dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
You think TM is in the Buddhist sarvakarajnata tradition?
Last edited:
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
You said "It is used as calculated\calculator organic environment, and used as needed."
I'm requesting an example of this use, because it isn't clear what use as "calculated\calculator organic environment" means, and an example would seem to be the best way to clarify it.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Wait-a-minute here! A week ago, you proposed to me to write a paper about the calculation of those numbers. Now it's not important anymore?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Well that would be an ordering distinction and although one can claim them as distinct, since they are distinctions of order, often such distinctions do not result in any definable difference other then simply that distinction of ordering. If one can divide infinity into infinitely many finite elements then infinitely many finite elements likewise establish infinity. It is the yin and yang of things as we discussed on that other Doron thread Apathia. Infinity gains its ‘non-locality’ from finite locations and finite locations gain that ascription from infinity. Although somewhat distinct they are still based on each other thus mutually dependent. Inferring that non-locality leads to locality and not visa versa denies that very interdependence and thus gives no basis to claim that non-locality leads to locality. Doron has often referred to this by his contradictory misconstruing of the phrase ‘mutually independent’ to mean aspects that are independent but at the same time not independent. Although completely off base on the phrase ‘mutually independent’ it is fairly well descriptive of the concept of yin and yang, where they are essentially independent yet each has the other at its origin.
Doron has often referred to his notions as an attempt to unite eastern and western philosophies, dlorde, on this and other threads. Unfortunately when requested (as I have specifically done) to list the aspects of those philosophies he is using, their similarities as well as their oppositions and how such oppositions might be reconciled Doron typically ignores those questions or simply replied with his typical ‘you can’t get it until you get it’ routines.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
On this we can all agree.
It does make one wonder, though, why you absolutely insisted it was so important for so long. The sequence isn't important now, and it wasn't important then...except to you.
But all that's in the past, now, right? Now you know the truth...well, the current version of the truth...and its the real truth right up until the next revelation that will show the next real truth.
Doron's roots are closer to Vedic Hinduism, which is of course the root tradition of Transcendental Meditation.
"Knowing things as they are" is Buddhist, but there are some very important nuances.
Yes, Training in "samadhi" is useful.
There are many ways to go about that training.
I do sitting meditation at least half an hour every morning.
But my goal isn't to remain in a single state of consciouness or to permenantly turn off mental activity.
I see that's not your goal either, or you wouldn't be trying to mesh Non-Local
Consciouness and and thinking in a single system.
(I put "samadhi" in quotes because the word has somewhat a range of different meanings in the various traditions of meditation.)
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
MosheKlein,
I still await your response to the following post.
I still await your response to the following post.
Do you really want to claim here that x^(log) <> y^(log(x)) ?
MosheKlein, you established the initial context for your @ operator. You presented as "the next level" above addition and multiplication within the normal arithmetic of real numbers. You claimed to have a full hierarchy of operators that would be commutative, associative, and be distributive over the next lower level in the operator hierarchy.
Well, as a general statement of that normal arithmetic, X^(log Y) and Y^(log X) are not equivalent.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Isn't there somewhere a connection between Organic Mathematics and the Beal Conjecture? I read there is someone who proved the latter.
Yes,
I haven't changed my view about this.
The concepts of Local and Non-Local, and Finite and Infinite are mutually dependent.
And it wouldn't necessarily spoil Dioron's intended mesh to agknowledge that.
It seem to me that where he's coming from with that is "Non-Locality" stands for the state of consciouness I was describing at the beginning of Post 5003. And "Locality" stands for Object Consciouness.
These are distinct ways of seeing, so Doron holds the metaphorical terms he uses for them as distinct concepts.
Of course in "Samadhi" there are no concepts.
In the Buddhist Tradition (More or less. The land of Buddhism has varied terrain.), all states of consciouness arise in mutual dependence.
A state of consciouness is not reality in itself but just another panorama of apperance.
Perhaps not oddly, these mystical discussions do have a lot to do with the subject of mathematical infinity.
I"ll be getting back to that!
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man said:
If "leads" means that Non-locality and Locality are actually transformed to each other, then NO, Non-locality does not lead to Locality and Locality does not leads to Non-locality.
If "leads" means that Non-locality and Locality are not transformed to each other, then YES, Non-locality leads to Locality and Locality leads to Non-locality.
If Locality leads to Non-locality, the result is a superposition of ids.
If Non-locality leads to Locality, the result is clear ids.
It must be stressed that Non-locality and Locality are the simplest expression of direct perception, and at the level of direct perception itself there is no duality of any kind (relative or absolute).
Aphatia said:
No, Direct perception if expressible iff Non-locality and Locality are independent (they are no made or derived of or defined by each other) during their mutuality.
In other words, Non-locality and Locality are exactly mutual independent, where Non-locality provides the Mutuality aspect and Locality provides Independency aspect of this mutual independency space (now known as at least n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Tree).
Last edited:
Er, right. So, it's got nothing to do with mathematics at all, then?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Well unfortunately for Doron such an acknowledgement is contradictory to the very basis of his notions, that his Local and Non-local are in fact independent but just not researchable independently. As many of us have mentioned, asserting something one claims they can not support as the basis for their notions that acctualy contradicts the assertions of their notion (research being mutualy dependent on both those aspects), actually is them simply claiming those notions are without basis. So that is a uniquely Doronic quality of his notions. Additionally Doron ascribes his independent aspects of local and non-local as originating from a single aspect that he calls ‘singularity’. So what was two independent aspects at the base of his notions that he claims he can not researched independently then both stem from one aspect ‘singularity’ which again can not be researched independently of those other aspects. As I have said before if Doron could claim that those aspects could not be researched independently because they are not independent or that they are independent and can be researched independently, then I would not see much problem with his notions from simply a philosophical, logical or self constancy perspective. As I have mentioned before on some of those other threads Doron’s notions are specifically Dialetheistic, in that contradictory propositions can be considered simultaneously true. Again unfortunately Doron gives no bases for some discriminating or paraconsistent logic other then to simply refer to parallel thinking and claim his notions as the basis of all logic and philosophy. It is common showman trickery, the “direct perception” and “you can’t get it unless you get it”. Requiring the audience to figure out for themselves and thereby giving them some personal investment of their own in the outcome. As you have done time and time again Apathia, so once loved to later find yourself out in the cold when you try to expand on your own direct perception of OM. Yet in spite of those slaps in the face you come back again and again with a new variant on your interpretation. There may come a time when you simply accept those slaps in the face as simply a consequence of the correct interpretations of which you can not avoid but only accept and follow. Then becoming far worse then just a mere zombie or even a P-zombie but the far more dreaded, insidious and incredulous………. OM-zombie!!!!!!!!!
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The contradiction is exactly your attempt to get Non-locality\Locality linkage on the verbal-based level of your mind.
At the moment that direct perception is the basis of your notions, then and only then you can get Non-locality\Locality linkage, exactly as it realy is.
Direct perception is not presonal, and this is exactly where you fail even in your verbal-based subjective reasoning.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Take your pick Doron
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leads.
However I doubt you will find any specific reference to “transformed to” in those definitions.
It must be stressed that the mere lack a given Doron association in the definition of a word in no way precludes or dissuades Doron from perpetuating that association.
Well Apathia sorry to say that in spite of whatever Doron choose for “leads” he has made the bidirectional intent quite clear when one, in his opinion, leads to the other.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
No, not like you, Aphatia perfectly expressed it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4895936&postcount=5003 where he clearly explains what direct perception is.
So your reply about aphatia is not relevant.
Last edited:
Who is Aphatia?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Since there is more than one option for "leads" in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leads , then please tell us what option you are using in this case.
Don't be overly concerned for me. I'm still using my mind.
There are some issues around Doron's OM that I have wanted to be able to discuss with him but haven't had an entry place of mutual understanding to do so.
I believe I have that now.
And if this blew up in my face, I would have to accuse Doron of being totally disingenuous and worse.
But that is where you have placed him already.
"The Value," "Singularity," and now "Direct Perception" are terms unique to Doron to reference the state of consciousness in which there is no differentiation of objects, or one element as opposed to another.
It's not an assertion of something that evidence can be offered as to its existence or non-existence, or its truth-value. It's just a state of consciousness.
The question comes in whether or not the interaction of Local/Non-Local principles of thought is a model of the way we think or a stick figure caricature.
That it is a verbal expression of differentiation is not in dispute, as far as I'm concerned.
Also the supposed utility of the OM partitions is something I want to discuss with Doron.
And then there's the place of mathematical infinity.
I'm not expecting I'll change his point of view.
To a great degree this is a religious matter.
And you know how those things go, whether its Christianity or Rationalism.
I hope at best to move this into a sane, civilized exchange rather than the bickering that's been going on here (and I've participated in).
If it blows up in my face again, I promise to bow out, and hope that others will as well.
- Status