GENIUS FORUMS

average wrote:Truth doesn't demand, or require love.
In fact, there is nothing to love about it, and no one to do any loving in its presence.

Enlightenment isn't broken into, and doesn't require any sacrifice because it provides no reward.

If that was the case, we wouldn't have a world filled with people trapped in ignorance.

-

maestro wrote:One thing that has puzzled me is the phenomenon of lots of brilliant scientists who are devout Jews. How can a man survive with this kind of contradiction in his head.

Compartmentalization. The common practice of distancing intellectual knowledge from one's personal life, thereby reducing it to the banality of academia.

-

David Quinn wrote:

average wrote:Truth doesn't demand, or require love.
In fact, there is nothing to love about it, and no one to do any loving in its presence.

Enlightenment isn't broken into, and doesn't require any sacrifice because it provides no reward.

If that was the case, we wouldn't have a world filled with people trapped in ignorance.

-

Why not?

Edit:

Enlightenment offers no reward, since there is no one there to even receive it.

Ignorance, and wisdom, are transient superficial qualities, like poverty, or wealth.

If you would only gaze deeper into the abyss, you would see, that no one is actually poor, or wealthy, Enlightened, or ignorant.

David Quinn wrote: Compartmentalization. The common practice of distancing intellectual knowledge from one's personal life, thereby reducing it to the banality of academia.

Yes I have heard of the term compartmentalization, but it seems like an amazing feat to me. It is truly more miraculous than any miracle in the Bible.

average wrote: Enlightenment offers no reward, since there is no one there to even receive it.

Why should there be someone to receive a reward. Absence of pain is a reward in itself.

maestro wrote:

average wrote: Enlightenment offers no reward, since there is no one there to even receive it.

Why should there be someone to receive a reward. Absence of pain is a reward in itself.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

The smooth and precise functioning of the mind and the joy that arises out of it is a reward in itself. Why do you need a third party to get the reward, from a process.

maestro wrote:The smooth and precise functioning of the mind and the joy that arises out of it is a reward in itself. Why do you need a third party to get the reward, from a process.

First of all - It doesn't bring about joy, or smoothness and precision.

Secondly - by definition, a reward is something given or received. In this case, there is no giver or receiver.

average,

How do you know so much about it enlightenment?

Ataraxia wrote:I read this somewhere,but didn't really understand what it was implying.It may have been in Dennets's 'On consciousness'

If you could direct me to a URL that explains the implications in laymans terms,I'd appreciate it.

Sorry, can't. I simply pulled those things from memory -- philosophy of mind is not my main interest philosophically, so all those curious facts are just something I grab and file away for my own understanding. I didn't keep the references.

maestro wrote:It deals with psychological suffering, existential is a kind of psychological suffering.

I wish you'd make up your mind there. is this your final definition -- 'psychological suffering'?

Xianity does not deliver the goods to a rational person, it will produce suffering in him due to its contradictions. Further since it ignores reason, cannot produce mental health.

You can say exactly the same thing about buddhism.

One thing that has puzzled me is the phenomenon of lots of brilliant scientists who are devout Jews. How can a man survive with this kind of contradiction in his head.

hehe. When your a-priori ideologizing runs afoul reality, perhaps you need to re-examine your ideologizing.

BTW, which scientists are devout jews? Nobody disputes that jews are immensely over-represented among the best of the best n science, but which ones of them are devout?

Ataraxia wrote:

vicdan wrote:Did you know that humans make the decision about .2 seconds before they recognize the decision as being made, suggesting that what we perceive as self, our internal narrative, is not so much a king as a royal scribe.

Vicdan;

I read this somewhere,but didn't really understand what it was implying.It may have been in Dennets's 'On consciousness'

If you could direct me to a URL that explains the implications in laymans terms,I'd appreciate it.

Actually I'm quite familiar with the topic and know where to send you:

http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

Note from this and other sources that nobody is claiming that a decision has been made 500 ms in advance. That's just the spin Victor likes to put on his factoids.

vicdan wrote: The First noble Truth cannot be taken to be simply a definition of 'suffering', you know.

