Autor Wątek: "There are no answers. There are only Choices  (Przeczytany 111333 razy)

wetal

  • Juror
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 156
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #105 dnia: Luty 16, 2005, 05:00:16 pm »
Oh, you have touched me with the word PARANORMAL.
I use ,usually, the term  UNEXPLAINED. Talking about people I`d like to admit all we have such abilities we don`t even  suspect. They are not paranormal, they are natural.

Sternenfisch

  • Juror
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 137
  • <@]-|-|-- BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN --|-|-[@>
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #106 dnia: Luty 17, 2005, 03:42:34 pm »
Cytuj
But the Mind that is the creator of Reality. Homo sapiens are part of the illusion.



The Mind should be the Creator of Reality?
But he is the product of the Evolution which was before.
Was there no Reality before Apes become Intelligent?
Is the Evolution an Illusion without Reality?

Sternenfisch

  • Juror
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 137
  • <@]-|-|-- BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN --|-|-[@>
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #107 dnia: Luty 17, 2005, 03:50:46 pm »
Hi cckeiser, :)
I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge  or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?

I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism?

And if we say, a stone has more than nothing intellect, can he create some reality, too?
Like Golem IV perhaps can do?

I mean; If two intellects create Reality which conquers the other one, who wins?
The one with the higher Intellect?

Hope you can help me, because the message: The Reality depends from our Intellect, has throwen out many questions and it would be nice from you to take the time and clear them.

Thanks for your time. :)

cckeiser

  • Juror
  • Junior Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 95
  • The Observer
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #108 dnia: Luty 19, 2005, 05:59:49 am »
Cytuj

The Mind should be the Creator of Reality?
But he is the product of the Evolution which was before.
Was there no Reality before Apes become Intelligent?
Is the Evolution an Illusion without Reality?


There was Mind before there was Universe.
Consciousness is the essence of The Singularity.
There is no Reality. Reality is an Illusion. There is only Mind.

We exist. All else is Philosophy.

There are no answers. There are only Choices!

cckeiser

  • Juror
  • Junior Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 95
  • The Observer
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #109 dnia: Luty 19, 2005, 06:05:28 am »
Cytuj
Oh, you have touched me with the word PARANORMAL.
I use ,usually, the term  UNEXPLAINED. Talking about people I`d like to admit all we have such abilities we don`t even  suspect. They are not paranormal, they are natural.


There is no-thing supernatural or paranormal. It is all just metaphysical in search of an explanation.
We exist. All else is Philosophy.

There are no answers. There are only Choices!

cckeiser

  • Juror
  • Junior Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 95
  • The Observer
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #110 dnia: Luty 19, 2005, 07:06:32 am »
Cytuj
Hi cckeiser, :)
I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge  or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?

I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism?

And if we say, a stone has more than nothing intellect, can he create some reality, too?
Like Golem IV perhaps can do?

I mean; If two intellects create Reality which conquers the other one, who wins?
The one with the higher Intellect?

Hope you can help me, because the message: The Reality depends from our Intellect, has throwen out many questions and it would be nice from you to take the time and clear them.

Thanks for your time. :)


Cytuj
I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?

I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism?


I'm sorry SoGo, but I do not understand you question here? Can you ask it in another way?

Cytuj
And if we say, a stone has more than nothing intellect, can he create some reality, too?
Like Golem IV perhaps can do?


Does a stone have "intellect"? A stone is the product of Consciousness, so it has consciousness at its essence, but we are now talking within the illusion, and Poly-Solipsism cannot tell us what the illusion is. Poly-Solipsism only tells us How the illusion is, it cannot tells us What form the illusion will take. That depends of the choices of the entangled minds, and that changes constantly.
"There are no answers. There are only Choices."

Cytuj
I mean; If two intellects create Reality which conquers the other one, who wins?
The one with the higher Intellect?


How does it work now in everyday "reality"? The one who knows how to use the system to manipulate the minds of others. It takes more than one mind to create a shared reality, but it only takes one mind to change that reality. We do that all the time with our Theories. The more minds that accept a theory, the more "true" it will become. Then when we go looking for "proof" we find what we went looking for.

Cytuj
Hope you can help me, because the message: The Reality depends from our Intellect, has thrown out many questions and it would be nice from you to take the time and clear them.


