Fundimental flaw to determinism

topic posted Fri, February 20, 2009 - 5:41 PM by  Swarm
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Determinism makes the mechanistic claim that the universe is like a big billiard table and as long as you know all the antecedents you can predict all the out comes. Before I've mentioned that because of non deterministic macro events like the destructive deformation of surfaces during impact and the influence of intelligent agents.

Today I'm going to look at the premise that it is possible to know all the antecedents.

Knowing antecedents has two fundamental flaws. 1. The infinite regress due to a lack of "first cause." and 2. Knowledge of an event is limited by the speed of light.

So let's set up the pool table. You hit the cue ball and the tip breaks on the cue. The ball careens down the table and a grad student reaches out and tunks it with his finger for no discernible reason. Then just before it hits the ball a micro black hole traveling at close to the speed of light which was out side your original range of detection when you hit the ball passes by, collapsing the ball and the cue ball falls though the hole in the table. Sitting in the rubble you wonder why you even thought this was a good idea.

None of the original predictions of determinism succeeded. There are unknowable factors even in the macro universe which preclude this sort of simplistic view.
posted by:
Swarm
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

    Fri, February 20, 2009 - 10:12 PM
    That was fun, though I'm not too sure if I'd want to play a game of pool with you. I've been reading 'Woken Furies' by Morgan, and I have to say I find a tad of similarity with the book and your pool scenario. Or maybe it's just the effect of the book bleeding through.

    The way I see it, there aren't any non-deterministic events, micro or macro. And I'd have to add here that this synopsis is a belief, totally unprovable, and I think we've gotten to the place where we might agree that there's ultimately no way to really prove if any event is deterministic or not. You've seemingly put forth a good example of this on the macro level with respect to the events in your pool hall. Related back to our past discussions on determinism and free will, I'd have to say I haven't been swayed by an argument produced by either camp that knocked the ball out of the park, not even close really. So, I think I'm going to have to agree with you - in that there's no way to absolutely ascribe determinism as being the true and ultimate cause of any event.

    One thing you said caused a ripple in my thoughts. In your list of fundamental flaws you cite that knowledge of an event is limited by the speed of light. In essence I'd say I agree with this - even though there seem to be some good arguments related to the speed of light not being constant in a vacuum, primarily because we're not really even certain what a vacuum is, but this is a technicality. What caught me by surprise was your using this particular reference when in the past, if memory serves me correctly, I saw you as being a proponent of Bell and Aspect's experiments, which theoretically gave his theorem legs. As you know I've never been much of a fan of spooky action at a distance. But, of course, this really isn't related to the focus of what you said, which I tend to agree with.
    • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

      Sat, February 21, 2009 - 1:21 AM
      ch: The way I see it, there aren't any non-deterministic events, micro or macro. And I'd have to add here that this synopsis is a belief, totally unprovable, and I think we've gotten to the place where we might agree that there's ultimately no way to really prove if any event is deterministic or not.

      Determinism would mainly seem to be based on determinists determining it to be so by an act of will.

      Bell's theorem is hard to see on a pool table.
    • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

      Mon, February 23, 2009 - 12:53 PM
      charles, are you confusing determinism for causation? determinism is a subset of causation, saying that given the same antecedents, the same results must occur, while causation includes inherent randomness.
  • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

    Mon, February 23, 2009 - 12:11 AM
    the problem lies in figuring out whether the failure to definitely prove determinism reflects an ontic reality or epistemic limitation. it does seem that in almost all cases, the more we learn, the more determined a picture emerges. and that is very intriguing.
    • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

      Mon, February 23, 2009 - 2:24 AM
      bl: the more determined a picture emerges.

      I would say that a fair amount of that is researcher bias.
      • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

        Mon, February 23, 2009 - 11:53 AM
        Swarm, if you focus on the bias you refer to, don't you see this bias (a tendency to see, infer or act in a predefined way) as a characteristic derived from accumulated effects of previous experience? And at any particular moment wouldn't an input presented to this bias act as mechanically as a ball bouncing off a wall?
        • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

          Mon, February 23, 2009 - 12:49 PM
          clever point, but it's arguable that the brain is a device bent on function, not accuracy. our brain could be selected to view the world in a determined fashion, because it largely works for us (varieties may be subtle), not because it accurately reflects what's going on. evolutionary epistemology does suggest, however, that the world must be consistent and predictable enough to model deterministically and remain effective in many cases. however, a probabilistic model could just as well account for this success in many cases. determinism is a very very very strong claim, and that is its achilles' heel.
        • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

          Tue, February 24, 2009 - 2:55 AM
          The bias is hard to miss. Science requires that something be measurable and replicable before it can be studied effectively. Scientists also tend to be methodical and favor reasonable explanations. Anything which goes against this is a problem even when it produces inarguable results like quantum physics.

          Determinism fits the mindset just like behaviorism fit the mindset, even though both fail to describe reality as it confronts us.

          There is a ghost in the machine. Me, you, each of us. THe bias ignores the accumulated effects of previous experience. Every time you hit the cue ball you are violating a law of motion.
          • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

            Tue, February 24, 2009 - 6:16 PM
            science deals with indeterminacy, stochastic modeling, etc. all the time. i used to think that it was totally limited to replicable/reproducible phenomena, but that's kind of silly, in that scientists call out data that's irreplicable all the time. if they throw it out, they are being shitheads and bad scientists. i used to say that science only deals with such things, but i see no reason to say this anymore. at least the culture of science is human and an talk about whatever the hell it wants! if something is idiosyncratic and irreplicable, than it's ideosyncratic and irreplicable. according to everyone, including scientists.


            "There is a ghost in the machine."

            oh yeah? come over here and i bet i can get your ghost to do all kinds of shit by poking you. you're confusing the private with the ghostly. perception is a series of chain events, and some events don't start outside of our bodies. that doesn't mean they aren't physical if you really really think about, the notion that everything is physical works just fine.
            • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

              Tue, February 24, 2009 - 8:16 PM
              bl: science deals with indeterminacy, stochastic modeling, etc. all the time.

              Sure, asl long as there is something that can be measured to some degree and replicated within reason.

              But things which cannot be measured or replicated can't be studied scientifically. Luckily there don't seem to be a lot of those things happening at the macro level.

              Scientists throw out outliers all the time. In theory one should try to understand why an outlier occured, but in practice they are labled "experimentor error" and discarded. Its only if they crop up with regularity that people take notice.

              Even when just one of those two is missing it can generate a huge bias against research. The finding of neutrinos is a good case study of the issues faced by things which aren't easily measurable. The history of cold fusion is a good study of the problems faced when something isn't easily replicable.
              • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                Wed, February 25, 2009 - 11:17 AM
                respectfully, i've seen great variety in this regard, and the picture is not as simple as you present. some studies do a fair job of respecting the variety of data while still pointing out trends, while others are grandiose. even if "science" were pure methodologically, finding people performing it improperly wouldn't be a surprise. the world's a mess.
          • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

            Thu, February 26, 2009 - 12:45 AM
            Swarm, science measures what it can - nothing more. Even when you take a crown jewel of theoretical physics like QED, Feynman, who was responsible for much of the primary research and subsequent verification of this jewel, always had misgivings because even though what he came up with was extraordinarily accurate, his results could never be mathematically proven - something was missing, and both he and Dirac, another very smart guy, felt pretty much the same way.

            Dirac's criticism was the most persistent. As late as 1975, he was saying:

            "Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it any more.' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!"

            Another important critic was Feynman himself. Despite his crucial role in the development of quantum electrodynamics, he wrote the following in 1985:

            "The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."

            It's not my intent to turn this into a physics discussion, but to state that revered science never comes up with ultimate answers. All answers are moving targets. Quantum physics does NOT produce 'inarguable results'.

            Your 'ghost in the machine' will always remain, and yes, it is an integral part of us all. It seems, though, you endow the ghost with a type of intelligence, almost a type of autonomy - one that possesses power, the power to do, the power to in some way assert influence over an outcome. And, I would say that well in excess of 90% of the population leans in this direction in one way or another. People interpret for themselves the power of the ghost differently. Personally I don't see the ghost as having any power to intelligently direct an outcome, though it may and likely does influence the behavior of us all.

            Yet, and I think we've been through this before, when we start speaking of the ghost and what it's capable of, we enter the realm of belief. And, of course, my belief is no better than yours, and we both, with a little help from google, could come up with some very convincing arguments to support our individual points of view.
            • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

              Fri, February 27, 2009 - 12:24 PM
              It's two thousand fucking nine. Are we really still taking this "ghost in the machine" bullshit seriously? Whatever we make of quantum mechanics, the brain is so far as we know a causal system. It responds when you poke it in fairly predictable ways. There is no pixie dust in the synapses.
              • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                Fri, February 27, 2009 - 4:27 PM
                I don't think if the term 'the ghost in the machine' was meant to be taken literally. At least, I didn't take it that way. I saw it as more of a way to give a name to the myriad of influences that are beyond the threshold of our awareness and that of our instrumentation. Whether you call this a ghost or hidden variables or influences from dimensions beyond the scope our awareness is not an issue to me as much as the one concerning how we personally relate to the factors outside of the realm of measurement and experience - because they're there, and people tend to overlay vastly different sets of reasoning as to why and how these unseen influences affect us.

                While I agree with you in that the brain is a causal system - being 'fairly predictable' just doesn't seem to cut it, and this maybe is what we are having this conversation.
              • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                Fri, February 27, 2009 - 9:30 PM
                Software is the ghost in your computer.
                Mind is the ghost in your brain.
                • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                  Mon, March 2, 2009 - 7:04 PM
                  I've never been fond of making the leap from 'software and hardware' to 'mind and brain'. As a crude generalization it almost makes sense, until you begin to analyze it. I mean software really is just a bunch of on/off switches being locked into place, sort of like lock and load, and let it rip down the rail - there's no gray area - it does what it's been friggin' told to do. The model of computer as brain is a dead metaphor, it had some explanatory power maybe in the 1950s with coming of age of artificial intelligence, and it had become a buzz term by the time it peaked in the 80s. But I think we're well past that now, wouldn't you say?

                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                    Tue, March 3, 2009 - 9:57 AM
                    I agree, Charles. The software/hardware metaphor of cognition can work as a shorthand to communicate certain specific points but it crumbles quickly under critical analysis. The brain forms representations by making tiny changes in its physical architecture so it doesn't exhibit a software/hardware distinction, at least in the same way a desktop computer does.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                    Tue, March 3, 2009 - 7:18 PM
                    ch: I mean software really is just a bunch of on/off switches being locked into place,

                    No more or less than neurons are just firing rates.

                    ch: wouldn't you say?

                    No, I'd say the ANS people still have some pretty useful models.
                    • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                      Wed, March 4, 2009 - 3:01 AM
                      "No more or less than neurons are just firing rates."

                      A neuron in one's brain is much more than firing rates. Crude instrumentation may be able to isolate a discharge on a gross level, but I'd propose that this is the tip of an iceberg. Each neuron is a world unto itself. A single neuron may have ten thousand or more connections to other neurons, each connection continually in the process of transformation, some building themselves, others in the process of shrinkage. New tendrils regularly emerge and mysteriously snake their way, making connections to new points. There's much more going on than the firing rates you mention. A computer, whether you consider it being composed of hardware, software, firmware - however you want to characterize it , is an entity composed of fixed physical components, even down to the bits of its memory. You're correct, in that at the grossest level, a neuron transmits electrical energy at a specific frequency, but this is where the similarities end.

                      "ANS people still have some pretty useful models."

                      Maybe you could give a description of some models you find useful.
                      • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                        Wed, March 4, 2009 - 11:46 PM
                        RNNs seem interesting, an example article: www.hindawi.com/GetArticle.aspx

                        This seems pretty interesting as well: portal.acm.org/citation.cfm
                        • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                          Fri, March 6, 2009 - 1:14 AM
                          Swarm, I went through the material, and I think I see a little more where you are coming from. There have been a lot of studies mimicking various functions of the brain and nervous system, and I guess that a great deal of technology we find ourselves immersed in performs far better on specific tasks than we could without it. And, without a doubt, advances will continue to push the envelope.

                          Science has certainly shown the ability to isolate specific neural functions and in many cases go far beyond the capabilities of we as individuals. I'm skeptical, though, as to how far AI will be able to go, but this might just be the preponderance of a belief I'm not able to let go of.
                        • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                          Fri, March 6, 2009 - 9:18 AM
                          Neural nets are great. Would you suggest though that there is some kind of argument against determinism to be found in connectionist AI, and if so, how does that argument go?
                          • ghostbusting the ghost in the machine

                            Sat, March 7, 2009 - 11:25 PM
                            what is thought? it seems like most of the time it's simulated conversation. we're speaking without taking the signals all the way to the mouth. we're listening to ourselves. or, we are enjoying imagined percepts like pictures or sounds, in the absence of external stimuli.

                            we are also easily confused by representation, like an audience caught in the spell of a puppet show. but the puppets of words really DO have puppeteers, they really are physical entities. i once was confused by this myself, thinking the persistence of meaning was the key to our freewill - that meaning wasn't subject to causation in the same way as other physical objects. i was wrong, but i still think it's an intriguing concept and can't blame anyone else for falling for it.

                            so where is the ghost? i think in part it is also how we talk about the private sphere of subjectivity. what is private is also not subject to the same kind of perception have of other stimuli, and that gives it a unique flavor.
                            • Re: ghostbusting the ghost in the machine

                              Mon, March 9, 2009 - 7:02 PM
                              bl: what is thought?

                              Neural activity.

                              bl: it seems like most of the time it's simulated conversation

                              That is just what is the most easily noticed.

                              bl: so where is the ghost?

                              What kind of ghost would it be if you could put your finger on it?

                              How does neural activity become talking to yourself?
      • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

        Mon, February 23, 2009 - 12:45 PM
        it may be that the determinist bias is itself an instance of cognitive miserliness - a functional attempt to build oversimplistic models in order to save energy. my sense though, is that many phenomena are largely deterministic, fogged by the limits of our epistemology and the fact that determinism as an overarching proposition is fundamentally unprovable. the determinist claim is too all-inclusive -- we can't set up the exact same antecedents twice, and so we must use inductive reasoning to support determinism, but inductive reasoning itself is built upon probabilities, and so we are left in an impossible methodological position. determinism must therefore be no one's ideology.

        CAUSATION itself, whether determined or not, has a much tighter case, and in of itself presents a killing blow to free will as it's normally defined. we certainly cause things, but it seems impossible to defend the proposition that we are not ourselves subject to causes, whether they are determined or not.

        the libertarian needs to model a means for a "will" in the brain to fix an indeterminate stream in one direction over another. it's not enough to paint an indeterminate reality, since that would amount to our behavior being randomish. and they are also left the impossible task of resolving the parallel and modular architecture of the brain - including executive functions - into a single causal story that makes sense with what we know about decision-making, which is that tons of it is happening under the table of consciousness. the free will libertarian is hence lost.
        • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

          Tue, February 24, 2009 - 12:15 AM
          Blue - Agreed that “the brain is a device bent on function, not accuracy … not because it accurately reflects what's going on” – though function and accuracy have incrementally less of an effect on dynamics as the levels become increasingly elementary.

          The brain is always a perfect multidimensional representation of what’s happening within the confines of our now-current definition of its physical domain. And this holds true across the multitude of ways we end up defining its function - whether it be as a complete and comprehensive unit privy to characteristics you mention such as function or accuracy, discrete anatomical subcomponents such as lobes and quadrants, cellular units composing these subcomponents, molecules making up the cells, atomic units representing elements of the molecules, subatomic derivatives defining the atoms, or whether you want to go so far as to say these subatomic constituents are wave resonances, or if you really want to go out on the edge - even interacting dimensional momentums and transformations.

          It’s not so important which level we end up basing our analysis upon because this fleeting location of momentary permanence is quite the moving target, a target too easily and frequently erroneously considered as being one of choice, yet such a landing strip is always just beyond our capability to choose, even though it might and frequently does appear otherwise. The coordinates of any strip we can make out are dictated for us well in advance – even though we don’t have access to the incoming information, but it’s on its way. Just as the flow of your mind at this very moment, devoid of any intended direction, is parsing my words and likely you are already beginning to form a response to what I’ve written. You aren’t choosing this response – far from it. As far as you’re concerned, it’s magically appearing. Do you think there’s something random about the way your thoughts are maturing right now? Random, maybe, in the sense that you’re not in control of the process nor are you aware of all the influences, but this is not really to say it’s randomness; it’s just ignorance, and not just your ignorance I might add, but ignorance of us all. It’s being human, which as far as our awareness is concerned, is being privy only to a rather limited spectrum of information at any given time.

