Paranormal Ability

[Steven Coyle]

Steven Coyle wrote:

To discover myself within the Universe.

Or perhaps to enhance yourself within the Universe.

At root, it is a feeling of lacking, and the absence of faith in one's true nature, that drives people to project symbolic meaning onto chance events and coincidences. It is a form of egotistically wanting to be in the center of the Universe, an expression of feeling alienated.

-

While philosophically this may be true, there is still merit in the experiences. How would you interpret Weininger's description of the entire Universe being contained within the gifted man? What Kelly recently posted concerning satori also applies here. The absence of mind and body, with self and other like two reflecting mirrors, is how I would best describe the experience of this form of samadhi.

[David Quinn]

Steven,

While philosophically this may be true, there is still merit in the experiences.

I agree they can have merit, as long as one doesn't really believe in them. For example, Weininger's thought-experiments concerning symbolism - e.g. his musings on dogs - can trigger interesting insights and profound connections. But he did this in the context of his philosophizing, as a means of gaining knowledge and becoming wiser, not as an end to itself.

How would you interpret Weininger's description of the entire Universe being contained within the gifted man?

Comprehending the emptiness of all things.

-

[Kevin Solway]

I saw a finch offer a crow food, in mid-flight.

More likely what you saw was the crow using stand-over tactics to steal the food from the finch. If the finch didn't pass-up the food, the crow would have taken it by force.

[Steven Coyle]

David,

S: While philosophically this may be true, there is still merit in the experiences.

D:I agree they can have merit, as long as one doesn't really believe in them. For example, Weininger's thought-experiments concerning symbolism - e.g. his musings on dogs - can trigger interesting insights and profound connections. But he did this in the context of his philosophizing, as a means of gaining knowledge and becoming wiser, not as an end to itself.

Let me try and explain the types of experiences.

I'll be sitting outside, thinking over things. Mulling over karma, and the most effective way to rid myself of it's pull. When I'll witness a hawk in flight, being attacked by a mischievous crow -- an abnormal appearence in the natural world. The sublime and lofty disconcern with which the hawk stood in respect to the onslaught was breathtaking. The wisdom gained was simple, but the experience of Nature in that moment was a powerful image to remember.

So its not so much an experience of philosophizing, as much as the uninvited experience of a philosophy.

[Steven Coyle]

I saw a finch offer a crow food, in mid-flight.

More likely what you saw was the crow using stand-over tactics to steal the food from the finch. If the finch didn't pass-up the food, the crow would have taken it by force.

Maybe that's how memetics works.

J/K

Regardless though, the synchronicity was interesting.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

At root, it is a feeling of lacking, and the absence of faith in one's true nature, that drives people to project symbolic meaning onto chance events and coincidences. It is a form of egotistically wanting to be in the center of the Universe, an expression of feeling alienated.

You're describing here the process of observation, interpretation and assigning of meaning in general, no matter done by fool or sage.

In a completely causal universe there's no such thing as chance and coincidence, unless everything is regarded as being just that and nothing more. Any completely random element is viral in its logical nature when it comes to the causal chain.

Having faith in one's true nature can then only be described as going blind (the end of perception, end of meaning) or another egotistic projection that doesn't want to be named as such, for egotistical reasons.

[Jason]

In a completely causal universe there's no such thing as chance and coincidence, unless everything is regarded as being just that and nothing more. Any completely random element is viral in its logical nature when it comes to the causal chain.

If you mean "causal" in the way that QSR use the term, I understand that this version of causality doesn't lead to determinism as it is usually defined. Though from memory QSR have played along with the idea that they are the same in effect, possibly because it fits neatly in with conventional determinism and scientific causality and gives them another hook to use in propogating their beliefs. And/or possibly because they haven't worked out the ramifications themselves yet.

In the QSR worldview, "A" is caused by "non-A", right. What that essentially points to is contrast. A thing is what it is because it is contrasted against that which it is not. So the past relates to the future in the same way. The past is the past simply because it is contrasted against what is not the past, which is the future.

Given that then, a particular past state does not necessarily lead to a particular future state, the only necessary thing is that the past is different to the future, so that they contrast, and thus conform to the "A"(past) and "non-A"(future) principle. So, in this way, you can see that the past doesn't predetermine the particular state of the future, at least in the sense that determism usually holds.

The QSR-version of causality could actually lead to a series of events which are essentially completely random, in that the state of the past does not have any deriveable relationship with the state of the future, other than they are contrasting.

So in normal determism you'd have dominoes falling neatly and predictably, in QSR causality, you could have a series of events like:
1.dominoe falls 2.chickens fill the room. 3.the entire universe becomes pitch black 4.Niagra Falls appears out of nowhere with purple water.

As long as they contrast, as long as each new instant differs in some way with the previous instant it follows the A and non-A principle.

This state of affairs, these ramifications of QSR causality, also, I think, could seriously upset their usual methods of negating free-will, but that is for another time....

(Note: I don't necessarily agree with any of these QSR-type ideas myself.)

[Faust]

If you're interested in parapsychology, I suggest the best, Celia Green.

http://www.celiagreen.com

blogspot.celiagreen.com

[David Quinn]

Jason,

Your depiction of the way Kevin and I view causality is faulty because it doesn't take into account that we both define a cause to be "anything that is necessary for something else to exist". For example, molecules are necessary to a car's existence, and so the processes that led to the creation of the car's molecules in the past are necessary for the car's present existence.

