Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 551 in total
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #391
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
But my question has always been, how is it possible for God (or whatever name you give to this 'other factor') to be moved to act if he is an unmoved mover?

Paul, you cannot use the feeble human intellect which evolved within to realm of space, time, form and limitation to capture and understand the limitless, the infinite which lies beyond space and time. The source of this no-thingness is timeless, yet by its own emanation, it creates space and time. How could you possibly understand that which is beyond time, hence beyond cause and effect? You intellect will break like waves on a rock. Yet, this reality can be "experienced". Experienced is not the right word, since both, subject and object dissapear. There is satcitananda. For example the sufi mystic Rumi wrote

All through eternity
Beauty unveils His exquisite form
in the solitude of nothingness;
He holds a mirror to His Face
and beholds His own beauty.
he is the knower and the known,
the seer and the seen;
No eye but His own
has ever looked upon this Universe.

His every quality finds an expression:
Eternity becomes the verdant field of Time and Space;
Love, the life-giving garden of this world.
Every branch and leaf and fruit
Reveals an aspect of His perfection-
They cypress give hint of His majesty,
The rose gives tidings of His beauty.

Whenever Beauty looks,
Love is also there;
Whenever beauty shows a rosy cheek
Love lights Her fire from that flame.
When beauty dwells in the dark folds of night
Love comes and finds a heart
entangled in tresses.
Beauty and Love are as body and soul.
Beauty is the mine, Love is the diamond.

They have together
since the beginning of time-
Side by side, step by step.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #392
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
As Peter said above, everything in the universe is determined. Does it mean that there is no freedom in the universe?

on what level do you want to answer this question? The statement that "everything in the universe is determined" is simply wrong and has been known to be wrong since at least the discovery of quantum mechanics. Chance (indeterminism) and uncertainty (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) are fundamental features of physical reality. God does indeed play dice. I am not going to give here lectures on science. I have a BSc in physics and took about 4 semesters of courses on quantum mechanis and I am not interested in explaining basics to laymen. Incidentally, Bohm fought against the Copenhagen interpretation and indeterminacy and developed an ugly interpretation of QM known as "pilot wave theory", which saved determinism, but introduced an ugly non-locality in form of the non-local pilot wave. Later, he was so influenced by K, that he developed a theory of "implicit order", that is that the outer reality (space-time, matter) unfold out of some deeper reality (implicit order). But since he was not able to substantiate it with sound mathematics, it was never accepted by the science community.

But we are not talking about physical reality here, are we? We have been talking whether there is freedom within the mind. Is thought free or is thought always a reaction? And no reaction can be free since it is determined by its cause. If you can name me one thought that is not a reaction, ie. the result of challenge + past, then I will acknowledge that thought is free.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #393
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Is thought free or is thought always a reaction? And no reaction can be free since it is determined by its cause. If you can name me one thought that is not a reaction, ie. the result of challenge + past, then I will acknowledge that thought is free.

Thought is conditioned, and not free. This is k 101.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #394
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Thought is conditioned, and not free. This is k 101.

that which has continuity, is not free. And thought is a movement of desire in time, thus creating continuity.

"Death, then, is not a thing to be feared; for in ending there is rebirth, and in continuity there is decay, there is disintegration. Think it out, Sirs, and you will see the beauty of it, the truth of it. It is not a theory, but a fact. That which has an ending, has a rebirth; that which is continuous can never know renewal. Death is the unknown, and that which is continuous is the known. The continuous can never know the unknown, and therefore it is afraid, mystified by the unknown. Immortality is not the I continued. The I is of time, it is the result of time. That which is immortal is beyond time. Therefore, there is no relationship between the I, and the timeless. We like to think so, but that is another deception of the mind. That which is immortal cannot be encased in the mortal, it cannot be caught in the net of time. Only when the I, which is continuity, time, comes to an end, is there that state which is imperishable, immortal. After all, we are frightened of death from force of habit, because desire seeks continuity in fulfilment. But fulfilment has no end, because fulfilment is constantly seeking other forms of fulfilment. Desire is constantly seeking further objects of fulfilment, and therefore gives birth to continuity, which is time. But if each desire is understood as it arises, and so comes to an end, then there is a renewal. It may be the renewal of a new desire - it doesn't matter. Go on finishing, give each desire an ending, and you will see that out of this ending from moment to moment there comes a renewal which is not the renewal of desire, but the renewal of truth. And truth is not continuous; truth is a state of being which is timeless. That state can be experienced only when each desire, which gives birth to continuity, is understood and thereby brought to an end. The known cannot know the unknown. The mind, which is the result of the known, of the past, which is founded upon the past, cannot know the immeasurable, the timeless. The mind, the thought process, must come to an end; then that which is the unknowable, the immeasurable, the eternal, comes into being."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #395
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Paul, you cannot use the feeble human intellect which evolved within to realm of space, time, form and limitation to capture and understand the limitless, the infinite which lies beyond space and time.

