thought you were getting married tomorrow and that didn't happen, then he wouldn't be all-knowing, because he wouldn't have known that you wouldn't be marrying tomorrow. I'm going to focus my talk on the future, but he can't be mistaken about the past and present either.

Okay, so now let's say that God knows that you will get married tomorrow. How do you have any free will if you must get married tomorrow? That is, in what way, if any, is your getting married tomorrow up to you?

I'm going to claim that it's not. Given that this type of God exists, then I think it follows that you have no free will. You have no free will because although it might appear to you that you have a choice between getting married tomorrow and not getting married tomorrow, it follows from the definition of "future" and "God" that you must get married tomorrow. That is, it's necessary that you be married tomorrow. This is called determinism.

I'd be happy to hear your, or anyone's, response to this problem. Of course there have been many great philosophers who have attempted to get out of this apparent determinism, e.g., Boethius, Aquinas, and Abelard, to name a few, but none have given satisfactory responses.

slayer

PS. What I've always found ironic about people who go to psychics in order to prepare for the future, or maybe in the hopes of altering their life given the news, is that if you believe that the future is something that must come to pass, then it seems that even if you did know you would die in a year, say, then there isn't anything that you could do to change your behavior from what it would be if you had never known about your dying in a year. That's because if what will happen in a year must happen (that is, you must die), then what will happen tomorrow and the following 363 days must also come to pass. Unless you think that only the future that psychics see must come to pass. If you think you can alter your life, why would you think that you could alter what you'd do for the 364 days preceding your upcoming death, but not change what is supposed to happen on that fateful day? Or, if you thought you could avoid your death exactly one year from now, what have you payed good money to be told about? It's certainly not the future.

[sahyo]

:) can slayer please culminate the post?

[Thomas Knierim]

Slayer, the free will paradox you are outlining here has several "solutions": (1) The future is predestined but not fully determined. That means free will exists literally; God can still anticipate human decisions if he cares to; God steers the destiny of the universe. This view is generally favored by Christians. (2) The future is not fully determined. Therefore God doesn't know the future, only the probabilities of future events, which converge against zero in the distant future. Let's call this "weak omniscience". (3) The future is fully determined. Humans have free will in Hume's compatibilist sense; i.e. human acts arise consciously as a consequence of choice, but choice and volition are itself subject to causality, and God has knowledge of the involved causal chains.

Needless to say that all of these interpretations are quite problematic. :sweat:

Thomas

[rich]

Slayer,

Wondering if what you wrote in your post, acccounts how each person's concept/idea of God,

may not be in agreement with the concepts of God in the mind of the teacher?

When freethinking, many dogmatic rules, some will not accept as Gospel or God's Word.

When any person speaks of God, the only thing which she/ he can truthfully talk/write

about, is what she/he thinks or is taught to believe about God; or personal revelations

experienced with/about God. Would be interested in reading your comments. :)

[slayer]

Originally posted by rich@Feb 1 2004, 11:31 PM
Slayer,

(1) Wondering if what you wrote in your post, acccounts how each person's concept/idea of God, may not be in agreement with the concepts of God in the mind of the teacher?

(2) When freethinking, many dogmatic rules, some will not accept as Gospel or God's Word.

(3) When any person speaks of God, the only thing which she/ he can truthfully talk/write about, is what she/he thinks or is taught to believe about God; or personal revelations experienced with/about God.

Rich,

re (1): I had tried to make it explicit that the problem of free will as I presented it was to be thought of within the construct of the definitions I gave for "God" and "all-knowing" and "future."

I didn't inted to imply that I was talking about THE GOD, or any god, or anyone's conception of god. Although I think God being omniscient is widely accepted by many religions, Christianity being one of them.

re (2): I fully agree with this. But, again, it's not relevant to my question here. I think you'll appreciate that fact if you consider what I'm asking you to think about in the problem.

re (3): You're making a different point than needs to be made with respect to the question at hand, Rich. I for one don't believe there is a god who is omniscient in the way I've described, but I can think and ponder the question about free will that requires me to consider an omniscient being such as I've made God out to be, in my stipulations.

