I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

That's propagation of light, not the speed of light.
That the propagation of light in different speeds according to a given medium.

The currently known knowledge is that light can't move faster than c, that's all.
 
Last edited:
In other words, the evidence you suggest for neutral monism is subjective, and therefore worthless. It's "trust your feelings".
No, awareness without thoughts is not objective and not subjective, but it is the substance of both variant objective and subjective phenomena.

The simplest state of existence can't be known by imagination or by using our five senses, simply because it is the invariant substance of both of them, that can be known only by transcending imagination and the five senses.

For example, when one saying the mantra he can hear it by his\her ears and this is the objective level of the mantra that can be known as an external information by other persons.

When one thinking the mantra he can hear it in his\her brain and this is the subjective level of the mantra that can be known as an internal information by the thinker.

When one transcends the thoughts process, he\she directly aware of the the simplest state of existence, which is the invariant substance that is naturally not bounded by any level of the senses, whether they are objective (external) or subjective (internal).

The beautiful thing about the mantra is that also deaf persons can practice it, by first withing it down (and this is the objective level of the mantra, that is externally shared by seeing it) and by subjectively seeing it in their brain until it is gently and effortlessly disappears when one transcends any level of the senses and directly become aware of the simplest state of existence, which is the invariant substance that is naturally not bounded by any level of the senses, whether they are objective (external) or subjective (internal).

From an objective (an external) point of view alpha, theta and beta synchronized brain waves are detected by tools (like electroencephalogram) that are external to the brain, and this synchronization between back and front cortex is the objective scientific indication that a given brain is aware of the simplest state of existence, as done, for example in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10423422&postcount=1085.

So as you see dear Belz... the mantra is simply a tool that enables one's brain to be aware of objective and subjective degrees of the senses and effortlessly become aware of their invariant substance (the simplest state of existence, which is naturally unbounded by any objective or subjective phenomena along the different degrees of the senses).

------------------------------------

Once again:

doronshadmi said:
Belz... said:
it remains that thoughts are a particular behaviour of the nervous system. By observing the behaviour, you can know the thought without asking the person.
Not correct, first you have to ask the person about the thoughts, and only then you are able to define the correspondence between these particular thoughts and the particular behavior of the nervous system, that is given to you by your martial agents, which are always external to the original experience of the thinker within itself.

Only at the seconded time, after you have got the needed knowledge from the thinker, you are able very roughly to know the thought without asking the person.

In other words, you have no chance to know up to the last detail what one really thinks, and your martial tools are no more than your external agents w.r.t to the original experience of the thinker within itself.
Exactly the same holds for one's awareness without thoughts, you first have to ask him\here about his\her experience and only then you are able to define the correspondence between the electroencephalogram's output and one's awareness without thoughts.
 
Last edited:
A photon only travels at 300,000 km/s. It never travels at any other speed. It never slows, it never speeds up, and it only "stops" by temporarily ceasing to exist.

Not quite correct. A photon only ever travels at c, but c is not always 300,000 km/s. It can be slower, depending on the medium.

Hans
 
Since I'm in this thread anyway... Does a photon have infinite acceleration; or does it, because its speed means it doesn't experience time, have no acceleration?

Or do I have the idea wrong, and a photon doesn't accelerate because it's instantly created with that speed? It wasn't ever not moving so it didn't change velocity at all.

I think they are the same thing. Since a photon is massless but has energy, it has infinite alias no acceleration.

Photons with different energies have different wavelenghts, but the same speed, ergo they are created moving at c.

Hans
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Who the hell cares about fictional worlds you imagine ?

A lot of very gifted physical scientists around the globe

And there he goes missing the point again.

This is why I'm not offering commentary on most of his recent posts. Doron is, at this point, so far down the rabbit hole, with so many misrepresented, twisted, and outright misused terms couching his incoherent concepts that there's really no way to engage him in meaningful conversation. He misunderstands questions put to him, blames others for the misunderstanding, and then goes off on a complete tangent with no relation to anything being discussed.

Or, at least, not related in any way except in the confused muddle of his "theories". There are some broad, overarching themes in his posts that, taken together, give a semi-coherent look at what his beliefs are, but he really doesn't understand their limits. Or he's tried to remove them, rather, with his ideas of "Unity". After all, if all is one, he's free to bring anything he wants into the discussion at any point.

Basically, doron believes that the "truth" of reality is that, while it appears (to him) to be composed of the two opposing elements of matter and consciousness, it's actually all one substance. That's where his earlier mangling of neutral monism comes into play. Unfortunately, he doesn't really understand what neutral monism says, which is where his claims that both idealism and materialism can be true at the same time come from.

