The Metaphysical Consciousness

doronshadmi said:
Any journey starts with the first step.

We will get to these questions during the journey, but before we will get there please do your first step and reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10173359&postcount=553.

I will not communicate with you as long as you are not doing your first step.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Back to the old 'you only get it if you get it'? Come on Doron, in math you got your backside handed to you by jsfisher and yours truly, now you just are seeking a new audience to start kibitzing with.

Just to inform the rest of the thread; Doron was asked to do the following thought-experiment:

- Given two islands, one has TM/one-mind/Doronetics/etc, called island A. the other has not, called island B.
- Both start off as wild natives of the islands, completely identical in all respects, except for the Doronetics.
- The populace of these islands can never know of each other or both will be destroyed. They never have contact.
- In 1000 years, what differences would a visitor that does not have TM/Doronetics observe?

Basically, his answer was that there would be no observable difference. When pointed out that this meant TM/Doronetics was useless, he backpedaled and said that island A people were more advanced and harmonious whilst island B
When asked what observable actions were taken to , he backpedaled again and said that he did not want to do this thought experiment anyway.

And so on, and so forth.

His rudeness is legendary as anything that will point him wrong is countered by 'you have a boxed-in mind' or 'you don't get it' variants.
He got several warnings for that.
 
realpaladin said:
Back to the old 'you only get it if you get it'? Come on Doron, in math you got your backside handed to you by jsfisher and yours truly, now you just are seeking a new audience to start kibitzing with.

Just to inform the rest of the thread; Doron was asked to do the following thought-experiment:

- Given two islands, one has TM/one-mind/Doronetics/etc, called island A. the other has not, called island B.
- Both start off as wild natives of the islands, completely identical in all respects, except for the Doronetics.
- The populace of these islands can never know of each other or both will be destroyed. They never have contact.
- In 1000 years, what differences would a visitor that does not have TM/Doronetics observe?

Basically, his answer was that there would be no observable difference. When pointed out that this meant TM/Doronetics was useless, he backpedaled and said that island A people were more advanced and harmonious whilst island B
When asked what observable actions were taken to , he backpedaled again and said that he did not want to do this thought experiment anyway.

And so on, and so forth.

His rudeness is legendary as anything that will point him wrong is countered by 'you have a boxed-in mind' or 'you don't get it' variants.
He got several warnings for that.
Click to expand...

Others his approach have tried...others with his approach the same success have had.
 
Last edited:
The most annoying attribute is the constantly repeated links back to his earlier posts rather than specifically addressing the current issues or rephrasing the earlier indecipherable posts.

I only say this in the hope (but not expectation) that this impolite and lazy habit will be curbed. However, I predict no progress whatever will be made.
 
tsig said:
If the first step is wrong your journey is in vain.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

Please explain in details what is wrong in the content of the following quote:

doronshadmi said:
The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.

So the constant aspect here is the equality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the equality.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I agree with you.

Please explain in details what is wrong in the content of the following quote:
Click to expand...

It is so endearing, watching you pretend that, eventually, you will ask your formulaic question of someone who will, by design, accident, or blind chance, give you a response you will be able to pretend gives you something upon which to build; simply ignoring, and being rudely dismissive of, all the other, appositive, answers you have been given.

Instead of addressing the answers you have already been given.

Have you ever acted, danced, played music, or performed any other art under the direction of a truly skilled director?
 
The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.

So the constant aspect here is the equality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the equality.
Click to expand...

What have you actually said?

We characteristically use equations to solve mathematical problems.

And you've pointed out that the point of an equation is that it is an equation.

Well, guess what? It's true. Now what?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I have pointed out that no matter what equation is used, both variant AND invariant properties are involved as their common principle.
Click to expand...

The "=" sign does not mean invariance.

One side of an equation changes depending on the other side, so the "=" sign is a bridge that connects the two. (It is the two sides that are equal to each other.)

There is no "invariant" part because equations are for solving and that means input becomes output.

The only way to have invariance is to never change the inputs.
 
Donn said:
(It is the two sides that are equal to each other.)
Click to expand...
Exactly, and the property of being equal is unchanged even if the values of both sides are changeable.

In other words, the unchanged AND the changed are essential properties of any given equation.

Donn said:
There is no "invariant" part because equations are for solving and that means input becomes output.
Click to expand...
It does not contradict the fact that the property of being equal is unchanged even if the values of both sides (you can call them input or output) are changeable.

In other words, please build your argument also on notions and not only on notations (The "=" sign) or names (input becomes output).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Exactly, and the property of being equal is unchanged even if the values of both sides are changeable.

In other words, the unchanged AND the changed are essential properties of any given equation.
Click to expand...

This is trivial, and correct, as far as it goes.

Even so, there's a relationship between observations of something and the algorithms we model to predict it. This can be called "constant" for a while. Until new facts change it, I suppose.

And like bruto said, so what?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I have pointed out that no matter what equation is used, both variant AND invariant properties are involved as their common principle.
Click to expand...

Say, rather, that you have made a claim, of your own authochthonous invention, that a "common principle" of "equations" is "both variant AND invariant properties".

doronshadmi said:
If you disagree with what I have pointed out, then please air your detailed view about it.

Please also reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10173399&postcount=555.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10174696#post10174696
 
Donn said:
This can be called "constant" for a while. Until new facts change it, I suppose.
Click to expand...
The fact is very simple: Given any equation, it has invariant AND variant properties.

You call this fact trivial.

I call this fact profound exactly because it is a common principle among all possible equations.

Again, it is exactly the way of how science is developed, by discover the common principles among branches that were understood as disjoint domains.
Donn said:
Even so, there's a relationship between observations of something and the algorithms we model to predict it.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, there is indeed relationship between the observer, the observed and the tool of observation, where this relationship is possible in the first place exactly because invariant AND variant are its common principle.

For example, by using this common principle the two main problems are solvable:

1. The Mind-Body problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem).

2. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences).

Donn said:
This is trivial, and correct, as far as it goes.
Click to expand...
As far as it goes, it is a self-evident truth (you know, an axiom).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The fact is very simple: Given any equation, it has invariant AND variant properties.

You call this fact trivial.

I call this fact profound exactly because it is a common principle among all possible equations.

Again, it is exactly the way of how science is developed, by discover the common principles among branches that were understood as disjoint domains.
Click to expand...

Except you continue to make free with the whole ignoring-the-step-of-supporting-your-autochthonous-declarations bit...
 
Doron, your perception skills may need some honing; these people state almost verbatim the exact same things that people stated in your 7-year thread (the one that got you your 10k posts).

Nothing has changed, nobody is convinced.

And again, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, namely you, Doron Shadmi.

I predict that this will go as all other cycles have gone in the Saga of Doronetics:
- Kibitzing over insignificant details and word definitions.
- Lots of pointing to the other side (you don't get it)
- Until Doron makes a mistake which he can not obfuscate.
- Silence or flight to another thread.

Doron, it has been pointed out multiple times over the past few years that:

A) If *you* claim something *you* need to prove it.
B) If people do not understand what you are trying to teach, then it just might be that you are unfit as a teacher.
C) Your method of trying 'ad absurdum' is scientifically invalid.

Now, since you are just trying to reboot the same thing in a different thread, I think I can categorically state:

"The definition of an idiot is someone who will do the same thing over and over again but expects different results."
 
doronshadmi said:
I have pointed out that no matter what equation is used, both variant AND invariant properties are involved as their common principle.

If you disagree with what I have pointed out, then please air your detailed view about it.

Please also reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10173399&postcount=555.
Click to expand...

I really don't think you have thought this through right. All you really have said is that an equation is an equation. All you've said is that things differ from each other but that in some cases you can calculate the proportion of their difference for limited purposes.

Imagine, for example, that you have a pile of cement blocks and a pile of bricks. You have figured out the equation: X blocks weighs the same as Y bricks. X=Y. The "invariant" property of that equation applies only if you use the equation. You know that it tells you the proportional weight of the bricks and blocks. It does not somehow do anything to either the bricks or the blocks. It simply tells you something about the relative weights of the bricks and blocks. That relationship is invariant, because you've decided that that's what you want to find out. If you were paving a path with bricks and blocks, their relative weight would be entirely irrelevant, and you'd need an equation for surface area instead. A new equation can be discovered for that, not the same as the other.

In either case, though, if X=Y, nothing mysterious happens if you buy a random truckload of bricks. The equation tells you how many blocks are the equivalent for some given purpose, but does not actually involve itself with the blocks at all. If you have a plan that reads in quantity of blocks, you can transpose it. If you are replacing a block path with a brick one, you can determine how many bricks you need. The information exists whether you need it or not. The blocks do not. All you are doing is knowing something.

You can make an equation that compares the weight of coffeepots and bronze figurines of Spiro Agnew, too. It does not address anything about the essence of these objects. It's an arbitrary decision to compare arbitrary properties of a thing for specific purposes.

All you've really said is that things are different in ways that can sometimes be compared. I suppose that's a grand property of existence, but I don't think it is either profound or useful by itself.
 
Here are some available researches which show improvement because of TM training:

Effects of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation on Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Subjects With Coronary Heart Disease (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=410453)

Usefulness of the transcendental meditation program in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914997891849)

Effects of the transcendental meditation program on adaptive mechanisms: Changes in hormone levels and responses to stress after 4 months of practice(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453097000036).

Medical care utilization and the transcendental meditation program.(http://journals.lww.com/psychosomat...are_utilization_and_the_transcendental.6.aspx)

Autonomic and EEG patterns distinguish transcending from other experiences during Transcendental Meditation practice(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016787600100143X)

Impact of transcendental meditation on ambulatory blood pressure in African-American adolescents(http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/4/366.short)

Lower Lipid Peroxide Levels in Practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation[registered sign] Program(http://journals.lww.com/psychosomat...id_Peroxide_Levels_in_Practitioners_of.8.aspx)

Review of Controlled Research on the Transcendental Meditation Program and Cardiovascular Disease(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211376/)

A Randomized Controlled Trial on Effects of the Transcendental Meditation Program on Blood Pressure, Psychological Distress, and Coping in Young Adults(http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/1326.short)

The Impact of the Transcendental Meditation Program on Government Payments to Physicians in Quebec: An Update(http://ajhpcontents.org/doi/abs/10.4278/0890-1171-14.5.28)

Effects of the Transcendental Meditation Technique on Trait Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials(http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2013.0204)

Effectiveness of the Transcendental Meditation Program in Criminal Rehabilitation and Substance Abuse Recovery(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J076v36n01_03#.U_IKp6Nc-So)

An analysis of recent meditation research and suggestions for future directions(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08873267.2003.9986927#.U_ILdqNc-So)

Neuroimaging of meditation’s effect on brain reactivity to pain(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2170475/)

Transcendental meditation, hypertension and heart disease(http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=383342785499103;res=IELHEA)

...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom