tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post4030069914134807369..comments2023-03-23T15:08:05.008+05:30Comments on Inverse Squared: A Different Kind of OnenessLijehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-47595123938577558332012-01-19T21:09:31.566+05:302012-01-19T21:09:31.566+05:30A sample program code in sanskrit language:
Yog...A sample program code in sanskrit language: <br /><br /><br />Yoga Yantram <br />Yoga Yantram.Vargham <br /><br /><br />Sutram parikshaa //** Class or Module **** <br />{ <br />Sasthra Prana() //** Function Main ***** <br />{ <br />'Display datetime <br />Dhrsanam.Likham(samayam.Ghati) <br />Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam(samayam.Kshanam) <br />Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam(samayam.Maasam) <br />Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam(samayam.Suukshmam) <br />Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam(samayam.Varshham) <br /><br />'Using month class and adding <br />'Display <br />Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam(maasam.divasa) <br /><br />Dim x As New Yantram.Vargham.Argham 'integer <br />Dim y As New Yantram.Vargham.dashamikam 'decimal <br />Dim z As New Yantram.Vargham.dorakam 'string <br />Dim c As New Yantram.Vargham.Aksharam 'char <br /><br />x.Argham = 12 <br />y.dashamikam = 13.5 <br />z.dorakam = "vijaya dhanyam" <br />c.Aksharam = "A" <br /><br />Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam("Integer Value :" & x.Argham) <br />Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam("Decimal Value :" & y.dashamikam) <br />Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam("String Value :" & z.dorakam) <br />Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam("Char Value :" & c.Aksharam) <br /><br />Dhrsanam.SwikramLekam() <br />} <br />} <br /><br /><br />well this was just a 'sample'. a group of people have already at the work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-49924231150588844852011-07-02T17:46:02.579+05:302011-07-02T17:46:02.579+05:30Theory of gravitation says that I will fall down i...Theory of gravitation says that I will fall down if I jump off a building from anywhere on Earth. That statement is not "quite relative, subjective and limited by limitations of the defination".<br /><br />Metaphysical naturalism is based on the assumption that there is only the natural and science is the best way to understand it. It is "just" an assumption, but there is overwhelming evidence for the assumption to hold good. A good way to test it is to ask: "<a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_anticipated_experiences/" rel="nofollow">Do my beliefs pay rent?</a>"Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-79482074171176280022011-07-02T17:29:44.239+05:302011-07-02T17:29:44.239+05:30Dear Lije,
I totally agree with your para 2 and 3...Dear Lije,<br /><br />I totally agree with your para 2 and 3.<br /><br />It would be better if you provide the relevant link in r/o para 1. Your statement (1 para) is simple assertion without proof or reference or I fail to understand it.<br /><br /><br />Let us go the other way. Let us not assume any truth. We will arrive at it scientifically. Question arises whether science is capable of the same? Can we quantify the extent of its success so far? say 50% or 100%?<br /><br /><br />May you clarify my doubts about your para 1 and para 4? please.rameshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-5247612599915195082011-07-02T16:28:40.976+05:302011-07-02T16:28:40.976+05:30Ramesh,
If you had read the link on philosophy of...Ramesh,<br /><br />If you had read the link on philosophy of science, you'd realize that science <b>is not</b> "quite relative, subjective and limited by limitations of the definations".<br /><br />You'd also know the importance of Popper's falsifiability criterion. The so called "Truth" which you presume to exist, just because deepity laden religious texts profess to it, falls squarely outside of the falsifiability criterion and well within the realm of <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Not_even_wrong" rel="nofollow">Not Even Wrong</a>. You know what else exists in that realm? The <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster" rel="nofollow">FSM</a>, the <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn" rel="nofollow">Invisible Pink Unicorn</a> and <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot" rel="nofollow">Russel's teapot</a>.<br /><br />So, if you really are in search of the "Truth", you can't presuppose its existence based on subjective experiences. Our brains have some <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases" rel="nofollow">failure modes</a> and the reason science exists is to work around those failure modes. Ignoring science and relying on the human brain will lead to <a href="http://indianatheists.com/2011/01/09/the-harry-potter-defense/" rel="nofollow">nonsensical conclusions</a>. <br /><br />In short, <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism" rel="nofollow">it is science</a> that will lead to the "Truth" and not any other knowledge system.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-40630651782277945542011-07-02T16:05:34.613+05:302011-07-02T16:05:34.613+05:30Thanks Lije,
