• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Metaphysical Consciousness

doronshadmi said:
Only the "producing consciousness" part that clearly demonstrates that "reality is consciousness" (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10227862&postcount=994) is not your paradigm.

Please reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10230574&postcount=1015.
Click to expand...
Yeah...that whole bit was just tossing adjectives together only by grammatical need...otherwise it really was just a run-on paragraph of empty phrases.

That you thought I could actually mean anything by it, though...that raises issues.
 
bruto said:
Utter nonsense. Does not does not equal does not? How handy to redefine evolution to mean that you can disavow sloppy language and mistakes and deflect criticism for them.
Click to expand...
You simply use a paradigm of reality that rejects http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10229326&postcount=1005.

bruto said:
Does not does not equal does not?
Click to expand...
In an artificial black\white reality not and not at all is the same.

But actual reality is more complex than that, therefore "Not having a concussion" is not the same as "Not having a concussion at all" (there is a room for evolutionary refinement (which is taken as avoiding criticism from your artificial black\white reality)) and this is exactly what you find in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10230533&postcount=1014.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You simply use a paradigm of reality that rejects http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10229326&postcount=1005.


In an artificial black\white reality not and not at all is the same.

But actual reality is more complex than that, therefore "Not having a concussion" is not the same as "Not having a concussion at all" (there is a room for evolutionary refinement (which is taken as avoiding criticism from your artificial black\white reality)) and this is exactly what you find in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10230533&postcount=1014.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Not doing something is not doing it. If you mean not always doing it, you don't say not doing it. Not having a concussion does not, in any sense, in any meaning, in any language, include the option of having a concussion. Whatever shades of gray your reality may include, when you use language to communicate, it has actual meanings, and it is not a valid criticism to suggest that others are wrong when they do not guess your unconventional and made up redefinitions.

"Not" is inclusive unless you state the exceptions at the start. The error here is not on the part of those who take your statements as they are made.
 
Oh...I get it. You just repeat comments back.

Look, again.
I commented on your definition of a concussion and you offered me TM and greater consciousnes; neither of which I asked for.
I asked you what consciousness is because you offered more than consciousness, and you ended up answering that words cannot show what consciousness is.

Now you just repeat back my phrasings and demand that I don't know what consciousness is.

I'm not certain why you continue to tell me I don't know something and demand it from me when I am the one who asked you and you are the one who said it could not be described in words.

Also, you say you knew that was gibberish, yet you still continue to counter some meaning you imagined it to have.
It did not have a meaning. You are arguing a ghost that you made up from textual ink blots.
 
bruto said:
If you mean not always doing it, you don't say not doing it.
Click to expand...
"Not having a concussion" and "Not having a concussion at all" are not the same in a complex reality, exactly as "not always doing it" and "not doing it" are not the same in such reality.

In actual reality not-true is not automatically and unconditionally false, yet not-true at all is indeed false in actual reality.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
"Not having a concussion" and "Not having a concussion at all" are not the same in a complex reality, exactly as "not always doing it" and "not doing it" are not the same in such reality.

In actual reality not-true is not automatically and unconditionally false, yet not-true at all is indeed false in actual reality.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about this. Reality may be complex, but the conventions of language and logic are not so vague and meaningless as you would like. Not means not. There is no degree of notness in speech or logic, unless you establish it at the start. If you say A is not B, then A is indeed, never B, never at all. If you mean A is usually not B, then you are saying something else, and "A is not B" is simply not saying it.

You can make excuses for sloppy language and thought all you want, but it does not help your cause. The fact that you can deflect any argument by wiggling out of the meaning of terms does not win the argument.
 
bruto said:
There is no degree of notness in speech or logic
Click to expand...
The degree is defined by not AND additional expression.

Again the least expression not-true (not just not expression, but at least not-true expression) does not mean automatically and unconditionally false in actual reality.

So is the case of the least expression not-having-a-concussion, it is not the same as the least expression not-having-a-concussion-at-all in actual reality.

bruto said:
If you say A is not B, then A is indeed, never B, never at all.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, for example:

A expression = not-having-a-concussion

B expression = not-having-a-concussion-at-all

A expression is not B expression.

In an actual reality A expression is relative, where B expression is absolute, but since you reject the absolute (you get everything only in terms of A expression) you simply miss it.

Here is another analogy:

The expression the-set-of-natural-numbers is not the expression the-set-of-all-natural-numbers.