          You mention predictability, and the response you’re generating is predictable for you and only you at this moment in time (and I’m not intending this statement in any way as a judgment); you couldn’t be generating anything other than what is appearing for you in your ongoing perpetual now. Probability doesn’t even enter into this picture other than from the perspective of its being required, and rightly so, for generating experimental results, which to some degree will always be flawed because, as I’ve mentioned, they will never be able to characterize all the details required to portray the complete picture.

          Now whether you want to call our incomplete picture determinism or the result of causation is a subtlety and both definitions are really wrong, but even so, I don’t think we’re defining these terms in the same way. I don’t see causation in its naked infinitude as including randomness. Randomness, maybe because we are unable to isolate and adequately characterize variables beyond the scope of our or our instruments’ sensitivities, but this is a moot point, though it does define the entry point for what our minds generally snap-to as being random, and it is this defect, or evolutionary trait if you like, that provides the hairline crack, the tiny gap just big enough for people who promote free will and its permutations to dig in their fingernails. Though, give ‘em a manicure and they’ll generally just float off into space somewhere - you don’t keep an eye on them there nails and you’ll end up paying dearly.
          • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

            Tue, February 24, 2009 - 12:49 AM

            Charles, in the part where you mentioned "it’s magically appearing" as much as our perspectives seem to be from different dimensions/planets or whatever you want to lay as the contrast, I want to share an experience in my own consciousness exploration that correlates with what you just said.

            Through the meditative practices, I've developed a certain stream of consciousness that is always consciousness even during dream states, and the very vivid vision states (which I know you are familiar with as your "vacation spots") I've noticed that there is a natural flow that everything takes. I found that I could interrupt the flow during these visions and ream states, but doing so, I began to feel disoriented, a patches of the reality began to disappear kind of like in the matrix movie. I wanted to explore this "auto pilot" state during waking states.... and somehow recently I managed to step back and leave the autopilot program just run through my waking state... I ended up randomly driving to a coffee shop, met a girl, she invited me to go drinking at a local bar with her... at the bar I met all sorts of people, and I watched myself make full blow conversations... I remained in awe of what I was speaking, as if watching a movie. I felt the words I was witnessing myself speak were both very much out of the context of how I usually am, yet they seemed to match each person I was speaking too. For example, one guy asked me what was the most recent movie you saw that you enjoyed... and I began describing in great detail why I found this funny movie very entertaining to the point that my eyes teared, but that's not really why I liked it... then I went on in detail describing the character transformations and what kind of effect the movie left me with... it turns out the guy was a movie director. Like this with each person that I spoke with, the conversation was totally out of my own context, though it seemed to really match the other person. The whole evening was an interesting experiment... it was quiet an interesting experience to literally witness my waking state on auto pilot just like a dream. I knew that at each moment I could take over, but I didn't as there wasn't much risk of screwing up since I wasn't in the office or anything.

            Many times I've had various means of experiencing a kind of "Flow" consciousness, it appears to be in alignment with the environment outside... kind of like surfing the waves as they come without really having any intention of my own.
        • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

          Tue, February 24, 2009 - 2:57 AM
          bl: CAUSATION itself, whether determined or not, has a much tighter case, and in of itself presents a killing blow to free will as it's normally defined.

          Causation which fails to account for the fact of our agency is incomplete. The facts trump the theory, not vis versa.
          • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

            Tue, February 24, 2009 - 6:19 PM
            let me be clear here. people make choices. those choices can be uncoerced by others, well thought out, reasoned, logical, intelligent, serve the intended interests, and brilliant, and still be said to have causes upstream. they are not "free" in some bizarre alienated manner, but free in maybe some other senses, if you like. i personally no likey the compatibilist line, because it comes off as inauthentic to me, but we sure as hell do make choices, and have agency, and cause things, even if it were a fully determined universe.
            • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

              Tue, February 24, 2009 - 7:51 PM
              bl: we sure as hell do make choices, and have agency, and cause things, even if it were a fully determined universe

              The two are not compatable.

              If it is *fully* deterministic then there are no choices being made. Every "choice" is actually predetermined by the action of an extermal force.
              • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                Wed, February 25, 2009 - 12:15 PM
                that's why i'm not a libertarian. causation and "free will" as it's normally defined are not compatible, let alone determinism.

                i do allow for a phenomenology of choice-making, argumentation, and the like in a causal universe though, even though they are not free. the phenomenon of choice-making does obviously occur. whether it is illusorily free or not is the question repositioned, and much evidence supports that it is, in fact, illusory, at least most of the time. there does not appear to be a singular locus in the mind/brain that could be candidate for the free agency taken for granted. modular, parallel -- actually architected for self-deception!!! that is what we're dealing with here.

                now, look at this case: say i am trying to decide a long-term course of action, whether or not i want to go back to school and earn a PhD. well, i could talk to my close friends, model the costs and benefits, look at my financial situation, represent the arguments logically using a game tree and symbolic logic, build predictions based on what the PhD would mean in my life, and then decide after weighing all those factors. i see no reason to believe that all those processes were not caused, yet an ostensible choice was made. this is what i mean. i don't consider myself a compatibilist, so i do not say we have free will in a causal universe, only that we make ostensible choices, some better than other, and some using more intelligent methods than others.

                i get by with a little help from my friends, yeah
                • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                  Wed, February 25, 2009 - 6:05 PM
                  Choice being a distributed effect is not a problem.

                  Your determinism doesn't seem very deterministic which makes your stridency for determinism seem misplaced, even dogmatic.

                  Its like you want some thing in charge but can't quite swallow gods.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                    Wed, February 25, 2009 - 6:28 PM
                    why do you think i'm strident for determinism? have you not witnessed my transformation in this regard, and been reading carefully what i write?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                    Wed, February 25, 2009 - 6:51 PM
                    swarm, do you think indeterminate phenomena are caused? it seems to me that fundamentally indeterminate phenomena, as in TRULY random phenomena such as might be the case with some subatomic behaviors, are caused, but that the difference between, say, outcome B and outcome C at T2 is truly random. that is NOT the same as saying that B or C is UNCAUSED. so indeterminacy, even if it IS fundamental and not epistemic, still involves causation. and so here we go: if we're libertarians, we now need a model, where such inherent indeterminacy permits directed causation -- but wait, that becomes deterministic then, doesn't it? the position seems to me to be nonsensical. seeing robert kane and quantum brain voodoo practitioners try to solve this conundrum is like watching a magician fail.

                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robe...ilosopher)

                    psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/53/9/1185

                    www.quantumconsciousness.org/pen...html


                    the idea that there is a "will" that fixes otherwise indeterminate events through causation without itself being caused by anything is absurd. is this your belief? and your argument is that it "feels that way"? i can explain the phenomenology better than the notion that it accurately reflects what's going on in a variety of ways.
                    • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                      Fri, February 27, 2009 - 5:19 AM
                      bl: do you think indeterminate phenomena are caused?

                      The point of inderterminant is it is not determinable.

                      bl: if we're libertarians

                      we aren't
                      • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                        Sat, March 7, 2009 - 11:04 PM
                        "bl: do you think indeterminate phenomena are caused?

                        The point of inderterminant is it is not determinable."


                        no, indeterminacy means that given the same set of preconditions more than one outcome is possible. looking back, we still have a causal story that makes sense, since possibilities are still constrained under indeterminacy, and even if more than one outcome is possible, the outcome may still rely on the precedent. therefore, even in indeterminacy, we have causation, we just don't have determinism. don't get mad at me if that doesn't make sense; that's the deal with indeterminacy.
                        • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                          Tue, March 10, 2009 - 6:16 PM
                          bl: given the same set of preconditions more than one outcome is possible.

                          Sure if we are limiting ourselves to just forward indeterminacy.

                          There is backward indeterminacy as well.

                          There are multiple possible determinations and there is inability to arrive at a determination.

                          Also you can't assume that you have a causal story that makes sense.
                          • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                            Tue, March 10, 2009 - 10:31 PM
                            i don't understand backward indeterminacy. what do you mean by this? do you have any illustrative examples?
                            • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                              Wed, March 11, 2009 - 4:27 AM
                              The photon hitting your eye. Where did it originally come from?
                              • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                Wed, March 11, 2009 - 2:51 PM
                                Swarm, that photon may be inbound from a past somewhere else, but for an observer, the perceived instantaneous effect is always in a person's present. We as observers don't have real-time access to events in our futures and pasts; they're simply outside the sphere of our awareness, and really, when you think about it, at any given time we're receiving a sliver of a sliver of a vast array of determined events, though I'd dare to say you'd disagree with this. Whether an event originated in someone else's past or future is irrelevant with respect to our personal interpretation of the present.
                                • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                  Thu, March 12, 2009 - 2:00 AM
                                  If you are unable to fully determin events either past, present or future, why do you think the universe is deterministic?
                                  • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                    Thu, March 12, 2009 - 3:42 PM
                                    swarm, determinism is a fish in a barrel, at least to me, now. causation is not. you are starting to sound like indeterminate = uncaused, a radical claim. if you sincerely believe this, then please put some meat on the bone. what are you trying to say about causation generally here? this is what i'm hearing: we cannot either predict or prove in retrospect an absolute determined chain of events, and so determinism is without sufficient evidence to be made a strong claim. i agree. but what do you make of causation then, if the above is true?
                                    • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                      Thu, March 12, 2009 - 6:46 PM
                                      bl: you are starting to sound like indeterminate = uncaused, a radical claim.

                                      No. That would not be indeterminate. But I am objecting to you sounding like indeterminate = caused, an equally radical claim.

                                      Hard causation requires information which we not only don't have, it can't be obtained. There are definitely aspects of reality which behave in ways we discuss as causal, but to extrapolate from there that everything is bound to hard causality in the face of contravening evidence is not supportable.
                                      • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                        Thu, March 12, 2009 - 7:49 PM
                                        i disagree with your characterization of causation. if an event requires a preceding event to have occurred in a particular manner to occur, it was caused by that event. say particle B can go to location B1 or B2 after being hit by particle A. which location is indeterminate, but moving to a location at all, a resulting movement, IS caused by A's action. the DIFFERENCE between B1 or B2 is NOT caused, otherwise, it would be determinism, but nevertheless, A caused B to move to B1 or B2. consider the alternative and answer, why would B move at all, if not for a cause?

                                        causation is also how we simply talk about the continuity of matter through time -- the idea that there are absolutely discrete entities and events is untenable, and causation is one way we acknowledge that.

                                  • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                    Thu, March 12, 2009 - 6:00 PM
                                    Swarm, it's not really that events are indeterminable, it's that they're currently indeterminable by us. Of course, this really doesn't get us anywhere; I realize that much.

                                    As I've previously stated, and as was brilliantly alluded to by Od, my current take on the situation is that because neither point of view can be proved or disproved at the current time, the perspectives we find ourselves holding are but the unveiling of our individual belief structures, which at least from my POV, are beyond our capabilities of control.

                                    We'll have to put together a thread on 'past, present and future'. I guess this statement, being a precursor to the thread, could be said to be part of the thread to be's future. But when someone initiates the thread, it will have fallen into the past.
                                    • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                      Thu, March 12, 2009 - 6:25 PM
                                      "Swarm, it's not really that events are indeterminable, it's that they're currently indeterminable by us."

                                      how can you substantiate such a claim? how to differentiate between epistemic and ontic indeterminacy? is this not the challenge that quantum physics presents?

                                      i have some suggestions, but they don't amount to a knock down argument. first, many phenomena do appear to be more deterministic the more we learn about them. insofar as this is true, this is indicative of an epistemic limit. unfortunately for the determinist, the reality of experience is quite indeterminate, like it or not. we can't repeat the same sequences ever, so determinism is unprovable on that basis alone, though we can approximate the same sequence certainly.

                                      charles, i feel you you keep mistaking determinism for causation (as does swarm, actually, from the other side of the argument). you seem to believe that if everything has a cause, then everything must be deterministic, but this is not the definition of determinism. determinism is far stricter.
                                      • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                        Fri, March 13, 2009 - 12:39 AM
                                        "how can you substantiate such a claim?"

                                        I think I made it quite clear that I couldn't substantiate the claim, and I went further, stating that this perspective was based upon belief. To put it bluntly, I can't scientifically substantiate the claim, though this certainly doesn't negate the possibility of it being true... or possibly being true.

                                        Well, there are numerous versions of quantum theory, many of them put forth by respected scientists that are diametrically opposed to one another. It would be helpful if you could narrow down your statement - maybe provide an example.

                                        "unfortunately for the determinist, the reality of experience is quite indeterminate" I don't necessarily agree with this statement. The reality of the experience from what perspective? Through what filter? Is there a reality for any experience, even for a single individual? I agree with you that nothing is ever the same, close maybe, filtering in through the coarseness of our senses, but certainly never identical.

                                        "charles, i feel you you keep mistaking determinism for causation (as does swarm, actually, from the other side of the argument)."

                                        You may be correct yet the definitions for determinism and causation are frequently one and the same. I think we've come up against this one before. Maybe you could clarity your definition, and specify the context in which you are applying it.


                                        • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                          Fri, March 13, 2009 - 7:43 PM
                                          ch: there are numerous versions of quantum theory

                                          Are you sure you aren't thinking of string theory from a few years ago?
                                          • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                            Sat, March 14, 2009 - 12:30 AM
                                            ""Are you sure you aren't thinking of string theory from a few years ago?"

                                            Has it really been that long? Wow, time does fly.

                                            I've never been a strong proponent of string theory - possibly because I don't have an understanding beyond some of the most basic concepts.

                                            I've surveyed quantum theory for some time now, and the deeper I get into it, the more I find good questions raised by sharp people, many of them good thinkers. Originally I had the preconceived notion that quantum theory was a clearly defined set of rules, but as I delved deeper I found that at most every juncture in what I thought was more-or-less a fixed theory, was really a patchwork of ideas from many different people with very different points of view. Possibly the most profound idea for me has been seeing what is generally taken as the particulate world even at the subatomic level might not really be material objects, but soliton matter wave continuum. The seeds of such an idea were originally sewn Louis de Broglie and the idea evolved through the work of people like Schrodinger, Everett, Bolm, Wheeler, Feynman, Cohn, Penrose, van der Mark and others.

                                            At least for me - the concept of determinism is more easily understood when viewing the universe as a multidimensional wave continuum rather than being segregated into distinct particulate entities, which at least how I now see it, is better suited to a more non-deterministic point of view. By framing energy as being particulate masses, the intricacies of the the continuum evaporate, and things like randomness, uncertainty, spooky action begin to creep into the picture, and riding in upon these ideas a concept like free will can find fertile ground, grow and propagate - worse than a damn virus.

                                            One of the reasons for this is that many people find it difficult to visualize an intersecting continuum of three dimensional spherical waves, and find it even more difficult to see various portions of such a process occurring in a three dimensional matrix revolving in different directions and at different angles.

                                            I've not had such a thought before until just now, but maybe the small percentage of people ( possibly around three percent) that tend to relate to the process of life as being deterministic are doing so because of the configuration of their neural circuitry. I'm certainly not making a statement of fact here, but in any event, it's something to consider. Maybe some nasty little gene that never quite got snuffed out of the gene pool is responsible for the relatively small group of like-minded determinists currently alive. It might just be a matter of time until survival of the fittest completely extinguishes them.
                                            • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                              Sat, March 14, 2009 - 5:46 AM
                                              >>Maybe some nasty little gene that never quite got snuffed out of the gene pool is responsible for the relatively small group of like-minded determinists currently alive....<<

                                              ...or maybe not.

                                              tribes.tribe.net/2012the-e...4492d7943a
                                              • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                                Sun, March 15, 2009 - 10:32 PM
                                                this thread is mumbo jumbo crap. epigenetics and developmental effects on genes have been acknowledged by mainstream geneticists, behavioral geneticists, biologists, et al for fucking decades. shove that 2012 garbage back in its ass where the shit came from.
                                              • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                                Mon, March 16, 2009 - 9:31 PM
                                                maybe 'where the mind and matter meet" is better described as, the mind is material? i could literally populate volumes supporting the physicality of the mind. there is no sense whatsoever that it is not physical. it has limits, it is made of components that can be poked, it takes time, if you injure the brain, you injure the mind - ALWAYS. no exceptions at all, ever. if the mind is not the brain experiencing itself, then it sure as hell is doing a great job faking it, like some sycophantic sidekick.

                                                positive and negative thoughts can affect the expression of genes, eh? well, put in a less horseshit new age 2012 fucktard context, you could find some interesting connections between things like stress hormones and epigenetic signals. stress hormones (cortisol, epinephrine, etc.) actually affect the development of a fetus in a heritable way. so for all of you who know mommies-to-be, make sure they are not stressed out as best you can!! not sure whether they actually affect development via the genome though. could be upstream.

                                                the assumption here is of course that we have this Self that if only it read the right books and believed hard enough could transform the very fabric of reality by directing warm fuzzies and intentions outward, manifesting the dream world. this is the model that i keep hearing, and it mixes some really grounded stuff about the power of positive thinking in with an absolutely insane hypersubjectivity faux empowerment that i think is criminally negligent, similar to how karma is used to blame people for their lives. the new age hypersubjectivist is also left with having to answer the argument: well, why do people choose shit then? the answer: because they haven't woken up yet to choice. well, why have they not woken up to choice, if the will is free? past life. bad salsa. i don't know, leave me along, i'm meditating...
                                                • why do people choose shit then?

                                                  Tue, March 17, 2009 - 9:40 AM
                                                  Well, my shit smells good you know, it's attractive. Your shit on the other hand, why would anybody...

                                                  Isn't this one way that people seem to act? Or the flip side even; why can't my shit smell as good as theirs must smell.

                                                  Samsara's pleasures are attractive my friend. So many places to see over there, and look at that body over there, I wish I had that body. You know, we get stuck sometimes marveling at all the illusory phenomena of this life yet do we ever find it here, now, in our own heart? So we make incorrect assumptions about the nature of things and then make bad choices and the cycle perpetuates, time after time, in this life and the next until we choose differently.

                                                  My own beliefs require just as much faith as that quote you provided about determinism and yet my experience has shown me that it is not misplaced. I have increasing faith!

                                                  Why?

                                                  Shrug, the Guru said; "Just try."

                                                  And it worked.

                                                  Perhaps this is all in the mind as you say but I don't think you will find faith among all the various parts of the brain or the biochemical exchanges therein. So I ask if faith is a function of mind, and cannot be found among its parts, then isn't the mind much more than the sum of it's parts? Aren't we all much more than the sum of or 'selves'?

                                                  The Guru also says this is ALL arising to mind as if a dream, that ultimately we should treat it no differently, and that this is called waking up.
                                                  • Re: why do people choose shit then?

                                                    Tue, March 17, 2009 - 10:58 AM
                                                    "Perhaps this is all in the mind as you say but I don't think you will find faith among all the various parts of the brain or the biochemical exchanges therein. So I ask if faith is a function of mind, and cannot be found among its parts, then isn't the mind much more than the sum of it's parts?"

                                                    Are you saying you don't think faith is a neurological phenomenon? If so, why do you think this?

                                                    You might say that "mind is more than the sum of its parts" in the sense that there are emergent properties in the brain, that is to say, systems-level properties, or properties of neural networks that are not properties of individual neurons. On the other hand, this kind of emergence is perfectly ordinary. Being "drivable" is a property of a functioning car but it is not a property of the engine, or the transmission, or the gas tank, on their own.
                                                    • Not at all. Faith is entirely a function of the mind. Everything we perceive is a function of the mind to process the awareness of the senses. Faith is more than a function of the mind however, just as we say that love is more than a function of the mind, it is a process whereby we can transform perceptions and thoughts into actions and thus we have Karma - where the rubber meets the road - and in my experience this is not always dependent upon a completely functioning brain or body. For instance we can transform our lives and the lives of others, by merely wishing love, it changes the dynamic and creates a virtuous cycle of feedback between self and other. If we believe this we can say we have faith in it, and we try it our self, and seeing positive results over time our faith increases, our mind changes and we change the mind of others. How do you isolate the biochemical reaction and say that faith or love happens in dependence upon that when really there is no boundary between one and the other but rather it is a process that functions to increase our faith or decrease it. There is a lot of discouragement in this kind of system-level approach as you say but I say try, just try!
                                                      • I realize that it may seem a contradiction to say that faith is entirely a function of the mind and then to say it is more than a function of the mind. So, we have form and function and in this system-level approach we are discussing it is an aspect of mind that functions to produce a desired effect. It is also not a contradiction when viewed from the perspective of ultimate reality, emptiness, rather than conventional reality which is where most people get stuck with this concept.

                                                        • From Meditation/Transformation perspective, Faith is the first step in a 5 step systematic path for reaching Self Realization.

                                                          1: Shradha (Faith) 2: Virya (Conviction) 3: Smriti (Remembrance) 4: Samadhi (Buddha Nature) 5: Prajna (Supreme Knowledge)

                                                          On this URL www.swamij.com/meditationtypes.htm It is written out as follows:

                                                          Five companion practices
                                                          Shradha Meditation on faith or cultivating the certain feeling of following the path with conviction. (Shradha and the 4 which follow are 5 companion practices, including Virya, Smriti, Samadhi, and Prajna.)
                                                          Virya Meditation on strength, energy, or conviction to follow the spiritual life and do the practices of meditation.
                                                          Smriti Meditation on memory of the feeling associated with previous attainments in meditation or spiritual practice.
                                                          Samadhi Meditation on the nature of the state of samadhi.
                                                          Prajna Meditation on the supreme knowledge arising from the practices of meditation and samadhi.


                                                          Faith in my perspective is just another method. Every "method" is a very specific procedure to follow that enables transformation/realization. The only difference from these processes vs others is that you will not be the same at the end of the practice. It's like going through death and being reborn in a way where there is no longer any going back... no foot, string, or hold is held to where you started from.

                                                        • "It is also not a contradiction when viewed from the perspective of ultimate reality, emptiness, rather than conventional reality which is where most people get stuck with this concept"

                                                          infinity can only be perceived via the finite. when people confuse this, they start to believe in things that aren't real.
                                                          • blue, I'm with you on this one. There's no more ultimate reality at this moment for anyone reading this than staring at their monitor and soaking up the information on their screen. There are NO specific methods for anyone to get realization. There are beliefs, beliefs that can be transferred, yet these are beliefs and in themselves mean nothing - other than solidifying bits of information in memory.

                                                            Meditation has been accepted and promoted as being a method of achieving higher states, realization, or a oneness with god, etc., when really it is no more than techniques to implement degrees of motor control which may actually have an effect on the brain. And in being exposed to, learning and utilizing these techniques one can physically change one's neural circuitry and consequently noticeably transform one's state - at least it will appear to be transformed to the new being that views it. Of course, even the viewing changes it so you're never really looking at what you thought you were. But that's another story.

                                                            This is certainly not to say that meditation doesn't have its place, and that one won't *perceive* value from it's practice. But there's nothing mystical or secret or sacred about the practice. Such categorizations are all too frequently adopted as being a type of a buffer, giving an acceptable reason as to why one has the need to compensate, withdraw from what is directly before them, and more often than not meditation becomes a safe house where people can travel to other realms of psychedelic imaginings. Simply, it becomes a way to withdraw, and the deeper the withdrawal, the more fervently one will speak about things like god, spirituality, samadhi and the more they will promote the practice, its specificity and benefits. Meditation becomes a psychic compensation mechanism, no different than getting drunk or stoned or overly emotional, and it comes complete with a pre-made support structure that has been crafted, documented and transferred for millennium. So, I guess you could say it's safe and effective - but it does have side effects, with the possibility of causing irreversible neural transformation - haha.

                                                            And just think, we're not even looking at it from a deterministic perspective - I guess this will have to be our next thread - "Meditation as being a Deterministic Process". That sounds like fun.

                                                            • Charles, you shared some interesting thoughts on meditation but in this medium its sometimes difficult to tell which parts are intended to be taken seriously and which are just tongue-in-cheek. Let me ask you about a few things.

                                                              "Meditation has been accepted and promoted as being a method of achieving higher states, realization, or a oneness with god, etc., when really it is no more than techniques to implement degrees of motor control which may actually have an effect on the brain."

                                                              When you speak of techniques to implement degrees of motor control I assume you're mainly speaking about breathing, but in many forms of meditation the breath is just a focal point for your conscious awareness, and the real work is the difficult task of getting the chattering mind to shut up so you can spend some time sensing rather than thinking. It's all about focus. So the motor activity may be important but it's only part of the story.

                                                              Why exactly do you object to people claiming that they have achieved realizations or higher states with meditation? Such things can be accomplished with marijuana, lsd, mdma, and a cupboard full of other substances, or just the natural workings of the brain on a particularly good day when ideas click into place and you have an "aha" moment - why not meditation also?

                                                              "Simply, it becomes a way to withdraw, and the deeper the withdrawal, the more fervently one will speak about things like god, spirituality, samadhi and the more they will promote the practice, its specificity and benefits."

                                                              I'm not sure this characterization is fair. Maybe meditation is a way to withdraw but that may be a good thing. Plenty of people meditate but do not believe in God, like Sam Harris, Stephen Batchelor and many Buddhists, especially in the Zen sect. In the west, secular Buddhism is a growing trend and secular psychologists like Jonathan Haidt recommend a regular meditation practice because it has been empirically proven to reduce depression and anxiety and increase happiness (it also physically increases the thickness of the cortex). I don't like to speak of "spirituality" because you can't get 2 people to agree on what the term means, but "samadhi" is just a sanskrit word referring to a particular mental state one can get to through meditative practices and I see no reason to fault meditators for developing a vocabulary to communicate about their experiences. Do you?

                                                              "Meditation becomes a psychic compensation mechanism, no different than getting drunk or stoned or overly emotional..."

                                                              Getting drunk or stoned on a regular basis usually has some negative consequences; they lead to measurably impaired functioning in most people. Meditation on the other hand tends to make people happier, more emotionally balanced, and more focused. I'm not aware of any documented impairment associated with meditation. Maybe it is in some sense a "compensation mechanism" but it's not obvious to me what is wrong with that, if it's effects are generally desirable and it doesn't have the unfortunate side effects of the drugs most people use to loosen en up.

                                                              Could it be that what you're really objecting to is the tendency of some sitters to describe their experience in supernatural terms?
                                                              • objecting to...the tendency of some sitters...

                                                                Fri, March 20, 2009 - 12:10 PM
                                                                I object, or more accurately, reject the notion that meditation is something one does while sitting or that some set of pre-conditions must occur to 'meditate' at all. Meditation can be as simple as holding a suitable object in our mind. I have found that virtuous objects such as the wish for all beings to find peace or happiness to be the most effective, and this can be done while walking, driving, or standing in the grocery queue. It's really quite simple; if you can maintain focus on this object, then there is not much room for other thoughts to occur, and this can lead to many beneficial actions. If you cannot maintain focus on this object then that is something to examine as well and may lead to many 'aha' moments. As with anything, practice and familiarity lead to improvement - a virtuous cycle is created - transformation from not-knowing to knowing occurs. To know is to believe.

                                                                • Michael,

                                                                  There are all sorts of meditations. Walking vipassana meditations, laying down meditaiton like Savashana, standing and sitting meditations. There are also meditations that are of the mind, often those are known to be the more advanced with regards to the highest knowledge (i.e. the knowledge where life and death have no separation, transcendent or "supreme" knowledge).

                                                                  In the very initial stages of meditation (according to Yogic systems), it begins outwardly by using posture. As it leads deeper in (once we realize that matter is of energy/mind) then it become internalized and those postures are postures of the mind. Patanjali has long been known as the farther of Raja Yoga, after him Sri Adi Sankaracarya wrote the Aparoksanubhuti (Intimate Experience of Reality) in which he clearly demonstrated that the inner mental realization is greater than the physical as the physical is transitory, and even practices like pranayama that allow an opening to happen are a process which drops after the body, while the mind realizations go deeper. Later years, Ramana Maharshi demonstrated Sankaracarya's point with profound simplicity in his "Who Am I?" writing where it's a simple inquiry in the mind at the core, no instruction for sitting or doing anything else. There are so many methods and procedures, so many esoteric paths. They seem almost limitless; what I see in common is that they all bring the practioner to a direct seeing/realization/transformation; it maybe that that seeing is "emptiness/nothingness" it maybe that seeing shows that "you never really knew anything in the first place"... but those words and paths which have stemmed from that seeing are only the mind's perception and not the realization itself. The realization itself has a value at the very core of the being, it fundamentally brings an end to those existential questions, because something is now clearly known and transcendent, though in words it can't be transferred. There have been millions of teachers in time to present day who also speak about how life continues after this seeing, how to life from it. For example, a recent book by Adyashanti (came out in 2008) titled "The End of Your World" also demonstrated the awakened life.

                                                                  Awakening from all that we are not.
                                                              • Voodoo, I think I was referring to something a little more subtle.

                                                                “When you speak of techniques to implement degrees of motor control I assume you're mainly speaking about breathing, but in many forms of meditation the breath is just a focal point for your conscious awareness, and the real work is the difficult task of getting the chattering mind to shut up so you can spend some time sensing rather than thinking. It's all about focus. So the motor activity may be important but it's only part of the story.”

                                                                I think the point I was trying to make was that motor control is the key. Awareness of breath IS motor control. Although the entire body’s musculature is involved, our awareness is focused primarily by subtle control of the muscles in the head, face and neck. Every thought you have is directed, with potential laser accuracy, by the muscles. Now, of course, the symphony of muscular control is reflected in the diaphragm, and some instructional methods weight the importance of the breath, and use this technique as an entry point. Other methods use other groups of muscles, yet all we really have control over is the musculature. Like, right now, certain groups of muscles are directing the information on your screen for processing. This is not to say that storms of activity are not taking place within your brain at this moment, just that any control you might affect over them (excluding the ingestion of substances) is the degree of your control over muscular movement.

                                                                “Why exactly do you object to people claiming that they have achieved realizations or higher states with meditation?”

                                                                By holding muscles in a specific configuration you direct energy to specific locations in your brain, and by doing so, you increase the blood flow there. You actually physically modify your brain’s vascular system and its functioning. A higher state relative to what? From what I’ve seen, people who claim to enter the highest of states are the ones that have forced themselves into the deepest states of imagination. It’s no big deal for an adept meditator to be able to focus energy in a way to short out their neural circuitry. And it is quite easy for people, once they’ve learned a few tricks, to create little safe houses of delusion. Now, if you want to call this a ‘higher state’ then fine. I see it as compensation and withdrawal. Now, I’m not making a judgment and saying that for a particular person, that following such a path is a bad thing. What I’m saying it’s just another way for people to deal with the whips and scorns of their environment. If you take it one step further, there’s possibly no control over the process anyway, but again, that’s another story.

                                                                “I don't like to speak of "spirituality" because you can't get 2 people to agree on what the term means”

                                                                I feel pretty much the same way about the term ‘consciousness’.

                                                                “Getting drunk or stoned on a regular basis usually has some negative consequences; they lead to measurably impaired functioning in most people. Meditation on the other hand tends to make people happier, more emotionally balanced, and more focused. I'm not aware of any documented impairment associated with meditation. Maybe it is in some sense a "compensation mechanism" but it's not obvious to me what is wrong with that”

                                                                I’ve had a consistent meditation practice for the better part of forty years. So, I guess I’d have to be pretty hypocritical to condemn it. Like with any tool, people will use and manipulate it to meet their particular needs, and frequently I see meditation, which is a simple and effective tool, being dramatically blown out of proportion with respect to its benefits, and I see many people (as I’ve said) that use it as a way of withdrawing from reality rather than facing it, and it becomes a crutch that begins to operate outside the realm of their control. And I’m not even judging this type of activity, because for whatever reason – that’s what a particular person must do to compensate - the same with alcohol or drugs.

                                                                • Charles,

                                                                  As a person having practiced meditation for 40 years, and having made so many references to pranayama; it's surprising to me that you consider pranayama just a relaxing of facial muscles and controlling the muscles related to breathing.

                                                                  Did it ever occur to you to study the scriptures about pranayama? It's about gaining awareness of the "pranic energy" to energize and control the mind. There are many different forms of pranayama having very specific practices such as the Nadishodhana Pranayama where you breath left nostril/hold/out right and repeat.

                                                                  Pranayama is one of the 8 steps in the Raja Yoga path which was originally written about by Patanjali. Of the recent Yogi Masters, Swami Vivekananda who is regarded as one of the greatest masters of Raja Yoga, around 1895 wrote 8 large volumes and various aspects of Yoga including Raja Yoga. Here is a URL reference to his description of Pranayama: www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vi...htm and I will also just quote the first two paragraphs, please note that this is Chapter III on prana, the next two chapters also deal with different aspects of Psychic Prana and Control of Prana "Prânâyâma is not, as many think, something about breath; breath indeed has very little to do with it, if anything. Breathing is only one of the many exercises through which we get to the real Pranayama. Pranayama means the control of Prâna. According to the philosophers of India, the whole universe is composed of two materials, one of which they call Âkâsha. It is the omnipresent, all-penetrating existence. Everything that has form, everything that is the result of combination, is evolved out of this Akasha. It is the Akasha that becomes the air, that becomes the liquids, that becomes the solids; it is the Akasha that becomes the sun, the earth, the moon, the stars, the comets; it is the Akasha that becomes the human body, the animal body, the plants, every form that we see, everything that can be sensed, everything that exists. It cannot be perceived; it is so subtle that it is beyond all ordinary perception; it can only be seen when it has become gross, has taken form. At the beginning of creation there is only this Akasha. At the end of the cycle the solids, the liquids, and the gases all melt into the Akasha again, and the next creation similarly proceeds out of this Akasha.

                                                                  By what power is this Akasha manufactured into this universe? By the power of Prana. Just as Akasha is the infinite, omnipresent material of this universe, so is this Prana the infinite, omnipresent manifesting power of this universe. At the beginning and at the end of a cycle everything becomes Akasha, and all the forces that are in the universe resolve back into the Prana; in the next cycle, out of this Prana is evolved everything that we call energy, everything that we call force. It is the Prana that is manifesting as motion; it is the Prana that is manifesting as gravitation, as magnetism. It is the Prana that is manifesting as the actions of the body, as the nerve currents, as thought force. From thought down to the lowest force, everything is but the manifestation of Prana. The sum total of all forces in the universe, mental or physical, when resolved back to their original state, is called Prana. "When there was neither aught nor naught, when darkness was covering darkness, what existed then? That Akasha existed without motion." The physical motion of the Prana was stopped, but it existed all the same...." read the URL for the rest: www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vi...htm


                                                                  When I was trained in Pranayama by my first Guru, the first practice I learned was the Basti Breath. One time he asked me to demonstrate it in front of some of his other students, and they were in shock and one of them said that he felt waves of fiery heat rising from my body though I had only taking 3 or 4 breaths. He said to them that is actually how that should be and the basti breath is only for cleansing the nervous system to help make it ready to take in the energy flow from the more advanced practices. Once I began practicing Nadishodhana, the first week I over did it and ended up being unable to sleep or eat food for over one week without feeling any tiredness. Later on I had many experiences such as placing my hands in a frying pan and not burning after hearing the sizzling, lifting my dad's car from the back, and various other things that were witnessed by both my family, friends, teacher, and his students. Actually, these kinds of "super normal" strength are quiet ordinary and basic levels in the progression of these practices. Later years when I took some Kriya Yoga classes in Mountain View at the Ananda Sangha which is based on the Paramhansa Yogananda's teachings, they told me through the practice of Maha Mudra it is normal for many people to begin having super strength. One of the teachers there told me that one of the students he broke one of his coffee mugs by just holding it as he didn't realize how much strength he was putting on it.

                                                                  Pranayama is no basic thing. I have to say that I completely disagree with your perspective about Pranayama, as I've shown you references to the authorities from where Pranayama comes from.

                                                                  After 40 years of meditation, are you aware of Chakra's yet? Kundalini energy? thought forms? aura? astral body? telepathy? are all of these also fantasy to you? It sounds really strange to me for someone to practice for 40 years and still not have had these experiences... in my experience ANYONE that can commit themselves to sit for meditation for some hours a day for a consistent time should begin having experiences. Though, without proper teaching... I guess one can end up just lost in Maya (which is why a proper teacher is so neccesary). Perhaps in your experiences you got lost in the delusions, and you now also feel it is the same with everyone else.


                                                                  • Also, from the father of Pranayama, in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali:

                                                                    2.51 The fourth pranayama is that continuous prana which surpasses, is beyond, or behind those others that operate in the exterior and interior realms or fields.
                                                                    (bahya abhyantara vishaya akshepi chaturthah)

                                                                    ...

                                                                    2.53 Through these practices and processes of pranayama, which is the fourth of the eight steps, the mind acquires or develops the fitness, qualification, or capability for true concentration (dharana), which is itself the sixth of the steps.
                                                                    (dharanasu cha yogyata manasah)

                                                                    URL reference: www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-24953.htm

                                                                    Based on my experiences, www.SwamiJ.com web site seems to have commentary on these ancient scriptures by someone with actual experience i.e. SwamiJ himself which seems to be a present living teacher. I believe he is a student of the late Swami Rama ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Rama ) who wrote one of my favorite books "Living with the Himalayan Masters (ISBN 0893891568)" which he describes meeting many of the great Yogi's of India and describes the many amazing experiences he had with them.


                                                                    Unfortunately, it seems the "west" is bastardizing Yoga/Meditation/Pranayama/Tantra from it's Source/Origin/Mother/India, and someone getting it out into the 24x7 Fitness Gym's as a means to loose weight and relax. It certainly will help with that... but that's not what it was intended/discovered for. PranaYama as per Patanjali is the 4th step of the 8 step Yoga System he developed.

                                                                  • lovely belief system, onlynow, and i don't doubt you've had some great experiences. the brain tends to see what it's entrained to see.

                                                                    and....so what? isn't what you experience just one more reality in a sea of realities being run by discrete nervous systems?

                                                                    my problem with elevating spiritual practices to anything beyond personal programming is the party line that insists it's an improvement of some kind. granted, that may be subjectively true for the experiencer, but people have been meditating and undergoing purifications for thousands of years, and the human race is still a diverse hodge-podge of sublime beauty and violent ugliness and aggression. same as it ever was.

                                                                    anything that posits spiritual supremacy or evolution stands in direct contradiction to the usually equally-held belief that all is one. if all is one, then the guy who caged his daughter for 24 years is still very much a part of wholeness, along with all the creatures who happen to consider themselves "better than that".

                                                                    the idea of "better than that", logically creates the very separation that spiritual practices seek to resolve. meanwhile, all of life is as fully available as it will ever be.

                                                                    • sulevay,

                                                                      I'm quiet confused by what you have written. How can you say that I'm proposing a belief system here if you read what I wrote, and also looked at the references to the forefathers of pranayama?

                                                                      Pranayama is a procedural practice that leads to awareness of Prana. There is a "philosophy" from India that prana is the primary energy, however, that philosophy is left to be discovered directly through experience through the practices... not through some kind of mental agreement with an idea.

                                                                      If I was going to talk about Akkido, I'd refer to the father of Akkido, Morihei Ueshiba who also prescribed specific breath practices as a way to realize the infinite: Also, in Morihei's "The Art of Peace", the 9th poem reads "Now and again, it is necessary to seclude yourself among deep mountains and hidden valleys to restore your link to the source of life. Breathe in and let yourself soar to the ends of the universe; breathe out and bring the cosmos back inside. Next, breathe up all fecundity and vibrancy of the earth. Finally, blend the breath of heaven and the breath of earth with your own, becoming the Breath of Life itself." Here's a reference URL as well: omlc.ogi.edu/aikido/talk...eace/09.html

                                                                      What I suggest is not belief, rather practice and have direct experience. I suggest don't start arguing with a person about some subject until you have gone through the teachings and trainings of that subject. In this thread, I'm also referring to those who claim to have understood certain practices like yogic meditation and pranayama to have been misinformed; I know this based on my experiences, though I've referred to the creators and forefathers of Yoga and Pranayama including Patanjali, Adi Sankaracarya, Ramana Maharshi, Swami Vievekananda, Swami J, and Swami Rama. I've also made references to prana energy (not breath) from a totally different lineage, that of Akkido from its father Morihei Ueshiba.

                                                                      I'm sure I can bring supporting scripture about Prana from at least thousands of Indian, Iranian, Tibetan, Chinese, and Japanese Mystics/Monks/Yogis/Sufis/etc.

                                                                      It's perfectly fine to take a few leaves from the branches of pranayama and create your own breathing practice.. it's just not pranayama according to what Charles has written, there is a strong misunderstanding between breath and prana which are two different things completely. My first Yogi teacher would sit in breathless state of Samadhi where prana continued to flow and keep his body vital for up to 3 hours at a time. Sometimes he would sit in samadhi for 3 days straight without food/sleep, though I didn't actually sit in front of him during that practice to confirm if he was breathing or not. If you also search the internet for "breathless samadhi" you will find much information on it.

                                                                      I'm just proposing a set of experience and body of knowledge that is not familiar to this audience; and obviously there is a great resistance to it by the denial/opposing claims to delusion/illusion, based on conditionings of flight-syndom/anxiety/etc. Tell that to the thousands of years Eastern Mysticism, I'm not proposing something different.

                                                                      However, I also acknowledge that many people out of motivations of general pain/anxiety/depressing get into the meditation type of paths... I also agree and acknowledge that people will use anything to suppress and not face themselves... be it TV, over working, drugs/alcohol, over consumption of food, trance states of consciousness, etc. However, I'd like to also propose, there is another group who is working with very strong determinism and conviction, and putting themselves through various "upgrades". Those are the very hard studying students in universities, the relentless search of truth through physics and sciences that people have developed their lives into... and in the same way, some of us take the journey through mysticism, zen, yoga, buddism, hinduism, sufism, shamanism, tantra, aghora, etc.

                                                                      What I propose is the big difference between these more mystical or inner-paths compared to the outer ones like science, logic, reason, math, physics, etcetra is that the inner-paths are a method/journey to bring about a condition of the mind/body/energy/consciousness where a direct seeing, direct experience can take place, and the "quest" the "seeking" can actually come to a rest. Yes, the study of books, and experience of life continues... but the struggle for realization of the truth stops. I'm also proposing that YES "realization" is totally possible based on our nature. It may not be easy to translate that realization into science immediately, but it is vastly different than a belief system.

                                                                      • >I'm sure I can bring supporting scripture <

                                                                        i hear what you say about philosophy as opposed to belief system, but why would scripture be offered as some kind of factual support?

                                                                        "experts", be they forefathers or not, are just people speaking about their own experience. sure, you can get others to duplicate certain experiences, but then we're just back to programming, seems to me.

                                                                        • Dear Sulevay,

                                                                          I'm not talking about just 1: philosophy and 2: belief system. I'm saying there is a 3: which is direct seeing/realization/transformation/awakening. It's almost like as I write about #3, it's just not even read.

                                                                          I also wish to add, that with regards to "realization", I've come to see/experience that no practice, no path is neccesary for discovering the reality of you, which is the same as reality of us, whether you call it Buddha Nature, Barhma Vidya, Consciousness, whatever, same. It's just wearing a mask called you, me, ego, beliefs, concepts, etc. Masks are fine, but in this seeing, they are seeing as just masks. I.E. what is right now.

                                                                          It's kind of funny, but it seems I should create a #3 and #4 as they are two separate things. #3 if it is seeing/awakening/realization it refers to our underlying nature, oneness, as I just referred. And #4 would then be the practical means to work with energy or subtle realms of existence, the "Kung Fu" of energy, where miracles happen, where it appears like the presently-well-known laws of the unvierse/existence appear to be defied such as the breathless state of samadhi, like the many demonstrations of projecting Chi, and the many inner transformations performed by Yogis, etc.

                                                                          Somehow, I'm just trying to show that reality is a LOT bigger than what we have been imagining and limiting it to be.

                                                                          Inviting that it's possible to get out of the boxes we put ourselves into. It's not just for quantum physics experiments, but you can directly experience those quantum fields, and interact with them. You can act beyond just your body and 5 primary senses. Last night as i was typing here on Tribe sitting in my room, my 2 year old son in the next room woke up and started crying. As I was sitting here and too lazy to get up and walk over to put him back to bed, I just sat in a meditative posture, focused my attention and energy on him, and I began to send mother and father nurturing energy to him... less than a few seconds later he fell back asleep. I've learned that this is even more effective then going into the room since doing that, he gets more awake. Another thing that happened yesterday was as I was sitting on the sofa earlier that evening, all of a sudden I felt a wave of affectionate energy come and touch my local field of energy. I interpreted the energy and it felt like a new friend I had recently made at a coffee shop. I knew he had placed his attention on me... then I logged into my facebook account and saw that he had just found me on facebook and sent me a friend request. These are just ordinary things like brushing my teeth at this point, and I have many friends and contacts who are similar in their seeing and practices.

                                                                          When I experience like this every day, when the awareness of energy, thought-forms is there 24x7 just as my awareness of two hands while I'm awake, how can this be anything but realization that I have two hands, and that energetically I am also conscious and able to act? Like this, naturally I came to see the other bodies, by continuous practical experience; it is meaningless if sciences have discovered what I experience as facts in my reality yet. I bet I can't argue with you that you have a hand? You can touch and interact with it... and according to your state of awareness you have a hand and that is true in your reality. Not only that, but you are able to interact with it... you can type to me with it... so to you, a hand is practically real. That's how I'm talking about these things, they are practical, they are near a physical experience as I see, feel, sense, smell and interact with others. I also witness that other people are also interacting like this, they are just not fully aware of it. It goes on lurking under/above/beyond the regular field of their awareness, covered up by the mud of beliefs/concepts/and limitations we have subscribed to.

                                                                          Namaste
                                                                      • >I'm just proposing a set of experience and body of knowledge that is not familiar to this audience; and obviously there is a great resistance to it<

                                                                        if you'd proposed flying in one of these suits, i'd resist that too!:

                                                                        www.youtube.com/watch

                                                                        i've had an experience you'll never have too, and it's powerful and miraculous and not to be missed, but no matter what you do in this life you will never experience it. doesn't make me better than you, we're just different: i gave birth to a new human being *right thru my very body*.

                                                                        whoa.

                                                                        • Suleway,

                                                                          I feel you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm saying these are reproducible, most anyone committed and with the right teacher can go through the training which has been laid out by Patanjali, and in far greater details by Vivekananda and Sancaracarya. Few people do it... and the "phase" of "psychic-powers" known as Siddha in the Raja Yoga and some other Yogic paths is a sign of success. Though it is also warned to keep these Siddhis and continue with the path as that is also where people get stuck. I've also said it is not neccesary with regards to awakening; in my experience there are no pre-requisites for awakening. I've proposed to this audience that the specific practice of Pranayama is a lot more than what Charles and his teachers have been proposing, that in fact Prana is not synonymous with breath.

                                                                          There is nothing unique in my words or experiences, and is pretty typical stuff amongst the groups I've been in. I suppose this is part of the references that Peter Kingsley was making about the west and the east.

                                                                          I've been myself surprised by the experiences, though I never held on to them in terms of trying to repeat. No less, these mystical experiences have been the gifts of giving me glimpses showing me that everything is one, and everything is possible. I learned/discovered/realized then moved on to the next thing from each experience.

                                                                          p.s. thanks for the video, I have done sky diving... and since that experience I've never looked the sky the same since. It's such a beautiful peaceful experience to be surrounded with just space all around you. The earth doesn't look like it's coming right at you when you jump from 15,000ft+. There is a sort of humming sound in the back that is very soothing. And regards to Yogic flying, I've been told by two of my teachers (one from Sufi background from Iran, the other from Yogic background from India) that they both knew of Darvish and Yogi's who could perform these in Iran/India. One of the Yogic methods of flying was actually described by Vivekananda.

                                                                          All I've intended for this audience is to present that reality is a lot bigger than our conceptions and mental-structures. Having the mind-set that it functions under certain parameters based on one's intellectual understanding also shields one from seeing beyond those parameters.

                                                                          Thanks for sharing about your birth experience.

                                                                          With Love and Namaste
                                                                          • maybe you've misinterpreted my 'so what?'

                                                                            that a bunch of obsessives had so-called "mystical experience"... which i too can have! if i just sign up and do exactly what they tell me....um, *yawn*.

                                                                            what do you want with power? go outside and find food growing right out of the very earth that is delicious and nourishing and free....now, THAT's mystical.

                                                                            as you said, "in my experience there are no pre-requisites for awakening." well, how could there be? if awakening is something we have to get to, then reality is divided....and if it's not divided (One™), then we're already here.


                                                                            "special powers" is just window dressing to impress the gullible. it's fine to have window dressing, but if you throw a show thru the window, you have the view itself.

                                                                            • Suleway,

                                                                              There is nothing you have said here that I can disagree with. Awakening is not a doing, nothing to do it for it... it's like a falling awake.... yes :-)

                                                                              I can't say it's a waste going after specific experiences; we all do it.... we go after lovers, money, etc. The Siddhis naturally occur at various stages of the awakening process to many people. I'm merely acknowledging their existence, and proposing the possibility for those not aware. All this shows is that life continues to be limitless, this is my way of giving Life a wider-perspective and wider-appreciation. This is my way of giving infinite space and love to Life so that it can reveal itself in anyway it wishes.

                                                                              Namaste
                                                                              • >The Siddhis naturally occur at various stages of the awakening process to many people. <

                                                                                the idea that there is an "awakening process" is itself steeped in time and enthrallment to progression....but if consciousness is always already the case, and we let GO of the idea of enlightenment, then what does any of it matter?

                                                                                • dear suleway,

                                                                                  I feel a lot of your impressions around awakening are formed by the new stuff. Yes, the awakening happens in a spark. Then the process begins afterwards of where gradually all of your psychology, energy, etc start adjusting and transforming. That's the "process" for the new age/eckhart tolle/adyshanti now days sort of people who are waking up.

                                                                                  In the older days, and those of the eastern paths who went through many years of various disciplines, as they advanced in their practices siddhi's would occur as well; and still occur.

                                                                                • My favorite garden gnome:

                                                                                  www.youtube.com/watch
                                                                                  • LOL! gotta love the way he snickers. makes it so fun....
                                                                                    • and then there's steven harrison, who asks, "what's next AFTER now?"

                                                                                      www.doingnothing.com/talks_22.php

                                                                                      ...cuz "now" can turn into a hideout, just like anything else....

                                                                                      www.youtube.com/watch


                                                                                      • The garden gnome and his friends and my friends all hold hands in the same garden and dance together. We're brothers and sisters of the same mother. Come to the garden, for the garden is the essence where we are one. Stay in the garden, and you are the mystery itself, there can be no more boxes and mental structures. There is agreement in every disagreement in this garden.

                                                                                        Regarding the garden gnomes videos on youtube... watch closely his definition between essence and form.

                                                                                        Regarding the "what's next AFTER now?" that's the classical post awakening place where the remnants of the ego now drunk on the energy of awakening goes along and getting stuck at places like the witness, meaninglessness of life, the superiority complexes, etc. All that journey "after awakening" continues till all remnants of the ego dissolve.

                                                                                        It is little talked about in the here-now path, there's no point really to talk about it as it's just another place the ego can grasp. Yet it is true that many new experiences/awareness etc opens up to those who are awake. That's also place they can get stuck, just as in the Yoga paths it is known that Siddhis are a place many get stuck.

                                                                                        Namaste




                                                                                        Namaste


                                                                                      • Suleway,

                                                                                        Also regarding the link to Doing Nothing web site and videos from Harrison, I completely agree with him.

                                                                                        Here are some excerpts from the URL you sent me:

                                                                                        "in Harrison’s writings these challenging concepts are not for our intellectual entertainment, but rather they appear as experimentations in energetic movements using words to allow us to touch what is beyond concept."

                                                                                        key word "beyond concepts" i.e. beyond what I've been calling foundational-thoughts, thought-structures, mental-structures, etc. His approach is different, but we are talking exactly the same thing.

                                                                                        Another quote from the same URL you gave me:

                                                                                        " The present moment has been captured by our notions of spirituality, made into a dead space, a place to distance from the energetic qualities of life. In actuality, presence doesn't exist in the way we have come to think of it. It occurs as the becoming, the creative movement of what is next, and this is the nature of the human potential that has all possibility – quantum possibility and the creative, post-spiritual life. Writing this book is a contribution to this exploration.’"

                                                                                        Key words: "notions of spirituality" i.e. those mental-structures/concepts/beliefs "made into a dead space, a place to distance from the energetic qualities of life". then gets even further about the energetic qualities by using the word "quantum possibility"... which is what I've been portraying as allowing the total space for anything to happen, for the full mystery of life to unfold... as I am also that mystery, it's not just from outside in, but inside out as well... there are no borders here.

                                                                                        Again, thanks for the link, I had never heard of Steven Harrison before, he's in the garden. :-)

                                                                                        Namaste
                                                                  • Wow, we're getting some good mileage out of this thread.

                                                                    Onlynow, I think we’ve been through all this before, but let’s have another go at it. Well, I guess there's a chance you could be right; it is possible that I did get it all wrong. What a damn waste of time, huh?

                                                                    Ironic, I just returned from a pranayama class, but we have very different ways of perceiving what pranayama means. For you it seems to be all balled up with the various forms of yoga, the masters you’ve studied with and those you’ve surpassed, the saints, controlling your prana, integration with the sun, the stars and the comets. And then, again, we hear more of your great stories concerning your supernatural feats as part of your job as being some spiritual master – I guess. And you go on more about your fasting and supernatural experiences, super strength, breaking coffee mugs, the frying pan story, and all the witnesses that experienced your supernatural feats, and, of course, more about references and authorities and links adding some credibility to your fairy tales. And then you mix in a little chakras, kundalini, thought forms, auras, astral bodies and telepathy. I’m glad you left out the spoon bending this time – thanks.

                                                                    It’s all bullshit. But it appears that you’re not ready to let it go, far from it. I don’t think you could even if you wanted to; it’s too deeply entwined within your concept of reality and who you are. And as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread – such a line of thinking is how one has evolved to blind their self to what is right in front of them.

                                                                    The more whacky the story, the more deeply one must retreat into the world of fantasy.

                                                                    • Charles,

                                                                      I consider myself still a student, and the experiences I've listed are simple experiences that students go through in the journey.

                                                                      Could it be, the people that you have been learning from, the manner which you have been developing all these years is just a totally different trail? Could it be that's taken a different route from the original pranayama?

                                                                      Eventually when you find a means to respond to me, it is with statements like "it's all bullshit" if not that, you'd give some kind of deterministic statement that "only what is in front of you".. and then I say, this is what is in front of me and that's what I'm writing from. Then you will say it's a fantasy/delusion, then I will list the evidences, my teachers, and reference the ancient scriptures included just showing it's not just my perspective, I'm only one who has had mere glimpses of the possibilities.

                                                                      It's interesting to me how in your perspective all this "phenomena" is just impossible, other than being some delusion. Why does it have to be only the way you see it? You are just one individual with a 50-60 years of perspective and experiences compared to the vast number of other humans throughout time. Your perspective is widely shaped by the teachings and experiences you had. At some point you ventured and met a few teachers, and you reached the conclusion that all that spirituality stuff is fairy tales and imagination. I may have felt similar to you in similar conditions, though I was exposed to teachers with many such experiences happening often.

                                                                      Perhaps at some point, once kids are older, and I sold off my businesses, by which time i should have reached a financial independence, I can devote another few years of consistent daily practice for some years, at that point, perhaps I may look into teaching or writing.

                                                                      Charles, have you noticed how I don't seem to ever take any offense to what you say? Have you noticed that I speak sincerely and honestly from my experiences and with kindness? Sometimes I try to understand the physics stuff you talk about, but I get lost in frankly... it makes sense until at some point it becomes obvious that no model can reflect reality fully, not even determinism, no concept holds, but that's precisely having feet grounded firmly in emptiness.

                                                                      Did you bother reading what Vivekananda said about Pranayama in 1895? Him being the chief disciple of Ramakrishna Paramhansa who by most India is considered right next to Ramana Maharshi as two of spiritual giants from India in the last 600+ years. It is not their reputation that I hold a regard to though, it's reading their work and putting their work into practice and experiencing the results. It's also the connection made with their consciousness. The "fantasy" world that I live in, there is no distinction between life/death or time, as everything is present in consciousness, and hence a connection and teaching can also be made directly with these ancient teachers.... let me guess, in your perspective that's deep in the looney bin right? It might be true... as in my experience, our existence and existence itself is also a projection arising out of consciousness. Which has it's manifest and unmanifest forms. You know me, if you ask me about each of non-distinctions, I can list you a long list of life experiences that brought me to these conclusions, such as experiencing family members after their death, etc.

                                                                      I'm surprised, that now days, the new age science of quantum physics is showing more and more that time is perhaps not even a dimension, that more and more everything is arrising out of this emptiness... more and more how form is really formless, like this step by step the walls and conclusions are falling apart... how are many like you still maintaining that as a human being we still need to live in such a limited way of thinking? When it gets down to it, everything dissolve into the same... from particles to waves to an ocean of oneness to nothing. Did you know it's possible to witness all of this in your own self? Where is the idea to even conceive these theories in quantum physics really coming from?

                                                                      why not just drop the conclusions, and allow the possibilities. Ask yourself, in this moment here and now, if I held no preconceived notion about up/down/right/left, form/formless, time/timeless, self/no-self, just here and now, instead of then just following the movement of the body's desires/inclinations, just sit there and ask... is there anything I'm not seeing here? is there anything I'm not feeling here? Sit there, and ask yourself, is there any mystery right here and now, right in front of me... now face that mystry and take a step inside of it... leaving all that you know behind you.... put your fantasies behind you too, all that you know includes those. It's a very shaky place to enter... and that's why good guidance is often necessary.

                                                                      Sit in front of a tree, is there any other way you can experience it? like this, with everything. Develop your own unique seeing and interacting with reality with the deepest sincerity.

                                                                      Namasteh




                                                                      • Onlynow, damn, I only wish I was prolific as you are,

                                                                        The first thing that struck me in your last post was the mention again of Vivekananda. Back in the day, around 1970, I came across his ‘Complete Works’ at the Shambala bookstore in Berkeley, and at the time I was simply mesmerized by them. I was a student supporting myself and the book was pretty expensive, but I ponied-up the money and read the book time and time again. Not long ago my son showed some interest in certain things and when I gave the book to him I saw I’d underlined the entire text.

                                                                        Much of what you say I take as self-promotion. And I realize to you it is the expression of what you think were your experiences, and how they’ve been observed or qualified by others. I have no doubt believing you believe them, but they have no impact upon me. I just see them as something you believe, nothing more. And I have no problems with you believing whatever you want – even if I feel they’re bullshit. They’re simply your thoughts.

                                                                        You see, you go on and on talking about your spiritual experiences, nonstop really. Just go back in this thread and you’ll see them one after the other, using them as some sort of proof for your philosophy. You do it so fluidly and frequently that I really don’t even think you are aware of it happening; it appears to be automated to such a degree that I get the impression of there being a short circuit. I’m not making a judgment; I’m giving you an observation. Such an instantaneous short-circuiting is not seeing, it’s being blinded to what’s before you and regurgitating some perceived past experience or the take of some perceived master you’re in alignment with.

                                                                        I think what it boils down to is that I just can’t take you seriously, and at the same time I know that you feel that you’re being serious and open and honest. So, we’re at a bit of a quandary here.

                                                                        As far as quantum theory goes, I don’t have the answers and from what I’ve been able to fathom – the scientists don’t either. The greatest of the bunch had misgivings about their own work. To quote Feynman, one of the real heavy weights with relation to his development on what is by physicists seen as the crowning jewel of quantum theory, (QED) Quantum Electrodynamics, he says, “You see, physics students don’t understand it either. That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does”.

                                                                        “allow the possibilities.”

                                                                        I don’t know what possibilities you are speaking about. By the very nature of thinking about how you might see more clearly you’re missing what’s in front of you. It all sounds very good and cheery and really new agey, but really, what it boils down to - if you have to think about it or consider it then it’s already long gone.

                                                                        And you might reconsider about telling people about how scary it is and that how proper guidance is necessary. From what I’ve seen, if they’re screwed up when they enter, they’ll be screwed up when they leave. There’s nothing you or anyone else is going to do to speed up or slow down the process, which, really, we have no control over anyway. This is the oldest trick in the book with respect to what I’d call spiritual racism. If and when you’re ready to happen upon something it appears – end of story. If it doesn’t appear – end of story.

                                                                        • Dear Charles,

                                                                          It's not a short circuit that you are observing, it is the sincere conviction of living a life devoted to self discovery/truth through direct experience and realization. It is effortless and all love. It is a sort of knowing what's important and what I'm passionate about. Many people of different fields have devoted their entire life to a specific subjects.

                                                                          I do not consciously intend self-promotion... I'm also not running some business scheme behind my words so you can come and buy my "online course". If it was about establishing some "ego" sense, how is it that I take all sorts of demeaning/insulting words and face each one and take each one into heart and respond with consideration? Though I keep in contact with my teachers, I'm not under the training, nor do I have intense conviction to them. In terms of present day "Guru's", I'd have to say www.adyashanti.org is one of the teachers that I have the highest acknowledgment for due to the unique maturity and humility of his profound awakening.... his style of teaching is such that I feel you might actually enjoy it too.... he's not into all this yoga/meditation stuff, though he did use to be prior to the awakening.

                                                                          For some reason, there is a natural inclination inside to speak from the truth that I experience within myself. I feel that I'm also sharing information which is of value and my intention is that it helps open the minds and hearts.

                                                                          I often feel these "Quantum Physicists" are bitten by the same question that I was once bitten with. They were academically inclined, so it went that way... I feel many of these physicists have had various forms of mystical seeing experiences through intuition, dreams etc and are searching for ways to manifest that knowledge into science. I saw a film of Einstein. When I was looking at his eyes, they looked like someone immersed in samadhi, his eyes were serene and transparent to his surrounding, totally engrossed in the object of his attention... in Raja Yoga terminology, that's called Samyama (reference URL: www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-30406.htm )

                                                                          Regarding what you wrote here: "I don’t know what possibilities you are speaking about. By the very nature of thinking about how you might see more clearly you’re missing what’s in front of you. It all sounds very good and cheery and really new agey, but really, what it boils down to - if you have to think about it or consider it then it’s already long gone. "

                                                                          Here's the very foundation that you are pointing to. What I'm proposing is that there are very subtle foundational thoughts, concepts, pre-concepts that are underlying in our day-to-day consciousness. I'm pointing to these foundational thought-structures, and suggesting that they are what is also preventing seeing what is right here in front of you. Put all of these aside, put all assumptions... like an innocent child newly born in a world you know nothing about aside. And let every moment disappear as it appears without trails. What do you really, really know? notice this field of not knowing? this field of openness and total acceptance for what is? remaining in unconditioned seeing. Returning to this seeing over and over again, notice what is it that keeps coming back and veiling the view? it starts like this, until all that internal stuff is cleared out... empty. Then, you look out, and life is in front of you... and seeing life like this, no separation. a whole new moment to moment discovery is taking place, life witnessing life moment to moment.... and in the midst of it all, the ego still comes and goes, all things come and go playing themselves out as they were set into motion (here's where I see the predeterminism which I referred to you before)... yet behind all that, this awareness that is self-aware is established as the seat of the self... which appears to be fine with what is happening.

                                                                          regarding the determinism model, I guess I'm doing what I'm predetermined to do until this pattern is done... there are some things in life that are like this. It seems to me for example, relationships are like this... on their own people come and go in my life, some seem to stay forever and you know they are not going to go, others go, others come back, etc. life is playing itself out.... me and you part of that dance I suppose :-)


                                                                          getting tired... perhaps time for sleep





                                                                • Charles,

                                                                  Not realizing you were a meditator I misunderstood where you were coming from. The fact that your critique comes from "the inside" makes it much more interesting.

                                                                  "Although the entire body’s musculature is involved, our awareness is focused primarily by subtle control of the muscles in the head, face and neck."

                                                                  I'm skeptical. If this were true, it would be deeply mysterious how we are able to focus on so many different things, or to just space out, all while our head, face, and neck muscles are relaxed. We can even seemingly tell our muscles to relax, and if this action doesn't originate in the brain, then we shouldn't be able to do it at will. I grant that there's a feedback loop involved between the central and peripheral nervous systems, but I doubt the muscles in our face, head, and neck can communicate that much to our brain about different awareness states. If you want to post some evidence for this, I'll be happy to consider it, but on its face, the claim is pretty difficult to buy into.

                                                                  "A higher state relative to what? From what I’ve seen, people who claim to enter the highest of states are the ones that have forced themselves into the deepest states of imagination."

                                                                  A higher state compared to ordinary ego-bound conscious awareness. A stepping out of the rat race to glimpse the big picture. I agree with you that people imagine some pretty interesting things when meditating, and that some of them take these imaginings too seriously. In my view this is because they are not sufficiently conversant in the methods of science (particularly the cognitive sciences) and the western skeptical tradition in philosophy (Sextus Empiricus, Hume, Kant, etc.). Both of these intellectual traditions abound with examples of how we can have experiences that seem as subjectively real as you like, but are nonetheless objectively illusory. Watching a good stage magician on occasion will drive the same point home. Yes, it walks and quacks like a duck. No, it is not a duck.

                                                                  When I talk about meditation I try to stick to what's supported by scientific research and what I've found in my experience. And when I speak of my experience, I don't make claims about ultimate reality, just about how the quality of experience can be changed, but it is after all our subjective experience that gives the flavor to everything we do.
                                                          • infinity can only be perceived via the finite.

                                                            Fri, March 20, 2009 - 11:56 AM
                                                            Well, that could be said about the finite too...
                                                            • "infinity can only be perceived via the finite.
                                                              Well, that could be said about the finite too..."

                                                              please explain. i think i disagree, even shocking myself with my disagreement.
                                                              • Well, first I do not believe that infinity may be 'perceived' from a finite perspective, and that only a fully enlightened being, who's mind has transcended time and space, may fully ascertain the infinite. This is why we say things like transcend and go beyond isn't it? Because we cannot put into words this experience while we are still struggling with a finite perspective. Perception itself is a function of our consciousness which depends upon two points at least, and we call this duality, or self and other. This is our normal way of seeing things and it works quite well. No need to argue whether this 'duality' exists or not, it is a function of what I will call conventional reality. Ultimate reality, however, is the realization that this is an illusion and can only take us so far in our seeing, or really in our naming, because that is what we do, we name things and give them meaning that does not inherently exist in the object or phenomena of our ascertainment.

                                                                Does this make sense to you?

                                                                My understanding of a fully realized being is that they have transcended this conventional way of seeing and can in fact see (and know) all objects of knowledge directly. There is also the transcendence of the "I" or what we normally think of as our self or that self which we see and point to and say this body or that body, but it is really just a collection of parts functioning as a body which we impute our "I" upon. So, if we have the knowledge that our skin is porous and can breathe and exchange molecules with the 'outside' world, or that when we 'see' we are actually exchanging photons with the object, then where do 'we' begin and end? We don't, see? Many people can have a glimpse of this through countless means, but in the end, can they maintain this awareness, can they transcend even this life and this body with this awareness and can they do this 'consciously'? This is what separates the liberated, or those who have transcended suffering, from those who have attained full enlightenment. This is my understanding anyhow, and my experiences in this life have thus far corroborated this account.

                                                                To put the original statement more succinctly, I might say that only the finite can perceive the finite and that only the infinite may perceive the infinite. Ultimately, since reality may be demonstrated even conventionally as not one AND not two. We have only to look within ourselves to know why we cling to one or the other, or why we cling to this "I" that perceives at all.
                                                                • "only a fully enlightened being, who's mind has transcended time and space, may fully ascertain the infinite"

                                                                  i sense the infinite all the time, and i doubt anyone would call me enlightened!

                                                                  the mind "transcends" time and space, and then finds itself again and again in time and space.

                                                                  there is something rejuvenating about contacting the infinite, something "en-lighten-ing", and it nourishes my point of view, but in a sense it is more of a kind of compass or guiding assumption for me than anything nuanced in and of itself. in a sense, the infinite is rather featureless and boring.

                                                                  life contains suffering; there is no way around that. there is no heavenly father who only loves us nor realm of pure light to go to. those are fabrications that help us get through difficulties. consider the dream of enlightenment in a way: perhaps some versions of this dream include escapism, the ultimate non-participation in the world, the leaving behind of the bumps and grinds of living onto some flat plateau. i get concerned that, in some instances, this narrative is one of alienation.
                                                                • to lose the self and to see energy and to sense infinite connectivity is not that big of a deal in a sense.

                                                                  life goes on.

                                                                  i think part of it is about being one's brain efficiently. learning not to waste your cognitive space on fretting or desiring or clinging to things that only add unnecessary suffering onto an already difficult enough life. practices that encourage such efficiency literally free up energy in the body, which is sensed as an increase in juice. which it is.

                                                          • blue-j, I know what you wrote here about "infinity can only be perceived via the finite. when people confuse this, they start to believe in things that aren't real" was as a response to Michael... however I'd also like to chime in.

                                                            With regards to "viewed from the perspective of ultimate reality", that can only happen through merging with a generalization which goes well beyond the understanding of any aspect. That's a psychological and intellectual "symbolic point" to an actual seeing/experience. There is no sense of "I" or "individuality left in such an experience... often it can feel like a real death, a total loss of self, a total loss of control... it is no small experience. If a person has had such an experience it leaves such a strong imprint on them, and they are never the same after that.

                                                            In my experience, there is no awakening without samadhi. However, for those with spontaneous awakening who never practiced any meditation (which happens a lot, for example the here&now movement) there is a spontaneous nirvikalpa samadhi... here's a good except I just found on Wikipedia on the lookup for "Samadhi" which talks about the spontaneous awakening for those with no previous meditation practices... interesting how it also notes that the heart stopping, breath stopping, and siddhis are missing

                                                            "States of consciousness with some of the features of Samadhi are experienced by individuals with no religious or spiritual preparation or disposition. Such episodes occur spontaneously and appear to be triggered by physically or emotionally charged peak experiences such as in runner's high or orgasmic ecstasy, however even mundane activities such as reveling in a sunset, dancing or a hard day's work have, in rare instances, induced the entire range of Samadhi from Laja to Nirvikalpa.

                                                            The only distinction in these spontaneous secular samadhi from Hindu and Buddhist descriptions is that in the state of non-duality equivalent to Nirvikalpa, there is no record of any supernormal physical effects as purported in the literature such as the breath and heart-beat stopping or any degree of conscious control during the event. Also absent are siddhis-like special powers as an aftermath although virtually all experiencers report they became imbued with a holistic and compassionate world view and no longer feared death."

                                                            Reference URL for above two paragraphs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samā...s_concepts

                                                            When a "seeing" like this happens, which is generally in Hindu tradition happens during a super-conscious (samadhi; which has also various stages, each having their own field of study/practice) eventually the person returns to individual-localized identity/perspective... however, that person who returns is a new person... that seeing is transformational and a series of openings and realizations occur which begin to change the course of that person's life, perspective, experiences, etc.

                                                            I feel based on my experience it is impossible to convey in words what we are talking about when we say "perspective of ultimate reality" unless the person reading is familiar/recognizes the same. That's perhaps why it is said that only with the eyes of the ocean/infinite/god, ocean/infinite/god can be seen. Though, it is also well written in both Sufi and Yogic lineages that knowledge of the "ego" and individuality is to also transcend it... at the sight of seeing the ego, it disappears... it is revealed as being only a concept/belief derived from thought.


                                                            As is my style, I tend to list experiences... here I'm omitting per popular request.

                                                            Namaste
                                                            • I would agree, and would add that once this becomes a normative perspective for someone, they often behave in radically different ways when compared to their previous (normative) behavior. This effects everything, relationships, how they make their way in the world, and so forth. It is as if from a societal perspective they are crazy.

                                                              What I am referring to is a direct realization of emptiness and not merely a conceptual understanding of emptiness. Realization here meaning 'to make real'. It is a qualitatively different reality and the more stabilized it becomes, the less desired is the old perspective. I have heard this referred to in other traditions as "crazy wisdom". My own tradition sets out a step by step path whereby this can be attained and whereby progress may be measured by various attainments, so that one may know exactly where one is, and what steps or methods to apply to reach a desired result. This is why it is referred to as a method practice. An analogy might be if you want to achieve chicken soup, and you have never made it before, it might be wise to follow a recipe no? Attainments are no different and this is why it is called training the mind.

                                                              It is also easy to let such a realization pass and think that it was just an unusual experience, then falling back into old habits or familiar patterns - what we think is culturally acceptable - in order to 'fit in' so to speak. Without a recipe or guide we may become lost. This in my experience has been the biggest struggle with ego and grappling with why it is that I even want to 'fit in'. It can be difficult even with a qualified spiritual guide - someone who has made the transition themselves and can demonstrate or model behavior.

                                                              Regular meditation then, becomes not only important, but necessary (and desired!) in order to continue making progress along the path or it may be abandoned altogether. The imprint however remains and thus becomes part of that persons karmic condition where it may later ripen into liberation or even full enlightenment.
                                                • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                                  Tue, March 17, 2009 - 10:50 AM
                                                  "the assumption here is of course that we have this Self that if only it read the right books and believed hard enough could transform the very fabric of reality by directing warm fuzzies and intentions outward, manifesting the dream world. this is the model that i keep hearing, and it mixes some really grounded stuff about the power of positive thinking in with an absolutely insane hypersubjectivity faux empowerment that i think is criminally negligent, similar to how karma is used to blame people for their lives."

                                                  Yup, that pretty much hit the nail on the head.
                                            • but what I really mean't to say...

                                              Sat, March 14, 2009 - 8:16 PM
                                              steeped in my usual metaphor, is that Determinism is like a bastard child railing against the perceived injustice of its parent(s) and such is the folly of youth. Extreme you say? Yes. Determinism when followed to it's own logical conclusion with one eye on the road and one eye on the mirror gets us where? Either an spontaneous explosion of un-caused origin, or a maniacal and merciless God. I believe in neither of those extremes and I doubt anyone here really does either...
                                              • Re: but what I really mean't to say...

                                                Mon, March 16, 2009 - 8:59 AM
                                                "Either an spontaneous explosion of un-caused origin, or a maniacal and merciless God. I believe in neither of those extremes and I doubt anyone here really does either..."

                                                it could be viewed as a magnificent flow of which we are a part. determinism, if true, need not imply that we don't use advanced modeling, language, social checks and balance, logic, emotion, intuition, and all kind of other faculties to make good decisions. not sure why you think mercy would be destroyed.

                                                and i say this being incredulous and cautious about determinism.

                                                also, the assumption is that if determinism is false, then something opens up, possibilities for free will are suddenly available, yet no one can really describe how that might work. indeterminacy is not the friend to freedom. you need a weird combo, because think of it: isn't free will a kind of determinism, in that the will DETERMINES the action? free will believers just want it both ways, that the will is not determined, but can determine actions itself. a causal story that includes "the will" does a better job of explaining the varieties of efficacy in choice-making, the apparent limits, known relationships in the brain, etc.
                                          • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                            Sun, March 15, 2009 - 10:26 PM
                                            there are not numerous versions of quantum theory per se, only numerous interpretations of quantum physics. pretty much what charles said, but in physics they are formally called different interpretations. many worlds, copenhagen, bohmian... all different interpretations, but markedly different. (2/3 listed are fully deterministic, actually.)
                                        • "I can't scientifically substantiate the claim"

                                          Sat, March 14, 2009 - 7:54 PM
                                          Charles, I appreciate your honesty in this statement and for me this is largely why I have remained on the sidelines in these discussions but I think you get right to the heart of the matter for me here. Science is an imperfect discipline that while entirely rational and precise. Can only explain conditions if a very narrow set of pre-conditions occur. Change the conditions and the result varies. Change the subject-object relationship and the results vary. Science does a really good job of explaining precisely what may be going on in logical or mathematical terms but it begins to break down when more than two or three 'dimensions' are considered. By dimensions I am referring to variable conditions as well as the common understanding of the word. So what we are left with, even with the most precisely reproducible experiments and rational hypothesis, are subjective interpretations of a reality that doesn't really exist in the world of the man on the street engaged in everyday actions. So we are left with the softer sciences such as language, psychology, and often politics to discern meaning. This is all so much subjective conjecture. And I'm ok with that - it can be entertaining and always provides me with insight into my own human condition.

                                          As for my own view on Determinism's essential flaw it is that it is a logical construct that has never been proven and as several have pointed out - cannot be proven with the human instrument. My own belief - and I am unashamed to call it that - is that it ignores the larger context of Dependent Origination, another logical construct (or perhaps it's meta-construct) that has never been dis-proven. In my world view we are all jewels in Indra's net and try as we might to either break free, or disprove it's very existence we are all very dependent on each other and inseparable in our existence.

                                          Food for thought anyway...

                                          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat...tp%C4%81da

                                          • Michael, I second your words on this as well. Science has it's place and application within its own framework.

                                            This is a very interesting interview with Peter Kingsley about the start of Western Civilization and "logic"... how it all began
                                            www.youtube.com/watch
                                            • OnlyNow and Od, thanks for bringing Kingsley to the forefront.

                                              With respect to the origins of Western culture, he shows that Parmenides (in his mind) is the father of Western philosophy and spirituality, and that Socrates took the knowledge and killed the Father (Parmenides) so to speak.

                                              Kingsley delves into stories about Parmenides receiving the knowledge of logic and spirituality from the divine teachings of a goddess of an unseen world. He makes it clear that civilization is *not* an accident, but brought into existence with a purpose that is generally no longer seen - that we remain in a state of sleep, no longer realizing our ancient heritage. And that we must 'get back' and regain touch with the lost father(s) of our lineage and their teachings of self-presence and awareness and conscious integration of our senses.

                                              And, of course, the inception of his (Kingsley's) awareness came from a book falling off a shelf in a bookstore and opening on a page whose contents provided an instantaneous link to his realization.

                                              I find little of Kingsley's analysis having much value to me personally. He cites a number of Parmenides' ideas which seem not only interesting, but smack dab right on. But then he begins to drive home the need to pay homage to the source, and says that without doing this - that we of Western culture will never be able to unite with the great wisdom of other cultures. He speaks about our awareness being rare, our sleep being rampant and aside from a few shamans, elders, Tibetan Buddhists, Egyptians, Sufis and Iranians - well, we're just not going anywhere, we're dead in the water. This portrayal of the naive Westerner has become so common that it's almost laughable. I can't even begin to count how many times I've seen this hand played out over the years. And, of course, this is not to take anything away from the wisdom of Parmenides.

                                              My current perspective, and I've expressed this here before, is that the teachers of today are as great as those that lived at any other time. Hey, you might be one of them. And to think that there was something overly special about those dead and far removed is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Yes, it's very common, and people (spiritual teacher's especially) play on what seem to be an inbred weakness of many of those that happen to be currently strutting around on the planet. It's simply crowd control, leading those who want to and will be led by the nose.

                                              When the time and place is right - great teachers appear out of nowhere. They're just there. There's no purpose, there's no plan, there's no goddess from some illusive dimension calling the shots. It just is what it is. Yet, of course, I'm one of those minority weirdos bent on a deterministic framework. I would guess, though, that the majority enclave, those bent on right action and free will and stretching their lineage back to the beginnings of recorded history and before, will see things most differently.

                                              • Charles,

                                                It may take me another 30 years to understand some of the stuff you talk about in the way you understand; perhaps I may never even reach your understanding in this body's life span. I certainly recognize a strength you have. I've not be inspired in the intellectual journey as it is just not practical enough for me. It may be practical to the scientific community, but it provides no inner transformation; and that is the ultimate in practicality for me, when it transforms my own humanity.

                                                Though, unfortunately, there is an element that you might be too smart to see or I may not be smart enough to show you. It's not something that can't be derived by intellectual understanding, it's a kind of knowledge that once seen, it can never be forgotten nor denied within yourself.

                                                The reason I initially got interested in speaking with you was not your physics and amazing intellectual capacity. I noticed the intensity of your energy that I would feel like a wave of energy coming out of the little post box in the thread on the tribe.net web site coming out of my monitor and touching me, like a physical and visual experience. Behind simple 5 word remarks, sometimes even immature type of sentences. So I made a point to focus on your energy to notice what kind of person you are. As I was sitting in meditation one day, I used my telepathic seeing to observe you while you are in meditation. I saw that your etheric body is unusually bright and strong; to the extent that I've yet to see an etheric body with the same intensity as yours (I recall I wrote to you about this in one of our first private messages 2 years ago). The etheric body is like a very subtle yet electric field around the body; I see it as bright and golden yellowish tone like the sun, but the energy is finer then the sun. It can be intensified through determination, repetition, mantra, pranayama, and grounded through realization and physical yoga practices. I imagine holding a very strong framework of belief/awareness as you have will also intensify the etheric body. The etheric body in my experiences increases a person physical strengths, and at its heights will allow very intense body experiences in sports and meditative awareness. I've seen the etheric body of ballerinas while they are jumping in the air blast open like a light show, to the point that I would hardly be able to make out their physical body and clothing anymore. I see the etheric body when its intense with my eyes open.

                                                There are however additional bodies. Each body can be used to travel in different ways. Bigger than the etheric is the emotional body. It can be sent out to sense/feel situations. Bigger than emotional body is the mental/wisdom body which travels at a much faster speed than the emotional body. There is quite a bit to be said about each of these.

                                                I've seen the etheric body seperate from the physical body only once in my life. In 2002 while I was living in Fremont during which time I used to perform very intense 7 hour long meditations, one night as I was in the restroom literally sitting on the toilet, I turned to my right and I saw the golden etheric body of someone. We were unable to communicate, my awareness was not as clear as it is now then. Then it left. The next morning my mother called me and told me that my aunt's husband had just died last night in the hospital in Tehran, Iran. So in the case of death, I've seen the etheric body travel. Till this day, I feel my aunt's husband must have done some sort of sufi/yogic practices to have had that ability since I've seen in the last 10 years every member of my extended family who died immediately after their death, and none of them had their etheric body still in tact. I would imagine once you die, you'd probably have the ability to travel around with it for a while till it runs out of juice.