Both the articles are quite interest...Thanks Lije,<br /><br />Both the articles are quite interesting and informative. Liked them. Grateful for the same.<br /><br /><br />Deepity, I think is for insincere people. We should mean only business. The real issue has to be sorted out. If we get confused or misdirected let us ask it explicitly. So I wish deepity should not bother we people.<br /><br /><br />I will be grateful to you if you could point out me the satisfactory answer or link in your first reference 'Philosophy of Science' about the issues I raised in my last comment. May you help me to understand the things better please?rameshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-35623145134792181222011-06-30T12:03:14.644+05:302011-06-30T12:03:14.644+05:30I suggest that you read this in its entirety. Also...I suggest that you <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Philosophy_of_science" rel="nofollow">read this</a> in its entirety. Also, spare me the <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity" rel="nofollow">deepities</a>.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-83323043625592720162011-06-30T08:25:04.174+05:302011-06-30T08:25:04.174+05:30Great contradiction! Today Science doesn't kno...Great contradiction! Today Science doesn't know what the Truth is. It either cannot be SURE whether it could ever be known. Is it critical, rational and pragmatic to differentiate between the Fantasy and Truth given the fact that what science tells us is quite relative, subjective and limited by limitations of the definations of Mass, time, space etc? Who will break the truth science or human? No science without human,his concepts. can science go beyond science to decide the nature of human and find truth? <br /><br />Please touch all the points/statements to do the justice.rameshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-14011497275531506732011-06-29T22:25:27.508+05:302011-06-29T22:25:27.508+05:30@ramesh,
Sure, people can indulge in fantasies. ...@ramesh, <br /><br />Sure, people can indulge in fantasies. But they need to know that they are fantasies and not "Ultimate Truth" or "Ultimate Reality". They also need to realize how nonsensical some fantasies are (<a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Purusha_sukta" rel="nofollow">ex: this "revealed truth"</a>) given what science already tells us.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-57410594552420009792011-06-29T09:13:09.569+05:302011-06-29T09:13:09.569+05:30Indeed so. But till the time science finds and acc...Indeed so. But till the time science finds and accounts for everything which will definately take much time are not we supposed to live in a fantacy as we are today?rameshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-8306616017017535872011-06-28T20:36:11.059+05:302011-06-28T20:36:11.059+05:30@Ramesh,
Everything is physical. An alternate dom...@Ramesh,<br /><br /><a href="http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/faqs.htm" rel="nofollow">Everything is physical</a>. An alternate domain of existence is untenable. <br /><br />Also pertaining to the usual apologetic argument of "science cannot explain everything", the solution to that is not to indulge in fantasy, but to keep trying to find answers, which given the past evidence, are highly likely to be in science than any other field.<br /><br />So, no I haven't "utterly misunderstood" anything.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-86384340783111451292011-06-28T18:04:59.544+05:302011-06-28T18:04:59.544+05:30Dear Lije,
It seems that you have utterly misunde...Dear Lije,<br /><br />It seems that you have utterly misunderstood the concept. It is knowledge of oneness rather than physical oneness since physical things are never explained either by science or anywhere else in their entirety.rameshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-1123957840667477312011-05-24T16:11:20.132+05:302011-05-24T16:11:20.132+05:30@illopos,
There is a real world out there (or the...@illopos,<br /><br />There is a real world out there (or the lower level as you put it) and then there is what me make out of that real world (the non-lower level). So the concepts of maya and Brahman, which represent the understanding of reality of a people of an earlier age, too are just as pointless and ultimately "unreal" as a cricket game. So there can be no such thing as breaking out of maya. You are of course free to reinterpret maya in light of advances in science over the past few centuries. But I'm not talking about such interpretations, but about how some states of mind are interpreted to represent an oneness called Brahman.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-20197903644404882292011-05-24T03:22:35.839+05:302011-05-24T03:22:35.839+05:30A Cricket game is perfectly real at one level. But...A Cricket game is perfectly real at one level. But at a higher level it is pointless and "unreal". A cricket player can handle the pressure better if he realizes that the match is ultimately "unreal" and he is there just to enjoy the challenge.<br /><br />Similarly, the world and life (including our investigations into the nature of life) is a maya/illusion/game in the sense that it is ultimately unreal or pointless but at a lower level the world is perfectly real. I think this realization can help one whether he wants to continue to be immersed in maya or break out of it.<br /><br />That is my interpretation of maya. I am not sure what Brahman is though.illoposhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09488377554412968682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-55178137798659339642011-03-14T14:32:35.541+05:302011-03-14T14:32:35.541+05:30My logic is simple. It derives from naturalism. An...My logic is simple. It derives from <a href="http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/faqs.htm" rel="nofollow">naturalism</a>. And I'm quite sure you are using the word freethinking <a href="http://nirmukta.com/what-is-freethought/" rel="nofollow">wrongly</a>.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-74002329442509739232011-03-14T14:09:48.793+05:302011-03-14T14:09:48.793+05:30Got it. This is your space and you may do as you p...Got it. This is your space and you may do as you please. Delete this or the whole chain. <br /><br />I didn't expect you to agree with me, but thought you will point out the logic behind your disagreement. Anyway, I got a taste of some free thinking!shajanmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16190197506411646151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-30637001986649863872011-03-14T12:30:20.944+05:302011-03-14T12:30:20.944+05:30I have already said purely subjective experience c...<i>I have already said purely subjective experience cannot be objectified.</i><br /><br />That's your assumption. Why should I agree with it? And I subjectively feel that you are talking nonsense. That should be the end of this discussion. You don't get it do you? You want to comment about your views and expect me to understand them and probably agree with you. On what basis have you made that assumption? Your subjective experience? Mine? Or on some other ground which both of us have implicitly agreed upon? Now what would that be called? <br /><br /><i>Isn't it irrational to insist that every aspect of reality should be objectively knowable?</i><br /><br />I told you the only answer I can give is a probabilistic one. You assumed I was talking in absolutes.<br /><br /><i>You bring in consciousness to explain objective knowledge, then go on to say that it is nothing but the brain. I suggest this is the wrong approach because we don't know what consciousness is (it may even be non-existent).</i><br /><br />Fine, define consciousness as you like. But don't expect me agree with your definition.<br /><br /><i>No. That would be equating Reality with Objectively Knowable. It is anti-evolutionary and places human arrogance at the center of universe.</i><br /><br />Again, define evolution as you like. But in the world I live in, evolution means humans are the product of a completely natural process. Evolution I know of assigns no privileged position to humans. But they will have privileged position only if you posit a process that is not natural (i.e. cannot be known through objective means). Only by going beyond natural causes, can you say that consciousness is not the human brain.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-63481883574333491572011-03-14T09:36:45.670+05:302011-03-14T09:36:45.670+05:30If you want others to believe what you do, the bur...<i>If you want others to believe what you do, the burden of proof lies on you...</i><br /><br />I have already said purely subjective experience cannot be objectified. Human eyes 'see' only a small range of wavelengths. That doesn't mean UV rays are unreal. The ability to know objectively is a product of evolution and is unique to human beings. Isn't it irrational to insist that every aspect of reality should be objectively knowable? <br /><br /><i>The difference between other animals and humans is consciousness...</i><br /><br />You bring in consciousness to explain objective knowledge, then go on to say that it is nothing but the brain. I suggest this is the wrong approach because we don't know what consciousness is (it may even be non-existent). Therefore we can't use it as an explanatory mechanism. Why not begin with what we are sure about?The difference between humans and other animals is that humans objectify knowledge while animals don't.<br /><br /><i>Then do you agree that consciousness (which includes the deep experiences that you describe) is the human brain...</i><br /><br />No. That would be equating Reality with Objectively Knowable. It is anti-evolutionary and places human arrogance at the center of universe.shajanmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16190197506411646151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-9967207929420701442011-03-14T04:43:49.319+05:302011-03-14T04:43:49.319+05:30This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.shajanmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16190197506411646151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-24458065429023925722011-03-13T18:52:01.129+05:302011-03-13T18:52:01.129+05:30It is a very useful and important tool, but I thin...