Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:01 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:39 pm
Was that person using constructive logic too?

Logic only helps with deduction. It is all mechanical. By the time you reach a deductive conclusion you are necessarily reasoning about the past tense!

No understanding there. Only history and applying the rules of logic.

Understanding lies in Induction.

Maybe you have trouble with applying logic to temporal concepts then.

Computation is a temporal concept.

As is all calculus.

Fairly comfortable with one or more time dimensions. Which is what parallel computation is all about...

That isn’t why induction is hard. Precision under complexity in open systems is all.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:02 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:01 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:58 pm
Logic only helps with deduction. It is all mechanical. By the time you reach a deductive conclusion you are necessarily reasoning about the past tense!

No understanding there. Only history and applying the rules of logic.

Understanding lies in Induction.

Maybe you have trouble with applying logic to temporal concepts then.

Computation is a temporal concept.

As is all calculus.

Fairly comfortable with one or more time dimensions. Which is what parallel computation is all about...

That isn’t why induction is hard. Precision under complexity in open systems is all.

A "you're right" would have sufficed.

Non-duality is not a belief, it's that which does away with all belief systems.

Non-duality cannot be thought about, nor can it be written about, nor can it be explained verbally, nor can it be understood by a person, nor can it be shown or demonstrated or taught.

THIS IS IT ...right now manifesting ALL AT ONCE - ONE WITHOUT A SECOND

THIS IS IT - BEINGNESS/ONENESS pure clear empty space of AWARENESS...in which everything is arising inseparable from the space.
Another persons face is the space for your face.Once the Unicity of all creation is clearly seen, we no longer need to project Unicity onto a higher being,then need for an image of something disappears.The belief in an ultimate creator is simply the egos attempt to give a name to the unnameable BEINGNESS. It is like a movie actor who is trying to give a holy name to the white light coming from the film projector that he senses is creating and directing his unfolding film. But once it is recognised that the light is all there is, all our old belief systems lose their importance.

To understand Non-duality is to seek out the gap between two thoughts and then to close that gap until there is no room for thought to linger, and that is Non-duality. And that thought is just the play of light and shadow. Light can be without shadow, but a shadow need the light to be. Just as dark can never put out the light, but the light can put out the dark. Thought owes it's very existence to the light (awareness) that is always primary and prior to thought and knows every thought as and when they arise.

Creator and creation are projected everywhere without exception. The cosmos doesn't need our ideas about a creator in order to unfold as it is apparently unfolding

From belief to clarity.

.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:10 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:02 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:01 pm
Maybe you have trouble with applying logic to temporal concepts then.

Computation is a temporal concept.

As is all calculus.

Fairly comfortable with one or more time dimensions. Which is what parallel computation is all about...

That isn’t why induction is hard. Precision under complexity in open systems is all.

A "you're right" would have sufficed.

Right or pointing out the obvious.

Everything is a temporal concept. Even the flow of logic itself.

Ramu wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:55 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:54 am


That's like saying kill the ''lightbulb'' and the electricty vanishes.

Nothing can be killed because nothing is all that is, was, and ever will be.



Nothing is physical, there is no such thing as physical death, or birth, except in this conception, AN illusion.

.

Most of your arguments reflect a Buddhist concept of negation, if veritas argues against you he is arguing against central tenets of certain schools in Buddhism, the religion he places such a high emphasis on.

Except I don't know why VA continues to think that non duality is a belief system. Its not based on a belief system rather it is based on direct experience. Non duality puts a 180° spin on materialism. There is NO neural basis for non duality. Any statement regarding a neural basis for non duality is mere concept..nothing more. The concept of non duality as a neural correlate is a belief system. Similar and quite possibly worse in its dogmatic belief system than main stream religion!

Non duality is an axiom of reasoning, where reality is measure through Unity. It is a belief system in the respect all belief systems are progressive structuring of reality. One structures all abstract and physical reality according to there beliefs, with these beliefs becoming objectified into further abstract and physical structures.

