Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
keyfeatures and punshhh,


Fortunately you do not afraid to get out of the "cave" in order to get things "under the sunlight".

What about you PiedPiper ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8088798&postcount=634 )?

Me? Oh, I'm not afraid to radically change my thinking pattern in order to grasp a new concept. But I have to be given sufficient reason to do so. So far I haven't seen one concrete, easy to understand (for non mathematicians), readily applicable advantage of "getting" your concepts. If it doesn't do anything for me, I really don't see the need to put forth any effort.

The argument "you can't understand why it's worth it to do this until you do this" really doesn't work with me, I'm afraid. I'm a highly educated intellectual person - convince me with arguments that aren't wrapped up in convoluted mathematical language. Or don't, that's up to you. I kinda thought that was the point of this entire thread though. It's posted under religion and philosophy, so I thought I would come here to be swayed in one direction or the other by convincing arguments that would appeal to my need to better myself. Instead all I'm seeing are hopelessly obtuse statements followed by belittling comments along the lines of "since you don't understand, you can't 'get' it".

It's extraordinary. In every other subject that I've learned, it's been the teachers responsibility to make sure their student understands (providing the student comes there with an open mind, a willingness to learn, and a devotion to the field of study). In this thread, I'm thrown undecipherable jargon followed by insulting insinuations that I don't "get it", aka, it's my fault.

Frustrating.
 
Last edited:
In every other subject that I've learned, it's been the teachers responsibility to make sure their student understands (providing the student comes there with an open mind, a willingness to learn, and a devotion to the field of study).
And what if the, so called, student does not come there with an open mind, for example:
realpaladin said:
I do not *want* to get that. I could not even care less to get it.
in spite of what is written in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059485&postcount=481

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 ?
 
Last edited:
No matter what mathematical model is used, it won't alter the neuroscientific basis of cognition. I'm not convinced about the 'calm' state part of the claim. For one, is a 'calm' state necessarily better.
Organic Mathematics is not limited only to the level of thoughts' activity, which is always subjective, so it is not only a model of X, where X is not less than direct awareness of the calm source of all possible thoughts, which is objective and beyond thoughts' activity, and therefore not in itself a thought.

By being developed beyond the subjective\objective Polythotomy, one's awareness may be developed into Unity awareness, which can't be achieved if one's awareness is trapped only at the subjective level of thoughts' activity.
 
Last edited:
What do others that do not 'get it', notice, experience, see, hear, feel, smell, know, or become knowing of, of people that do 'get it'?

What can the people that do 'get it' do that the ones who do not 'get it' can not? And what can those who can not notice about it?
 
I'm not sure how questioning the limits of integer biased mathematical language (etc) equates with claiming that million dollar Randi pot. Can someone explain? Isn't that for psychic / paranormal proofs etc?

The MDC is for anything that traditional science can not explain. And as you can see, Doron *is* making that claim.

As for describing maths as a language, if you googleplex some familiar search terms such as 'is mathematics a language' you will find lots of citations.
Yes, but Googling (Googolplex is a math term btw) 'Doron Shadmi is clueless' also gives me lots of citations.

Google is not a substitute for research.

I'm not allowed to post links yet. If maths were not a language we would not be able to communicate concepts with it.

I do not agree with this... we can still communicate about a doghouse, even though I am using a hammer (tool) to build it.
We do not need the hammer to be a language to communicate it's products.


There are plenty of examples where new mathematical concepts have required new vocabulary.
Yes, but so have chemistry and aviation and medicine. Do you call them languages?

However, I'd be interested to know how it could be proved when/if OM had escaped subjectivity. It is impossible to prove that a model is complete and therefore no longer 'subjective'. Rather, you would have an alternative model that described things in a way that the previous one was unable to. That is the best that could be hoped for.
Well, just as with elementary particles, we can see corollary effects, that is why I am asking Doron to describe what others would notice when someone who has OM down to a par is doing 'his subjective thing'.

There need not be a complete model, but if nothing whatsoever, even as a side effect can be noticed, then it is all moot.

No matter what mathematical model is used, it won't alter the neuroscientific basis of cognition. I'm not convinced about the 'calm' state part of the claim. For one, is a 'calm' state necessarily better.
I have no idea. That is best asked Doron. But do not hold your breath in getting answers.
 
Organic Mathematics is not limited only to the level of thoughts' activity, which is always subjective, so it is not only a model of X, where X is not less than direct awareness of the calm source of all possible thoughts, which is objective and beyond thoughts' activity, and therefore not in itself a thought.

By being developed beyond the subjective\objective Polythotomy, one's awareness may be developed into Unity awareness, which can't be achieved if one's awareness is trapped only at the subjective level of thoughts' activity.

But awareness is stuck with the physical reality of its own construction. Just as we may only be able to measure down (or perceive) to Planck length, we might surmise there is a unity below this giving rise to Planck length interference patterns. We might create an imaginary model which makes sense of such a reality. However, in our Planck length reality we cannot actually fully detect or 'know' the unity / underlying waveforms.

It is the same with objective/subjective. It is possible to be aware of limits of subjectivity, and even map out further towards objectivity. But we can't fully 'know' objectivity.

