On the contrary, if you find the experience of regret or error in pursuit of the ideals of one's mind totally alien, its probably because you are on heavy medication
a non-physical thing
- Thread starter swarm
- Start date
Swarm
neon lights?
:shrug:
More to the point, who says your assumptions about introspection as it pertains to the self are even tenable.
if one continues to work to gratify the senses and the mind, its hardly the case ....
You don't have a lot of experience with cameras using different coloured filters, do you?
and in what way does this relate to the ability of a person wearing red glasses to readily isolate a blue object on a red surface .......
What do you need?
neon lights?
:shrug:
Poor men and poor women have been searching for a god or gods for many centuries and they endded up with men like Jesus, moses, Muhammad.....and others like the pope to tell them who is god and who is not.....
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
That makes absolutely no sense as a response to what I said.
Perhaps your inability to make sense or properly respond to what was said is due to your friendly neighborhood covert chemist. ”
That makes absolutely no sense as a response to what I said.
That makes absolutely no sense as a response to what I said.
Perhaps your inability to make sense or properly respond to what was said is due to your friendly neighborhood covert chemist. ”
That makes absolutely no sense as a response to what I said.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Am I supposed to see the number or not ?
Ok, try again.
"Fanciful things which have only the concept, but no actual referent for that concept. Like unicorns"
There are actual things which actually are tangible which the concept "tangible" references.
I think you are just equivocating. I strongly suspect that we could test your understanding of tangible and you would have no trouble distinguishing a tangible smack in the head from a non tangible smack in the head by a unicorn.
The physical is not known "through" the virtual. The virtual is consturcted by the physical for certain processing tasks. But only the physical actually knows anything. When you think of something it is the neurons construting and maintaining the though which is where the knowing is happening. The construct is but a convenient illusion.
Perception is a real activity.
Actually they've had that for a while. You can track what areas of the brain are active and what hormones, peptides and neurotransmitters are being released. Its pretty easay to know if something is important or not and if some one is happy, sad, etc. Decoding the visual cortex to read what you are seeing is new.
So far they have met with reasonble review by those I've had review them.
Snide digs aren't going to help you. I'm telling you straight up. Keep working and you will find the mind and the senses are not the authority. Go beyond that and you will see that what you think of as god is not the authority either.
The eyes and the brain are not a camera.
LG what are you so afraid of that makes you do anything you can, even underhanded ploys, to avoid honest dialog on spiritual topics.
I did not.
I said: "I approach the topic with nothing."
Think about what that means.
All compound objects are empty of inherant suchness. I accept the universe, and myself, as it is without further need for justification by anything "beyond" this.
Give it a try. See things and yourself just as they are.
What need? I just enjoy doing it and seem to be naturally introspective.
nope.
Oh just stop trying to be fancy. Yes I have direct experience of desire.
Self is a handy notion for considering myself.
Mind is how we think about what runs on a brain.
Senses are how we think about our means of perceiving our environment.
Wrong. Try again.
Who is asking?
Good.
You have to read what I am saying instead of what you are wanting me to be saying.
Apparently not.
You are mistaken.
No. just "exclusively" would be precise. "Tends" is is a term of equivocation.
I did not make that argument.
Every word in this explanation refers to experiences Wes has had (or has not had which might make the conversation harder). None of this experience was physical, if that word has some meaning that distinguishes it from something else.
Nope. See below.
This implies what people say their motivations are or thought processes are is accurate. Even leaving aside issues of honesty we have a lot of epistemological problems here.
I have no reason to believe what you say your process was was your process. In fact my experience of people in general and in fact high IQ people specifically is that they often are off in their self assessments.
Everybody gets away with that. If we didn't we would be frozen.
You are using a physical and spatial metaphor for something you are distinguishing from the physical.
How are you distinguishing perception and experience?
I don't think you read what I wrote carefully.
Note the quotes. Yes, there are ways of determining that this is not waking reality. But that does not make it any less reality. And often the truths in dreams are applicable to waking reality. Very few people manage to work the other way.
And it is rarely what I think it is like.
Nobody limits themselves to what can be verified.
That is actually poor management strategy. And a false dichotmmy is implied. And for the same reasons it is a poor management strategy - those kinds of managers will get fired because they HAVE TO make decisions before these complete fact finding missions can be completed - it is a poor life strategy. And no one follows it anyway. In some areas perhaps, but not most.
See if you can come up with something that is not guessing and is not get every fact he (or she) can. And yes, I noted the word 'can'. Still, a bad strategy in many many cases. Especially these days where endless facts can be had and things are changing so fast.