Everything is subjective and objective. One cannot argue against a belief without having a belief, this is an objective statement. One cannot observe an objective statement without observing it through a subjective lens.

All systems of measurement are beliefs systems as they stem from a subjective nature that is boundless.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:39 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:33 pm

Of the 10 forums I have been on I’ve found only one person who really understood what it means to understand.

Was that person using constructive logic too?

Logic only helps with deduction. It is all mechanical. By the time you reach a deductive conclusion you are necessarily reasoning about the past tense!

No understanding there. Only history and applying the rules of logic.

Understanding lies in Induction.

True statement,

With that being said deduction cancels itself out eventually as the atomization of a phenomenon is the simultaneous formation of it. Induction is left as a necessary positive/existing dual which as a positive can contain Deductivity but is not limited to it. Inductivity allows for Deductivity, but Deductivity just cancels itself out.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:10 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:02 pm

Computation is a temporal concept.

As is all calculus.

Fairly comfortable with one or more time dimensions. Which is what parallel computation is all about...

That isn’t why induction is hard. Precision under complexity in open systems is all.

A "you're right" would have sufficed.

Right or pointing out the obvious.

Everything is a temporal concept. Even the flow of logic itself.

Induction/calculus etc. is too limited, limiting. This is why you need a properly functioning right hemisphere - to be able to have a holistic model of absolutely everything in your head, attempt to consider everything you can all at once, fully interconnected. One coherent picture, and constructivist logic is pretty much unusable here.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:00 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:10 pm
A "you're right" would have sufficed.

Right or pointing out the obvious.

Everything is a temporal concept. Even the flow of logic itself.

Induction/calculus etc. is too limited, limiting. This is why you need a properly functioning right hemisphere - to be able to have a holistic model of absolutely everything in your head, attempt to consider everything you can all at once, fully interconnected. One coherent picture, and constructivist logic is pretty much unusable here.

It is called system dynamics and complexity science. Reductionism (analysis) and holism (synthesis) are part and parcel.

If you had any understanding of systems theory you would be able to tell it has nothing to do with left/right brain.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:08 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:00 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:23 pm

Right or pointing out the obvious.

Everything is a temporal concept. Even the flow of logic itself.

Induction/calculus etc. is too limited, limiting. This is why you need a properly functioning right hemisphere - to be able to have a holistic model of absolutely everything in your head, attempt to consider everything you can all at once, fully interconnected. One coherent picture, and constructivist logic is pretty much unusable here.

It is called system dynamics and complexity science. Reductionism (analysis) and holism (synthesis) are part and parcel.

If you had any understanding of systems theory you would be able to tell it has nothing to do with left/right brain.

To make maximum use of systems theory, complexity science etc. you need to fully utilize the holistic thinking ability of the human mind. I don't think you can understand this.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:13 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:08 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:00 pm
Induction/calculus etc. is too limited, limiting. This is why you need a properly functioning right hemisphere - to be able to have a holistic model of absolutely everything in your head, attempt to consider everything you can all at once, fully interconnected. One coherent picture, and constructivist logic is pretty much unusable here.

It is called system dynamics and complexity science. Reductionism (analysis) and holism (synthesis) are part and parcel.

If you had any understanding of systems theory you would be able to tell it has nothing to do with left/right brain.

To make maximum use of systems theory, complexity science etc. you need to fully utilize the holistic thinking ability of the human mind. I don't think you can understand this.

And we are back at understanding what it means to “understand”

What do you “maximally use” systems theory for?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:14 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:13 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:08 pm

It is called system dynamics and complexity science. Reductionism (analysis) and holism (synthesis) are part and parcel.

If you had any understanding of systems theory you would be able to tell it has nothing to do with left/right brain.

To make maximum use of systems theory, complexity science etc. you need to fully utilize the holistic thinking ability of the human mind. I don't think you can understand this.

