The Neural Basis of NonDuality

[TimeSeeker]

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.

Only an imbecile would think it's because of the word "search". I am talking about the mechanics of "searching". The systematic interaction between cognition/recognition and scanning/iteration over reality. <something about holistic right brain understanding>.

It is exactly the same process in principle.

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

Nonsense.

As I said before, I'm roughly looking for the simplest (Occam's razor).

There! That's a criterion. And it didn't require omnipotence/omniscience. Now I get to ask you Why? Why do you EXPECT the universe to be simple?
What if the universe is complex? What if you should be looking for Hickam's dictum instead of Occam's razor?

How do you know that you have correctly chosen between the two approaches?

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

The part where you have zero introspective ability to recognize that you've already made choices/assumptions/pre-suppositions for what you are looking for and you probably don't understand why. Like science's testability/falsifiability criterion. The EXPLANATION for WHY those are mandatory is deducible directly from information theory/computer science and the semantics of Hindley–Milner type system.

If you understood the theory.

[Atla]

Only an imbecile would think it's because of the word "search". I am talking about the mechanics of "searching". The systematic interaction between cognition/recognition and iteration. <something about holistic right brain understanding>.

It is exactly the same process in principle.

I don't even know how to address this. Totally not the same process in principle. You think that there is a computer inside your head, but there isn't. And philosophical search is not a well-defined finite process the way a computer search is.

There! That's a criterion. And it didn't require omnipotence/omniscience. Now I get to ask you Why? Why do you EXPECT the universe to be simple?
What if the universe is complex? What if you should be looking for Hickam's dictum instead of Occam's razor?

How do you know that you have correctly chosen between the two approaches?

You still don't seem to comprehend what a "guess" is.
The simplest solution is usually the correct one, so I go with simplest. That's my guess and it may be wrong.

The part where you have zero introspective ability to recognize that you've already made choices/assumptions/pre-suppositions for what you are looking for and you probably don't understand why. Like science's testability/falsifiability criterion. The EXPLANATION for WHY those are mandatory is deducible directly from information theory/computer science and the semantics of Hindley–Milner type system.

If you understood the theory.

Wrong as usual. I know exactly why I made certain choices/assumptions/pre-suppositions. I'm just better at applying probability to everything than you are.

And again: you fail to comprehend that I was talking about a metaphysics that explains everything, it is compatible with ALL KNOWN SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

[TimeSeeker]

You think that there is a computer inside your head, but there isn't. And philosophical search is not a well-defined finite process the way a computer search is.

The beautiful thing about universal abstractions is that they are universal. Naturally - you don't think searching is a well-defined process, but that is a "right brain failure" on your part.

By all means - lets philosophise and define a process by which we would search for a square triangle.

The simplest solution is usually the correct one.

Well DUH! That IS the conclusion you draw AFTER you blindly accept Occam's razor instead of Hickam's dictum!
The question is WHY did you CHOOSE to accept Occam's razor instead of Hickam's dictum?

It's tautological. If you had CHOSEN a different principle then you would draw a different conclusion.

Garbage in - Garbage out. And to my original point - deduction is mechanical. By the principle of infinite regression you can't justify WHY you've chosen one principle over another! Deduction is a non-starter!

Wrong as usual. I know exactly why I made certain choices/assumptions/pre-suppositions. I'm just better at applying probability to everything than you are.

Well! Tell me about the probabilistic analysis you did that made you choose Occam's razor instead of Hiccam's dictum?
And I can't wait to hear how you "apply probability" to anything without having any upfront PPV/NPV criteria!

You'll probably end up telling me about p-values. But you aren't going to tell me why you've chosen 0.05 to mean "statistical significance". Why not 0.005. Or 0.0000000000000001 ?

And again: you fail to comprehend that I was talking about a metaphysics that explains everything, it is compatible with ALL KNOWN SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

"God did it!" explains everything! It's neither testable NOR falsifiable, but it explains everything. So HOW and WHY would we even need notions like 'testability' and 'falsifiability'?

P.S there are no such thing as scientific facts. There is only plausible interpretation of experimental data. For today's "fact" becomes yesterday's "mistake" upon falsification. "Facts" emerge during the popularization process. Where scientists are expected to give simple answers to complex questions so the rest of society can understand them.

[Belinda]

My apologies for arriving late, and many days ago Veritas Aequitas wrote regarding normal, dual, consciousness:

This is the self-awareness with a sense of "I-ness" in the non-waking state.

But what I regard as me and what not-me relates to my environments and how to survive in it.

It's impossible for any living individual to survive without its struggle for its own survival. For instance in certain pharmaceutical laboratories where pathogenic organisms are cultivated under conditions where they have no need to struggle for survival these microbes become attenuated. This attentuated state allows us to use these organisms to stimulate immunity to their toxins without risk to ourselves the hosts.The microbes fail to thrive.

The human being in easy living can reflect upon how each inhalation of air and each mouthful of food is part of the human individual. And by extension so is the society that arranges for the air quality to be good, and so is the wheat that lived to make the food. Religions before they become corrupted act to crystallise the moral consensus that allows the society to exist. And the non-dual vision is basically a religious vision.

[TimeSeeker]

This is the self-awareness with a sense of "I-ness" in the non-waking state.

But what I regard as me and what not-me relates to my environments and how to survive in it.

That's a really good way to put it actually. Anything that is on the critical path for my survival and continued well-being is "me". It's the pinnacle of holistic systems thinking.

This is also why I consider the concept of "objectivity" to be harmful if unchecked. When immersed in the role of a "passive, objective observer" the observer tends to forget they are actually part of the system they are observing.

[Atla]

The beautiful thing about universal abstractions is that they are universal. Naturally - you don't think searching is a dell-defined process, but that is a "right brain failure" on your part.

By all means - lets philosophise and define a process by which we would search for a square triangle.

Again: only an imbecile would use computer search in philosophy. And there are no "universal abstractions". Only imbeciles claim to have access to universal knowledge.

Well DUH! That IS the conclusion you draw AFTER you blindly accept Occam's razor instead of Hickam's dictum!
The question is WHY did you CHOOSE to accept Occam's razor instead of Hickam's dictum?

It's tautological. If you had CHOSEN a different principle then you would draw a different conclusion.

Well! Tell me about the probabilistic analysis you did that made you choose Occam's razor instead of Hiccam's dictum?
And I can't wait to hear how you "apply probability" to anything without having any upfront PPV/NPV criteria!

You'll probably end up telling me about p-values. But you aren't going to tell me why you've chosen 0.05 to mean "statistical significance". Why not 0.005. Or 0.0000000000000001 ?

What an idiotic question. Hickam's dictum is highly specific to medicine, humans are extremely complex organisms and it's also highly arbitrary how we define illnesses, that's not even metaphysics.
And most of the universe isn't such a special case, in case you haven't known.

Garbage in - Garbage out. And to my original point - deduction is mechanical. By the principle of infinite regression you can't justify WHY you've chosen one principle over another! Deduction is a non-starter!

We can't ever fully justify anything. Again, you would expect omniscience/omnipotence.

"God did it!" explains everything! It's neither testable NOR falsifiable, but it explains everything. So HOW and WHY would we even need notions like 'testability' and 'falsifiability'?

If you want some random supernatural explanation then go ahead, your problem.
Btw, you might need to explan the existence of God too, which can lead to more improbability.

P.S there are no such thing as scientific facts. There is only plausible interpretation of experimental data. For today's "fact" becomes yesterday's "mistake" upon falsification. "Facts" emerge during the popularization process. Where scientists are expected to give simple answers to complex questions so the rest of society can understand them.

Good job stating the obvious - again you read the word but do not process the obvious meaning.

[TimeSeeker]

Again: only an imbecile would use computer search in philosophy. And there are no "universal abstractions". Only imbeciles claim to have access to universal knowledge.

Leave the computers in the corner and apply whatever you think are valid "philosophical methods" to explain to me how you would go about searching for a square triangle. No. Actually. Tell me how you would search for a grobmunf.

And as an irrelevant historical fact, I bet you didn't know that the word "computer" was a job title 100 years ago. It was something humans did. Compute. By observing the PROCESS of "computing" Alan Turing just reduced it to its fundamental steps and formalized it using this "constructive mathematics" thing

What an idiotic question. Hickam's dictum is highly specific to medicine, humans are extremely complex organisms and it's also highly arbitrary how we define illnesses, that's not even metaphysics.
And most of the universe isn't such a special case, in case you haven't known.

And you think the universe is less complex a system than the human body? There is some misunderstanding of probability theory here

We can't ever fully justify anything. Again, you would expect omniscience/omnipotence.

Nonsense. I justify all my choices with teleology and free will. I start with my expectations and work backwards. Because I have nothing to start with when using deduction!

"God did it!" explains everything! It's neither testable NOR falsifiable, but it explains everything. So HOW and WHY would we even need notions like 'testability' and 'falsifiability'?

If you want some random supernatural explanation then go ahead, your problem.
Btw, you might need to explan the existence of God too, which can lead to more improbability.

You still don't get it? It doesn't matter if the "first cause" is God, or the big bang or a great circle, or string theory. You can ALWAYS ask a "but where do these strings come from?". The problem isn't "God". The problem is infinite regress. It's turtles all the way down!

Nobody in physics understands what "energy" is - energy is supernatural! Time is supernatural!

[Atla]

Leave the computers in the corner and apply whatever you think are valid "philosophical methods" to explain to me how you would go about searching for a square triangle. No. Actually. Tell me how you would search for a grobmunf.

You do that; I prefer things that make sense.

