Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
May 26, 2015 - 04:33pm PT
|
What does "no-thing" mean to you, in terms of your own self-definition?
My own self-definition is that I am John, an elderly ex-climber, who dabbles in mathematics. Thus, no-thing means I am none of those things.
How can that be?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2015 - 05:03pm PT
|
Everything is already there.
The gross materialist can't "see" anything except himself ..
Then the gross materialist projects his own stupid self onto the world outside of himself.
That is why he's blind ......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 26, 2015 - 05:04pm PT
|
Largo, it is a "thing" because is interacts with other "things".
I ran this past my science friends. Their question: What, in a quark, besides energy, do you believe is interacting with the things "out there?" Answer: There is no "thing" interacting with the world external to the quark.
Where people are still stumbling is that no-thing is not the same as nothing. Nothing is total absence. No-thing is a phenomenon known only by its effect on external stuff, including measuring devices, while containing no stuff, dimensionality, or physical extent itself.
And the interesting thing about massless particles like photons is:
"... the spacetime distance between their start and end points is zero in all frames of reference (in fact, spacetime distances are invariant under changes between frames of reference, which is in fact a fundamental point of special relativity). However, the distance a massless particle is observed to travel (and hence for how long it travels) is entirely dependent on the point of view of the observer."
The mistake I believe people like John are making is in believing that I am presenting my take on any of this, whereas this "real" science sees it differently. I would simply point out that invitations to provide different takes on any of the principal notions per No-Thing have not been provided. As my friend said, "Don't conflate the effects of a phenomenon with the inherent nature of same." Common sense is saying if a photon can push a sail, "it," the photon has to be a thing. The scientists I know say this is entirely mistaken.
A bigger question: Why do you think that aspects of reality are dependent on point of view. And do you think point of "view," and point, would result in the same reality if there was no sentience "viewing" from said point?
Put differently, materialists and easter thought insist that there is no stand-alone sentience separate from things, but the easterners also say there are not things separate from sentience. Neither things nor yet sentience "creates" the other. Both are interdependent.
Go figure...
JL
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
May 26, 2015 - 05:34pm PT
|
Jgill: My own self-definition is that I am John, an elderly ex-climber, who dabbles in mathematics. Thus, no-thing means I am none of those things. How can that be?
Are these statements accurate, complete, definitive? Are you any less of any of what they appear to indicate? Are you any more than what they appear to indicate? Do these exist independently, on their own, without connections or conveyances with any other so-called “things?”
You are not any of those words. You are not any of those definitions because I don’t think you can define any to those terms fully and accurately. You are not any of those references (of the words) because all references are only things that we can point to (but we can not say what they are). There is a break between the symbols, the referents, and the meaning of the two.
So what are you at your core? What is your essence? Assuming you have consciousness of an infinite environment as the rest of seem to claim, what ARE you not? What do you know (not believe theoretically or what someone else has said) that exists outside of your consciousness?
How could it possibly be that you are “John, an elderly ex-climber, who dabbles in mathematics.” I’d bet your children, wife, and friends would say much more. Would they be wrong?
You’re either simple-minded, or you're trolling. I think it’s the latter.
|
|
allapah
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2015 - 05:38pm PT
|
They're enough to heisenberg the potentials in the synapses.
Pasang Dawa Lama balking on K2.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
May 26, 2015 - 08:54pm PT
|
You’re either simple-minded, or you're trolling. I think it’s the latter
It's not what you think, but what you know, and I know you know what to think.
So what are you at your core? What is your essence? Assuming you have consciousness of an infinite environment as the rest of seem to claim, what ARE you not? What do you know (not believe theoretically or what someone else has said) that exists outside of your consciousness?
I hope you eventually find your way out of your existential labyrinth.
The mistake I believe people like John are making is in believing that I am presenting my take on any of this, whereas this "real" science sees it differently. I would simply point out that invitations to provide different takes on any of the principal notions per No-Thing have not been provided. As my friend said . . . (JL)
And why NOT issue invitations to those who might have differing opinions per no-thing? Doesn't sound very scientific. You and your prodigies obviously assume these topics are closed issues, wrapped up with pretty bows; now let's move on to meditative ectoplasm.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2015 - 10:58pm PT
|
Largo, I think you are ready to admit that trying to connect meditation with quantum physics was a mistake.
Is that what he was doin?
Huh!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 12:47am PT
|
Yep, that's what panpsychism is all about. Lago trying to tie his experience meditating to physics is simply his way of feeling he and his group are 'experiencing' not just 'some-thing' profound and fundamental, but also self-same with the stuff of virtual particles and the quantum world - i.e. it's all the same non-ball of non-wax. The effort is also, in a circuitously odd way, a source of [group] authority.