                                                The emotional and mental bodies can be used to travel all the time; we all use them all the time just not consciouse of it. I've been more impressed by people who manage to be really present and keep their emotional and mental bodies neutral and grounded with their physical bodies while in the waking state when needed, and only travel when needed.

                                                Past these, I've also found it possible to exit the body through the top of the head into what I call the astral body. The physical body usually looses consciousness of it's surrounding while I'm traveling in the astral, though as I have left through the crown, there is a silver/grayish sort of cord that remains attached to my physical body which seems to provide feedback to my brain... so the physical brain is still active. During the 2003-2004 years I was practicing consciouses out of body almost on a daily basis, literally I would walk out of the office to sit in my car and lay back for a 15 minute power nap and step out and walk around the parking lot with the astral body. I was quiet curious about all these things at that time. I've since moved on to different things and my focus is presently on a different kind of development... more simple stuff, family/kids/business hehe.

                                                It is also possible to sit in meditation in the astral body and step into what I call the "pranic body". I say "I call" because these are based on my own direct experiences and I'm using closest words that seem to correlate with my experiences; I'm sure there should be names given to these by various mystical teachings; I prefer to stay with my own experience. I call it the pranic body because it seems to be primarily composed of pranic energy in 4 various colours of green/blue/white/black. The pranic body is able to turn around and observe the astral body which at that point appears to be a transparant shadowy expression of the physical body, as well see the physical body. In the pranic body I can still walk (more like float) around the physical dimension, though time appears to be fluid. The fluidity of time is the most blizzard aspect of the pranic body. Another interesting quality of the pranic body was that even in a dark room with the lights off, everything appears to be bright and have a bluish shade to it, as the pranic bodies light directly perceives regardless of physical light in the room. I assume these may have some kind of significance as they are consistent in my experiences in the pranic body. For instance I can walk in the bathroom and see the shower running, then see the mirror not on the wall as the bathroom is still being constructed.

                                                From the pranic body it is possible using intention to teleport completely past this dimension into the casual plane. Though at that stage I call it the causal body, which if anything I would guess it's just an orb of awareness (no actual form, no legs, no arms). And past the causal body it's possible to go to transcendent awareness realms where there is no dimensions (up/down/right/left), no spacial limits, yet there is a fluid substance and clear cognizant awareness. At this transcendent awareness there is still a "I" and "you" which is generally I and Existence/Reality/God. Beyond this stage, I and you merge, and past that both disappear, and past that I can not put any words too... other than the deepest truth which is with certainty Unknowable. At this point I've likely gone way past the context of what I believe I can provide good references for to you.

                                                This is just one way to experience the journey of consciousness by the trail of body awareness. There are many other means.

                                                Presently I use a much more direct route which is to just retreat all "attention" directly in to "Self". I've been working on developing a context for this means of perceiving and interacting with reality, though it will probably take some years more to develop my understanding through continued experimentation and exploration.



                                                Through these kinds of experiences, which I continue to encounter naturally, without the use of any drugs or imagination, I've come to learn a great deal. I've been inspired by various Eastern esoteric teachings and teachers. Though on imagination, I would also l like to say is a powerful means for performing energy work, and it is possible to interact with reality through the imaginal realm. Though it seems even in the imaginal realm for you, it is kept within the context and framework/boundaries of your mind/beliefs. I hope you dare to break some of the walls you have constructed around yourself... certain walls are meant to be broken. Simply seeing the walls is the first step.

                                                Sometimes I wish my life could be as simple as yours... feeling so assured in what I know and believe in. In these expansions of consciousness I've also had many unpleasant encounters of entities which are happy to feed on my energy. It would then take me sometimes weeks, up to 3 months to build up my energy bodies to be able to return to the same level of awareness. In my experience it is a very scientific process to go through, but the process changes you. As one expands, and your experience of reality expands, the old you is gone. It's like I've died and been reborn more times than I can count. With each "transformation" my total awareness changed, right down to even my physical senses, the way I perceive colors, dimensions, the way my mind works, everything seems to keep changing. And every time there is a shift, it takes quiet a while for my habits/tendencies to shift and catch up with the "new me".


                                                We are all on this Journey together. Your experiences and writings have sharped mine and continue to be of benefit. I hope somehow what I'm sharing of my sincere experiences maybe of some inspiration to you.



                                                • "It may be practical to the scientific community, but it provides no inner transformation"

                                                  information gleaned from a scientific process can inform personal growth. i think it SHOULD. surely no one can take your experience from you -- they are real no matter what anyone says. but what they mean is another story. and in making up your stories about what is going on, that's where we can introduce delusion. and i know of no better method to trim delusion than science.

                                                  science is not some cold heartless monster, it's just a way of organizing experiences and looking at them. people do it every day all the time. even your so-called "anti-scientific" story about what's going on IS scientific. it posits different bodies and planes as actual entities, and these are hypotheses that can be investigated scientifically. science has many times over supported unusual claims. we take for granted much of what science has supported as being normal now, but at some point things like magnetism and electricity were absolutely magical and bizarre concepts.

                                                  many people with experiences similar to yours have temporal lobe electrical storms in their brains, or a high basal level of dopamine, or are pumped up with serotonin from substances. but i think we've discussed that before. you seem confident in your INTERPRETATION of your experiences. i recommend being confident in the PHENOMENOLOGY of them and open about their interpretation.

                                                  • Dear Blue-j,

                                                    I've used a scientific process in terms of exploring and documenting my experiences. Then I've concluded ideas, which I've put to test. In those tests I have confirmed my experiences as true down to physical level; they have been conclusive to myself. I'm not aware of a manner to document or write a paper on it which will demonstrate it's truth by just reading it. I can probably write the specific practices I performed (which require intense determination, devotion, dedication, and consistent practice) so that another person can do the same and see for themselves. Of course, this wouldn't be very difficult for me as I used many standard Yogic/Tantric practices, and I can include my experience and subtle knowledge that I experienced which went beyond the practices which I read. Since I studied so many systems, I didn't stick with the terminology of one, instead I go with the result of what I have come to see myself, i.e. experiential knowledge.

                                                    The reason I explained this body system of trailing to understand the mark up of existence is that it is starting from body level consciousness which I feel most people will relate with. It is one of the most practical systems that a "lay person" could begin to build a context for the inner make-up of our being and begin interacting and experimenting with it to gain direct knowledge about one's make up and existence itself.

                                                    In the present stage of development, I no longer use that old method, though I also see it fully being true for where it applies. Just in the same way I also see the regular scientific world being true. There are more and more subtle and direct ways to perceive reality, and ways to interact with it. Hence the same way physics has developed to quantum theories, so does the yogic meditative way of perceiving and interacting with reality has its "quantum" levels of realization. Though the difference is, in science you have to build an experiment, a machine to test it. In meditative practices, you already have the machine, it's your body. You are the experiment and experimenter.

                                                    I also believe what I've experienced is Universal way of seeing. Though it requires a person of a lot of practice with proper guidance to come to see this. Upon searching on the Internet for finding some reference, I just found this web site: esotericscience.org/article6a.htm At this web site, you will see this person makes references to many distinguished western authors, and also references where those authors refer to in the eastern world. He also makes references of the many experiences that people have reported in near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences for example during a rape, etc to conclude his data somehow to link it for the scientifically minded crowd. I would suggest you take a look at his web site.

                                                    Though all the web site can do is give you a set of information. The information only has "power" when you have come to see it yourself through practice and experience. In my perspective, experience is the highest form of realization. My interest is not to invent some technology for the world or reach some sort of status/fame/money for it either. It is a sense of burning that I felt deep in my deepest sense of self since I was a child. The mystery of life, and what happens after we die. The mystery of the created world. My goal was to see for myself, not to see then prove it... and through the process, the world has come to appear arbitrary; it is real, though also arbitrary and real at the same time. Everyone will have their own journey and come to their own seeing in their own unique process.

                                                    However, it also seems through this entire process, I've also come to be acutely aware that we all inwardly deeply seek to know our reality. There is that burn in all of us, and in my experience there are some routes that are dead ends, as that knowledge will be dropped with your corpse.

                                                    Namaste
                                                    Ramiel

                                                    • i'm concerned that most of what you describe seems to be about leaving your body or everyday experience behind. in my world, this flags alienation, dissociation, and escaping from difficult and painful truths that are associated with everyday experience. the brain is modular and distributed and complex, and hiding from itself or creating partitions of awareness during trauma such as sexual abuse (which you mentioned in your reference, which i will check out later) is predictable via non-supernatural means, as are NDEs.

                                                      i think the most pivotal insight regarding your experiences is to recognize how much experience itself is a prepared dish, so to speak. it is the result of a highly mediated process. we cannot perceive reality directly, because perception introduces its own filters. that means that our nervous system can very easily generate completely real-feeling experiences with no map to external stimuli. you can hear a voice that is utterly clear, just as real as any other voice, and it could not map to any voice anyone else can hear. it can be very scary. we try our best to distinguish personal, subjective experience from experiences that others can share, but it's a constant process.

                                                      i also am aware of a general bias against paranormal experience among many scientists, and how that bias could cut us off from some very interesting and fruitful territory. i think your situation demands more looking into it. have you ruled out normal suspects, like temporal lobe epilepsy? is there any history of similar experiences in your family, especially not borne of your typical methods?


                                                      "in science you have to build an experiment, a machine to test it."

                                                      well, you'll have to explain that to the hundreds of thousands of scientists doing psychology! tons of science is done without machines, and honoring experiential subjective reports as valid data. i think you caricature science.


                                                      • Dear Blue-j,

                                                        I'm familiar with disassociation from body through trauma. I have to admit, I grew lived under the Iran/Iraq war for the first ten years of my life. It was daily routine of collecting bullet shells from the Iraqi air planes from our play ground. It was daily experience during bombing to run under the stair case, and then clean up all the shuddered windows. I was also raised in a Catholic family, being the only Christian in my school, in a very Muslim country. Repression of sexuality was to an extreme. Heavily co-dependent emotional bonds to family were also a norm. Since I was a child, I would sit by myself, and spontaneous meditation was my "escape" fortunately. Fortunately because it wasn't drugs. In school I was an over achiever; I went to San Jose State University when I was just 12 years old after my psychotherapist at the time gave me an I/Q test and requested of my school that I need to be challenged more. I was an over achiever in school, and business. I started my own companies since I was 12. I would read 500 page books in one day-night without stop. I would stay up and play chess tournaments online for up to three days straight without sleep. I didn't know how to relate to people and how to be happy. I was deeply pained and thoughts which were suicidal began to surface when I moved out of my parents home after my first girl friend cheated on me. At that point, I promised myself that instead of suicide I would devote all my life to personal transformation. I would sit in meditation 5 to 7 hours since I was 15 and began to become aware of the astral body, began feeling connection to nature, trees, animals, the sun and earth in ways that life began to feel like a joy again. Around when I was 20 I met a South Indian Yogi master who took me on as one of his two students and he began to train me. I lived with him for 3 months, he would even cook for me after work. I spent 3 years as a brahmacharya monk under him and went through extensive training in many esoteric practices that I've yet to read in any books. He also suggested to me that after our training I should proceed to enter Native American, and Sufi teachings. I met many teachers since him, and occasionally still keep in contact with him. Regarding the traumas, I went to many trauma-healing workshops such as workshops based on the work of Bert Hellinger somtimes called "Family Constellations" or "Movements of the Soul". For a 2 year period I went almost every other week to a somatic trauma based body-work session with Sabine at RadiantEmbodiment.com in San Rafael which healed a great deal of trauma and allowed me to embody my body senses. I spent a lot of time with a number of Tantrica women and learned to consciously enter orgasmic expanded states of consciousness; I have testimonial letters from some of these tantricas.

                                                        Yes, trauma was a motivating factor in my journey. Though it's not the cause. I was trained to consciously practice these out of body practices amongst many others from my first teacher. They are standard practices in Kundalini, Yoga, and Tantra that are widely known. Their subtleties though I feel can only be taught by a real teacher which I had the fortune of learning.

                                                        I also live a very "grounded" life. I have a stable life partner in a happy non-drama relationship for over 5 years. We have two young children. I also operate now 3 different technology companies with over 14 people that report to me, and over 400 customers which include hedge funds, mutual funds, SaaS companies, top-100 e-retailers, etc.

                                                        I'm living the full expression of life with no limitations. As of 2008 I tried cannabis for the first time just to learn about it. Since 2007 I've also explored poly relationships with the consent of my life partner. I do not know how more I can clearly show that I am a fully "life-engaged" and not exhibiting a trauma "flight" syndrome.

                                                        Regarding family genetics:
                                                        Paternal Grandfather: Would occasionally faint when he was very stressed out while he was in his 90's. He also had very thick eye glasses. He lived a very difficult and poor life. No other health issues. He died in his sleep around 94 years old.
                                                        Paternal Grandmother: High Cholestral, though she ate a lot of heavy animal fat. She needed to eye glasses and had no other issues. She died around 88.
                                                        Maternal Grandmother: Still alive. She's in her 70's now. She uses reading glasses for only reading. Has rheumatism in her legs. That's it. However, one of her sisters had an issue with her bone marrow not creating blood cells and she died from this while she was in her later 60's.
                                                        Maternal Grandfather: Died last month in his upper 80's. Had enlarged prostate and difficulty breathing due to heavy tobacco smoking his entire life. No other health issues, he also didn't need to wear any glasses.
                                                        Maternal Great Grandmother: I was told she was healthy and lived in the village, though she died from a brain hemorage in her late 70's.
                                                        Maternal Great Grandfather: In his 80's he was told his heart was becoming larger, though he continued to live till over a 100 years old. He still had full set of hair and having original teeth. Had no other issues, didn't wear glasses for reading either; he spoke many languages and was highly educated as well.

                                                        Expanding out to other extended family members I do not know of any other family things. I know my family quiet well and probably personally know well over 100 family members.

                                                        --

                                                        Traumatic events can cause the consciousness of a person to step out and get a new perspective.
                                                        Drugs can do similar things.
                                                        Near death experiences also same.
                                                        Mastering any art form such as music, painting, martial arts and some sports can also cause people to enter a very "focused zone" to begin experiencing reality differently.

                                                        Though, meditation in my experience is healing towards all manners of our being. Physical, emotional, psychological.

                                                        Not everyone experiences these realities not because effort is needed but because we use so much effort to avoid. We buy into beliefs, religions, logic, sciences, identity, society, etc. In Zen they tried to make this journey simpler, by just putting all that aside and allowing an "emptiness" or "pure consciousness" to remain, and from there, the Universe can begin to be explored. Suzuki Roshi who wrote "Zen mind, beginers mind" demonstrates this path.

                                                        There are many "paths" that fit different people. But I subscribe to those which bring about a human transformation, not a technological innovation. Often technological innovations come from an intuitive spark within consciousness, science, logic, etc are to me by-products of consciousness.

                                                        Yes... "i think the most pivotal insight regarding your experiences is to recognize how much experience itself is a prepared dish, so to speak" Through meditation it can also be seen the types of thoughts we have, the way which we respond to our environment and thoughts coming our way has a lot to do with the type of eating, diet, rest, life style we live. That's why it's important in meditation to reach a level of consciousness which is free from body-consciousness through practices like Pratyahara (total sense withdrawal) so that we perform a gradual rolling black-out and witness what remains of Self as these are shut off. Pratyahara is only one stage in the Raja Yoga system. By with drawing of the outer-senses we come to directly experience the inner-mind where the "senses" are still there. In the inner-mind like you said, you can hear sounds, create experiences fully and easily believe in them. You are right in all of this. In here the training and danger is around "Maya" i.e. delusion/illusion, and in this inner level through dhyana and dharana (meditation/contemplation) we come to see we are not any of these thoughts, and all the illusions and delusions fade to a thought-less awareness. In that thought-less awareness the "space of mind" is reached. Here we gradually come to the awareness of the various stages of mind, i.e. manas, chitta, and budhi. Essentially, we continue removing the layers to see what is under neath step by step. Once we hit the inner core, emptiness, then our sense of identity is lost, all beliefs and ideas are lost, a total freedom is experienced. The body/mind often experience states of bliss such as total calmness, pervasive peace, etc. And our attention becomes very subtle. We notice things in our awareness that we never did before. We can focus our attention to very very subtle aspects of the world outer and inner, and through this we begin gaining a very subtle awareness of reality and ourselves of which I've written some of my experiences.

