Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Death To Religion] Quantum Consciousness / bald women

Expand Messages
  • erik kruger
    Mark (the message was truncated, therefore my responses here will be in ALL CAPS--but i am not shouting and apologize beforehand for the ... same cognitive
    Message 1 of 196 , Apr 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark (the message was truncated, therefore my
      responses here will be in ALL CAPS--but i am not
      "shouting" and apologize beforehand for the
      appearance):

      >ER: knowledge is one. all human beings share the
      same 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 to
      enlist in a discussion group called
      "death to religion," why have you not attempted to
      "familiarize" yourself?

      -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
      QUESTION (STILL).

      >ER: very "Pollyanna"--but is this "true"? i don't
      find this compelling, either. it's merely a
      bald assertion.

      -M: Yes, Pollyanna. Such is the nature of ontology
      built with a subjective
      background(which is unavoidable). I prefer
      epistemology.

      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 any
      person 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
      credible.

      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 to
      consciousness--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
      men

      -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 of
      people
      > who do not learn or grow much at all--and at least a
      > few (say, both of my grandfathers) who died racist,
      > ignorant, and incurious. these sorts of responses
      are non-responses.

      -M: The counterposition is Pollyanna too, so I am
      safe.

      ANOTHER BALD ASSERTION. DEMONSTRATE MY
      "POLLYANNA"-ISHNESS.

      -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 to
      achieve.

      >ER: for "god"? isn't "god" all-powerful? why
      doesn't "god" merely enlighten each one of
      us individually?

      -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
      own fun.)

      YOUR JARGON IS A BLINDER, NOT A WINDOW. CLARIFY,
      PLEASE (WITHOUT MULTIPLYING UNNECESSARY QUANTITIES AND
      QUALITIES, PLEASE).

      >ER: maybe what you're really revealing is that your
      notion of enlightenment is chimerical.

      >ER: then what's the point of "enlightenment"? it
      seems 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
      egotistical.

      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.

      ERIK.


      "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
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Mark
      ... [...] ... QM-neural nets. ... the issue is *consciousness*. ... processing would very strongly imply that neither do human brains. -M: Halothane, xenon,
      Message 196 of 196 , Apr 9, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --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 QM
        > > > 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';
        the issue is *consciousness*.

        >B: Yes, but the fact that animal brains don't seem to rely on QM for
        processing 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.

        shanti
        Mark, Seattle

        > > > > -M: This wouldn't *TEST* the QM variable.

        > > >B: It would if it became intelligent despite not following the
        notion that the human brain is a quantum computer (it isn't).

        > > -M: Again, the issue isn't intelligence, its consciousness. And
        the human body(not just the brain) may have a quantum computer
        component via the microtubles.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.