<i>It is a very useful and important tool, but I think it is a mistake to say our objective picture IS THE reality</i><br /><br />Believe what you want. But the fact is, no matter how strongly you feel in your subjective experience, it doesn't always map to reality. If you want others to believe what you do, the burden of proof lies on you. Now don't say that proof means objective knowledge and you are questioning that very thing. If a person feels like they have a <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Phantom_limb" rel="nofollow">phantom limb</a>, the simple explanation is that their brain constructed it for them. But if they are adamant that the limb is real and that everyone should see it either through direct or indirect means, the burden of proof lies on that person. Same goes for you.<br /><br /><i>I don't understand where consciousness come in. Animals don't use symbols to speak, write or theorize about gravity. So animals do not have objective knowledge of gravity. Humans use symbols to describe how animals respond to gravity, implying objective knowledge.</i><br /><br />The difference between other animals and humans is consciousness. It is what allows us to "speak, write or theorize about gravity". That's where it comes in.<br /><br /><i>I am not putting consciousness on a pedestal or seeking religious certitude. The only certainty I accept is the fact of evolution.</i><br /><br />Then do you agree that consciousness (which includes the deep experiences that you describe) is the human brain?Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-74431160208043755342011-03-13T16:53:29.077+05:302011-03-13T16:53:29.077+05:30Reality exists independent of us..
We are part o...<i> Reality exists independent of us.. </i><br /><br />We are part of reality. Human beings have acquired this unique ability to stand outside and look at 'reality'. This is how we acquire objective knowledge. It is a very useful and important tool, but I think it is a mistake to say our objective picture IS THE reality. <br /><br /><i>It is different if and only if you add consciousness to the equation.. </i><br /><br />I don't understand where consciousness come in. Animals don't use symbols to speak, write or theorize about gravity. So animals do not have objective knowledge of gravity. Humans use symbols to describe how animals respond to gravity, implying objective knowledge.<br /><br /><i>And that language need not be written.. </i><br /><br />You are right. The symbol could be a sound element. That doesn't change anything in my argument. Objective knowledge has to be represented using a collection of symbols, written or spoken (including sign language).<br /><br />I am not putting consciousness on a pedestal or seeking religious certitude. The only certainty I accept is the fact of evolution.shajanmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16190197506411646151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-24126037090906933222011-03-13T15:10:53.613+05:302011-03-13T15:10:53.613+05:30So I go on ask: How are we so sure every aspects o...<i>So I go on ask: How are we so sure every aspects of reality can be represented objectively? After all, Isn't objectivity a recent entry on evolutionary scene?</i><br /><br />Reality exists independently of us. It is not dependent on someone's subjective experience. Is it possible that reality can be otherwise? Sure. But highly unlikely. So, the only answer for your question is a probabilistic one. If you want certitude, religion is the way to go and I don't subscribe to any religion.<br /><br /><i>An animal's sense of gravity is independent of observer. That means human observers can acquire objective knowledge about an animal's sense of gravity. Isn't it different from saying animals have objective knowledge about gravity?</i><br /><br />It is different if and only if you add consciousness to the equation.<br /><br /><i>Knowledge doesn't mean language. (Objective) knowledge has to be representable using a symbol or collection of symbols as in a mathematical expression that makes sense to other observers.</i><br /><br />To use collection of symbols and mathematical expressions, language is a precondition. And that language need not be written. The Vedas were transmitted vocally from one generation to the next. So you are wrong in saying that objective knowledge has to be represented using a collection of symbols. <br /><br />No matter how hard you try not to understand consciousness, your question is intimately tied with it. As long as you put consciousness on a pedestal, keep it separate from the human brain, you will keep failing to see that connection.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-71026461645246905482011-03-13T14:12:16.366+05:302011-03-13T14:12:16.366+05:301) Of course. It would be unwise to rely on subjec...1) Of course. It would be unwise to rely on subjective experience to make predictions about the world. The link included in my very first comment has these words: 'Reason is the only path, even when the destination is its outer limits'<br /><br />What I suggest is that subjective experience is not the same as its objective description. The sense of harmony I experience is not the same as its physical description in terms of electrical signals and chemical changes in the brain.