It's clearly the way the writer choses to describe it and after that he goes into the detail of how he arrived at it and as well derives more truths from it. Should it be more than that? Anyway, the discussion is moot since I'm not as interested in the noble Truths as you might think. I think this definition of suffering is a useful one to work with but certainly not the only one.

And buddhism is definitely not the only way to address this existential void, and i would suggest not even the best.

Fair enough. It can be quite useful for starters though.

It's meant as simple definition to use in further dialog based on his observations.

hahaha. yeah, definition. QRS style.

Sure, it all hinges on good definitions before engaging in good thought. But you can keep your own if you want to, as long as you use them consistently and explain what they are during a debate. Otherwise Swiss cheese it what you end up with indeed.

]Illness and health are two sides of the same coin, yet we strive to be healthy and not ill. This can also be said of ignorance and knowledge, foolishness and wisdom, etc. Just because you are dealing with a duality, doesn't mean that both aspects of it have to be treated equally.

But this was about emotions, remember? The equal treatment would be in our feelings for them, which would be neutral in case of serious lack of desire. This is why wise people suffer fools 'gladly' or to be more precise: they don't care a duck but they will treat them differently nevertheless as needed.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's clearly the way the writer choses to describe it

So 'suffering' (or since we are defining a new term, let's call it 'fnagrle' so as to avoid confusion) -- so, life is full of fnargle. Fnargle is that which life is full of. And this is the definition of fnargle. Well, life is full of many things -- carbon, air, energy transfer, chemical reactions, breeding, thinking, etc.

Which one of them is 'fnargle' -- and why would it have to do anything with what we conventionally term 'suffering'?

As I said, dude, the First Noble Truth cannot possibly be taken as a definition of suffering. You have been stewing in the QRS compost pile for too long if you think it can.

Fair enough. It can be quite useful for starters though.

So it looks like there's no need for me to disprove buddhism after all, huh? it's just one possible way. You know, paper or plastic, cash or credit, buddhism or existentialism... Kinda like in that 'Weapon of Choice' song -- you could go with this, or you could go with that...

In case you forgot, you were the one who brought up buddhism as having something definitive to say on the matter. Now you seem to be retreating from that bold assertion, and in a rather disorderly and dishonest fashion, too.

But this was about emotions, remember? The equal treatment would be in our feelings for them

You had claimed that it's wiser to treat them equally. When I pressed on on the reason for this, you defended our claim by referencing the fact that they are inseparable. As I have clearly demonstrated, an inseparable duality in no way implies that we should treat both sides equally. Do you have any better reason for why we should treat joy and suffering the same, either elevating or rejecting them in tandem?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Actually I'm quite familiar with the topic and know where to send you:

http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

Thanks. :)

Note from this and other sources that nobody is claiming that a decision has been made 500 ms in advance. That's just the spin Victor likes to put on his factoids.

Actually what is coming out here is that the notion of 'decision' as we colloquially conceptualize it -- as a determinative act being made by a singular self -- does not match the observations. Which was exactly my point: that we know from empirical studies that this singular 'inherent self' doesn't exist, it's much more complicated, and much more interesting, than that.

Libet's own conclusion, BTW, seems to have been that the intention to act was indeed formed before the awareness of the intention to act. Regardless of how you interpret the data, such intentions (as measured by brain potentiation) do precede awareness thereof. Libet's experiment confirmed that the intention is formed before one becomes aware of it.

Clearly, even if you disagree with my interpretation of those results, to call them just my spin is monumentally dishonest, if even the original author of these experiments interprets the results the same way (though draws from them very different conclusions about the structure of cognition).

I'm always interested - in the curious sense - when the reason vs. emotion duality debate turns to a duality of animal nature against "human" nature. I find this particularly curious when it comes from determinists/causalists, who amongst all thinkers most lock the human being into reactive substance at every level, thus obliterating any romance from any notions of what it means to be human over and above being mammalian.