And we are back at understanding what it means to “understand”

What do you “maximally use” systems theory for?

I answered that several times, I'm curious about existence, trying to come up with the most likely theory of everything, a metaphysical guess.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:18 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:14 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:13 pm
To make maximum use of systems theory, complexity science etc. you need to fully utilize the holistic thinking ability of the human mind. I don't think you can understand this.

And we are back at understanding what it means to “understand”

What do you “maximally use” systems theory for?

I answered that several times, I'm curious about existence, trying to come up with the most likely theory of everything, a metaphysical guess.

So if you understand systems theory then what mechanism/system/process would you use to validate that the theory you (eventually) settle on is valid?

You know. What is your control feedback loop ?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:22 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:18 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:14 pm

And we are back at understanding what it means to “understand”

What do you “maximally use” systems theory for?

I answered that several times, I'm curious about existence, trying to come up with the most likely theory of everything, a metaphysical guess.

So if you understand systems theory then what mechanism/system/process would you use to validate that the theory you (eventually) settle on is valid?

You know. What is your control feedback loop ?

We've covered this many times; you somehow expect philosophers to be omnipotent/omniscient. The real question is why?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:26 pm We've covered this many times; you somehow expect philosophers to be omnipotent/omniscient. The real question is why?

I have no such expectation. Omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence are unattainable ideals - like walking to the horizon. They set the direction - not the destination.

What I am expecting is for you to recognise that because you are searching for truth you are in the domain of computer science. Search algorithms require USER input: exit (success OR failure!) criteria if the algorithm is to ever halt/terminate. I also expect you to recognize that the Halting problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem ) is UNSOLVABLE.

So if you don't know what you are looking for - you will never find it. Thus you must have SOME expectations of what a "good theory" is? Is it aesthetically or sensually appealing? Sophisticated? Simple? Logical completeness? Logical consistency? Can it predict the future (e.g proves determinism)? String theory?

You need SOME mechanism in the form of a relatable experience/concept/notion to signal to you that this is the "right" theory! The One you've been looking for!

Otherwise you are just looking for a square triangle and expect to recognise it for what it is when you stumble upon it.

And it is also worth nothing that if you are looking for the "Origin" story - that you clearly are unhappy with the answer "God did it". So... "What answer would make you happy?" is the exact same question/problem.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:34 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:26 pm We've covered this many times; you somehow expect philosophers to be omnipotent/omniscient. The real question is why?

I have no such expectation. Omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence are unattainable ideals - like walking to the horizon. They set the direction - not the destination.

What I am expecting is for you to recognise that because you are searching for truth you are in the domain of computer science. Search algorithms require USER input: exit (success OR failure!) criteria if the algorithm is to ever halt/terminate. I also expect you to recognize that the Halting problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem ) is UNSOLVABLE.

So if you don't know what you are looking for - you will never find it. Thus you must have SOME expectations of what a "good theory" is? Is it aesthetically or sensually appealing? Sophisticated? Simple? Logical completeness? Logical consistency? Can it predict the future (e.g proves determinism)? String theory?

You need SOME mechanism in the form of a relatable experience/concept/notion to signal to you that this is the "right" theory! The One you've been looking for!

Otherwise you are just looking for a square triangle and expect to recognise it for what it is when you stumble upon it.

And it is also worth nothing that if you are looking for the "Origin" story - that you clearly are unhappy with the answer "God did it". So... "What answer would make you happy?" is the exact same question/problem.

Only an imbecile could claim that the search for "truth" is the domain of computer science. Just because search algorithms also have the word "search" in them.

Expecting to know what to look for, and when to halt, etc., is again: expecting omnipotence/omniscience.

As I said before, I'm roughly looking for the simplest (Occam's razor), most likely, non-supernatural metaphysical GUESS, that also describes everything we know of. It will always remain just a guess, I'm not omnipotent/omniscient.

Honestly now, which part of this don't you understand?