I personally consider that as falling somewhere between quiet desperation and outright arrogance, distrust it in the extreme, and - when you get down to it - believe it's just this sort of thinking and belief which allowed Zen to be repeatedly co-opted by Japanese militarism.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 06:28am PT
|
Meditation Secrets for Women: Discovering Your Passion, Pleasure, and Inner Peace
Camille Maurine and Lorin Roche
2001
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 08:30am PT
|
"no physical extent"
"Atma" of which the great famous intelligent westerners Eugene Wigner, Werner Heisenberg, knew about of which is Largo's No-thing.
Instead you have the ignorant tiny insects on this forum such as the traveling shoe salesman DMT constantly harassing
what even the great material scientists confirmed that No-thing has no physical extent.
That No-thing operates faster then the speed of light.
Foolish rascals in this thread have poor fund of knowledge ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 08:59am PT
|
jgill: I know you know what to think.
You don’t. I don’t. Nor do I want to.
I ask you what you are at your core, and you respond with a comment about me being in an existential labyrinth. I think Largo’s right: you can’t seem to answer questions. Instead, you take dismissive pot shots at encouragements to look for yourself and respond with what you see or experience. I think those encouragements are sincere and friendly.
On the one hand, you appear to be very sure that there are “things” that are absolutely material, definable, measurable, and real, but you also seem to admit (begrudgingly) that you cannot (or will not) put your finger on them once and for all or know what they are at their foundations. You deride Largo’s attempts to point to that which you cannot say. (It’s not that difficult of an idea, no difficult than, let’s say, an imaginary number.) But for some reason that is rationally unclear to me, you snipe and backbite. Is it because either Largo or I (let’s say) seem sure of our non-beliefs, or is it that you just can’t stand the ideas (for some reason that is unknown to me).
If you think you can, why don’t you make it clear to me what’s going on? I’d personally appreciate it.
“Meditative ectoplasm?” What are you getting at? What is it that you are really saying here? Should this be taken seriously? Should you be taken seriously? Can you take me seriously? A little straight talking would be helpful to me. Then I could know if I should continue to respond to generate a conversation.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 11:04am PT
|
Forgive and ignore me if this has been discussed on here (I'm a slow reader and there are lots of posts), but this seems like a good place to bring up a debate my cousin and I have:
If the physical is all that there is and there is no spiritual, what is the difference between good and bad or right and wrong?
Why would it matter if one bundle of electricity and atoms shoots a hole through another bundle of electricity and atoms?
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 11:29am PT
|
Because one of those bundles could be your mom? Or your kid? Or you?
You don't need a spiritual guru to know that, do you?
Why would that be good or bad? Just atoms and electricity. If they left then chemicals would be released in my brain and tears would be in my eyes. Why does that matter? Why is it bad? How is that different than a lightning bolt hitting a rock?
The mind is a circuit board and chemistry lab and nothing more if the physical is all we have
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 11:35am PT
|
What is your minds definition of good?
I like to ask this question, it's interesting for me
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 11:45am PT
|
If the physical is all that there is and there is no spiritual, what is the difference between good and bad or right and wrong?
Good and bad, and right and wrong are religious constructs which came from people asking, Why. None of these terms or their meanings belong in the mechanistic genetic evolution of inorganic matter self organizing into the self relevant, with the need to breed organism such as the monkey. You see there is no good or bad and right or wrong in the animal kingdom. The Lion who kills a defenseless lamb, or even eats his own cub is not right or wrong, it's just who he IS. Its in his genetic makeup, and he can't help it! So it's ALL good! Whoops, I mean that's HOW it is.
That is if you don't believe in woo woo ; )
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 11:48am PT
|
^^^^^^That's the first time I've heard a logical answer to the question! Totally agree, we're in the animal kingdom so there is no right or wrong.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 12:29pm PT
|
Behold the fundamentalist Christians Blu and Limpy.
FYI, you don't know the "genetic" "mechanistic" evolutonary position even an eighth as well as you think you do.
Expression for yas... "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." You're a poster boy for this expression blu.
You could experiment...
Come to my house, pillage or ravage therein and I FOR ONE - an evolutionary mechanist - would oblige you*** THOROUGHLY in my morals... or in different terms... THOROUGHLY just how "bad" or how "wrong" you've been.
Clowns.
*** Indeed, there might even be some pleasure in it on my part. ;)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 01:14pm PT
|
^^^ Your a GIRL! I figured it out : )
Only a girl poseing as a guy would talk about themself so much.
So what's ur address honey?
HFCS = Honey
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 01:27pm PT
|
I'm not sure how relevant it is HFCS, but my master's and bachelor'd degrees are both in Ecology & Evolution so, although I no expert, I have an above average understanding of genetics and evolution.
Anyway, I understand everyone has their own morals and values that you would like to enforce, but what is their value? I just don't see any objective moral truth in the physical world, simply electricity and matter that mean nothing and make up "the mind."
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 27, 2015 - 01:35pm PT
|
^^^ Behold! and you may have even learned something from my 9th grd Bio mind
See, we can all get along when we're nice, and sweet ; )
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!