What do you use to capture it, Jan, a butterfly net?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #396
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
The source of this no-thingness is timeless,

Oh boy, piling more words on top of more words won't get you there, Jan. How can nothing have a source, for God's sake??

If you multiply two such negatives, do you get a positive?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #397
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
The statement that "everything in the universe is determined" is simply wrong and has been known to be wrong since at least the discovery of quantum mechanics. Chance (indeterminism) and uncertainty (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) are fundamental features of physical reality.

Jan, you misunderstand quantum physics. All that uncertainty says is that we, the human mind, can't be certain. This is solely applicable to the particle/wave controversy and means the same thing may take on two apparently different appearances OR, that it contradicts our current, fundamental idea of the duality between particle and wave. In fact it says that it is the observer, with his/her background mindset, that determines which way the event is viewed. Change the viewpoint and the appearance changes accordingly. It is a statement about viewpoint, not the actuality that is being viewed.

But of course there is an objective determinism at work here, just one that includes the observer along with the observed. The experiment can be conducted a million times and every time there will be the same bi-polar result. The result is determined by the experiment, even when that result presents two aspects.

The crude misrepresentation of the paradox is that the thing/event being viewed actually changes, not that it is due to the viewing.

But read what Bohm wrote about his theory in Implicate Order. He likened it to the same thing (a shark in a tank is the example he gave) being viewed from two different angles (through two different projections of the same thing).

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 17 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #398
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Thought is conditioned, and not free. This is k 101.

That is not just K101, it is the view of science. It is only religion (most religion) which still maintains that thought is the province of God. But it does not only apply to thought. The whole universe is a web of conditioning, from start to finish. Thought is a material process that arises of this universe, in this universe and abides therein. What then, in this universe is "free" in the absolute sense religion speaks of freedom? The Judeo-Christian tradition speaks of the soul, which is given by god, the spark of god in one and its so-called freedom of choice, also god-given, to Adam and Eve.

K was in no way special to deliver those words with regard thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #399
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

It is interesting. I started the thread with regard the machine and man. We quickly got on to determinism. There is still a vast range of opinion being expressed with regard what is determined and what is not. Jan has now brought in the particle/wave controversy. If his view is correct, then matter is not essentially determined, at least, not at the quantum level. And if matter is not essentially determined then nothing is, including life, man and thought.

What amazes me is the lack of really thinking through what is said and the readiness to jump to conclusions and move on to more comfortable topics.

I prefer to start from what is.

I would say that one good point to proceed from is the pattern-seeking behavior of many higher lifeforms, humankind included. There seems to be patterns in nature (the universe) and lifeforms seem to prosper when such patterns are recognized. Therefore there exists a pattern-seeking behavior commensurate with life. Patterns are recognised at the intersection between sensation and memory. Sensations trigger associations and from those associative complexes patterns are discerned. All animals display this, not only humans. We seem to be rather exceptional in the degree to which we employ thought in the act of pattern-recognition and in the quality of that enterprise, due to our peculiar brains.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #400
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
What do you use to capture it, Jan, a butterfly net?

you can't capture it, Paul, that is the whole point. But if you could unself yourself, then there is the possibility, that a ray of that Godhood might enter your soul and transform your life. That is the whole point of this forum

Paul David son wrote:
How can nothing have a source, for God's sake??

It has no source, it is its own source, it is timeless, has no beginning and no end, no form, it is uncreated, yet by emanation gives rise to all creation. But do not burden your mind with such things.