What exactly is the part of this experience which you think isn't physical?
"We have a means of envoking ideas in each other's minds called "language."
Not at all. It can be accurate, but it isn't necessarily accurate. But that is what language has so much redundancy and error correction and we reinforce it when in person with non verbal cues.
4 xampl tiss setnce ih awl wong bt u cn reede t.
You are assuming epistemological issues are relevant.
Irrelevant. I detail my process, let you replicate it, we compare. If I failed to communicate my process completely, then you'll fail to replicate it and I'm back to square one. I then try again to convey my process until you can replicate it or we determine there is an error or get tired of trying. There is no "wrong" result as long as we are each upholding our part.
That is why we find out instead of people getting away with "I believe..."
So if I owe you a lot of money and I say "I already paid you" do you a) Let it go, or, b) double check.
If I'm supposed to have fixed your breaks on your car do you a) assume they work, or, b) give them a test?
I would hazard to guess you check so often and it is so organic to how you live that you don't even notice it most the time. But when things matter, I bet you check, double check, even triple check.
"The virtual sits atop the physical."
Actually I'm using a computer metaphor because that is where we have a lot of virtual stuff we can examine outside of people's heads. You don't have virtual anything without a physical layer for it to sit on top of.
Perception is the means, experience is the result.
I did. I think you are ignoring the implications of what you wrote.
Voila!
Your dreams as brain activity are certainly real, but the my little pony-corn-dump-truck which farts rainbows you are dreaming about is not real.
I think you are mis using the word "truths." I certainly figure out things in my dreams and I certainly figure out stuff to dream while I'm awake. Sometime those are spot on, sometimes they are spot off and sometimes they need to be reconsidered by the light of day.
You should know better than to use "nobody" in that context.
You seem to be using a very loose definition of "fact."
I'm not sure what standard for "good" management you have, but ignoring the facts doesn't work well around here.
OK. I'm going to focus on this one point because I hope you can see where you are being manipulative and dishonest.
I never suggested ignoring the facts. I did say that it is poor management strategy, often, not to try to get all the facts you can. If you can admit, to yourself mostly, that you twisted that for some reason, it would probably be a good thing.
See, I used this example because it is what I work with professionally. Managers who try to get all the facts they can before they make decisions cause problems for their companies. And that's often where I get called in. There are other kinds of managerial/leaderships patterns that are problematic, but this is one of the common types. The first thing I show these managers is that they are making a decision to delay there decisions. And they are making this decision without all the facts. Companies are in motion. The decision to do front end deep fact finding is appropriate in some situations, say acquisitions. But for many managerial decisions it slows things down and worse can muddy the waters. Strong managers, and not reckless ones, are capable of making good decisions using a variety of heuristic devices that get batched under intution. The ones who don't trust themselves tend to put this off until there is more information. And then they find that they must use heuristic devices/intuition to sift through this information anyway. That is if they are lucky and their putting off the decision has not already caused a lot of damage.
Of course they do look at information and facts when making their decisions. and get input from colleagues and staff they respect. But the heuristic device of 'get all the facts you can before making a decision' is not a good general tool.
Which is why Board of Ds will call in a consultant like myself if one of its managers has this habit or if it is the habit of many managers in a company.
This is not merely a business issue, of course. Much of life is like that. A lack of complete info and decisions to make. So it is a relevent metaphor for the issues in this thread.
Please read what I wrote again. I did not say it wasn't physical. I do not think you are using the word in a meaningful way is the issue I am raising.
Envoking is still not a word, by the way.
I am afraid your consistant misreading is too tiresome. I think I'll find other conversations partners.
The point is, whether you see it or not, its a test of observation and not memory.
IOW its not simply a case of "flipping it with your mind" as swarm suggests
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2325767&postcount=123
Last edited:
Swarm
what do you propose to go beyond the mind and senses with then?
Actually it was a request for something aside from your hearsay on how brilliantly introspective you are ....
hehe
what do you propose to go beyond the mind and senses with then?
feel free to explain how a person can use their brain to distinguish a blue shirt in a pile of red shirts while looking through red lenses then .....
On the contrary if you want to play the spiritual card to bring in a host of whimsical speculation (such as the red lens thing) you deserve to be beaten with shoes
Last edited:
I made no claims of special brilliance. I said I enjoy it and have done it for a while. But what particularly are you looking for anyway?
Not only do you not know me so most things I might say will be meaningless to you in terms of whether there was personal growth, you are a snide and hostile person who is set to not be convinced no matter what I say.