To go back to the shadow watchers in the cave. The shadow watchers may well be able to deduce there is more beyond what they can actually perceive, but they can't fully map it.

This is not to say there isn't a better way of seeing - an improved model that more closely acknowledges the limits of its own perceptions.

The single conscious self would seem likely to be to a great degree an illusion. Each 'one' is possibly a manifestation of 'many' filtered through a single wire where persistence wins. We are all hive minds. It is, perhaps, the unconscious 'chatting' that allows humans a higher level of thinking than other sentient beings. We need language to 'know' our own thoughts (why else do we talk our thoughts to ourselves in our minds?). Further, the inability to consciously share the unspoken thoughts of another (or others) is, again, but a reality of wiring. (I say 'but' - of course, this is significant). There is no reason why we could not develop some sort of wiring in which thoughts are shared. There have been cases of Siamese twins in which their 'wiring' means they share some thoughts. However, it is technology that could enable this, not just thinking very hard about it.
 
What do others that do not 'get it', notice, experience, see, hear, feel, smell, know, or become knowing of, of people that do 'get it'?

Only their shadows on the cave's walls.

In order to get more, one has no choice but to get out of the cave, in order to be aware of things (including other people) under direct sunlight.

What can the people that do 'get it' do that the ones who do not 'get it' can not?

Actual harmony among different expressions is fulfilled.

And what can those who can not notice about it?
They have no ability to fulfill actual harmony among different expressions, for example, harmony among Ethics and Logical reasoning.
 
Last edited:
In order to get more, one has no choice but to get out of the cave, in order to be aware of things (including other people) under direct sunlight.

This getting out of the cave, however, is an actual physical thing. You need the technology, or physical capability, to get out of the cave. It cannot be done by thinking alone. Thinking is limited to the infrastructure it operates within. Now, invent a mirror to put on your cave wall and you start to get somewhere...
 
Last edited:
But awareness is stuck with the physical reality of its own construction.
What is known as physical reality, is simply the interpretation of an awareness that is trapped at the level thoughts, which is subjective, and the signature of subjectivity is an awareness with Polychotomous-only perception (Unity awareness is not achieved).
 
Language, of course, as well as empathy, have been ways that have enabled physically quantized (separated) units of thinking connect (the human brain itself is, of course, separated units of thinking, connected). Both of these (language/empathy) are quite flawed methods of connection. There is a high margin of error in terms of what is transmitted and what is received. And limited ways to calibrate for accuracy ("are you seeing the same red as I'm seeing, are you feeling the same fear that I'm feeling" etc). Technology may be able to come up with something better.
 
This getting out of the cave, however, is an actual physical thing. You need the technology, or physical capability, to get out of the cave. It cannot be done by thinking alone. Thinking is limited to the infrastructure it operates within. Now, invent a mirror to put on your cave wall and you start to get somewhere...
The Technology of the Consciousness is not less than being able to act right from the unified source of any possible expression, whether it is abstract or physical.

In other words, real Technology must not be restricted only to Ploychotomy.
 
Last edited:
Now, invent a mirror to put on your cave wall and you start to get somewhere...
No, you increasing the illusion at the subjective level of thoughts (the mirror is some thought about objectivity that is still trapped at the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective) and you are still trapped under Polychotomy (Unity awareness can't be achieved without actually being aware of objectivity AND subjectivity, as a necessary stage in order to actually achieve Unity awareness).
 
Last edited:
Actual harmony among different expressions is fulfilled.


They have no ability to fulfill actual harmony among different expressions, for example, harmony among Ethics and Logical reasoning.

So they can 'see' and possibly 'measure' this?

If not for measuring... what is OM different from, say, Scientology where they use E-Meters to determine this harmonization?
 
Doron, why haven't you completed my experiment? Is it too hard for you to understand?

Since most people here, other than doron, understood the point that I was trying to make, and that I have been quoted several times, I will attempt to make my example easier for doron to understand.

Original quote:


We can, and do in fact, use points to make up a line. How you may ask? Get a piece of graph paper, and draw a Cartesian coordinate plane using the Cartesian coordinate systemWP. (The first picture on the left is a good example). A suggested size of graph paper would be either A4 or 8.5" x 11.0". Please label the x-axis and y-axis. Use any scale you wish to mark the scale on the plane. Please mark points on the plane that complete the set of all points whose coordinates x and y satisfy the Cartesian equation x + y = 0. After marking all the points that complete the equation, that fit inside the scale of your graph, and that are on your paper, you should notice that your collection of points have endpoints in the upper left and the lower right quadrants of the paper. Guess what, you've just created a line segment! Now if our paper was of infinite size, your line segment could turn into a line, but you would still have points covering your line.


I think, Doron, he means that one.
 
So they can 'see' and possibly 'measure' this?
They 'measure' things only according the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

If not for measuring... what is OM different from, say, Scientology where they use E-Meters to determine this harmonization?
You get the term 'measurement' by physical tools, which are derived from awareness that is trapped at the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

Most is not all measurement tools that are used by the current science, are derived from awareness that is trapped at the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

Furthermore, these tools use measurement units that are derived from the current context-dependent local-only understanding of the concept of Number.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom