Deeper than primes

[The Man]

Indeed surmised is your best in this case, because you never practiced TM and got the foundation of any thought within yourself.

You are like a blind man that argues about colors.

My surmise was correct, far better then your “direct perception” has done for you.

The Man research is not only by indirect methods that a measured by mechanical instruments that measure things by local-only methods, especially if the researched is the awareness itself.

Doron your propensity for your fantasies and subjective interpretations still do not constitute research, just as a bibliography is not a research paper.

Again, without a direct perception of awareness as the foundation of any mental activity, you actually have not enough knowledge in order to conclude any meaningful thing about awareness.

What? So someone can’t “conclude any meaningful thing about awareness” unless they already subscribe to your own subjective interpretation of “awareness”? Ever hear of begging the question Doron?

Still you are like a blind man that argues about colors.

You Doron remain the only one simply insisting that everyone must agree with you “in order to conclude any meaningful thing”, talk about the blind leading…., well…., just himself.

Or as Dedekind's cuts, which the limits of L R sets of rational numbers, which is the relevant definition in this case.

No Doron the actual definition (as I stated) is always the, well, relevant one.

It does not matter, in this case the common property of being a real number is the linkage (the non-local property) between ids (localities).

If that is “the common property of being a real number” as you claim, then it does “matter”. Since your “common property” is just a union of those two mutually exclusive sets.

Still you are unable to get your own words.

Try reading them again and may be this time you’ll actually get those words.

If you are still talking about rational and irrational numbers, their “linkage” (or more specifically union) is the set of all real numbers (which would be a continuous space).

And by the same reasoning, it is trivial that the common property of a given space is non-local w.r.t any given id (distinguished element) of that space.

No the “common property of a given space” is specifically what identifies “any given id (distinguished element) of that space” as being, well, an “element) of that space”

Still you are unable to get your own words.

Nope evidently that is still just you.

“belongs AND does not belong to any given space” simply means that the defined element does not exclusively belong to any particular space (or any particular id of the same space), or in other words: this element ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space” (where the AND gives it the simultaneity that not local element has).

This is why you continue to fail, again “belongs AND does not belong to any given space" is self contradictory while ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space” is not. If you mean ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space” then just say that, but of course that would also make just about any point in compliance with such a “non-local” “in other words” ascription.

Still you are unable to get your own words.

Again, still just you, Doron

Also local-only thinker like you ignores http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5888652&postcount=9685 , isn't it?

An assumption of Loco-only fantasizes like yours.

Yes I know, guessing is your best in this fine subject.


Most o the researchers in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5888652&postcount=9685 are idiots, isn't it The Man?

Once again Doron, demonstrably still just you.

 

[Skeptic]

Whatever the benefits of TM, increased mathematical understanding clearly isn't one of them.

Stubbornness, however, can be developed by TM to god-like levels. Doron is giving Sisyphus a run for his money.

 

[The Man]

This is the thread that does not end
It just goes on and on, my friend
Some people starting writing it, not knowing what it was
They'll go on writing it forever, just because
This is the thread that does not end...

Well at least now we’ve gotten to the major disconnect, this “Quantum Spiritually” and “neuroquantology” tripe.

 

[doronshadmi]

My surmise was correct,

It is correct as a guess , no more not less, exactly because you do not have a direct perception of the considered subject, which is the calmest level of your mental activity, which is the non-personal base ground of any mental activity.

Again, a blind man’s arguments about colours, this is your best in this case.

Doron your propensity for your fantasies and subjective interpretations still do not constitute research,

Again you expose your ignorance about the non-personal base ground if any mantel activity, which is the most objective state.

On the contrary, the subjective thing here is your limited framework that is based on the local-only aspect of the researched, where both your theoretical and experimental methods are derived from this artificial limitation, which lead to subjective local-only results (abstract or non-abstract, it does not matter).

What? So someone can’t “conclude any meaningful thing about awareness” unless they already subscribe to your own subjective interpretation of “awareness”? Ever hear of begging the question Doron?

Exactly the opposite, without direct perception of the researched subject, you actually go in circles around the researched subject, where your indirect research methods are always no more than guesses, exactly because you are using local-only methods in order to conclude something about a thing that is not local-only.

Non-locality is a property of our realm ( please see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/full/nature07121.html (its pre-print version http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf ) and can’t be accurately researched by your local-only reasoning (it can only roughly discovered by it as an anomaly of the local-only paradigm, as shown by the attached research paper), whether you like it or not.

Non-local numbers and NXOR/XOR logics are the appropriate tool in order to deal with non-locality, without forcing a local-only reasoning (the standard paradigm, which is used both for theoretical and experimental developments that are local-only oriented) on it.

You Doron remain the only one simply insisting that everyone must agree with you “in order to conclude any meaningful thing”, talk about the blind leading…., well…., just himself.

You The Man, as a local-only thinker (where “locality” is synonym “rigorous” by your limited reasoning) force your partial methods as if it is a universal method, and this is exactly where you fail.

No Doron the actual definition (as I stated) is always the, well, relevant one

It is your subjective maneuver , which its aim is to avoid the discussion about limits that belong or do not belong to the considered collection of the absolute infinite added convergent values (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_cut and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers) we can learn how the irrational numbers are the limits of the rational numbers, where this limits are fundamentally different than the rational numbers exactly because they are not the result of the ratio between two integers, and therefore the do not belong to the rational numbers’ space, and yet there are considered as their limits).

So as you see you definition is nothing but a part of a more comprehensive dissection about limits (that belong or do not belong to a considered space, and in both cases, these limits are linked with other spaces or ids by a non-local element which is not limited to any given space or to any given id of the same space).

Since your “common property” is just a union of those two mutually exclusive sets.

Call it union or linkage, it does not change the fact that no one of the linked or unioned elements is the link or the union if its id is derived from its accurate locality w.r.t to other localities, where “w.r.t” is exactly the non-local property that is defined between these localities and enables the linkage or union among them.

You can do any maneuver that you like, it will not change the fact that a complex thing like collection and the relations among collections is based on Non-locality/Locality Linkage, which actually enables you to verbally or symbolically define your definitions, in the first place (including the proofs without words).

No the “common property of a given space” is specifically what identifies “any given id (distinguished element) of that space” as being, well, an “element) of that space”

What enables to define a collection is the linkage of the common (the non-local) with the non-common (the local).

Without this linkage, no collection is definable (verbally, symbolically or spatially).

 

[doronshadmi]

Whatever the benefits of TM, increased mathematical understanding clearly isn't one of them.

It is clearly shown that you are using a local-only reasoning, so?

 

[doronshadmi]

Well at least now we’ve gotten to the major disconnect, this “Quantum Spiritually” and “neuroquantology” tripe.

The tripe is exactly your local-only reasoning that is based on a clear cut dichotomy between the observed and the observer. Because of this clear cut dichotomy the current theoretical and experimental methods have to isolate the researched subject in order to conclude something about it, but this artificial approach is limited to this trivial separation-only local-only methodology, which has no real ability to research things right at their natural non-sterile complex environment.

NXOR/XOR Logic and non-local numbers are preliminary developments that deals with the researched not only under sterile and isolated conditions, exactly because Uncertainty, Redundancy, Incompleteness, are essential properties of the researched and not a “white-noise” that has to be eliminated in order to get a researchable environment.

The Man, your sterile and isolated local-only reasoning is going to get off stage, because it is too trivial in order to deal with real complexity.

Once again Doron, demonstrably still just you.

Once again The Man you have demonstrated that a blind man can’t say meaningful things about colors, so?

 

[doronshadmi]

Oops, guess they should have thought of that before.

Oops, you ignore the conclusions:

5. Conclusion

In summary, these data suggest that distinct patterns of EEG coherence, EEG
amplitude, and late CNV amplitude are associated with the progressive integration of the transcendent with waking and sleeping states. These results indicate the efficacy of objective measures for characterizing the growth of subjective experiences.

The brain-based Integration Scale, resulting from this research, is a
preliminary scale. It accounted for 55% of the variance in-group membership.
Researchers are invited to participate in confirming, refining, and extending this scale. We anticipate this research strategy will further the exploration of the possible range of human experience and associated brain-state dynamics.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man you are also invited to air your view about:


http://www.springerlink.com/content/pg0234268q287370/fulltext.pdf

http://www.srivyuha.org/DocumentFiles/3.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfgzMbDhcE

 

[The Man]

The tripe is exactly your local-only reasoning that is based on a clear cut dichotomy between the observed and the observer. Because of this clear cut dichotomy the current theoretical and experimental methods have to isolate the researched subject in order to conclude something about it, but this artificial approach is limited to this trivial separation-only local-only methodology, which has no real ability to research things right at their natural non-sterile complex environment.

NXOR/XOR Logic and non-local numbers are preliminary developments that deals with the researched not only under sterile and isolated conditions, exactly because Uncertainty, Redundancy, Incompleteness, are essential properties of the researched and not a “white-noise” that has to be eliminated in order to get a researchable environment.

The Man, your sterile and isolated local-only reasoning is going to get off stage, because it is too trivial in order to deal with real complexity.

A big load of tripe.

Once again The Man you have demonstrated that a blind man can’t say meaningful things about colors, so?

Once again Doron you are just wrong, even about what a blind man can say about colors.

Oops, you ignore the conclusions:

Oops, again you just ignore what the authors claim they cannot conclude and why.

The group differences are empirically strong, but we cannot conclude what caused
those group differences. Since a cross-sectional design was used, we do not know the
pre-TM EEG patterns of subjects in the Occas-TE and Cont-TE groups.

The Man you are also invited to air your view about:


http://www.springerlink.com/content/pg0234268q287370/fulltext.pdf

http://www.srivyuha.org/DocumentFiles/3.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfgzMbDhcE

Doron you are invited to actually do some, well, research.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation#Research_on_EEG

Research on EEG
According to the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, Transcendental Meditation increases alpha brain waves compared to a baseline. When compared to control groups using a different relaxation technique, the increase in alpha is similar or even decreases compared to the relaxation controls.[172] It also produces alpha coherence, a pattern also sometimes seen in while a subject is actively focusing his or her attention on an object or holding some information in mind. These brain patterns suggest a decrease in mental activity and are associated with a relaxed state.[173] The Cambridge handbook said "..alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3-0.8 over large inter-electrode distance.. . . . The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more “ordered” or “integrated” experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature but rather a relaxed, inactive mental state." The Cambridge handbook also states that "Because alpha rhythms are ubiquitous and functionally non-specific, the claim that alpha oscillations and alpha coherence are desirable or are linked to an original and higher state of consciousness seem quite premature."[174]
A 1999 paper by Lachaux et al suggests that EEG coherence may be a less useful measurement[175] since it does not separate the effects of amplitude and phase in the interrelations between two EEG signals.

I would ask what is the EEG coherence of someone who is dead, just brain dead, in a persistent vegetative state, in a coma, catatonic, asleep or unconscious and then at varying levels of brain functionality or injury.

 

[dlorde]

Let us summarize the last posts by using the notion of the unified field as understood by Quantum Spiritually view (http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/viewFile/377/426):
...
<lengthy exposition of usual OM gibberish omitted>

What did any of the OM stuff you posted have anything to do with 'Quantum Spirituality' (give me a break) ?

 

[Apathia]

What did any of the OM stuff you posted have anything to do with 'Quantum Spirituality' (give me a break) ?

Dlord, welcome back to the rabbit hole!

For some years now, Doron has offered his Organic Mathematics as the foundation of a mathematics that can account for quantum non-locality (aka Quantum entanglement) and the "hidden variables."

This is also the stomping ground of a number of misguided attempts to explain consciousness in terms of Quantum Field Theory.

This includes work by people associated with the school of Transcendental Meditation who want to find a scientific basis for Vedic Metaphysics.

Doron sees his OM as the "Mathematics of Consciousness"

Anyway, it all becomes a one pot meal.
And that still doesn't answer your question.

Stick around for the chef's reply.

 

[The Man]

I expect the chief’s special today will be word salad, as usual.

 

[The Man]

It is correct as a guess , no more not less, exactly because you do not have a direct perception of the considered subject, which is the calmest level of your mental activity, which is the non-personal base ground of any mental activity.

Again, a blind man’s arguments about colours, this is your best in this case.

“non-personal base ground of any mental activity”? Doron it is entirely just your own personal bias and fantasies about “any mental activity”.

Again you expose your ignorance about the non-personal base ground if any mantel activity, which is the most objective state.

On the contrary, the subjective thing here is your limited framework that is based on the local-only aspect of the researched, where both your theoretical and experimental methods are derived from this artificial limitation, which lead to subjective local-only results (abstract or non-abstract, it does not matter).

No Doron it is simply your demonstrated preference for considering your own subjective inclinations as some “most objective state”.

Exactly the opposite, without direct perception of the researched subject, you actually go in circles around the researched subject, where your indirect research methods are always no more than guesses, exactly because you are using local-only methods in order to conclude something about a thing that is not local-only.

Doron, you’re the one that keeps going around in circles since your “direct perception of the considered subject” continues to fail you.

Non-locality is a property of our realm ( please see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/full/nature07121.html (its pre-print version http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf ) and can’t be accurately researched by your local-only reasoning (it can only roughly discovered by it as an anomaly of the local-only paradigm, as shown by the attached research paper), whether you like it or not.

Non-local numbers and NXOR/XOR logics are the appropriate tool in order to deal with non-locality, without forcing a local-only reasoning (the standard paradigm, which is used both for theoretical and experimental developments that are local-only oriented) on it.

Doron I have explained non-locality in the specific context of relativity to you before and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your loco-only “reasoning”. In fact quite the contrary as some point is either local (time-like and light-like interval separations) or non-local (space-like interval separation) with respect to some other point.

You The Man, as a local-only thinker (where “locality” is synonym “rigorous” by your limited reasoning) force your partial methods as if it is a universal method, and this is exactly where you fail.

Once again Doron your “direct perception” fails you.

It is your subjective maneuver , which its aim is to avoid the discussion about limits that belong or do not belong to the considered collection of the absolute infinite added convergent values (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_cut and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers) we can learn how the irrational numbers are the limits of the rational numbers, where this limits are fundamentally different than the rational numbers exactly because they are not the result of the ratio between two integers, and therefore the do not belong to the rational numbers’ space, and yet there are considered as their limits).

So as you see you definition is nothing but a part of a more comprehensive dissection about limits (that belong or do not belong to a considered space, and in both cases, these limits are linked with other spaces or ids by a non-local element which is not limited to any given space or to any given id of the same space).

No Doron once again that definition is what defines an irrational number. Your purportedly “more comprehensive dissection” is entirely subsequent to that specific definition.

Call it union or linkage, it does not change the fact that no one of the linked or unioned elements is the link or the union if its id is derived from its accurate locality w.r.t to other localities, where “w.r.t” is exactly the non-local property that is defined between these localities and enables the linkage or union among them.

Doron the union is all the elements not just any one or some of them and they are all local to that union.

You can do any maneuver that you like, it will not change the fact that a complex thing like collection and the relations among collections is based on Non-locality/Locality Linkage, which actually enables you to verbally or symbolically define your definitions, in the first place (including the proofs without words).


What enables to define a collection is the linkage of the common (the non-local) with the non-common (the local).

Without this linkage, no collection is definable (verbally, symbolically or spatially).

Ah the old standby Doron failsafe claim that anything and everything “is based on” or ‘just an aspect of’ some dichotomy “Linkage”.

 

[doronshadmi]

And that still doesn't answer your question.

your question? Who is this “your” and exactly is his question?

 

[doronshadmi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation#Research_on_EEG
I would ask what is the EEG coherence of someone who is dead, just brain dead, in a persistent vegetative state, in a coma, catatonic, asleep or unconscious and then at varying levels of brain functionality or injury.

No measurement that is related to the coherence activity can be taken from a dead brain.

Deep sleep, or damaged brain’s activities are not characterized by a coherent brain activity, as observed, for example in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfgzMbDhcE .

 

[doronshadmi]

No Doron it is simply your demonstrated preference for considering your own subjective inclinations as some “most objective state”.

How do you know that for sure (as a person the does not practice any mental technique that enables you to be aware of the source of any mental activity?)

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron the union is all the elements not just any one or some of them and they are all local to that union.

And the union is non-local w.r.t all local (unique ids) elements of the considered collection.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ah the old standby Doron failsafe claim that anything and everything “is based on” or ‘just an aspect of’ some dichotomy “Linkage”.

It is simply your inability to get a simple notion like “mutual independency” where things are linked with each other (mutuality) without lose their identities (independency).

Your “mutual dependency” is nothing but using only one aspect of that linkage, by ignoring the saved independency under this linkage.

By your muddy reasoning we actually get “mutual mutuality” or “dependent dependency”, which are equivalent to your “mutual dependency” statement.

You simply can’t grasp the axiomatic state among the two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state, which are not derived from each other exactly like two axioms (they have independent qualities), and yet they are unique manifestations of a one common source that enables their consistent linkage.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron I have explained non-locality in the specific context of relativity to you before and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your loco-only “reasoning”.

I can’t explain non-locality, because you consistently using only local view of the researched subjects, whether they are abstract of not.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again Doron your “direct perception” fails you.

Once again The Man your only-indirect-perception fails you.