The truth that "A" is caused by "non-A" is merely one aspect of causality. It doesn't express other aspects of causality.

-

[Jason]

David,

Jason,

Your depiction of the way Kevin and I view causality is faulty because it doesn't take into account that we both define a cause to be "anything that is necessary for something else to exist". For example, molecules are necessary to a car's existence, and so the processes that led to the creation of the car's molecules in the past are necessary for the car's present existence.

The truth that "A" is caused by "non-A" is merely one aspect of causality. It doesn't express other aspects of causality.

-

Arrrghhhh! Bullshit! Damn you annoy me sometimes David. You will never be proven wrong, always twist it around. Fuck. Look, it should be obvious that according to your views, a things existence is necessarily dependent upon literally everything that is not it. "A" and "non-A". A car is as dependentant upon Alpha Centauri for its existence as it is rubber and steel.

Are you telling me, that if a car drives up the road past you, and this is the first time you have ever seen that car, that you don't view it as a car until you can prove beyond doubt that this car previously existed as certain differently arranged molecules? No you don't. If a thing essentially pops out of nowhere in the form of a car, it is a car to you. You can't prove with certainty that the molecules it is theoretically made of, used to be a chunk of aluminium in a factory etc.

This is bullshit, you actually don't rely on " the processes that led to the creation of the car's molecules in the past". You identify a thing simply by the form/appearance it presents to you, and a particular form that appears to you in one instant may not have any knowable connection with a previous form. So, things can pop into and out of existence with no apparently predictable sequence other than the fact that they possess an identity that differentiates them from everything else: A and non-A.

You can't even be sure that a car you see for a single second is the same car. Some advanced alien technology may, in a single second, have teleported in two identical-looking cars into that same spot, one after the other, so even though it appears to have been the one car all along, it was actually two different cars. Or maybe you begin hallucinating and begin seeing what was previously a cat, now as a car. Or maybe you are dreaming, and the car is actually made of dream-stuff not molecules. Or maybe cadburys has created an amazingly realistic chocolate-car that visually fools you into believing it is a real car.

Another disclaimer: once again I am exploring the QSR philosophy, these are not necessarily my views.

[bert]

Wondering if anyone on the Genius Forum has any personal experience with psychic phenomena. If willing to share, much appreciation, etc.

sublimate your beliefs into the unfamiliar energeia of orgasm,for it is numinous,it is immanence and the moment of concept-creation : the key of giving reality to your autistic thinking which is the great theurgy.


_____

(last post : I am going on holiday)

[David Quinn]

Jason,

DQ: Your depiction of the way Kevin and I view causality is faulty because it doesn't take into account that we both define a cause to be "anything that is necessary for something else to exist". For example, molecules are necessary to a car's existence, and so the processes that led to the creation of the car's molecules in the past are necessary for the car's present existence.

The truth that "A" is caused by "non-A" is merely one aspect of causality. It doesn't express other aspects of causality.

J: Arrrghhhh! Bullshit! Damn you annoy me sometimes David. You will never be proven wrong, always twist it around. Fuck. Look, it should be obvious that according to your views, a things existence is necessarily dependent upon literally everything that is not it. "A" and "non-A". A car is as dependentant upon Alpha Centauri for its existence as it is rubber and steel.

That's right. A car depends on Alpha Cantauri not turning into a giant space-goat and rushing over to swallow the car up. In other words, the past and present processes which sustain Alpha Centauri are necessary for the car's present existence.

Are you telling me, that if a car drives up the road past you, and this is the first time you have ever seen that car, that you don't view it as a car until you can prove beyond doubt that this car previously existed as certain differently arranged molecules? No you don't. If a thing essentially pops out of nowhere in the form of a car, it is a car to you. You can't prove with certainty that the molecules it is theoretically made of, used to be a chunk of aluminium in a factory etc.

That's right, I don't know that. But I do know that the car's parts had to have come from somewhere, and so I know that processes in the past, whatever they might have been, were responsible for the car coming into existence.

This is bullshit, you actually don't rely on " the processes that led to the creation of the car's molecules in the past". You identify a thing simply by the form/appearance it presents to you, and a particular form that appears to you in one instant may not have any knowable connection with a previous form. So, things can pop into and out of existence with no apparently predictable sequence other than the fact that they possess an identity that differentiates them from everything else: A and non-A.

You're right that I don't need to be aware of the fact that past processes created the car in order for me to perceive the car in the present. But I do need to be aware of it in order to help me break down the illusion of the car's inherent existence.

You can't even be sure that a car you see for a single second is the same car. Some advanced alien technology may, in a single second, have teleported in two identical-looking cars into that same spot, one after the other, so even though it appears to have been the one car all along, it was actually two different cars.

True, but it still remains the case that the car I am perceiving in the present is the result of processes in the past, whatever they might have been.

Or maybe you begin hallucinating and begin seeing what was previously a cat, now as a car. Or maybe you are dreaming, and the car is actually made of dream-stuff not molecules. Or maybe cadburys has created an amazingly realistic chocolate-car that visually fools you into believing it is a real car.

Ditto.


-