                                                        I do not mean to caricature science; I have great respect for it. It's just that often I find "scientific community" to have a very strange energetic configuration where it looks like they are only willing to see and accept that which can exist in the box of science and nothing else. It's like there is a great blindness which to me is the same that I've seen with the fanatical religious groups.

                                                        When I refer to "realms" I'm talking about different manners we can experience and interact with the world/reality. We can interact through the Internet, by use of language, by use of physical touch and body gestures, by sound, etc. We can also interact directly by energy, thoughts, and consciousness; this is the less known fact. We can use the imaginal realm for example to interact with very subtle energies/entitites within the universe which with our normal senses we have no context or interpreter. We are still using our will, energy, and generated thoughts to interact, the imaginal realm is only used as an interpreter. In this way, the human being can begin learning the "language of the universe". The Hindu's have long known this, hence why they have created Deities for everything, there is a Deity for the Sun who rides a chariot with 7 horses (each horse is a different color). There is a Deity for the Moon who happens to have 28 wives. They created a form that the human being could use in the imaginal realm to interact with the energy and consciousness of the Universe and that which lays beyond.

                                                        There are many many many ways to experience the world, science isn't the only manner that is true. I feel in our current time too much is relied on it at the expense of loosing site to the other aspects.

                                                        Fortunately, I see a great movement in energy workers/healers who are incorporating into psychotherapy, bod-work, art, music, science now more than the last 1,000 years at least.

                                                        I have to get back to work... I don't feel I put enough attention to respond to you on this post... this will have to suffice for now.

                                                        p.s. thanks for your response.



                                                        • thank you for your sharing; i promise you won't regret it. i appreciate your sincerity and kindness and good intentions a great deal. your unusual experiences are fascinating and seem to provide some nourishment to you; far be it from me to suggest taking them away.

                                                          i also have suffered from trauma in my life. i was a victim of a racially-motivated gang attack; had my house burned down after a man killed an elder woman downstairs; the list is actually a little ridiculous. sounds like we both have seen far more than we should have.

                                                          you're right that opportunity for growth and learning exist inside every experience. even in healing from trauma, we can find a renewed sense of things. you know, flowers need fertilizer. we learn what counts sometimes better than people who have not experienced trauma.

                                                          i do not judge you. our differences had been intellectual. part of accepting causation in people's lives is accepting that everyone is doing what they can with what they have and what they've been through. we are all wise and ignorant simultaneously, with blind spots, and with clear vistas.

                                                          i understand that not all unusual out-of-body experiences are caused by trauma, but perhaps a strong interest in them is. what do i know? i spent years studying shamanism and toltec techniques and zen buddhism and and and you know, each time i peel back another layer of the onion, it seems each was another escape plan. and each was also a source of great wisdom. it seems life is one big phase after another! my "phase" now is trying to know what really is going on instead of what i wish was going on, and it's not very easy at all. we are quite apparently - all of us - built for self-delusion.
                                                        • "It's just that often I find "scientific community" to have a very strange energetic configuration where it looks like they are only willing to see and accept that which can exist in the box of science and nothing else. It's like there is a great blindness which to me is the same that I've seen with the fanatical religious groups. "

                                                          yeah, i don't like that vibe either. so many of us don't realize how many ideas were once deemed fanciful that science later confirmed. we take for granted the work already done, and get smug about what is possible. i advocate a very open playing field -- any hypothesis or phenomenon deserves checking out, not matter how unusual. i also ask that people remember the limitations of language and modeling generally.
                                          • Well, michael, I'm glad you're still around.

                                            Just an observation here... You describe 'determinism' in the context that it has never been proven, and then you go ahead and frame 'Dependent Origination' in the context that it's never been dis-proven. And though I don't think it was your intention, semantically the two statements are perceived quite differently. I'd say both concepts are equally subjective, though, things as they are, we in varying degrees inadvertently gravitate toward one camp or the other.

                                            Yes, I agree in that we're jewels in Indra's net and in a sense we're all inseparably connected. I'd go a step further and propose that this connection is beyond any capability of our awareness assisted or not.

                                            It's there - just we're not aware.

                                            But we tend to make things up and go on and believe them. And we go ahead and communicate them to others and at times they believe them as well. Hell, in some cases they go on to believe that it was their own thought in the first place. What a mess ;-)
                                          • Pratītyasamutpāda appears to me to be a determinist model, or at least causally dependent model, excepting that it does not limit itself to simple causal stories. causation as a practical concept limits itself in proximity and immediacy -- though everything effects everything else, this is not a useful insight in many situations wherein we are attempting to present a causal relationship that can lead to action. if the vase gets knocked over and crashes, and my coattail had swung into it, we say that my coat, or i, caused the vase to crash. it's a practical concept. of course, limiting the story only to my coattail and to me is not inherently accurate, for causation radiates further, and dependencies are infinite. (in part, this is what chaos theory described with its high sensitivity to initial conditions.)

                                            in short, i feel you may have misunderstood Pratītyasamutpāda as being anti-deterministic, when it appears as a doctrine to be more about the scope of causal stories than somehow an upending of causation. Pratītyasamutpāda appears to be agnostic on the specific topic of determinism.
                                    • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                      Thu, March 12, 2009 - 6:52 PM
                                      The claim that "it's not really that events are indeterminable" is based entirely on what we are able to know. If we find that they're currently indeterminable by us, then we cannot conclude that it's not really that events are indeterminable.

                                      For example, pizza smurf Biggle.
                                      • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

                                        Fri, March 13, 2009 - 1:32 AM
                                        Our perception of an event likely has nothing to do with the cause of an event. And what we experience as our perception of the event has likely nothing to do with our perception of that event. Our perception is just our perception, nothing more - our subjective interpretation of deterministic interplay.
  • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

    Mon, April 13, 2009 - 8:04 PM
    When you bring "knowledge" into this thought experiment, who's knowledge are you talking about? It is one thing to suggest that all antecedents could be discovered, and another entirely to suggest that they can be known before hand. Whether or not we has humans have the technology or knowledge to ever be able to discover incoming antecedents that are moving at the speed of light is a separate matter from are things deterministic. Completely separate.
    • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

      Mon, April 13, 2009 - 11:06 PM
      "Whether or not we has humans have the technology or knowledge to ever be able to discover incoming antecedents that are moving at the speed of light is a separate matter from are things deterministic. Completely separate."

      Knickname, I tend to agree with you - maybe you could provide us with some insight as to why you see the two conditions as being 'completely separate'.
      • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

        Tue, April 14, 2009 - 10:39 AM
        I have had some discussions with people that seem to confuse the two position and use arguments from one when talking about the other.
        In order for a human to do accurate predictions some type of model is needed. One can obviously never model the entire universe as it would take a computer with more bits than quarks. So in a technical sense no one will ever be able to sit back with a 100% guaranteed road map for how the universe is going to unfold. In the practical sense, not all systems have to be modeled down to their constituent level, and phenomena can be isolated as local, but technically speaking there will not come the day that someone says "We have solved the riddle of the deterministic universe by brute force once and for all. Come look at our model that will predict anything accurately forever". That day cannot happen. And no one talks that way anyway.
        However, it does not mean that given a spare universe to build a universe sized computer in, and given enough tiny wormholes to connect the right detectors and monitors to every particle in this universe, you could possibly come up with the perfect model. Because we may never be able to construct the model that would prove beyond a doubt that this is a deterministic universe in no way strengthens or weakens the argument that this is a deterministic universe.
        That's all I meant.
        • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

          Tue, April 14, 2009 - 12:30 PM
          Yeah, I think we've been through this before here. And while I agree pretty much about what you've said, the fact still remains that determinism can't actually be proved in a scientific sense, nor can free will be proved for the same reason - solely because we can't keep track of all the variables, and furthermore we have no clue as to how deeply the hidden variables are nested. So, what it amounts to is a belief depending upon what you actually feel is correct, what your particular swarm of bits happens to be aligned with. Now I'd say this is a deterministic phenomenon but believers to the contrary chalk it up to free will or the manifestations of some self-directed agent.
          • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

            Tue, April 14, 2009 - 2:59 PM
            "solely because we can't keep track of all the variables"

            it's some of we that can't, some of we that won't, and all of we that is left to try.
            start keeping track with a one track mind (artificial even), add another and another....
            almost all has proven time after time to be quite enough for working models, with juicy bits
            left over for further speculation, investigation and surprise.

            the clue is more about if there are hidden variables, detectable variables certainly aren't hidden,
            whether they are dark, intrinsic or even as yet have unknown qualities.
            a variable without affect may simply be ignored like anything else that manages to generate 0 interest,
            0 effect, 0 cause, it's deepness (or shallowness) doesn't alter its amount of non-interference, its total lack of relatedness.

            How long does it take for GR to become intuitive?
            Funny that GR makes more literal sense than metaphor.
            For some anyway symbolic signs via oral and written language are more understandable and 'natural' than standard math jargon.

            Some pure research isn't looking for usefulness, utility and still quite often finds as byproduct more and more wondrous tools, toys
            and other stuff to love.

            some who seem 'hung-up' or reluctant to take "relative state" formulation as literal, may be missing the obvious metaphoric reality
            that it embraces.
            one photon can be isolated but never truly separated. Where is it? (when it isn't being measured) Everywhere. When? Everywhen.

            As far as metaphors go "many worlds" may even outdo "catch-22", which of course caused Yossarian to whistle and say,
            'That's some catch!"
            I do wonder though if either is nothing more than a variation on DIYD DIYD.
            • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

              Tue, April 14, 2009 - 5:52 PM
              "the clue is more about if there are hidden variables"

              Personally, I don't even see there being a question here. Yes, there are hidden variables.

              "a variable without affect"

              Isn't such an item a bit of an oxymoron? Though it may generate zero interest to you, it is certainly affecting something; it's a player at some level. Any influence on its own dimensional plane is part of that landscape and others, and correspondingly causes an effect on all of them - whether it be small or large. A spec of dust on your car might be the last thing you would be concerned about. Yet, for a dust mite it might be its next meal.

              Science at times has a tendency to minimize the importance of influences that might otherwise drive calculations outside the realm of doability. Something else it does is adding the variable of 'being random' - as if anything is random. Such tendencies are mere tricks needed to shoehorn results into a mold of respectability. Yet, such tactics are essential to get things done on the plane on which we live and perceive, but this is but one of many.
          • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

            Tue, April 14, 2009 - 10:35 PM
            "So, what it amounts to is a belief depending upon what you actually feel is correct"

            in other matters you seem more cautious to find belief so decisive. why the change here? when phenomena appear indeterminate, then so be it. i don't see why you have to invoke faith suddenly.

            your last sentence also implies that you think determinism solely opposes free will libertarianism, though i think general causation and indeterminacy both can do a pretty damn good job opposing that view by themselves.
            • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

              Wed, April 15, 2009 - 12:34 AM
              "in other matters you seem more cautious to find belief so decisive. why the change here?"

              We all have beliefs. If I ask you about your view about something, I would assume you'd give me your honest point of view. But your 'honest point of view' for that specific set of circumstances for that specific question is a reflection of your beliefs (actually the blending together of many competing beliefs) at that moment. *At that moment* what you provide is a mirroring of your understanding; it is what you believe to be true. Simply, what percolates to the surface is *a* belief. It not only is correct for you, but once your response has been unveiled, it became part of the record, and regardless of how you might want to go back and second-guess yourself, that response, your belief, was the only possible response you could have made in that moment. It was right for you at that then. Now, that doesn't mean that it will be right in a global sense or even right to some others, but, again, it was the right response for you at that particular instant. It was the *only* response you could have ever made.

              Now, I see what formed the foundation of that particular response as having been deterministically based. At least this is what I believe to be true at this particular phase of my understanding of these ideas. Most people think that their responses are founded in free will, that there's a type of agency under their particular control, at the very least - under their partial control. That is their belief. And I would say that that belief is correct for them and certainly at least appears to be valid to them. And I would go on to say that what appears to them as a response generated by free will was actually based in determinism, something they had absolutely no control over the generation of - that their characterization of their actions as being generated by the spirit of their free will was merely a mechanized response. And, of course, that's certainly *not* how they're going to see it, but it's how they have to see it. Mechanized determinism builds an underlying framework that make most people think they have and exhibit free will - certainly a miracle of miracles.

              Does this shed some light on the response of mine you questioned, or does this explanation push things into deeper obscurity?
          • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

            Mon, April 20, 2009 - 5:49 PM
            I see your point, but I am not certain that we can dismiss the idea of proving deteminism/free will based on the grounds that we are still lacking in data. I do not believe it would be necessary to create a fully functional model of the entire universe to complete this task. I agree that the amount and depth of variables is still unknown but supposing for a thought experiment that all wave functions within a confined area could be predictably collapsed and a a region of predictable space could be created that stayed without computational modeling limits, then perhaps certain smaller systems could one day be proven to be solely deterministic in the absence of outside forces.
            I study some things mostly for fun so I may use language out of the accepted nomenclature, so please bear with me. The amount of computational power needed to simulate the position of every particle within an area the size of a coffin is staggering. Without getting into discussion of the limits of Moore's computational law, or the proposed work arounds to those suggested limits, computational power is predicted to continue growing. And given the great interest that has been given to improving distributed computing systems, it wouldn't be inconceivable to imagine getting to this coffin sized particle model. That is making an assumption that in the "depth of hidden variables" as you so well put it, a bottom can be reached or again some kind of depth where effects at a lower level average out.
            With that assumption in place, and with the computational power having been reached, we create this coffin sized box, complete with enough barriers and monitors to eliminate, nullify, or average out outside influences.
            Then it's a simple matter :) of scanning a human being, preferably an artist, and throwing them in there with a tape recorder and tiny casio keyboard and maybe a tank of oxygen, and have them compose some music. Or insert any number of activities that would be what we consider to be examples of showing individualism or free thinking. Pull them out after a few hours and see what they've done. Meanwhile our model is running. Maybe because of the incredible amount of computations it takes years of distributed computing to run the model to the equivalent of a few hours real time, but it's the future and people are more patient for the results.
            What if the results were the model performed 99% accurately matching reality? Or 99.9999%? What if the model predicted that our simulated artist had a claustrophobic panic attack half way through the experiment, wet himself a little, and then calmed back down to finish his coffin opus.
            Perhaps this act of "scanning" and wave function collapsing of a living organism would be impossible. Maybe the scale of this experiment is too grand and one should start with some single celled organisms. But of course, we'd all be thinking about this experiment.
            Maybe the scan, the computational level and the truly isolated Schrodinger's cat box are science fiction. Or maybe getting into a box that allows no hope of communication with the rest of the universe until a timer goes off and the lid is taken off would cause people to cease to exist. Yeah, now I am certain that's sci-fi. Would you climb into the vault?
            • Re: Fundimental flaw to determinism

              Mon, April 20, 2009 - 11:17 PM
              “…supposing for a thought experiment that all wave functions within a confined area could be predictably collapsed and a a region of predictable space could be created that stayed without computational modeling limits…”

              Knickname, this idea will *always* remain a thought experiment, at least in the way I see it. Regardless of how small the area is that you define, in theory it would be representing wave energy from every particle in the universe. So, even the smallest volume of space would require a computer of the size of the universe. My response to your question is not new, and Feynman said something very similar many years ago.

              “…a bottom can be reached…”

              What makes you think this? Of course, you may be right, but as far as I know there’s nothing that places a limitation on the number of dimensions of which space and matter is composed, and we are limited by the amount of energy we can utilize in experiments in an attempt to unveil the existence of dimensions underlying those we can observe or even hypothesize.

              “What if the results were the model performed 99% accurately matching reality?”

              Well, it depends on what model you’re using to construct reality. We can come up with some pretty solid models for the macro world, though even these are limited by the accuracy of our instrumentation. As our measurements descend to each subsequent dimension, our accuracy diminishes – until that point we reach the realm of theory and belief.

              “Perhaps this act of "scanning" and wave function collapsing of a living organism would be impossible.”

              I agree. Scanning itself taints the results. And the concept of a ‘collapse’ though popular, is highly controversial. A number of leading edge theories deny its existence. Personally, I think it’s an idea whose time came and went a long time ago.

              Agreed, that many of the ideas you are presenting are fun to play around with but rather than the ideas them selves having any real value, it seems to me that they are best used as way to exercise the mind, enabling it (or us) to begin to visualize in a new way. This is itself is something.

Recent topics in "Willful Ignorance"