I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Belz...]

Only by actually practicing it, and never by talking or thinking about it.

You misunderstand: by what mechanism does meditation give you this knowledge ?

 

[dlorde]

Absolute symmetry is the substance of the ever asymmetric changeable space\time, but not vise versa.

Can't make sense of this - symmetry is a property, not a substance.

 

[turingtest]

Can't make sense of this - symmetry is a property, not a substance.

For Doron, "symmetry" is just another of the many words he can plug into reiterations of the same basic mantra, vaguely dissimilar seasonings for the same old tasteless soup; it doesn't have to make sense, it just needs to sound good. Observe-

The substance of mutiplicity is Unity, but not vise versa.


Unity is the substance of distinction, but not vise versa.
...
The non-composed is the substance of the composed, but not vise versa.
...

Absolute symmetry is the substance of the ever asymmetric changeable space\time, but not vise versa...

 

[dlorde]

For Doron, "symmetry" is just another of the many words he can plug into reiterations of the same basic mantra, vaguely dissimilar seasonings for the same old tasteless soup; it doesn't have to make sense, it just needs to sound good.

Oh, I know, I just couldn't let it lie. I've followed Doron's threads with a baffled expression since joining 'Deeper Than Primes' in 2009(?). My first post to it began, "Surely this is gibberish..."

Nothing much has changed:

Doron: This simple/special perception/understanding changes everything.
All: Please explain it
Doron: <gibberish>
All: We don't understand / that doesn't make sense
Doron: That's because you're not using simple/special perception/understanding...

Rinse & repeat for many years...

 

[doronshadmi]

You misunderstand: by what mechanism does meditation give you this knowledge ?

By the natural effortless mechanism of thoughts process, which enables to be aware of finer levels of it until one is directly aware of the simplest (or finest) state of awareness, which is completely calm (transcends the thoughts process).

 

[Belz...]

By the natural effortless mechanism of thoughts process, which enables to be aware of finer levels of it until one is directly aware of the simplest (or finest) state of awareness, which is completely calm (transcends the thoughts process).

This does not explain the mechanism: HOW are you made aware of these things ?

 

[Dancing David]

The reliability of any evidence (including the reliability of the invention of % as a measurement unit) depends on the reliability of your brain, so what you call Matter's behavior is actually the reliability of the behavior of your brain.

Um, charge separation forces vs. mass/distance are dependent upon brain function how?
If measured by machines?

 

[punshhh]

Huh? This makes no sense to me. You think the language devices employed between people are not provided by the mind (activity of the brain)? Please explain.

Precisely, the mind. The brain is a piece of hardware and the mind a piece of software, by analogy. Or the brain is the TV and the mind is the programmes showing on the screen.

If personal subjective experience is generated and experienced by the person, not the mind (i.e. brain activity), can you be more specific about what you mean by 'person', and what you think the mind does, if not subjective experience?

It would help if we treat the mind as a separate thing to the brain for the illustration of this point (Leaving aside whether the brain and the mind are the same thing for now).

By person I mean a living experiencing entity, this is distinct from the mind and the brain. However knowledge of the experience is enabled by the mind, which is in turn enabled by the brain.

 

[punshhh]

That's a stupid analogy, because in the analogy the program is NOT TV-based. So you _are_ in fact disputing that the mind is brain-based.

On the contrary, the mind is not provided by the brain, it is provided,in a lot of its contents, socially from other minds, themselves provided/conditioned in the same way. The brains have nothing to do with that content, other than enabling it to occur, just like the TV.

No. That is completely wrong. It is actually what prevents us from accepting things that are untrue. Science IS the method by which we determine objective truths. There are no others.

As I have already said, I will happily use practical techniques for practical issues. Science is a systems of practical techniques used to address practical issues. I don't know why anyone would use it for addressing philosophical issues, like for example existence, or ontology.

Although this is true, it doesn't help you.

I don't require help, and my brain has not fallen out either.

No it isn't. Idealism is the belief that things are all mind. This is demonstratably false, and even if it weren't so, it would still be a useless distinction from materialism.

All that is required is the notion that mind is a form of material and it works just as well as physicalism.

Follow your own advice. Your inability to understand reason and science is not my problem.

Repetition.

...which covers 100% of reality.

More unfounded claims, I see.

So can fiction, but we don't consider it when dealing with reality. :

Fiction is known to be fictitious. It is not known what is the origin or sustenance of the physical universe.

Your entire behaviour here is that of one who WANTS there to be something else. Sorry bud, that's not how it works.

This posturing is a distraction, perhaps you will now concentrate on the issue, (at the top of the post).

 

[Belz...]

On the contrary, the mind is not provided by the brain, it is provided,in a lot of its contents, socially from other minds, themselves provided/conditioned in the same way.

I think you just confused "mind" with "social mores". Yet another poster who makes no effort to understand the issues at hand.

All that is required is the notion that mind is a form of material and it works just as well as physicalism.

Actually, that would BE physicalism.

More unfounded claims, I see.

You are ridiculous. Find me a single thing that isn't covered by pragmatism.

 

[doronshadmi]

Can't make sense of this - symmetry is a property, not a substance.

Well, you can define absolute symmetry as the property of the simplest state of existence, which is the substance of all possibles expressions since it is invariant under their all possible transformations.

 

[Belz...]

Well, you can define absolute symmetry as the property of the simplest state of existence, which is the substance of all possibles expressions since it is invariant under their all possible transformations.

Yet another attempt by you to make sure the language is so impossible to decypher that is could mean anything you want.

 

[doronshadmi]

Um, charge separation forces vs. mass/distance are dependent upon brain function how?
If measured by machines?

We are talking about the reliability of a given material evidence.

It is provided to your brain by your senses, or it is reinforced by the machines that you build according to the understanding of your brain.

So in both cases your brain is the main player that determines the reliability of a given material evidence.

It means that more you develop your brain, more the reliability of a given material evidence is improving.

So technologies of the consciousness' improvement are main factors for reliable evidence.

 

[Belz...]

We are talking about the reliability of a given material evidence.

Yes, as opposed to evidence gathered by wishful thinking meditation.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yet another attempt by you to make sure the language is so impossible to decypher that is could mean anything you want.

I use a very simple language, which accurately determines that the simplest form of existence is exactly being invariant under all possible transformations, which is exactly the meaning of absolute symmetry.

No material existence has absolute symmetry, because material existence is space\time phenomena, which is naturally variant (it is not invariant under all possible transformations).

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, as opposed to evidence gathered by wishful thinking meditation.

Not as opposed to, but in addition to the ability of the brain to directly aware of the invariant simplest state of existence.

Our brain is exactly the linkage between the invariant and the variant, and by being aware of the variant right form its invariant substance, the variant is really fully known, and beliefs or skepticism are no longer factors of reality.

Fully known, does not mean that the variant becomes invariant, it simply means that mutual destructive phenomena are no longer properties of reality.

 

[Belz...]

I use a very simple language

No, you really don't. You use language to obfuscate the fact that you have no clue what you're discussing.

So far you have been entirely unable to explain how meditation gives you information about the "simplest" state of existence. You just clain that it does.

Our brain is exactly the linkage between the invariant and the variant

Unevidenced assertion.

 

[ctamblyn]

I use a very simple language, which accurately determines that the simplest form of existence is exactly being invariant under all possible transformations, which is exactly the meaning of absolute symmetry.

What is the set of possible transformations?

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
I use a very simple language, which accurately determines that the simplest form of existence is exactly being invariant under all possible transformations, which is exactly the meaning of absolute symmetry.

What is the set of possible transformations?

I'm going to anticipate a little here...
"Obviously, the set of possible transformations is the vice-versa of the set of one which is composed only of the simplest form of existence which is exactly that which is invariant."

Doron's definitions deal only in opposites, which he still manages to mangle into an imprecision that you wouldn't have thought such black-and-white thinking could achieve.

 

[doronshadmi]

So far you have been entirely unable to explain how meditation gives you information about the "simplest" state of existence. You just clain that it does.

So far you still try to get it in terms of information about that is simply not the direct awareness of the "simplest" state of existence.

Techniques like Transcendental Meditation use a thought which has no meaning, known as mantra. By using the fact that the thoughts process is a natural effortless phenomena that is naturally derived from and returns to its substance, one's brain is naturally aware of calmer vibration's levels of the mantra, until one is directly aware of the simplest state of existence, which is totally calm and naturally free of any process.

As long as you do not actually practice techniques like Transcendental Meditation you can't systematically train your brain to directly aware of its calm substance, which is exactly the simplest state of existence.

The best analogy for one that does not actually practice techniques like Transcendental Meditation is:

Talking about silence is not silence in itself (and so is the case of thinking about silence, it is not silence in itself).

Unevidenced assertion.

It is indeed always the best conclusion for any brain that does not actually practice techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

Once again, Science has to be used in order to improve techniques like Transcendental Meditation beyond their current efficiency and by doing so, Science actually fulfills its goal.