Mammalian - as in both what classifies our birth/nutrient situation as well as our social-civil-sexual fixation with same. What exactly do you think the human is? Perhaps an animal that thinks? Don't other animals think? Perhaps an animal whose thinking is distinguished by self-consciousness? Aren't other animals self-conscious? Okay, an animal that speaks? So other animals are silent? How about linguistics? - the capacity of name things, in itself a process of metaphor/abstraction? Isn't all this a matter of degrees?

These kinds of questions go on and on, and they require answers since the first thinker gave "humans" their walking papers out of nature (i.e. our "essence" transcends death) and so many other thinkers followed along. What kind of faith in the alacrity of the human mind ought we have in a human mind that comes up with an idea like this? Isn't that - unnatural? What disgust fuels human beings in their attitudes toward the animal and animal nature, and their insistence upon the destruction of same? Since when do we assume ourselves to operate outside of this purely determined situation? What sort of disgust with one's existence - to get all-nietzsche on our asses - demands this body-rejection and this over-inflated belief about the special dispensation of the human mind?

The association of "animal" with "emotional" is a bogus trap of the same order that fuels all religious thinking. It's the same engine of irrationality that comes about in the mas/fem debates. It is duplicitously credited with the raising of human consciousness out of its "animal" nature, when no such thing at all has occurred. Go on then and explain how any mammalian "escapes" being an animal, much less through a process of thought. Go ahead and envision what kind of existence you can muster when you have succeeded in obliterating all your animal qualities/animal response. In fact, explain what these "animal" qualities are and how they do not serve us in our everyday living. And then tell me what these have to do with emotions


p.s. all "you's" rhetorical (and pardon all the quote-marks, Leyla :) I mean very much for them to represent the so-called)

vicdan wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's clearly the way the writer choses to describe it

So 'suffering' (or since we are defining a new term, let's call it 'fnagrle' so as to avoid confusion) -- so, life is full of fnargle. Fnargle is that which life is full of. And this is the definition of fnargle. Well, life is full of many things -- carbon, air, energy transfer, chemical reactions, breeding, thinking, etc.

Which one of them is 'fnargle' -- and why would it have to do anything with what we conventionally term 'suffering'?

Actually the original word is dukkha, and captures a whole range of concepts in one concentrated blow: unsteady, disquieted, sorrow, suffering (or pain), affliction, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and frustration. Personally I found the translation into suffering a bit unfortunate but I'm willing to work with it.

Perhaps the original idea is even closer to glitch, hick-up, pressure or even anomaly or the unsymmetrical if you want to go metaphysical. I discussed the issue earlier on this board here, please note that this is unconventional, even for this place.

So it's fnargle, dukkha, the experience of life because it's also said in the same context that life means suffering. And with life is meant the individual experience or at least those experiences we (can) cling to.

And it's not conventional, you've got that right. In that sense not for absolute beginners.

In case you forgot, you were the one who brought up buddhism as having something definitive to say on the matter.

Did I now? Is it in doubt it has a lot to say on the matter? The word 'definitive' is one of those famous 'Victorious' additions to make the other look more stupid than himself.

Do you have any better reason for why we should treat joy and suffering the same, either elevating or rejecting them in tandem?

Even better: the tandems should teach one that such combo cannot elevated and rejected at all without getting into contradictions. Therefore: non-contradiction, identity or in other words: elevate it all, whatever comes.

Now lets get back to the topic: you'd argue that this would prevent valuing or goal-oriented behavior since some version of the pain & pleasure principle would be the only underlying motivator for a human being?

Diebert,

Note from this and other sources that nobody is claiming that a decision has been made 500 ms in advance.

When would you claim the decision was made? In that time lapse, the body makes changes to implement the decision, before we are aware of our intentions. What is your interpretation of these facts?