<br /><br />I am very well aware that it is impossible to 'prove' the above claim. Proof is possible only with objective descriptions. So I go on ask: How are we so sure every aspects of reality can be represented objectively? After all, Isn't objectivity a recent entry on evolutionary scene?<br /><br /><br />2) An animal's sense of gravity is independent of observer. That means human observers can acquire objective knowledge about an animal's sense of gravity. Isn't it different from saying animals have objective knowledge about gravity?<br /><br />Knowledge doesn't mean language. (Objective) knowledge has to be representable using a symbol or collection of symbols as in a mathematical expression that makes sense to other observers. Isn't it uniquely human? Why do you think such knowledge existed from the dawn of life?shajanmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16190197506411646151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-46883011515221961922011-03-13T12:31:12.987+05:302011-03-13T12:31:12.987+05:301. So it is possible that even though your subject...1. So it is possible that even though your subjective experience tells you something, it may turn out to be wrong. I gave that example to show how unreliable subjective experience is. You haven't given any argument to say that it isn't and yet insist on trusting subjective experience.<br /><br />2. An animal's sense of gravity is independent of the observer. But for you knowledge means language. And you want to understand language without understanding consciousness. I'm sorry, but you are doing it the wrong way. You have decided that consciousness cannot be explained and hence you are beating around the bush to trying to find out the origins of language ignoring the fact of how very closely language is tied to consciousness. Remove consciousness down from the pedestal and you'll begin to see some answers. I suggest you read books like "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker and "Consciousness Explained" by Dan Dennett.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-34336735702778575282011-03-13T09:37:34.884+05:302011-03-13T09:37:34.884+05:301)We need to recognize the evolution of human capa...1)We need to recognize the evolution of human capacity to reason. Ancients had a flat earth theory because it was perfectly rational for their time. Descarets concluded human soul resides in the pineal gland and it was a reasonable conclusion in 17th century. We cannot look down from our 21st century vantage point and conclude they were wrong because they relied on subjective experience. I am not moving the goal posts, merely acknowledging that goal posts do evolve.<br /><br />2)You say 'all life forms have some sort of objective knowledge'. I use the term to mean 'knowledge that can be represented independent of the observer'. Such knowledge can be written down using symbols and made sensible to other members of the species. Test for objectivity is the use of symbols. Some animals use sign language or sounds to communicate with other members of the species but they do not use written symbols with meaning. Man alone has this way of objectifying experience into knowledge for future use. We should understand the mechanism of acquiring 'objective knowledge' before approaching the question of consciousness.shajanmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16190197506411646151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-73147784504178266552011-03-12T21:59:56.990+05:302011-03-12T21:59:56.990+05:30Levitation looks like an extra-ordinary claim only...Levitation looks like an extra-ordinary claim <b>only</b> because you live in the year 2011 where science has raised the bar for what to believe and lowered it for what to suspect. Religious literature shows how things like levitation were taken to be true just based purely on subjective experience. You are just moving the goal posts of the nature of claims that arise from subjective experience.<br /><br />One gets a better picture of the real world by objective knowledge. So, as the products of evolution, all life forms have some sort of objective knowledge. Because without that they wouldn't exist. An animal's body knows about gravity, otherwise how else would it know how much muscle power and bone strength is needed to survive the gravitational force constantly acting upon it's body? So you are wrong in making the claim that objective knowledge did not exist a few hundred thousand years ago. It was there since the dawn of life.<br /><br />And your question should have been "How is it that we can ponder upon the nature of objective knowledge?" You can't put consciousness on a pedestal, not try to understand it and then expect to answer such questions. Current evidence points to "human brain = consciousness". But you seem to believe that there is something else to consciousness. That there is some "I" or "self" that can have profound experiences and is not tied to electrical and chemical activity of the brain. That <b>is the illusion</b> that Sue Blackmore was talking about. It seems to me that you completely missed the point of her talk.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.com