I do not know, because he is never able to express himself clearly on the subject, but I think the whole reason he falls into neutral monism is that he wishes to remove all contradictions from his worldview. This is fine; a philosophy that contradicts itself is incoherent and can be discarded, so working out those kinks is a good thing to do. But there's another problem.

Doronshadmi, to put it bluntly, is arrogant. He has an opinion of his own current level of knowledge and understanding that is too high. One example of this - not the only one, but an example nonetheless - is his constant problems with math.

Doronshadmi is fascinated by the concepts of one and infinity, bounded and unbounded, and so on. Ultimately, this is all an expression of his obsession with contradictions. To him, these concepts appear fundamentally opposed, and thus cannot exist in the same framework. The contradiction must be resolved, and so he bends over backwards to try and prove things like ".999... is not equal to 1", without ever considering that his assessment of things might simply be wrong, and there might be no contradiction in the first place. Of course he can't be wrong. It is the fundamentals of mathematics that are at fault.

Once the contradiction is established, he attempts to explain it away by saying that it is all just different, mystical expressions of the same thing, and it only appears contradictory to those who cannot perceive the truth of reality. From there, he brings in anything that appears to even remotely support this, from unified field theory to the idea of transcendental meditation allowing perception of truth. After all, unified field theory deals with the idea of "all is one", and transcendental meditation implies that we can see that one. Of course they're not just complete derails. They explain the contradiction!

The issue, of course, is that there is no contradiction to explain. He is the only one that sees it. He is offering solutions to problems that do not exist. Offering rebuttal to his ideas is like getting into a fight with a fantasy author about the system of magic he employs. There's no way to win, or even to offer meaningful commentary, because the words don't mean what you think they do, the ideas expressed are vague at best, and in the end it's all what he wants it to be anyway.

Which doesn't change the fact that he's still demonstrably wrong whenever he tries to go into details on any of the things he brings up. His math is wrong, his physics is wrong, his idea of the mind is wrong, and so on.

But until he gets back into that, there's nothing to do but sit back, make some popcorn, and watch him argue with the air.
 
Last edited:
And there he goes missing the point again.

This is why I'm not offering commentary on most of his recent posts. Doron is, at this point, so far down the rabbit hole, with so many misrepresented, twisted, and outright misused terms couching his incoherent concepts that there's really no way to engage him in meaningful conversation. He misunderstands questions put to him, blames others for the misunderstanding, and then goes off on a complete tangent with no relation to anything being discussed.

Or, at least, not related in any way except in the confused muddle of his "theories". There are some broad, overarching themes in his posts that, taken together, give a semi-coherent look at what his beliefs are, but he really doesn't understand their limits. Or he's tried to remove them, rather, with his ideas of "Unity". After all, if all is one, he's free to bring anything he wants into the discussion at any point.

Basically, doron believes that the "truth" of reality is that, while it appears (to him) to be composed of the two opposing elements of matter and consciousness, it's actually all one substance. That's where his earlier mangling of neutral monism comes into play. Unfortunately, he doesn't really understand what neutral monism says, which is where his claims that both idealism and materialism can be true at the same time come from.

I do not know, because he is never able to express himself clearly on the subject, but I think the whole reason he falls into neutral monism is that he wishes to remove all contradictions from his worldview. This is fine; a philosophy that contradicts itself is incoherent and can be discarded, so working out those kinks is a good thing to do. But there's another problem.

Doronshadmi, to put it bluntly, is arrogant. He has an opinion of his own current level of knowledge and understanding that is too high. One example of this - not the only one, but an example nonetheless - is his constant problems with math.

Doronshadmi is fascinated by the concepts of one and infinity, bounded and unbounded, and so on. Ultimately, this is all an expression of his obsession with contradictions. To him, these concepts appear fundamentally opposed, and thus cannot exist in the same framework. The contradiction must be resolved, and so he bends over backwards to try and prove things like ".999... is not equal to 1", without ever considering that his assessment of things might simply be wrong, and there might be no contradiction in the first place. Of course he can't be wrong. It is the fundamentals of mathematics that are at fault.

Once the contradiction is established, he attempts to explain it away by saying that it is all just different, mystical expressions of the same thing, and it only appears contradictory to those who cannot perceive the truth of reality. From there, he brings in anything that appears to even remotely support this, from unified field theory to the idea of transcendental meditation allowing perception of truth. After all, unified field theory deals with the idea of "all is one", and transcendental meditation implies that we can see that one. Of course they're not just complete derails. They explain the contradiction!