This problem is an old one in Christianity, and as Thomas has pointed out in the previous post, there are many answers, but none, as I'll attempt to explain, are fully satisfactory. I think Thomas acknowledged that they have problems, but I'll ask him whether he subscribes to any of these attempted solutions.

slayer

[slayer]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Feb 1 2004, 11:31 PM
Slayer, the free will paradox you are outlining here has several "solutions":*

(1) The future is predestined but not fully determined. That means free will exists literally; God can still anticipate human decisions if he cares to;* God steers the destiny of the universe. This view is generally favored by Christians.

(2) The future is not fully determined. Therefore God doesn't know the future, only the probabilities of future events, which converge against zero in the distant future. Let's call this "weak omniscience".

(3) The future is fully determined. Humans have free will in Hume's compatibilist sense; i.e. human acts arise consciously as a consequence of choice, but choice and volition are itself subject to causality, and God has knowledge of the involved causal chains.

Needless to say that all of these interpretations are quite problematic.*



For one brief moment I was attemtpting to explain these three positions in more detail and explain why they are problematic, but it soon dawned on me how much time that would take.

But for clarity's sake, I will make the following comments.

The freedom we're concerned with requires contigency; that is, alternative possible actions must be available to us as agents with free wills.

It might help to think of the future we're concerned with in the following way. Take:

A, B, C, D, E, F,......Z as specific events that succeed each other in time. Let the occurence of 'A' mark the present (call it Monday) and each succeeding event mark a new day. So, for our purposes, B happens on Tuesday and C happens on Wednesday, and so on.

Hence, God being all-knowing (which includes knowledge of events in the future) implies that he knows that D will happen on Thursday. Let's say D is that slayer accepts the Nobel Peace Prize. This implies that God knows that slayer will accept the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday.

With this in mind, I think we can rule out (2) as a possible solution to our problem, because we've stipulated that the future is such a way that it must unfold a specific way, a way which God is aware of. That is, we're attributing full-blown omniscience to God, the type that includes knowledge of the future.

"Solutions" (1) and (3) also have problems which make them unsatisfactory, but unless the details of these "solutions" are laid out and explained (which would take considerable time and care), then it's not going to be very philosophically enriching (for those unfamiliar with these details) if I merely comment on what's ultimately unsatisfactory about them.

If someone were curious about these details, I would consider explaining them to the best of my abilities. But I think it would be more fruitful if the discussion simply takes the form of possible answers which people think might save our 'free will.'

slayer

[DavidS]

My 'mind' (given it's present 'constitution' at least) sometimes simly goes 'numb' when I try to 'wrap' it around this subject, so there may be some logical 'dark holes' in what follows, but I am drawn to the 'explanation' presented in Jane Robert's various "Seth" (channeled) books, to wit:

'We' as 'individuals', or as 'individualized' aspects of consciousness, exists as one of several, if not many, 'probable selves' who all 'exist' (or 'reside') in simultaneously co-existing 'probable reality' framworks, with each such 'probable self' experiencing it's 'life' as 'real' (in 'normal' 'waking' terms). All such 'selves' are 'really' (in 'transcendent' terms) 'living' 'parts' of one 'soul' or 'entity'. The experiences of one's 'other' 'probable selves' is 'available' in 'dreams', but there can also be (and are) 'bleed throughs' which may 'color' one's (normal) 'waking' experience as well.

Now, as I understand what "Seth" says, let's say one comes to a choice point between two 'options' which are 'incompatible' (in terms of being 'actualizable' in the 'same' 'reality-framework') and that one's Life-Force is strongly 'motivated' to or 'desirous' of exploring what could/would happen in both cases, then there would be one 'probable self' which 'went'/'chose' one way and another ('related' on the soul level) 'probable self' which 'went'/'chose' the other.

It is the 'distribution' of 'probabilities' which make such 'choices' or 'decisions' possible on an 'individual' level.

I only 'whispily' grasp how this 'scenario' breaks down in terms of allowing for an all-knowing, all-determining 'God' etc. I would be very interested in others' view of this. but it strikes me that, even though the amount of water (options) in as well as the course of the flow of the soul-'river' (of 'probable selves') may be 'determined' (by such 'God'), the actual experience of the 'individual' 'elements' of such flow could simultanously involve 'personal' decision-making and choice. As a matter of fact, one can 'see' (if one so focuses one's image·in·ation), that the 'determined' or 'determining' 'framework', which both 'contains' and 'supports' the experience-of-'free'-choice (and derivative 'consequences') 'phenomenon', thus (in effect) serving the (hypthetical at least) purpose of 'rearing' 'independent' (in terms of their having their 'own' right-of-way) mindfully-loving 'offspring' or 'individuations'.