Paul David son wrote:
This is solely applicable to the particle/wave controversy and means the same thing may take on two apparently different appearances OR, that it contradicts our current, fundamental idea of the duality between particle and wave. In fact it says that it is the observer, with his/her background mindset, that determines which way the event is viewed

this is a superficial view of quantum mechanics from the 1920's, when the theory has not been fully developed yet. The mystery goes much deeper - study EPR experiment, Bell inequalities (confirmed by Aspect experiments) or my personal favorite, the GHZ experiment.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9808022.pdf
http://www.mat.ufmg.br/~tcunha/2003-07WalbornF.pdf
if you want to be in a real shock, then study these two experiments (written for laymen). If you are not going to experience a shock, you have not understood it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #401
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
you can't capture it, Paul, that is the whole point.

Fine, then all folks are doing is parading their concepts. What use is that?

Jan Kasol wrote:
But if you could unself yourself

Which amounts to the same thing, Jan. "IF" you could do something then you probably would. Do you really believe that all those hundreds of thousands of people who have been earnestly 'iffing' for the last ninety years and have not successfully 'iffed' their way to unselfing themselves could not have formulated the same sentence as you, could not have come up with the same concept, the same line of reasoning and the same inability to address 'what is?' Sure, 'if' one could lift oneself by ones own bootstraps one would have managed to defy the deterministic laws of gravity.

Jan Kasol wrote:
a ray of that Godhood might enter your soul and transform your life.

??

Jan Kasol wrote:
That is the whole point of this forum

Thank you for that information. I'll ask Dev to update the forum description.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #402
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
It has no source, it is its own source, it is timeless, has no beginning and no end, no form, it is uncreated, yet by emanation gives rise to all creation. But do not burden your mind with such things.

Quite. I choose not to burden my mind with mechanical religious dogma.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #403
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
if you want to be in a real shock, then study these two experiments (written for laymen)

I was very shocked. I couldn't understand a word of it. I'm not the layman I thought I was. (Is anyone?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #404
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I choose not to burden my mind with mechanical religious dogma.

You, Paul, don't choose anything. The particular thought patterns and resultant mind set that is Paul Davidson lands you wherever you happen to find yourself minute by minute. The alternative, which the rigidity of your mechanistic personal operation unfortunately debars you from, is a degree of flexibility that corresponds to life's dynamism, allowing movement in accord. It's called freedom.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Mon, 17 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #405
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
in ending there is rebirth, and in continuity there is decay, there is disintegration (K)

Thanks for sharing the excerpt, Jan. When one is bound to the past, one is not free....but why the decay? Going to read the excerpt more carefully later...at a noisy cafeteria at the moment.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #406
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Paul, why are you then wasting time on a Krishnamurti forum? I am not driving you away, I am just curious, what's in it for you? You seem to be an atheist, you seem not to believe in K massage, you think that we are "under the influence of religious dogma" and that we are "ifing".

Paul David son wrote:
"IF" you could do something then you probably would. Do you really believe that all those hundreds of thousands of people who have been earnestly 'iffing' for the last ninety years and have not successfully 'iffed' their way to unselfing themselves could not have formulated the same sentence as you, could not have come up with the same concept, the same line of reasoning and the same inability to address 'what is?'

And how do you know I haven't? Obviously, everyone can choose how he is spending his time. Someone might hoard money, another might play computer games, another might try to free himself from the tyranny of the self. If you yourself do not share this interest or do not believe in the possibility of it, why prevent others from doing so? Or do you see yourself as some kind of atheist messiah who has taken the role upon himself to awaken those poor deluded souls lost in religious dogma? Or do you like to kick over children's sand castles and rip apart their toys? Or are you somehow torn inside, where one half is attracted to K teachings, the other half fights it?

For me, K teachings are real. I have found their truth in my own life. And you are not going to take that from me. You can try to find out for yourself, if there is truth in them or not for you. If you are going to try, them we can share our experiences, help each other understand. But if you find out that it is not for you, then let it go and find some other occupation in life. You would be happier than to constantly try to kick over our sand castles and make us see your "truth".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #407
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Paul, why are you then wasting time on a Krishnamurti forum?

That's a question that starts with a pretty strong conclusion, isn't it?? Please don't play games, Jan. I am not wasting my time, though you may be wasting yours. I value what I do, whether here or elsewhere. If you find no value in what I post you will regard it as a waste and then project that waste onto me. Is that clear enough for you?

Jan Kasol wrote:
I am not driving you away,

No, you are certainly not. What a strange idea.

Jan Kasol wrote:
You seem to be an atheist,

Then the appearance matches the fact. But which are you, Jan, an agnostic or a believer in the faith??

Jan Kasol wrote:
you seem not to believe in K massage

Is it ayervedic massage? Actually you are displaying an underlying message through a Freudian slip. I wonder if you see the hidden meaning of your 'error.'

Jan Kasol wrote:
you think that we are "under the influence of religious dogma" and that we are "ifing".

You iffed, Jan. I saw you, we all did. Now you are trying to win slyly. I am not into games however and you can win as much as you want. I am interested in discussing the idea of the mechanical man but you start from a conclusion, a belief and you 'iff' from there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #408
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Paul, why are you then wasting time on a Krishnamurti forum? I am not driving you away, I am just curious, what's in it for you?

That is a good question. I think Paul has been coming here for years. Paul, what do you get from this? You have called the forum people here a "raggedy cult" and left several times wishing us all good luck...and it amused me because it seemed so naive that someone could make a "cult" out of K.'s work. But seriously why do you come here? To learn, to share, to go into this situation of what you are, of what we are, or what? Or is it just to disparage...well believe me, you are not needed for that. We are awake to our own dishonesty.

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 18 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #409
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Paul, what do you get from this?

That question could be asked to many here, Dan. I don't think my motivations are much different from anyone else, but you have put the question to me in particular and so I will answer as best I may. I get a deeper understanding of the human condition, of my condition, from this, Dan. I find that by exchanging with people here, listening to them and discussing with them, my understanding is affected in ways I cannot predict.

So, is what you get in some way different, superior, more valid?

Dan McDermott wrote:
You have called the forum people here a "raggedy cult"

More than that, I have called what some proudly proclaim to be "the K world" a raggedy cult. It is different from an authoritarian leadership cult only in that there is no central figure giving orders through an established bureaucracy. John Perkins disagrees with me on this. He has said that the K network is led by bureaucrats, petty-dictatorships, thieves and would-be popes. I have been much closer to things than he, perhaps much closer to it than you, (I don't know) and I have found no such thing. But I'll give an example. A few years back I bust a gut trying to initiate a project to get K books in the Havana Book Fair. My efforts finally led to fruition and the US K people took a load of books down, using my knowledge of US Treasury OFAC restrictions and how they could be overcome and using my contacts in Havana to facilitate their participation in a fair which annually attracts more than one million visitors. In return I received neither an invite to participate, thanks for my help nor even the courtesy of a report on the work when I inquired about it. I later found out that internal politics of the K people in the US was to blame. That's an example of what I mean about 'raggedy.' As for a "cult," I think this has far less to do with K and far more to do with how the people who came to the teaching, took to organising around it. The fact that a "K World" is openly talked about says as much as anything else.

But I do not include all posters in the notion of the cult. Many, perhaps most, are not, even if they show tendencies often in that direction, as I did myself when first enamored with the teaching. It is a common mistake which I too fell for. I'd like to think I can be of some service in discussing this in the forum, but it is seldom welcome and more often leads to violent rebuke.

Dan McDermott wrote:
it seemed so naive that someone could make a "cult" out of K.'s work.

Yes, but go up close and look. They do it, perhaps as you say, out of naivete, perhaps out of hope, greed or something else. In any case, the fundamental reason is their own confusion, which is the same with any cult. The Christ figure or Christian mythology was an antidogma prophet. Yet they made a dogma of his (supposed) teaching with no problem. He taught that it is not what goes into ones mouth that can represent evil but that which comes out of it, yet true believers will not eat meat on a Friday. Christianity, in its early days, was a raggedy cult too. But they formalised it, produced a vast bureaucracy and ruled a good chunk of the world according to its established dogmas, none of which were taught by their prophet. Do you think the K teaching came with a Kryptonite force-shield?

Dan McDermott wrote:
But seriously why do you come here? To learn, to share, to go into this situation of what you are, of what we are, or what?

Yes, for that.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Or is it just to disparage

Not at all. I opened this thread with honesty and deliberation. But when it is turned about into a means for rehearsing dogma and speaking as if knowledgeably about things that cannot be known, then I disparage such usurpation and challenge the forced conclusions that have all too often become the foundational precepts from which the various posters pontificate. Much of the argumentation is well-rehearsed dogma, disguised as questions and inquiry but in actuality doubting its own foundation and looking for comfort in numbers. The dialogue often reminds me of the old Russian saying, "They discuss ideas like old men chewing blankets in their sleep."

Dan McDermott wrote:
We are awake to our own dishonesty.

That may be the biggest illusion of all, Dan. And for the record, the one who is truly awake to their own dishonesty cannot possibly maintain that dishonesty in the light of its discovery.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Tue, 18 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #410
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
For me, K teachings are real. I have found their truth in my own life. And you are not going to take that from me. You can try to find out for yourself, if there is truth in them or not for you. If you are going to try, them we can share our experiences, help each other understand. But if you find out that it is not for you, then let it go and find some other occupation in life. You would be happier than to constantly try to kick over our sand castles and make us see your "truth".

Jan, your words are more revealing that you perhaps intend them. I suggest you study them carefully.

"You are not going to take that away from me."

I have never tried to, Jan. But why does it seem you feel threatened?

"You can try to find out for yourself"

Yes, that is what we are all doing here, myself included. But when I try, you say I am not doing it rightly. Jan, whatever your particular experience has been, it may not be mine and n o amount of "trying" can make it mine. It is yours, okay? Why do you impose it as a truth upon others?

"let it go and find some other occupation in life"

More instructions? Jan, please understand, Knet is not my occupation in life. I am a musician, a songwriter and performer, an artist, a builder, an architect and carpenter, a teacher, an inquirer into the human condition, a father and grandfather, a student of history, a political activist, a chef, a gardener and many other things. But you, Jan? If you have found what you are looking for, why keep looking?

Lastly:

"You would be happier than to constantly try to kick over our sand castles"

No, my question is sincere. Why are you building castles of sand?

Jan, I started this thread to inquire into what is. If you have come to the thread to build sand castles please don't be surprised if the tide washes them away. I will not take away your castles made of sand. The tide will.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Tue, 18 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #411
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
And for the record, the one who is truly awake to their own dishonesty cannot possibly maintain that dishonesty in the light of its discovery.

Exactly!

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #412
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 9 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Jan, you misunderstand quantum physics. All that uncertainty says is that we, the human mind, can't be certain. This is solely applicable to the particle/wave controversy and means the same thing may take on two apparently different appearances OR, that it contradicts our current, fundamental idea of the duality between particle and wave. In fact it says that it is the observer, with his/her background mindset, that determines which way the event is viewed. Change the viewpoint and the appearance changes accordingly. It is a statement about viewpoint, not the actuality that is being viewed.

Hi Paul,

Reading these exchanges, I realized I wasn't clear about the exact link between quantum mechanics and uncertainty, and then also what is the link between uncertainty and indeterminism.

Interestingly, uncertainty has little to do with the fact that certain physical properties take discrete values (quantization). I think in the early development of quantum mechanics there was some confusion, between uncertainty and the "observer effect", where measurements affect the systems being measured, and then if energy is quantized and has a some minimum value (Planck constant), you will always affect the observed system in some minimal way. It turns out that any wave-like system has the uncertainty property, and so then the link between uncertainty and quantum theory is matter-wave duality.

So the next thing is, if we can never be certain about the state of a physical system (where things are, how they are moving about, etc.), does that mean the system is non-deterministic? I think your point is, not necessarily.

This post was last updated by dave h Tue, 18 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #413
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 9 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
on what level do you want to answer this question? The statement that "everything in the universe is determined" is simply wrong and has been known to be wrong since at least the discovery of quantum mechanics. Chance (indeterminism) and uncertainty (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) are fundamental features of physical reality. God does indeed play dice.

Hi Jan,

A quick scan through the most well-known interpretations of quantum mechanics, reveals about half are deterministic or agnostic about determinism. Given that all these interpretations agree on predictions, and are therefore equally backed by experimental results, it is a matter of philosophical debate. Is God just playing a mean game of poker?

This post was last updated by dave h Tue, 18 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #414
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

dave h wrote:
A quick scan through the most well-known interpretations of quantum mechanics, reveals about half are deterministic or agnostic about determinism. Given that all these interpretations agree on predicted outcomes, and are therefore equally backed by experimental results, it is a matter of philosophical debate. Is God just playing a mean game of poker?

I think it may be worth remembering, dave, that basically all the considerations are made by a flawed instrument, viz. us. One thing that results from this is that the very biggest questions go conveniently ignored. For example, a question which concerns the very bedrock of science itself: Doesn't the discipline presuppose that 'nothing can come from nothing'? And yet they seem happy enough to start out from a 'big bang' for which there can (since it represents the beginning) have been no pre-existing potential. In other words it is simultaneously accepted that EVERYTHING comes from nothing.

It is the same in all disciplines including the world of (supposed) K inquiry. For example: numerous times I have put it to K forums that if there are no extant mutated brains then the K teachings are brought to nothing. That some brains mutate is pivotal to the teachings. But nobody to date has been willing even to address the question. It is always met with either silence or abuse.

You see, the flawed instrument that purports to investigate actually, at base, does no such thing. All it ever really does is keep trying to self-affirm. In other words it works on maintaining its own security.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #415
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 9 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I think it may be worth remembering, dave, that basically all the considerations are made by a flawed instrument, viz. us. One thing that results from this is that the very biggest questions go conveniently ignored. For example, a question which concerns the very bedrock of science itself: Doesn't the discipline presuppose that 'nothing can come from nothing'? And yet they seem happy enough to start out from a 'big bang' for which there can (since it represents the beginning) have been no pre-existing potential. In other words it is simultaneously accepted that EVERYTHING comes from nothing.

Well, there is evidence that even the 'void' is alive with potential, particles springing into existence and vanishing. But look, I don't have the answers, to what came before the 'big bang'? where did it all come from? is it just and endless cycle, with no beginning and no end? I just think introducing God (just as a creator, not an omniscient, loving entity) raises exactly the same questions.

It is the same in all disciplines including the world of (supposed) K inquiry. For example: numerous times I have put it to K forums that if there are no extant mutated brains then the K teachings are brought to nothing. That some brains mutate is pivotal to the teachings. But nobody to date has been willing even to address the question. It is always met with either silence or abuse.

Is this stopping you or anyone else from learning about themselves?

You see, the flawed instrument that purports to investigate actually, at base, does no such thing. All it ever really does is keep trying to self-affirm. In other words it works on maintaining its own security.

So the initial question was, is thought mechanical right? What is your view on this? Is it mechanical? Are there process which are non-mechanical? Is the entire universe just a big machine?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #416
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:

And for the record, the one who is truly awake to their own dishonesty cannot possibly maintain that dishonesty in the light of its discovery.

.

Dan McDermott wrote:

Exactly!

A slumberer awakes!

One positive is that at long last Paul has been forced into the open. Been forced to declare his position. For far too long he has been allowed to dominate and subvert K forums by feigning interest in K when in fact all he has been trying to do is superimpose his own teachings in place of those we're interested in.