-

vicdan wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Actually I'm quite familiar with the topic and know where to send you:

http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

Thanks. :)

Anytime :)

Note from this and other sources that nobody is claiming that a decision has been made 500 ms in advance. That's just the spin Victor likes to put on his factoids.

Actually what is coming out here is that the notion of 'decision' as we colloquially conceptualize it -- as a determinative act being made by a singular self -- does not match the observations. Which was exactly my point: that we know from empirical studies that this singular 'inherent self' doesn't exist, it's much more complicated, and much more interesting, than that.

Agreed.

Libet's own conclusion, BTW, seems to have been that the intention to act was indeed formed before the awareness of the intention to act. Regardless of how you interpret the data, such intentions (as measured by brain potentiation) do precede awareness thereof. Libet's experiment confirmed that the intention is formed before one becomes aware of it.

It might be some kind of prefetch to enhance reaction time. Perhaps the body can predict what we're gonna decide to some level. Wasn't it called 'readiness potential' too?

Anyhow, apart from technicalities I do agree with your interpretation by the way, that's not the point. I'm just less attached to it ;)

Clearly, even if you disagree with my interpretation of those results, to call them just my spin is monumentally dishonest, if even the original author of these experiments interprets the results the same way (though draws from them very different conclusions about the structure of cognition).

Well, I did put it in rather stark terms but by putting in the word 'decision' in the description of the experiment you created a false impression that it was already concluded. It's likely, as you wrote earlier, "much more complicated, and much more interesting, than that".

Shahrazad wrote:Diebert,

Note from this and other sources that nobody is claiming that a decision has been made 500 ms in advance.

When would you claim the decision was made? In that time lapse, the body makes changes to implement the decision, before we are aware of our intentions. What is your interpretation of these facts?

See my reply to him. I see nothing wrong with Victor's interpretation of this experiment, only with the way he stated it at first. It was even close to my own opinion! I just like to be as accurate as possible there where accuracy and exact meaning is important (like in science). It just doesn't work the same way in philosophy, that's way more contextual and complex in my view.

Pye wrote: The association of "animal" with "emotional" is a bogus trap of the same order that fuels all religious thinking. It's the same engine of irrationality that comes about in the mas/fem debates. It is duplicitously credited with the raising of human consciousness out of its "animal" nature, when no such thing at all has occurred. Go on then and explain how any mammalian "escapes" being an animal, much less through a process of thought. Go ahead and envision what kind of existence you can muster when you have succeeded in obliterating all your animal qualities/animal response. In fact, explain what these "animal" qualities are and how they do not serve us in our everyday living. And then tell me what these have to do with emotions

But since when are we talking about obliterating animal responses? I was under the impression this was about obliterating ignorance, that is: thinking ruled by emotion. It's all about deception, and perhaps intelligence in that sense was developed out of pure animal qualities - fight, flight, hide.

That's all good and well but the world is not sticks and stones anymore. There's an increasing need for highly rational decisions which can overrule the easy immediate shortsighted ('reptilian') gravity pull.

It all boils down again to what you consider to be an emotion and were it stems from. Arriving at some clarity on this issue needs in itself a calm, unfettered mind. What I see happening during these discussions that the whole world and her dog is dragged into the equation and one claims that this all will be lost if emotion would stop being attached to our thinking. So far I don't see any convincing argument that one would turn into a zombie, boring professor or psychopath. On the contrary, I can think of arguments suggesting the reverse might be true.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Actually the original word is dukkha

I know.

and captures a whole range of concepts in one concentrated blow: unsteady, disquieted, sorrow, suffering (or pain), affliction, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and frustration.

But not breathing, thinking, carbon, water, chemical reaction, etc.

Which is to say, kiddo, that First Noble Truth cannot possibly be taken as the definition of suffering (or dukkha if you prefer).

I do wonder if Dalai Lama advocates crime, violence, and junk food as much as he advocates law, peace, and healthy living. He is somewhat of an authority on buddhism, I hear.