My personal take on this is that such a 'God' would really be best thought of as being ALL-potentiating, determinative of 'ultimate' 'outcome' but, since an important aspect of such 'outcome' is 'offspring' cabable of the ('successful') exercise of 'free will', 'allowing' 'us' 'free' to 'determine' the 'details' of the our 'own' flow-process.

I wonder, does such image·in·ed possibility contradict some 'logical' principle? Strikes me that it doesn't. But the 'probable self' scenario sure is a mind-blowing swallow!

[sahyo]

My 'mind' (given it's present 'constitution' at least) sometimes simly goes 'numb' when I try to 'wrap' it around this subject

great david :D

[slayer]

Originally posted by DavidS@Feb 3 2004, 03:08 PM
(1) 'We' as 'individuals'...exist[ ] as one of several, if not many, 'probable selves' who all 'exist'....in simultaneously co-existing 'probable reality' fram[e]works, with each such 'probable self' experiencing [its] 'life' as 'real' (in 'normal' 'waking' terms). All such 'selves' are 'really' (in 'transcendent' terms) 'living' 'parts' of one 'soul' or 'entity'. The experiences of one's 'other' 'probable selves' is 'available' in 'dreams', but there can also be (and are) 'bleed throughs' which may 'color' one's (normal) 'waking' experience as well.
derivative 'consequences') 'phenomenon', thus (in effect) serving the (hypthetical at least) purpose of 'rearing' 'independent' (in terms of their having their 'own' right-of-way) mindfully-loving 'offspring' or 'individuations'.

(2) My personal take on this is that such a 'God' would really be best thought of as being ALL-potentiating, determinative of 'ultimate' 'outcome' but, since an important aspect of such 'outcome' is 'offspring' cabable of the ('successful') exercise of 'free will', 'allowing' 'us' 'free' to 'determine' the 'details' of the our 'own' flow-process.

(3) I wonder, does such image·in·ed possibility contradict some 'logical' principle? Strikes me that it doesn't. But the 'probable self' scenario sure is a mind-blowing swallow!

David,

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. One point of confusion is your propensity to put almost all words in single quotes. Many of those single quotes are unnecessary. Anyway, I'm going to see what I can respond to. I will say in advance, having taken a quick look at your response, that it seems you've gone outside the boundaries of the problem, as I presented it.

re (1): You seem to be claiming that I am really not just one self but instead many probable selves. None of these selves are me at any one moment, but they're all me at all times. Fine. This doesn't change the problem.

When one (or more) of my selves chooses some act and does it, did this self or selves exercise a free will? God is still all-knowing and the future is still knowable (that is, played-out for God).

re (2) What does "offspring cabable" mean? What does "allowing us free to determine the details of the our own flow-process" mean?

re (3): The probable self scenario strikes me as extremely odd and unnecessary. Mainly because it seems to posit many selves that desire different things, when all you need is one self that desires different things. I apply Ockham's Razor whenever possible.

Sorry for getting Medieval on you,

slayer

[DavidS]

Originally posted by slayer@Feb 3 2004, 09:06 PM
re (3): The probable self scenario strikes me as extremely odd and unnecessary. Mainly because it seems to posit many selves that desire different things, when all you need is one self that desires different things. I apply Ockham's Razor whenever possible.

Sorry for getting Medieval on you,
Communicating the 'probable self' view, or hypothesis, is problematic, at least I don't think-feel I can personally adequately do so. Probably ;) , one would have to read several if not all of the Seth Books to get a 'reasonable' picture of it. As I said, its the kind of thing that I myself have trouble wrapping my mind around, and I've read all the Seth books!

Thanks for the thoughtful consideration and reply nevertheless, slayer. Given the communicational (from my side) difficulties, I think it best to chalk this one as an UFO 'event'. :lol:

[beesting42]

Intuition is not a way of thinking.

[sahyo]

:D

[sonrisa]

intuition isn't even thinking, is it? I mean, you just know something, deep down in your gut, or you sense something, hence the 6th sense....

or so it seems to me

[sahyo]

does seem as though a "sense"? :)

[sonrisa]

mmmm, sometimes.... but mostly it's something in your gut. If intuition is a way of thinking, then it's thinking with your gut, as opposed to thinking with your head.