I hope my reply as helped, but for more in-depth answers please read The Play. I am also adding a FAQ page to my web site. I have a few dozen questions and answers I am currently going through and  translating into html to put on line.
But remember I cannot answer your questions about what form our illusion will take. That is the choice you have to make, and any answer I give you about what form our illusion of reality will take, is only what I see within my own mind.
Every philosophy ever written is only a description of what that philosopher sees through the lens of their own making. They are describing their own illusion, and inviting others to join them in that illusion.
We exist. All else is Philosophy.

There are no answers. There are only Choices!

cckeiser

  • Juror
  • Junior Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 95
  • The Observer
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #111 dnia: Luty 22, 2005, 12:26:21 am »
http://www.mahavir.com/jainism&relativity.html

ARTICLE : Jainism & relativity
Posted By Ashok V Chowgule (ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in)
Sat, 24 May 97 16:39:57 EDT
The Jaina perspectives of syadavada hold that a proposition is true only conditionally and not absolutely. This is because it depends on the particular standpoint, naya, from which it is being made; that logically a thing can
be perceived from at least seven different standpoints, saptabhangi-naya; which lead us to the awareness of the many-sidedness of reality, or truth, anekanta-vada.

Realist Ethics

At no time were these limited to epistemological questions, of concern only to the philosophers. Since human relationships, personal or social, are determined by our perceptions of ourselves and of others, which we mostly assume also to be true absolutely, giving rise to conflicts and violence because the others believe the
same about their judgments, the very first step towards living creatively is to acknowledge the relativistic nature of our judgments, and hence their limits. While being a distinct contribution to the development of Indian logic, the Jaina syada-vada has been, most of all, a realist ethics of not-violence, ahimsa. The two are inter-related intimately.

An article, 'Syada-vada, Relativity and Complementarity' by Prof. Partha Ghose, a theoretical physicist says that P C Mahalanobis was the first to point out, in 1954, that "the Jaina Syada-vada provided the right logical framework for modern statistical theory in a qualitative form, a framework missing in classical western logic." J B S Haldane saw a wider relevance of syada-vada to modern science. And Prof. Ghose speaks of the "most striking" similarity of syada-vada to Niels Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, first noticed by D C Kothari. Furthermore,he says:
"The logic of Einstein's special theory of relativity is also very similar to syada-vada."

In Einstein's relativity theory, Prof. Ghose points out, "the conventional attributes of mass, length, energy and time lose their absolute significance"; whereas in Bohr's complementarity theory, "the conventional attributes of waves and particles lose their absolute significance." As in syadavada, what that means is that the physical value of the former is only relative to the theoretical framework in which they are being viewed, and to the position from which they are being viewed. None of them is a fixed, absolute truth about the physical universe, as was assumed in the Newtonian physics. It would soon be discovered, too, that they are relative also to the observer who observed them.

The upanishad-s and the Jaina syada-vada had argued that reality carries within itself also opposites as its inherent attributes; and, therefore, no absolute statements can be made about it. But no sooner was this said than it was shown itself to be subject to the same limitation.

In the wake of the relativity theory, which had already shattered the classical notions of physical order, de Broglie, a French prince, demonstrated, in 1924, that an electron is both a particle and a wave, whereas quantum mechanics had held the particle-wave duality. This discovery was even more upsetting, but experimentally proved.

The most upsetting was the subsequent proof, provided by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, that no events, not even atomic events, can be described with any certainty; whereas the natural sciences were rooted until then, and are so even now,in the mistaken notion that scientific rationality and its method gave us exact and
certain knowledge of the universe. Heisenberg called it the 'Principle of Uncertainty'. Its substance was not only that human knowledge is limited but also that it is uncertain. That is to say, there are aspects of reality about which nothing definite can be said - the avyaktam, or the 'indeterminate', of the Jaina syada-vada.


We exist. All else is Philosophy.

There are no answers. There are only Choices!

cckeiser

  • Juror
  • Junior Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 95
  • The Observer
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #112 dnia: Luty 22, 2005, 12:27:42 am »
http://www.mahavir.com/jainism&relativity.html

Subsequent Proof

In his book The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics, published in 1979, Gary Zukay said: "The wave-particle duality marked the end of the 'either-or' way of looking at the world. Physicists no longer could accept the preposition that light is either a particle or a wave because they had "proved" to themselves that it was both, depending on how they looked at it."

Syada-vada, and with it anekanta-vada, had held that there are several different ways of perceiving reality, each valid in its place, and none of them true absolutely. But how do we judge the validity of our perceptions, by what criteria, by what method? These are the main questions of epistemology. Since modern science has been a method of perceiving reality, even if only physical reality, it is epistemology with a certain method. Einstein had placed great emphasis upon that fact; and he was one scientist of modern times who had placed also the greatest
emphasis upon the question of method in theoretical physics. His writings in that regard are to be found in his Ideas and Opinions, published in 1954. He said: "Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is - insofar as it is thinkable at all - primitive and muddled."

Limits of Logic

Concerning the method, as physics advanced, it became clear that the theoretical element in scientific laws cannot be abstracted from empirical data, nor can it be of pure logical induction. There is no bridge between the two of a kind that one necessarily implied the other. According to Einstein, the "axiomatic basis of
theoretical physics cannot be abstracted from experience but must be freely invented"; "experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts,but they most certainly cannot be deduced from it." Neither can pure logic give us knowledge of the physical world. On this point also, Einstein was unambiguous. "Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world", he says; "all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.

Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." The passage from sense impressions to scientific theory, Einstein says, is through "intuition and sympathetic understanding."

In brief, the two revolutions of relativity theory and quantum mechanics and what followed, had rendered naive realism, pure empiricism, pure logical thinking, and materialism, when each claimed to be the only way to knowledge and its certainty,to be incompatible with scientific method. What had hitherto been assumed to be
the scientific method and, therefore, also the only true rationality, and was sought to be imposed upon the rest of the world was, in its absoluteness, discarded, And in all those movements of the New Physics, the Jaina syada-vada and anekanta-vada are clearly manifest.
We exist. All else is Philosophy.

There are no answers. There are only Choices!

Sternenfisch

  • Juror
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 137
  • <@]-|-|-- BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN --|-|-[@>
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #113 dnia: Luty 22, 2005, 07:29:52 pm »
"I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.  
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?

I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.  
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism? "

Sorry for being ununderstanderable.

I think we can put every thing in a "scale of the intellect".
Everything is in this scale, a stone nearly at zero, a cow higher, a human higher than both.

My question is confusing myself now, so lets forget it.

Sternenfisch

  • Juror
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 137
  • <@]-|-|-- BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN --|-|-[@>
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #114 dnia: Luty 22, 2005, 07:33:18 pm »
Last week I had an interesting discussion with my German-Teacher.

cckeiser perhaps it will make you hapier if I say he is a poly-solipsist too.

But he said something which may is interesting for this forum.
I asked him (the poli-solipsist) what consciousness is.
He said it is all we can put in speech.
The mind before the universe, got it speech?
Or was it unconsciousness?

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #115 dnia: Marzec 01, 2005, 01:36:06 am »
"All we can put in speech"?
I don't think so. Not a day passes by that I don't feel something that is strictly "undescribable" - you can not describe everything that you're aware of!
But you FEEL numerous things... you SENSE many MOODS, many of  these things are not beyond perception, but beyond words.

cckeiser

  • Juror
  • Junior Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 95
  • The Observer
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #116 dnia: Marzec 01, 2005, 05:38:54 am »
Cytuj
"I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.  
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?
 
I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.  
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism? "

Sorry for being ununderstanderable.

I think we can put every thing in a "scale of the intellect".
Everything is in this scale, a stone nearly at zero, a cow higher, a human higher than both.

My question is confusing myself now, so lets forget it.


Hi SoGo

I do make mention of this in The Play.

The main argument against Solipsism itself; as Terminus pointed out in a previous post, is the problem of "Other Minds."
Poly-Solipsism negates that objection by admitting a Multiplicity. But that then leaves the problem of Individuality in a One Consciousness Singularity.

Why are there individual minds or egos? How did a Singularity of One Consciousness evolve to be composed of the Many?
I gave this question considerable thought after I traced all of existence back to the First Container: The Singularity. If we start out with "A" Singularity, how did we acquire our individual egos? It gave me some pause until I realized I was attempting to conceptualize The Infinite and Unbound Singularity as a finite spacetime object. There is no correlation between The Singularity and anything that exists within our perceptions of Universe.

It was while contemplating its Unbound nature that lead me to finally comprehend the infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
It was one of those "Duh!" moments when you realize the answer has been staring you right in the face all along. The Singularity was never "A" Singularity. It is not an Object, it has always been Infinite and "Unbound"!
The Singularity has always been a Multiplicity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
To understand this a little better lets consider our spacetime Universe. We say we have height, depth, width, and time. We call them Dimensions but this is a misnomer. There is only one "Dimension;" the Universe, but it has four "degrees of freedom" to exist in. Actually, the last time I checked, the Theorist tell us our Universe has 11 degrees of freedom, but we are only aware of the four.
If they have not done so, I would add consciousness to the list of degrees of freedom of our Universe. We often overlook the very tool we use to study it with.