One more:

not-red is not the same as not-red-at-all, because not-red is relative (by using B conditions, that is not-red in A conditions, can be red in B conditions) where not-red-at-all is absolute (it can't be red no matter what conditions are used, and such case is known as logical tautology).

bruto said:
You can make excuses for sloppy language and thought all you want, but it does not help your cause.
Click to expand...
You can make everything relative-only, but it does not help your cause, and your reject of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10230533&postcount=1014 clearly demonstrates it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The degree is defined by not AND additional expression.

Again the least expression not-true (not just not expression, but at least not-true expression) does not mean automatically and unconditionally false in actual reality.

So is the case of the least expression not-having-a-concussion, it is not the same as the least expression not-having-a-concussion-at-all in actual reality.


I agree with you, for example:

A expression = not-having-a-concussion

B expression = not-having-a-concussion-at-all

A expression is not B expression.

In an actual reality A expression is relative, where B expression is absolute, but since you reject the absolute (you get everything only in terms of A expression) you simply miss it.

Here is another analogy:

The expression the-set-of-natural-numbers is not the expression the-set-of-all-natural-numbers.

One more:

not-red is not the same as not-red-at-all, because not-red is relative (by using B conditions, that is not-red in A conditions, can be red in B conditions) where not-red-at-all is absolute (it can't be red no matter what conditions are used, and such case is known as tautology).


You can make everything relative-only, but it does not help your cause, and your reject of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10230533&postcount=1014 clearly demonstrates it.
Click to expand...

You have changed the meaning of what I said. YOu can wiggle all you want, but "not" is unconditional unless you put the condition in at the very start.

If you say "not concussion" that is what you mean, and if you really meant "not always a concussion," the first expression is not conditional or vague. It is wrong.

You are quite simply wrong in suggesting that plain and unqualified negation is relative. Negation is complete.
 
bruto said:
You have changed the meaning of what I said.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

This part addresses my argument:

not-red is not the same as not-red-at-all, because not-red is relative (by using B conditions, that is not-red in A conditions, can be red in B conditions) where not-red-at-all is absolute (it can't be red no matter what conditions are used, and such case is known as logical tautology).

bruto said:
If you say "not concussion" that is what you mean
Click to expand...
It has a relative meaning exactly as not-red has relative meaning.

bruto said:
You are quite simply wrong in suggesting that plain and unqualified negation is relative. Negation is complete.
Click to expand...
By using Negation alone one can't define anything, including terms like relative, absolute, complete or whatever.

bruto said:
There is no degree of notness in speech or logic
Click to expand...

Again, the degree is defined by not AND additional expression (for example: "not concussion", not-red, "not concussion at all", not-red-at-all etc.)
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Not at all.

This part addresses my argument:

not-red is not the same as not-red-at-all, because not-red is relative (by using B conditions, that is not-red in A conditions, can be red in B conditions) where not-red-at-all is absolute (it can't be red no matter what conditions are used, and such case is known as logical tautology).


It has a relative meaning exactly as not-red has relative meaning.


By using Negation alone one can't define anything, including terms like relative, absolute, complete or whatever.



Again, the degree is defined by not AND additional expression (for example: "not concussion", not-red, "not concussion at all", not-red-at-all etc.)
Click to expand...
Quite simply wrong. "Not" alone does not require a defining degree. It is absolute. Negation alone defines negation.
 
For those who are interested, the following binary tree is unbounded above by unity AND unbounded below by multiplicity:

Code: 
                               .
                              / \
                             /   \
                            /     \
                           /       \
                          /         \
                         /           \
                        /             \
                       /               \
                      /                 \
                     /                   \
                    /                     \
                   /                       \
                  /                         \
                 /                           \
                /                             \
               /                               \
               0                               1
              / \                             / \
             /   \                           /   \
            /     \                         /     \
           /       \                       /       \
          /         \                     /         \
         /           \                   /           \
        /             \                 /             \
       /               \               /               \
       0               1               0               1
      / \             / \             / \             / \
     /   \           /   \           /   \           /   \
    /     \         /     \         /     \         /     \
   /       \       /       \       /       \       /       \
   0       1       0       1       0       1       0       1
  / \     / \     / \     / \     / \     / \     / \     / \
 /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \
 0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

                              ...

The most left side of this binary tree represents logical contradiction, where the most right side of this binary tree represents logical tautology.

This binary tree is an elementary representation of infinite harmonious complexity (infinite developed multiplicity) that is derived from infinite simplicity (infinite unity).

Both unity AND its complex manifestation are simultaneously one and only one thing, which is Consciousness that is aware of itself, such that no amount of multiplicity is unity (unity is not the sum of infinitely many things).