The issue, of course, is that there is no contradiction to explain. He is the only one that sees it. He is offering solutions to problems that do not exist. Offering rebuttal to his ideas is like getting into a fight with a fantasy author about the system of magic he employs. There's no way to win, or even to offer meaningful commentary, because the words don't mean what you think they do, the ideas expressed are vague at best, and in the end it's all what he wants it to be anyway.

Which doesn't change the fact that he's still demonstrably wrong whenever he tries to go into details on any of the things he brings up. His math is wrong, his physics is wrong, his idea of the mind is wrong, and so on.

But until he gets back into that, there's nothing to do but sit back, make some popcorn, and watch him argue with the air.
This is a reliable example of hands waving writing style, that in no point really deals with the discussed subjects by giving detailed information that can be really criticized.

Moreover, it is no more than attack the poster, instead of really dealing with the discussed subjects.

Dear Nonpareil, please try again to deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10425661&postcount=1186 instead of just open another round of long hands waving writing style.

Also please do not forget to reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10421393&postcount=1049.
 
Last edited:
No, the simplest state of existence is the substance of any multiplicity, including contradiction and tautology, as given, for example, in http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823#p269007 and http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823#p269301.

Ok it's now 100% clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, on any topic.

That is destroyed and\or created can't be considered as invariant.

I'm talking about the SPEED, Doron. The SPEED is invariant in all frames of reference.
 
This is a reliable example of hands waving writing style, that in no point really deals with the discussed subjects by giving detailed information that can be really criticized.

Moreover, it is no more than attack the poster, instead of really dealing with the discussed subjects.

As I said, there is no deeper commentary that can be offered. You don't understand what you're talking about, the things you claim support you have no apparent relevance to the topic at hand, you don't even attempt to offer actual commentary on them regardless, and your usage of words only vaguely resembles their actual meaning in the English language.

And it's not an attack; it's a straightforward statement of the behavior you have exhibited here. To say that you are wrong and ignorant is not an insult; to say that you are arrogant arguably is, but in this case it is meant as more of an illustration of your thought processes, such as anyone can divine them, than as mockery.

On a final note, linking to random topics is not "discussing" them.
 
Ok it's now 100% clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, on any topic.
But, by using you own words "we can't be 100% sure of anything", isn't it dear Belz... ?

Also please reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10425615&postcount=1183.

Thank you.


I'm talking about the SPEED, Doron. The SPEED is invariant in all frames of reference.
Wrong.

This is the correct one:
MRC_Hans said:
A photon only ever travels at c, but c is not always 300,000 km/s. It can be slower, depending on the medium.

Again, it is changed according to the medium, as clearly given by http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/speedoflight/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#In_a_medium.
 
Last edited:
As I said, there is no deeper commentary that can be offered. You don't understand what you're talking about, the things you claim support you have no apparent relevance to the topic at hand, you don't even attempt to offer actual commentary on them regardless, and your usage of words only vaguely resembles their actual meaning in the English language.

And it's not an attack; it's a straightforward statement of the behavior you have exhibited here. To say that you are wrong and ignorant is not an insult; to say that you are arrogant arguably is, but in this case it is meant as more of an illustration of your thought processes, such as anyone can divine them, than as mockery.

On a final note, linking to random topics is not "discussing" them.
Another round of hands waving writing style (shorter than the previous one), that in no point really deals with the discussed subjects by giving detailed information that can be really criticized.

This time also please do not forget to reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10421393&postcount=1049.

Also this time please try to reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10425661&postcount=1186.
 
Last edited:
Another round of hands waving writing style (shorter than the previous one), that in no point really deals with the discussed subjects by giving detailed information that can be really criticized.

This time also please do not forget to reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10421393&postcount=1049.

Also this time please try to reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10425661&postcount=1186.

There is nothing to say. Your ideas are not coherent enough for anyone to give meaningful commentary on them.
 
But, by using you own words "we can't be 100% sure of anything", isn't it dear Belz... ?

I've already addressed this at lenght. Remember ? It was your comprehension problem that led to all this.


Again, I already have. Perhaps if you were less in a haste to yap about things you don't understand, you could read what people tell you and, heaven forbid, learn something.

Wrong.

This is the correct one:

No, it isn't. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it true.

READ THIS: The photon gets absorbed by atoms along the way, which accounts for the "slowing down" of light. The particle itself IS ALWAYS AT C.

What? since what light and photons are not the same thing?

Ah, yes. Trying to make you see the subtleties when you can't grasp the obvious was indeed a mistake.
 

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