[sahyo]

sonrisa: If intuition is a way of thinking, then it's thinking with your gut

beesting: Intuition is not a way of thinking.

[todd]

Intuition is not premonition. Intuition is a shortcut that our mind is able to build fast, on some elements, without using logic.
Sometimes it is based on experience, when similar paths of logic and facts used to lead to a specific result. The process of thinking is inherently based on intuition, without it our mind should have been built exclusively on logic which would lead to the impossibility of knowledge, obviously intuition preceding logic I would like to hear some opinions on how Pavlov experiments are related to logic/intuition.
I think the phenomenon of forgetness is compensated by intuition, we loose the information but we keep the hint. Forgetting is an important process in our mind, our subconscious deciding what is worth to be remembered, the rest is lost, and here is what intuition accumulates. I also think instincts are inherited atavist intuition which may lead to the conclusion that it can be physically materialized, in some genes.

[Ronagon]

Intuition is rapid-fire, subconscious predictions that have become automatic after many instances of similar experiences.

[NeverMind]

My mind is a torrential rainfall of random ideas with lots and lots of lightning telling me to go play guitar because it's more fun than thinking.
Sometimes it wants me to have sex.
I usually agree with it.
Except on abortion. My left and right brains can't agree.

[sonrisa]

NM- in situations like that, go with your right brain. Always

[venom mama]

i just got a tattoo.

not sure how much logic was involved.

[Doel]

Instinct,Intuition gut feeling etc...resulting from consistent worry and paranoia, depression ...and other forms of mental instability ( i don t like to call it that but :huh: .....hope you get my drift <_< )
can result in harm, damage to oneself and extreme hurt...
Dont you think in such cases one must be encouraged to think things out logically and practically... :uhoh:

[CSwriter1]

I find the idea that we can intuitively know things, troubling. It is not that I have not had ESP experiences. I think intuition is a valid source of information, but I am not sure what it is. I do however, feel confident that we need to rely on science to check out our intuitive thoughts. I mean, burning witches just because it seems a good idea, is not the best way to go about things. Neither is ignoring history and attacking Iraq, a God inspired idea. Like we might to be careful about relying too much on intuition.

However, what bothers me most about making too much of intuition, is too often this means not being willing to go through the labor of learning. Most of us do not intuitively understand Einstein, or Hawking. There is so much we need to learn before we can grasp these more complex concepts.

Bef9re 1958 we used the Conceptual Method of teaching, which is teaching children increasingly complex concepts. The BIG IDEA requires many, many little ideas, and thus we become enlightened by slowly learning the simple concepts, until suddenly we are enlightened and grasp the big concept if as by magic.

[Truthbearer]

Instinct and intuition do not derive from depression.paranoia..worry etc.
In fact, I would say the people that have depression/paranoia, who get hurt - do not use their intuition, are not intuitive enough.. or do not trust it.

They are our body truths.
'gut feeling' .. solar plexus.. breath of life..

People dont rely on them enough.. and many do not trust them - so do not practise enough.

And, of course, it depends where one is going.
If one is intending their spiritual journey, a higher consciousness.. then it will not be through logic/learning/memorising/studying.
These are left brain activities.
It is through ones heartmind/rightbrain .. intuition is enhanced, then clairvoyance and clairaudience.
In fact if ones intuition isnt enhanced enough, I would learn to muscle-test or pendulum .. these also authenticates our intuition..(one comes into the mind, and the other two are muscular (bodytruth)

Of course they burnt the clairvoyance and clairaudient!! (witches) ..fear of the unknown .. ignorance has always been humanitys downfall.

Yes .. to know the unknown, without knowing how and why may be'troubling' to the logic/ego mind .. but NOT to the spiritual mind .. it matters not how or why we can achieve these wonderful Gifts and Tools. (sorry I havnt got time to wait around for 'science' to quantify/qualify /identify .. so if science says its so, then its so??)

They are Spiritual gifts and tools, for our spiritual learning and physical healing.
We live everyday in gratitude for them.
And we are honoured to be bestowed these.
(and anyone reading this post, feels the opposite about their gifts .. then invite soul into your life .. it is soul that guides us to enhance these gifts of intuition/vision/audience, and even more in the future. And it is Soul and Earthmother that keep us safe as we journey.

I'll get off my soapbox now xx
Namaste
Pat