Did I now? Is it in doubt it has a lot to say on the matter?

it's in doubt that it has anything significant to say -- just as xianity has very little significant to say on the notion of morality, responsibility, etc., despite the fact that it has all thoser pretensions.

If you think buddhism has something important to say, it's up to you to say it. Simply making vague allusions is not enough. however, claiming that First Noble truth is the definition of suffering, is not an auspicious start for you. In fact, it makes you look like a typical intellectually dishonest apologist douchebag.

Even better: the tandems should teach one that such combo cannot elevated and rejected at all without getting into contradictions. Therefore: non-contradiction, identity or in other words: elevate it all, whatever comes.

Erm, that's still not a reason to eschew unequal treatment (health over sickness, knowledge over ignorance, eating nutritiously over eating junk) in favor of equal treatment. i asked you to support your claim, and you instead merely expanded it, still without any actual support.

Dude, you are really disappointing me.

Now lets get back to the topic: you'd argue that this would prevent valuing or goal-oriented behavior since some version of the pain & pleasure principle would be the only underlying motivator for a human being?

'This' being treating everything equally? No, I don't claim that -- you project those claims onto me. Having no emotions is not equivalent to treating everything equally.

Anyhow, apart from technicalities I do agree with your interpretation by the way, that's not the point.

So you attacked me for 'spin' not because you think my interpretation was unjustified, but for personal reasons. Gotcha. :D

Dude, you are a sad spectacle to watch. Let me guess. Your background is some social humanity discipline -- anthropology perhaps?..

by putting in the word 'decision' in the description of the experiment you created a false impression that it was already concluded.

It is concluded. it's not yet clear what this tells us about human mind, but it is clear that the actual 'decision' (inasmuch as the colloquial concept of 'decision' applies at all here) occurs before the awareness of it.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Actually I'm quite familiar with the topic and know where to send you:

http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

Thanks mate.That was the sort of thing I was after.

Maestro: Xianity does not deliver the goods to a rational person, it will produce suffering in him due to its contradictions. Further since it ignores reason, cannot produce mental health.
Vicdan: You can say exactly the same thing about buddhism.

Buddhism is anything but irrational. It emphasizes reason above all else.

vicdan wrote:I do wonder if Dalai Lama advocates crime, violence, and junk food as much as he advocates law, peace, and healthy living. He is somewhat of an authority on buddhism, I hear.

Gosh when did Dalai lama become an authority on Buddhism. Most Zen Buddhists hate him for his candy floss version of Buddhism.

It seems you just argue with your vague notions and half cooked facts and do not even care to even look into any matter properly. You seem to have a deep seated need to feel superior by winning arguments.

maestro wrote:Buddhism is anything but irrational. It emphasizes reason above all else.

That gotta be the reason why Zen Buddhism acquitted itself so admirably in japanese imperial conquests, excusing and justifying their atrocities, even outright promoting them. That gotta be why the First Noble Truth is simply proclaimed as dogma -- why it's a noble truth rather than 'noble possibility' or 'noble interpretation of experience'.

Dude, xians also claim that xianity is the essence of reason. in fact, they claim that reason is impossible without xianity. That doesn't mean diddly squat.

Gosh when did Dalai lama become an authority on Buddhism. Most Zen Buddhists hate him for his candy floss version of Buddhism.

And what makes you think Zen Buddhism is more authentic than Dalai Lama's Tibetan Buddhism? From where i sit, it's just sectarian strife, kinda like the orthodox vs. catholics vs. protestants.

Dalai Lama is an authority on buddhism the same way the Pope is an authority on xianity. Sure, neither one is the authority, but they are certainly near the top.

It seems you just argue with your vague notions and half cooked facts and do not even care to even look into any matter properly. You seem to have a deep seated need to feel superior by winning arguments.

yeah, i get that a lot from people who can't support their views when I criticize them.

You can't even decide what you mean by 'suffering', and yet it's my fault for arguing 'vague notions'?!.