The Metaphysical Consciousness

[doronshadmi]

The simple matter is that you need to find effective ways to describe the constant "calm" you speak of. This demands clarity and that requires the removal of noise and chaff.

This is exactly what I did in the following posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10169084&postcount=506

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10169573&postcount=509

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10169747&postcount=512

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171755&postcount=516

There is no need to "science-up" your domain. You can, of course, start making a science of it, but you cannot borrow other sciences and expect respect.

First of all I do not expect respect, all I care is to air my view in order to correct my mistakes and hopefully improve my arguments.

EDIT:

The problem I, and others here, have is that you put an equals sign between the word you have specially defined, and another use of the same word, in another domain:

CONSTANT_{doron TM} = CONSTANT_{Math/Astronomy/Physics}

It is not a problem at all. On the contrary, it is exactly the way science is developed by discover the common principles among branches that were understood as disjoint domains.

If you have something to say about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515 you are invited to do so in details, according to what is written in it.

The common principle is as follows: Given any scientifically researched domain, it is at least the linkage among the invariant AND the variant.

 

[Donn]

This is exactly what I did in the following posts:

The closest you came was 512.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10169747&postcount=512

Now, work from there and keep your domains from mixing.

 

[doronshadmi]

Now, work from there and keep your domains from mixing.

Sorry, please refresh your screen and read what I wrote (after the word "EDIT:") in my previous post.

 

[Donn]

I'll try:
Definition of TM Constant: A calm that is unchanging, always there.

Bounds: ?
Experimental ways to observe this: Meditation, other?
Experimental ways to falsify this: ?

 

[doronshadmi]

I'll try:
Definition of TM Constant: A calm that is unchanging, always there.

Bounds: ?
Experimental ways to observe this: Meditation, other?
Experimental ways to falsify this: ?

There are at least two aspects of observations that have to be done in order to scientifically address it:

1. Direct observation, which is actually the cause of the researched.

2. Indirect observation, which measures the impact of direct observation on the body.

Currently there are no scientific tools that are able to measure TM by direct observation point of view, and therefore direct observation is taken as subjective observation that can't be addressed scientifically, unless its impacts on the body are systematically measured by indirect (so called, objective) observation.

So the direct observation of calmness (awareness without thoughts) is not measurable, but its impact on the body was systematically measured by more than 500 scientific researches around the world, for the past 30 years (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10139097&postcount=180).

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle, now it is clear that you can't address your claims in details according to the following content:

Your reply above is no more than wild hands waving, that did not address anything about this content.

Given that you have utterly failed in any way to offer any support for any of the "details" you have invented out of whole cloth, I have addressed everything of substance you have flung at the walls--even the stuff that did not stick.

Unless and until you provide support for your claims, there is not much more needs be said.

 

[doronshadmi]

Given that you have utterly failed in any way to offer any support for any of the "details" you have invented out of whole cloth,

Well this is another round of wild hands waving, that fail time after time to address in details some reasonable argument about this so simple argument:

The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.

So the constant aspect here is the equality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the equality.

So simple Slowvehicle, and you can't say any meaningful thing about it just because you did not read it before in any other place.

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is exactly what I did in the following posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10169084&postcount=506

Fine. What, specificically,"in details" do you, personally, mean by your autochthonous construction "the changed AND the unchanged". Provide, "in details", specific examples, demonstrating the "linkage" you assume.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10169573&postcount=509

You assert:"As much as I know, no real scientific research can be developed without the linkage among the constant and the non-constant."
The thing you need to do, here, is demonstrate actual research that is actually conducted by actual scientists that was developed specifically to incorporate your "linkage among [sic] the constant and the non-constant". When you arrogate to declare your assertions must be axiomatic, it is up to you to demonstrate your claim.

Instead, you say: "I'll appreciate some example of real scientific research that is done without any constant or without any non-constant." As I have pointed out, this is an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. You have made a clim; it is up to you to support it. I encourage you to consider, as you have not, the Teapot.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10169747&postcount=512

You continue your habit of assertion without support. Please to provide sources; links to the material of actual practitioners of TM^TM©®, in which the "improved correlation between the constant AND the non-constant" is demonstrated to be a component of the first step of "higher consciousness; further, in which the relationship between your "improved correlation between the constant AND the non-constant" and your "linkage among [sic] the constant and the non-constant" is explained and demonstrated.

While you are at it, you might begin to justify your assertion that there is, in fact, a :higher consciousness" to achieve.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515

Dealt with previously.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171755&postcount=516

You assert that the "mind-body problem" is "solved" with your "linkage among [sic] the constant AND the non-constant", without actually solving the "mind-body problem". Nor does the linked article mention at any point, or allude to, your "linkage among [sic] the constant AND the non-constant".

Nor does either of the other articles mention, or allude to, your "linkage among [sic]the constant AND the non-constant".

First of all I do not expect respect, all I care is to air my view in order to correct my mistakes and hopefully improve my arguments.

One good place to begin would be to provide examples in actual support of your arguments; instead of claiming that it is up to the universe at large to provide counter-examples. Your claim, your responsibility.

EDIT:

It is not a problem at all. On the contrary, it is exactly the way science is developed by discover the common principles among branches that were understood as disjoint domains.