I have always felt however, in all seriousness, that except for the fact of his corrupting influence (which in all fairness it wasn't for him to control), he is a major asset to inquiry because - and this is not a jibe - he represents the consummate 'I'. He is extremely intellectually sharp and can argue the anti-K position better than anyone I've come across. His loss would be a real loss indeed, on condition people know where he's coming from. I don't see any problem with anybody putting forward a case for K being a charlatan if that's what they think. How might we actually find anything out if we're not willing to have proper regard for suggested alternatives?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 18 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #417
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Paul, why are you always twisting everything I say to directions and conclusions that I never said or intended? I am not imposing truth upon others. Whether or not I am building sand castles is for me only to judge and if they are sand castles, life will take them away, you do not have to do it. What my experiences are can only I know, but you call those experiences "religious dogma" and compare all of us here to "children playing with colored beads" etc. Also, I told you my thoughts concerning the topic of this thread, namely what is understood when we say that thought is mechanical and never free, and for me, the discussion if finished. If you do not accept what I say, I am fine with it, it is your right, your choice, your struggle, your life. I do not have the urge to convert you, to impose truth upon you. But at the same time, you should respect, if I am no more interested in discussing the issue with you because I find that you are not serious enough in actually trying to understand what is being communicated. You redefine the meanings of words and refuse to accept a common meaning out of which further discussion could follow, for example the word mechanical. I defined at the beginning what we understand under the word "mechanical", namely thought being a reaction. Yet you constantly sidetrack the conversation, refuse to accept the common meaning and so the discussion cannot move forward but is moving in circles.

Concerning people at K organizations, I do not know any of them. Organizations are not necessary for the understanding of truth, because the truth is in each of us and no organization can help us to liberate that truth. Organizations are exclusive, truth is all-inclusive. To find truth means to welcome life in everything it brings, not hiding under the refuge and shelter of an organization to escape life. Every incident, every experience is a precious jewel - being it the experience of pride, of joy, of sorrow, of fear, of guilt. To find truth means not to supress anything, choosing only this and escaping that. At least that is my own experience. You are free to find you own path through life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #418
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

dave h wrote:
A quick scan through the most well-known interpretations of quantum mechanics, reveals about half are deterministic or agnostic about determinism. Given that all these interpretations agree on predictions, and are therefore equally backed by experimental results, it is a matter of philosophical debate

Hi Dave, the interpretations are always a trade-off between determinism and locality. If you interpret it deterministically (by means of hidden variable theories), you must admit nonlocality (faster-than-light influence), if you admit locality, you must give up realism and determinism. It is pointless to discuss these things theoretically, without going into concrete experiments and mathematics. The wave function describing the quantum system is a vector in a complex mathematical space (Hilbert space). The evolution of this vector (its rotation in the space) is governed by the Schrödinger equation and is deterministic. But an act of measurement "collapses" the wave function and a concrete result is realized. All experiments show that the result was not predetermined, it is pure, absolute chance, indeterminism.

Actually, the uncertainty principle is the reason, why we have atoms. The electron (negative charge) orbits the nucleus (positive charge due to protons). Positive and negative charges attract. Why does the electron not collapse into the nucleus? The answer is because of the uncerntainty principle. If the electron has a given energy, it means that is velocity is determined, but if its velocity is determined, its location cannot be known, so it has to be spread in an uncertain region of space around the nucleus.

These things are just the beginning. The real fun begins when you try undertanding quantum field theory which also means the vacuum. The vacuum cannot be empty because of the uncertainty principle

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #419
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Paul

For the record, I agree with an awful lot of what you had to say at #409. But, just to examine one facet, it would be a fallacy to suppose that you come at the question of whether we are machines cleanly. You obviously have no personal experience that might significantly incline you towards anything more fundamental than 'the mechanical', which means that you can't believe in anything else. It follows, hence, that you have already concluded that we are mechanical, period. Unfortunately for your theory, other people have experiences different to yours that actually do lean them towards something more fundamental than matter. You don't believe them. Well, you wouldn't would you? How could you? But that you should completely decry them, simply out of the force of your ego, on a site on which they meet to discuss what they see, is to my mind out of order. Why don't you just openly (ie. as opposed to closed-mindedly) discuss eg. the various particulars of your 409?

Ignoring me, by the way, simply on account you can never find a way past my arguments, doesn't do either you or your argumentation any favours.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 #420
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

dave h wrote:
So the initial question was, is thought mechanical right? What is your view on this? Is it mechanical? Are there process which are non-mechanical? Is the entire universe just a big machine?

My view, dave, since you ask, and which is based on experience, is that understanding can be 'acquired' without any time element involved. In other words the 'acquisition' can be instantaneous. One implication of this is that there is no brain movement, ie. it is not 'brick upon brick'. It is not there, then it is there. This is entirely in keeping with the K teachings and for me it is a fact of life, and it never went away.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 18 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 551 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)