And as an irrelevant historical fact, I bet you didn't know that the word "computer" was a job title 100 years ago. It was something humans did. Compute. Alan Turing just formalized it using this "constructive mathematics" thing

I knew that; again you fail.

And you think the universe is less complex a system than the human body? There is some misunderstanding of probability theory here

Yes and it's yours; you confuse different meanings of complexity. The universe seems to work via a few sets of physical laws.

Nonsense. I justify all my choices with teleology and free will. I start with my expectations and work backwards. Because I have nothing to start with when using deduction!

Which is why you are an intellectual fraud.

You still don't get it? It doesn't matter if the "first cause" is God, or the big bang or a great circle, or string theory. You can ALWAYS ask a "but where do these strings come from?". The problem isn't "God". The problem is infinite regress. It's turtles all the way down!

Your problem is infinite regress - some have solved it. In fact I even told you an example how to.

Nobody in physics understands what "energy" is - energy is supernatural! Time is supernatural!

Only an imbecile would call that supernatural. And in my metaphysics time is explained.

Everything you accuse me of only highlights your own shortcomings in the end - maybe one day it'll dawn on you that I've been 10 steps ahead of you the whole time.

[TimeSeeker]

You do that; I prefer things that make sense.

Interesting conclusion.

How did you assert that searching for "truth" makes sense but searching for "grobmunf" doesn't?

I knew that; again you fail.

Then how do you utter something as silly as "you think there is a computer in your head" when computers are modelled after humans?

Yes and it's yours; you confuse different meanings of complexity. The universe seems to work via a few sets of physical laws.

Special pleading! Are you suggesting that the universe is subjected to the laws of physics while the human body is not?
There is only one objective (measurable!) meaning of complexity - Time-space complexity. I'll let you Google it so I don't ruin the surprise.

Really though. The fact that you think the universe is less complex than the human body. I think I can get you nominated for the special olympics with that...

Which is why you are an intellectual fraud.

Oxymoron. Intellectuals are frauds. Sophists - all of them. Happily turning a blind eye to the elephant in the room of epistemology: infinite regress and justification. Those are - what do we call it - UNSOLVABLE PROBLEMS.

So if 'philosophy' means "love of wisdom" - then I am glad for being wise enough to renounce the title of "intellectual".

Only an imbecile would call that supernatural And in my metaphysics time is explained.

Everything you accuse me of only highlights your own shortcomings in the end - maybe one day it'll dawn on you that I've been 10 steps ahead of you the whole time.

Yeah. You did explain it. Very poorly at that. By turning a blind eye to the problem of infinite regress.
Because your house of cards comes crashing down as soon as I ask: "Where did it come from?"
It's always been there? Like God?

Also - I have no idea what "supernatural" means. I was just following your lead using the word.

Rorty was right after all. It seems you have found your final vocabulary.

The set of communicative beliefs whose contingency the bearer more or less ignores.

[Atla]

...

Again: there is no infinite regress when we assume circular time. I explained this 1-2 times, went straight over your head, just like almost everything else and now you say I avoid the problem. I won't address the other lies in your comment now.

[TimeSeeker]

Again: there is no infinite regress when we assume circular time. I explained this 1-2 times, went straight over your head, just like almost everything else and now you say I avoid the problem. I won't address the other lies in your comment now.

No No. Please. Tell us - where did circular time come from? Was it always there? Forever and ever?

Like God.

You haven't solved the infinite regress. You are just refusing to ask the question.

P.S In constructive mathematics - it's called a Mobius strip

[Atla]

Again: there is no infinite regress when we assume circular time. I explained this 1-2 times, went straight over your head, just like almost everything else and now you say I avoid the problem. I won't address the other lies in your comment now.

No No. Please. Tell us - where did circular time come from? Was it always there? Forever and ever?

Like God.

You haven't solved the infinite regress. You are just refusing to ask the question.

Went over your head again. Circular time doesn't "come from somewhere", because it's circular. One could say we are sitting in the eternal now.

[TimeSeeker]

Went over your head again. Circular time doesn't "come from somewhere", because it's circular. One could say we are sitting in the eternal now.

Went over your head again. God doesn't "come from somewhere", because it's God. One could say we are sitting in the eternal now.

I'll just replace the phrase "Circular time" with "God" now and see how far we get

[Atla]

Went over your head again. Circular time doesn't "come from somewhere", because it's circular. One could say we are sitting in the eternal now.

Went over your head again. God doesn't "come from somewhere", because it's God. One could say we are sitting in the eternal now.

I'll just replace the phrase "Circular time" with "God" now and see how far we get

Not far - all you show is that you don't understand the word God either

[TimeSeeker]

Went over your head again. Circular time doesn't "come from somewhere", because it's circular. One could say we are sitting in the eternal now.

But no really. Are you sure you mean "circular"? Are we on the inside or the outside of the circle?

Maybe it's better to think of it as a Mobius strip or a kleinbottle?