If we conjure up a mental image of our Universe we can start with a point and then expand that point to include all the degrees of freedom we can mentally envision. In this way we can &#8216;see' our physical Universe is but one "dimension": the point we started with, but for our physical Universe to exist as we know it, we have to allow it the &#8216;degrees of freedom' it requires.
When viewed this way it becomes apparent there is only one dimension of Universe, but it needs to have all its degrees of freedom for it to exist.
Remove any one of these degrees of freedom and the Universe would not exist at all, and if the Universe does not exist, none of the other degrees of freedom could exist. Our Universe is dependent on all of them entangling together to give our Reality the freedom it requires to exist.

continued in next post.
We exist. All else is Philosophy.

There are no answers. There are only Choices!

cckeiser

  • Juror
  • Junior Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 95
  • The Observer
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #117 dnia: Marzec 01, 2005, 05:40:20 am »
It is the same for what we call our minds, our individuality. It is because of the way we view Consciousness that leads to our confusion. We only perceive the &#8216;dimension' of consciousness we are aware of; our own. In trying to consider consciousness from the point of view of an Infinite and Unbound Singularity, we must remember The Singularity has no end, and therefore does not exists as an &#8216;is' and is always in a state of Potential existence. Such a state would entail continual change in its own consciousness. Evolving, as it were, in an attempt to fulfill its own potential. But since it is an infinity with no end, it never can.
I believe to understand Consciousness we must do so from point of view of The Singularity, and not from inside the Universe, which can only give us a partial view, sort of the end results, and not the whole perspective, where we can only view it the same way we view any one of the spacetime &#8216;degrees of freedom' when we call it &#8216;a dimension.' It is not a separate entity existing by itself. It cannot exist in isolation just as Height cannot exist in isolation.
Without all other degrees of freedom entangled together, any single one in isolation has no meaning. We can perceive it separately, but it cannot exist separately.

Our minds and not separate entities existing isolated from all others. Just as Height cannot exist without all the other degrees of freedom, a single mind cannot exist without all other minds entangling to give the One Consciousness the Infinite degrees of freedom it requires to exist.

There is only One Consciousness, but with infinite degrees of Freedom. Our minds are the degrees of freedom of The One Consciousness. And each of our minds provides another, and different, degree of freedom to The Singularity.
It is only our own egotistical nature that presumes one intellect is superior to any other. All are of equal importance to The Singularity, and none would have any meaning without all the others.

That is why I say we are not &#8216;part' of The Singularity, and we are no &#8216;in' The Singularity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity. We are the Consciousness of The Singularity, and The Singularity is our Consciousness.
We are The Singularity.

We exist. All else is Philosophy.

There are no answers. There are only Choices!

cckeiser

  • Juror
  • Junior Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 95
  • The Observer
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #118 dnia: Marzec 01, 2005, 06:14:10 am »
Cytuj
Last week I had an interesting discussion with my German-Teacher.

cckeiser perhaps it will make you hapier if I say he is a poly-solipsist too.

But he said something which may is interesting for this forum.
I asked him (the poli-solipsist) what consciousness is.
He said it is all we can put in speech.
The mind before the universe, got it speech?
Or was it unconsciousness?


"It is all we can put in speech."

Yes, I like that, and I think I would like your teacher. You may send him a link to my web site and my e-mail address if you like. I am always interested in talking "shop" with another Poly-Solipsist.
By the way, I see they are now calling it Quantum Solipsism! Different name, but pretty much the same philosophy! Quantum Solipsism is based on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/
Refuted:
http://www.benbest.com/science/quantum.html


I believe Terminus is taking the word "speech" too literally where it is meant more philosophically. Just as in the question "Does the Universe exist if we are not looking?" That "looking" is not to be taken literally, but philosophically.

To understand the geist of your Teachers statement we must understand what is "Speech," and everything that is required to become speech. "It is -all we can put in -speech."
« Ostatnia zmiana: Marzec 01, 2005, 07:11:38 pm wysłana przez cckeiser »
We exist. All else is Philosophy.

There are no answers. There are only Choices!

wetal

  • Juror
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Wiadomości: 156
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • Zobacz profil
Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« Odpowiedź #119 dnia: Marzec 02, 2005, 04:19:07 pm »
All right now, Universe is an idea can it exist without us?
I don`t remember whom these words belong to that every man is a Universe and that this Universe dies with him.