Re: [Death To Religion] Quantum Consciousness / bald women
- Mark (the message was truncated, therefore my
responses here will be in ALL CAPS--but i am not
"shouting" and apologize beforehand for the
>ER: knowledge is one. all human beings share thesame cognitive apparatus (it's a
species property). to call some knowledge "Western"
is similar to Hitler calling Einstein's
work "Jewish science."
-M: OK, agreed on all points. Its just there may be
arguements [sic] common in the West that
may be moot in Vedantic/Shaivite philosophy.
DEFINE "MOOT" IN THIS CONTEXT. IGNORANCE DOESN'T
"MOOT" ANYTHING. QUITE THE REVERSE.
>ER: if the issues are important enough to you toenlist in a discussion group called
"death to religion," why have you not attempted to
-M: I am familiar with my own arguments, and I become
familiar with other's arguments as
they present them to me.
THIS SEEMS A BIT OF A COP OUT. YOU ARE ASSERTING
EXISTENTIAL REALITIES (CF. "PRANA") WHICH HAVE NO (TO
MY KNOWLEDGE) OBJECTIVE CONTENT. UNLESS YOU CAN
SOMEHOW ESTABLISH SUCH CONTENT, YOU ARE BEGGING THE
>ER: very "Pollyanna"--but is this "true"? i don'tfind this compelling, either. it's merely a
-M: Yes, Pollyanna. Such is the nature of ontology
built with a subjective
background(which is unavoidable). I prefer
DOES "EPISTEMOLOGY" IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING SOMEHOW
*TRUMP* EXISTENTIAL (ONTOLOGICAL?) REALITY?
PERSONALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE "ONTOLOGY" IS A USEFUL
CATEGORY OF ENQUIRY. NEITHER IS "METAPHYSICS" (THE
VERY NAME EMBODIES A NON SEQUITUR ... UNTIL "WE"
UNDERSTAND ALL OF PHYSICAL REALITY, HOW CAN WE
POSSIBLY POSIT SOMETHING "ABOVE" OR "BEYOND" IT ...?).
>ER: i don't believe that there is anything to anyperson excepot his or her body and its
products and traces. "only" his or her body is all of
him or her.
-M: OK. So be it.
OKAY. WHERE DO YOUR OTHER "SPIRITUAL" LAYERS ENTER
INTO THE EQUATION? WHERE ARE THEY, TO BE BLUNT?
-M: You decide what is *credible* for *you*. I
consider the testimony of the siddhas to be
THEN WHY NOT (ALSO) THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIESTS AND
SAINTS? WHY NOT THE ALIENS AND THE GHOSTS? WHY NOT
THE GOBLINS AND THE ELVES?
BY WHAT MECHANISM TO YOU EXCLUDE THAT WHICH IS CLEARLY
FANTASTICAL OR CONFABULATORY? OR DO YOU? ARE ALL
ASSERTIONS SOMEHOW "TRUE" ON SOME LEVEL? IS THERE
ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT?
>ER: that there is anything more toconsciousness--and, therefore, personality--than the
physico-chemical aspects of the brain. when my
organism dies, i become food for worms
(or grist for medical students). again, this
assertion is bald. that's okay: i kinda like bald
-M: I like bald women (disclaimer: only if they are
Sinead O'Conner or Natilie Portman)
OR SIGOURNEY WEAVER IN ALIEN3. NICE.
>ER: another "Pollyanna" response. i know lots ofpeople
> who do not learn or grow much at all--and at least aare non-responses.
> few (say, both of my grandfathers) who died racist,
> ignorant, and incurious. these sorts of responses
-M: The counterposition is Pollyanna too, so I am
ANOTHER BALD ASSERTION. DEMONSTRATE MY
-M: Its hard to have an accurate conception of God, so
then what are people 'believing' in?
I WOULD SAY THEIR OWN PROJECTIONS AND FANTASIES.
> > -M: Maybe enlightenment is just a bitch toachieve.
>ER: for "god"? isn't "god" all-powerful? whydoesn't "god" merely enlighten each one of
-M: That would take the fun out of it.(I am not being
a punk, I am rerefering to the
principle of *chidvilas* - *play of consciousness* -
God separates from himself for His
YOUR JARGON IS A BLINDER, NOT A WINDOW. CLARIFY,
PLEASE (WITHOUT MULTIPLYING UNNECESSARY QUANTITIES AND
>ER: maybe what you're really revealing is that yournotion of enlightenment is chimerical.
>ER: then what's the point of "enlightenment"? itseems a problematic concept, in your
usage--and a painful process, to boot. is
"enlightenment" a "good" thing? is it necessary?
is it (like "god") superfluous (at best)?
-M: Its for sport and challenge. Aren't you having
fun? I am.
I.E. YOU ARE "ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING." I
BELIEVE SEXTUS EMPIRICUS DID IT BETTER.
>ER: what an egocentric response!!! are you, in fact,"enlightened"? if so, perhaps it's just
(again, in your usage) a synonym for egotistical ...
-M: If I am egotistical for calling others
egotistical, then you are egotistical for calling me
THIS IS NOT A RESPONSE. "EGOTISTICAL" REFERS TO A
QUALITY YOU HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE IN *MY* DISCOURSE.
And yes, enlightenment is egotistical - spiritual
practice builds the *pure ego* so that it
can overcome the *impure ego*.(I am using
'egotistical' differently here than above.)
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE EQUIVOCATING. ANOTHER
LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS APPROACH, BTW.
"There is no question of giving up criticism, but of taking note of the fact that the democratic world endlessly makes promises that it does not keep. It is in the name of these promises, then, that one should perhaps criticize it, in the name of the present, the subversive potential of such an attitude being more powerful than was formerly believed to be found in the future, or currently in the past."
--from Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut's French Philosophy of the Sixties: An Essay on Antihumanism.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- --bestonnet_00 wrote:
> --"Mark" wrote:[...]
> > --bestonnet_00 wrote:
> > > --"Mark" wrote:
> > > > -M: Its not QM vs. neural nets, its QM+neural nets vs. non-QM-neural nets.
> > >B: Well the neural networks we run on our computers aren't QMthe issue is *consciousness*.
> > > neural networks and they seem to be able to replicate a lot of
> > > animal behaviour which would seem to indicate that Quantum
> > > Mechanics isn't necessary for understanding the processing).
> > -M: You said 'processing' - this is related to 'intelligence';
>B: Yes, but the fact that animal brains don't seem to rely on QM forprocessing would very strongly imply that neither do human brains.
-M: Halothane, xenon, diethyl ether, chloroform and nitrous oxide -
these may function by disabling the quantum computer component in
human and other animal brains.
They aren't even vaguely related chemicly - Dr.Stuart Hameroff
thinks that they may be capturing the free-electron associated with
microtubles, disabling QM effects.
> > > > -M: This wouldn't *TEST* the QM variable.notion that the human brain is a quantum computer (it isn't).
> > >B: It would if it became intelligent despite not following the
> > -M: Again, the issue isn't intelligence, its consciousness. Andthe human body(not just the brain) may have a quantum computer
component via the microtubles.