If you have something to say about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515 you are invited to do so in details, according to what is written in it.

The common principle is as follows: Given any scientifically researched domain, it is at least the linkage among the invariant AND the variant.

...and, having made that novel claim, it is up to you to support it.

I anticipate examples of substance, provided outside the domain of simply repeating your own claims.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for space>
Currently there are no scientific tools that are able to measure TM by direct observation point of view, and therefore direct observation is taken as subjective observation that can't be addressed scientifically, unless its impacts on the body are systematically measured by indirect (so called, objective) observation.

If it cannot be identified, measured, and quantified, it is not the purview of "science".

So the direct observation of calmness (awareness without thoughts) is not measurable, but its impact on the body was systematically measured by more than 500 scientific researches around the world, for the past 30 years (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10139097&postcount=180).

Which of the "500 scientific researches" do you, personally, find most persuasive? Which one makes what you, personally, feel is the best case?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well this is another round of wild hands waving, that fail time after time to address in details some reasonable argument about this so simple argument:

So simple Slowvehicle, and you can't say any meaningful thing about it just because you did not read it before in any other place.

You unsurprisingly mis-state my objection. Further, you continue to mis-state the nature of your burden of proof.

I suppose the rules are different for the "higher consciousness"...

 

[bruto]

Sure, you can dichotomize the universe or multi-chotomize it, or whatever, any of a number of ways, and they're all true in their own way. Balance and imbalance, movement and stillness, things that happen and things that don't, good and evil, dark and light. Believing a thing is true does not make it useful or relevant.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Sure, you can dichotomize the universe or multi-chotomize it, or whatever, any of a number of ways, and they're all true in their own way. Balance and imbalance, movement and stillness, things that happen and things that don't, good and evil, dark and light. Believing a thing is true does not make it useful or relevant.

"Multichotomize" must pass into the lexicon. Must.

 

[doronshadmi]

You unsurprisingly mis-state my objection.

Slowvehicle, please hold your horses, calm down and please forget about TM at this stage, ok?

All I ask at this stage is your straightforward reply about this simple argument, no less no more:

The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.

So the constant aspect here is the equality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the equality.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle, please hold your horses, calm down and please forget about TM at this stage, ok?

It is to snerk.

All I ask at this stage is your straightforward reply about this simple argument, no less no more:

I see. You are simply going to gloss over, ignore, and name Nancy any questions put to you.

Which of the "500 scientific researches" do you, personally, find most persuasive? Which one makes what you, personally, feel is the best case?

 

[doronshadmi]

and they're all true in their own way.

This is only the variant aspect of truth.

Why do you exclude its invariant aspect?

Believing a thing is true does not make it useful or relevant.

In that case why do you believe that the invariant aspect of truth has to be excluded?

 

[doronshadmi]

I see. You are simply going to gloss over, ignore, and name Nancy any questions put to you.

I am not going to ignore anything, but to do it step by step.

So at this step please reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10173359&postcount=553.

Thank you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am not going to ignore anything, but to do it step by step.

So at this step please reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10173359&postcount=553.

Thank you.

Which of the "500 scientific researches" have you you, personally, actually read?
Which of the "500 scientific researches" do you, personally, find most persuasive?
Which one makes what you, personally, feel is the best case?

 

[doronshadmi]

Which of the "500 scientific researches" have you you, personally, actually read?
Which of the "500 scientific researches" do you, personally, find most persuasive?
Which one makes what you, personally, feel is the best case?

Any journey starts with the first step.

We will get to these questions during the journey, but before we will get there please do your first step and reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10173359&postcount=553.

I will not communicate with you as long as you are not doing your first step.

Thank you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Any journey starts with the first step.

We will get to these questions during the journey, but before we will get there please do your first step and reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10173359&postcount=553.

I will not communicate with you as long as you are not doing your first step.

Thank you.

Given that your "links" have consisted of the abstract of an article, instead of the actual article (and that you have given no indication of ever having read the actual article), and of a list of "500 researches" which you, yourself give no indication of being able to critique (and have given no indication of having actually read, I find this amusing.

You have yet to "communicate" anything other than your ability to parrot your own autochthonous "ideas".

Which of the "500 scientific researches" have you you, personally, actually read?
Which of the "500 scientific researches" do you, personally, find most persuasive?
Which one makes what you, personally, feel is the best case?
Which one discusses, "in details", your conceit of the "linkage among [sic] the invariant AND the variant" as the sine qua non of all science?.

 

[bruto]

Given that your "links" have consisted of the abstract of an article, instead of the actual article (and that you have given no indication of ever having read the actual article), and of a list of "500 researches" which you, yourself give no indication of being able to critique (and have given no indication of having actually read, I find this amusing.

You have yet to "communicate" anything other than your ability to parrot your own autochthonous "ideas".

Which of the "500 scientific researches" have you you, personally, actually read?
Which of the "500 scientific researches" do you, personally, find most persuasive?
Which one makes what you, personally, feel is the best case?
Which one discusses, "in details", your conceit of the "linkage among [sic] the invariant AND the variant" as the sine qua non of all science?.

Stubborn you are, eh? To find the force, use it you must.