But if you can make reasonable requests I'll give reasonable answers.
Miss using language won't help you, but I'll answer this question first. Many instruments go beyond the senses. Electron microscopes for example.
No we will rephrase to make it less poetic for you...
Keep working and you will find the mind and the senses are not the authority. Continue working after you understand that and you will see that what you think of as god is not the authority either.
Grab some rose color lenses, wear them for a while, see what you can see.
What are you so afraid of that makes you do anything you can, even underhanded ploys, to avoid honest dialog on spiritual topics.
Yes. And we both are subject to decay and dissolution.
I did not propose anything about foundations.
nope.
And you should not try to use things you don't understand for ill purposes.
If (p1) all there is, is this reality, and
(P2)compounded objects in this reality have inherently irreducible properties which arise from the complex interactions (patterns) of their physical substrate (aka component parts) and
(P3) desire would be an example of an inherently irreducible property of matter organized into humans which cannot be understood in the chemistry of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen; then, ???
You do know that if, then statements need a conclusion?
Desire would be an example of an inherently irreducible property of matter organized into humans which cannot be understood in the chemistry of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen
Not in the least. The reductionist position specifically denies the existence of inherently irreducible properties of matter.
I'm guessing like so many would be spiritual apologists you don't actually know anything about the materialist position vs a reductionist position. Reductionists come in both materialist and spiritualist flavors. I'm guessing you are a spiritual reductionist, or spiritual monist.
Stop making a self and see what happens.
I don't share your need for "ultimate foundations."
I'm not a reductionist so that doesn't seem relevant.
There are no eternal objects. All objects are compounded, without inherent suchness and subject to dissolution.
A good methodology stands on its own. Do this, do that, get such and such result. No theory needed. It can be used and developed by rote and there is absolutely no requirement to go beyond that to any particular theory.
A good theory cannot stand on its own like that. It requires a good methodology to demonstrate is validity.
Sorry I wasn't more clear. Are you able to understand now?
Last edited:
Shall we review?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2327439&postcount=144
No actual exceptions given and I never claimed our perception was any more capable than reasonably able to distinguish, hence the need for verification, but we'll skip that for the moment and get to this little spurious gem which you want to focus on instead of your hopeless argument:
I hope you weren't on the clock for that. At any rate we have the suggestion that it is good to base your decisions on idle speculation and even better to base it on random guesses.
Oh I love the implication that management is somehow authoritative on this question.
I rightly note:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2327825&postcount=152
Now are you really going to tell me that getting the facts you can before resorting to guessing is a bad management style??? Did I really misunderstand your first point? Am I being "manipulative and dishonest" by introducing unrelated topics like "management" and then making outrageous claims about it?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2329433&postcount=172
Checking the facts is a bad management strategy???
OK, now can we say "equivocate?" How about "double speak?"
I'm quite familiar with a number of techniques for finding, marshaling, evaluating and employing facts quickly and effectively. Throwing your hands in the air and saying "its too tough, I'll have to guess" is not one of them. Even if some guessing is necessary, educating that guess will make it far better than random.
What you seem to be doing is conflating knowing the facts of the matter with being indecisive. Indecisive managers may use fact gathering as one of their excuses, but that doesn't mean that knowing your subject isn't important to making good decisions about it.
Now, lets get down to "being manipulative and dishonest."
I beg your pardon??? Perhaps I have completely misunderstood "Any manager must make decisions based on beliefs that are not verifiable. And the good ones will be random guesses despite this." This whole time.
You said that??? I remember where I said "a good manager is going to get every fact he can before going out on a limb and guessing."
I seem to recall you saying "That is actually poor management strategy."
and then going on about how its "a poor management strategy," "those kinds of managers will get fired," "it is a poor life strategy," "and no one follows it anyway." (well you did equivocate a bit with: "In some areas perhaps, but not most.")
All of that equals "try to get all the facts you can?"
OK, explain it.
Are you woman enough to apologize?
As I said, you are conflating actual fact finding with ploys people use to hide indecision. Its all irrelevant to the original topic of course. But I did get quite a bit of practice determining the one from the other when I was in charge of quality management for IBM's Federal Systems Division --- Ooo let's appeal to our personal authority - consultant.
What I would strongly suggest is that you nuance your position. Being ignorantly decisive may look better, but it isn't actually any better than being indecisive by using research as a dodge.
What works well is knowing your time table and working within it to make good decisions backed by actual knowledge and analysis. Sure it sounds boring and actually requires work, but it also generates real results and as sound a decision as can be made.