TM is the particle that enables direct-knowledge of the simultaneity of unity AND multiplicity in one's mind, such that he\she actually aware of the fact that reality is Consciousness (where such awareness is known as Unity Consciousness).

So, contradiction can be a part of this tree, but it does not block its further infinite complex development, exactly because complexity is derived from unity.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
For those who are interested, the following binary tree is unbounded above by unity AND unbounded below by multiplicity:

Code: 
                               .
                              / \
                             /   \
                            /     \
                           /       \
                          /         \
                         /           \
                        /             \
                       /               \
                      /                 \
                     /                   \
                    /                     \
                   /                       \
                  /                         \
                 /                           \
                /                             \
               /                               \
               0                               1
              / \                             / \
             /   \                           /   \
            /     \                         /     \
           /       \                       /       \
          /         \                     /         \
         /           \                   /           \
        /             \                 /             \
       /               \               /               \
       0               1               0               1
      / \             / \             / \             / \
     /   \           /   \           /   \           /   \
    /     \         /     \         /     \         /     \
   /       \       /       \       /       \       /       \
   0       1       0       1       0       1       0       1
  / \     / \     / \     / \     / \     / \     / \     / \
 /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \
 0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

                              ...

The most left side of this binary tree represents logical contradiction, where the most right side of this binary tree represents logical tautology.

This binary tree is an elementary representation of infinite harmonies complexity (infinite multiplicity) that is developed from infinite simplicity (infinite unity).

Both unity AND its complex manifestation are simultaneously one and only one thing, which is Consciousness that is aware of itself.
Click to expand...

You must understand your Unconscious in order to grasp your Consciousness so we can conclude that you are most aware of your surrounding and most intelligent when you are completely unconscious.
 
tsig said:
You must understand your Unconscious in order to grasp your Consciousness so we can conclude that you are most aware of your surrounding and most intelligent when you are completely unconscious.
Click to expand...
What is known as the unconscious aspect of reality is simply the observedhood aspect of Consciousness, which is independent of its observerhood aspect.

This independence is one of the natural characters of multiplicity.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
What is known as the unconscious aspect of reality is simply the observedhood aspect of Consciousness, which is independent of its observerhood aspect.

This independence is one of the natural characters of multiplicity.
Click to expand...

Then consciousness is the lack of the Unconscious observerhood so we might form a Heisenberg* consciousness principle that the act of nonobserving consciousness gives rise to the Conscious.

*We might also use the Pauli Exclusion Law that Unconsciousness and Consciousness cannot temporally occupy the same space.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Some analogy:

Direct-knowledge of silence can't be defined by talking about-silence, no matter what one says.
Click to expand...

Failed analogy; ever seen deaf people talk? *They* know silence and they can talk about it at length. Silently.

The Maharishi was a champion of naive analogies; Doron seems to be contending for runner-up here.
 
doronshadmi said:
For those who are interested, the following binary tree is unbounded above by unity AND unbounded below by multiplicity:

<SNIP silly bog-standard binary tree deleted>

The most left side of this binary tree represents logical contradiction, where the most right side of this binary tree represents logical tautology.

This binary tree is an elementary representation of infinite harmonious complexity (infinite developed multiplicity) that is derived from infinite simplicity (infinite unity).

Both unity AND its complex manifestation are simultaneously one and only one thing, which is Consciousness that is aware of itself, such that no amount of multiplicity is unity (unity is not the sum of infinitely many things).

TM is the particle that enables direct-knowledge of the simultaneity of unity AND multiplicity in one's mind, such that he\she actually aware of the fact that reality is Consciousness (where such awareness is known as Unity Consciousness).

So, contradiction can be a part of this tree, but it does not block its further infinite complex development, exactly because complexity is derived from unity.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you look at that tree, there is nothing complex about it, it is monotonous, predictable and ordered.

Monotonous; every subtree is equal to every other subtree.
Predictable; it is nothing but a standard power of two, so by knowing the ordinal number of the level, we can write out the level (no matter how far into infinity we go).
Ordered; every level starts with a 0 on the left leg and a 1 on the right leg.

The wordsalad below it can not use it as a dressing though because, and this goes for *all* of the TM arguments, there is no *well defined* root-clause in the logic.

Every single bit of TM 'science' starts of with a bit of a handwavy claim and then rushes headlong into a lot of mumbling using words that, as Public Enemy said so eloquently, "Might feel good, might sound a little something, but **** the game if it ain't saying nothing.".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom