Woo Denial

[evo]

Fair question.

Agreed. ;D

 

[Tigers of Old]

How much of unexplained phenomenon can be put down to the internal workings of the human brain?

Don't we use like 10% of it's capacity? Wouldn't surprise me in the least if we occassionally unlock something that we're not familiar with.

Without going into specifics, with the help of some mind altering substances over the years I have seen a few unexplained phenomenons. ;D

I have also had some unexplained shared experiences with others that I have found more curious & I would love to know what caused them.

 

[evo]

How much of unexplained phenomenon can be put down to the internal workings of the human brain?

All phenomena can be put down to the internal workings of the human brain.By definition.That is what phenomena IS.

Now all you need to do is form a view on whether phenomena,or appearances, and existence are the same thing.

Don't we use like 10% of it's capacity?

Thats a myth.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if we occassionally unlock something that we're not familiar with.

yep.

Without going into specifics, with the help of some mind altering substances over the years I have seen a few unexplained phenomenons. ;D

If you think about it,ultimately phenomena doesn't really need explaining. Reality just IS.It gives scientists something to do with their time though I suppose. ;D

I have also had some unexplained shared experiences with others that I have found more curious & I would love to know what caused them.

You did.

Ultimately there is no 1 single objective reality 'out there' just waiting to be discovered. :angel:

As special K said "Subjectivity is truth."

 

[TigerForce]

It's more likely a ball would fall into 38 slots than 1 out of 45 balls to come out.

I think Roulette is easier to win.

 

[Tigers of Old]

All phenomena can be put down to the internal workings of the human brain.By definition.That is what phenomena IS.

Now all you need to do is form a view on whether phenomena,or appearances, and existence are the same thing.

Interesting. So unexplained phenomena is equally down to the workings of the brain.
Ie religious experience's are internal(ie inside their mind) rather than external. That being a god in the heavens talking to someone.

Thats a myth.

Interesting I never knew that.
Just doing some quick googling it's believed we may only use a very small parts of our brain of our brain at one time but PET scans show we use large amounts of our brain for more complex activities.

Reality just IS.

Life sure is simpler if you think of it like that. :cutelaugh

Ultimately there is no 1 single objective reality 'out there' just waiting to be discovered. :angel:

As special K said "Subjectivity is truth."

More googling.
He has some interesting philosophies Dr Kierkegaard. :thinking

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

All phenomena can be put down to the internal workings of the human brain.By definition.That is what phenomena IS.

Now all you need to do is form a view on whether phenomena,or appearances, and existence are the same thing.

Agree.

Thats a myth.

Yes.

yep.

Yes.

If you think about it,ultimately phenomena doesn't really need explaining. Reality just IS.It gives scientists something to do with their time though I suppose. ;D

I suppose :-\. Reality just is. Is this related to the idea of no free will? I am a scientist because the laws of cause and effect make it so?

Ultimately there is no 1 single objective reality 'out there' just waiting to be discovered. :angel:

As special K said "Subjectivity is truth."

Ultimately yes. However, why do independent observers (with a shared methodology) experience the same outcomes using the same methods? Does that say anything about the nature of the universe?

Sorry, I am not as familiar with philosophy as you. Interested to hear the mental masturbators take on it. :angel:

 

[evo]

I suppose :-\. Reality just is. Is this related to the idea of no free will? I am a scientist because the laws of cause and effect make it so?

No,nothing to do with free will. More of an expression of the inevitability that no matter how explanatory science appears to be it will still always operate 'within the matrix'

But that that in itself is the answer to the question of what is 'real'. Existent must ultimately be "what appears to be" if that meakes sense. Or as Wittgenstein put it "All that is the case"

Ultimately yes. However, why do independent observers (with a shared methodology) experience the same outcomes using the same methods?

Because they are using the 5 same senses.And they have established the ground rules amongst themselves.It is inevitable that realities will "overlap"

But in my opinion everyone of us is in a unique universe(metaphorically speaking).Like an overlapping state of solipsism(to put it ineligently,but briefly)

Does that say anything about the nature of the universe?

Yes it does.It says (to me at least) that it is not chaotic,that in fact there is at least one rule.And that rule is every event has a preceding cause.sh!t can't "just happen"

'Dependent origination' goes a fair buit further than that but it would take me a long time to really explain.It's taken me athe better part of 2 years to really understand it.

Once one accepts that single a priori 'truth' then things like 'miracles',time shifting and creator God etc. become non-sensical ,--the old ex causa,turtles all the way down argument that we've given a good work out in the Christianity thread can be applied.

Sorry, I am not as familiar with philosophy as you. Interested to hear the mental masturbators take on it. :angel:

I'll hunt down a passage that sums it up.

I think it is actually in the christianity thread somewhere.

Edit :

Kierkegaard:

The positiveness of historical knowledge is illusory, since it is approximation-knowledge; the speculative result is delusion. For all this positive knowledge fails to express the situation of the knowing subject in existence. It concerns rather a fictitious objective subject, and to confuse oneself with such a subject is to be duped. Every subject is an existing subject, which should receive an essential expression in all his knowledge. Particularly, it must be expressed through the prevention of an illusory finality, whether in perceptual certainty, or in historical knowledge, or in illusory speculative results. In historical knowledge, the subject learns a great deal about the world, but nothing about himself. He moves constantly in a sphere of approximation-knowledge, in his supposed positivity deluding himself with the semblance of certainty; but certainty can only be had in the infinite, where he cannot as an existing subject remain, but only repeatedly arrive. Nothing historical can become infinitely certain for me except the fact that of my own existence (which again cannot become infinitely certain for any other individual, who has infinite certainty of only his own existence), and this is not something historical.

PS Masturbation, like all things human must ultimately be mental. ;D

 

[Disco08]

Yes it does.It says (to me at least) that it is not chaotic,that in fact there is at least one rule.And that rule is every event has a preceding cause.sh!t can't "just happen"

So you'd say researching chaos theory (not that I understand what it is exactly) is a waste of time?

I also don't understand how more than one individual having the same experiences (overlapping subjectivity) implies mandatory cause and effect. I'm a complete beginner here though so probably no surprise I don't get it.

 

[evo]

So you'd say researching chaos theory (not that I understand what it is exactly) is a waste of time?

Not at all. That is still a deterministic system.Pretty interesting actually.

I also don't understand how more than one individual having the same experiences (overlapping subjectivity) implies mandatory cause and effect. I'm a complete beginner here though so probably no surprise I don't get it.

It doesn't.It is actually the other way around.One has to prove to themselves first that causation is true.

'Overlapping subjectivity' comes later.

 

[Disco08]

Wasn't overlapping subjectivity (I couldn't think of a better way to put it) what Pantera was talking about?

Is it right to look at causality as like an endless, unstoppable line of dominoes? If every event must have a cause then every event that now takes place must come from one initial cause originally?

 

[evo]

Wasn't overlapping subjectivity (I couldn't think of a better way to put it) what Pantera was talking about?

No, that is my position.

As far as I can tell Pantera is some sort of materialist/physicalist/scientific realist--like most scienctists.If he isn't then I apologise to him,and he might be able to tell you what he is.

Is it right to look at causality as like an endless, unstoppable line of dominoes?

That is the standard what they call billiard ball causation which Newtonian physics relies on,so yes that is certainly the major part of it.

Dependent arising/conditionality/interdependent arising which basically the entire foundation of Eastern Philosophy is based upon goes abit further than that and says Reality is like a mulitidimensional web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_arising

If every event must have a cause then every event that now takes place must come from one initial cause originally?

Well to me the inevitable consequence of beliving the primacy of causality it is that there was no,one initial cause.

The Totality has"ever been thus".It just change shape.

"In the begining", as the Bible starts with, is meaningless(to me)

 

[Disco08]

I'm thinking more from the evidence scientists seem to have that there was one initial beginning to the universe (which I assume is a closed system) 4 billions years ago. Is it necessary to say that that one event started a chain reaction of subsequent events?

The other question I have is doesn't causality make an ultimate statement against free will? I'm assuming that if every effect has a cause, then every cause also has a specific effect, or effects. If this is a case isn't it impossible to stop the flow that's already started?

 

[evo]

I'm thinking more from the evidence scientists seem to have that there was one initial beginning to the universe (which I assume is a closed system) 4 billions years ago.

Science posits that that was the begining of the universe in it's current form,but they don't say it was THE begining of everything. They can't say that without explaining how something come from absolutely nothing-which is basically beyond their brief.

Further than that it has been speculated by M Theory that there is 11 dimensiions ,and potentially many universes that are created when the dimensionalk membranes bang together.

Other scientists have positedthis universe is in a constant state of expand and collapse.

Both of those seem logically plausable--I hope they find out in my lifetime.

Is it necessary to say that that one event started a chain reaction of subsequent events?

Necessary to whom?

The other question I have is doesn't causality make an ultimate statement against free will?

I reckon so.

I think Free-will is an illusion.One mostly invented by the catholic church around Augustine's time to explain awkward quesions in regard to 'the problem of evil(for the existence of God)

Theres nothing wrong with acting like it is true though.

I'm assuming that if every effect has a cause, then every cause also has a specific effect, or effects. If this is a case isn't it impossible to stop the flow that's already started?

Well it's a bit hard to stop the flow of cause and effect. That is ultimately what 'time' is;a series of events.

 

[Freezer]

Sorry to make you look silly Freezer but 1/38 x 1/38 x 1/38 x 1/38 x 1/38 = 1/79,235,168.

And of course, 1 in 79,235,169 shots do occur, about 1 in 79,235,169th of the time. Patsy just happened to profit off the 1.

Your tatts figures are wrong too, it should be 6/45 x 5/44 x 4/43 x 3/42 x 2/41 x 1/40 = 720/5,864,443,200 or 1/8,145,160.

So actually, tatts is much easier to win.

:-[

 

[Disco08]

Necessary to whom?

Logically necessary I meant.

Well it's a bit hard to stop the flow of cause and effect. That is ultimately what 'time is. A series of events.

It'd be interesting if governing bodies ever adopted this philosophy in regards to their legal system. Not that I disagree with any of it but the theory does seem to say everything and everyone is simply acting out their part in a predetermined finality.

 

[evo]

Logically necessary I meant.

I think the only thing logically necessary is to say if there is an event,then there must be a cause,or causes.

It'd be interesting if governing bodies ever adopted this philosophy in regards to their legal system. Not that I disagree with any of it but the theory does seem to say everything and everyone is simply acting out their part in a predetermined finality.

Yeh well that is inevitable consequence, or reductio ad absurdum of it.

Buddhist get around that by saying even though "you" aren't inevitably doing the deciding one still has to progress and improve choices (Karma)throughout life so as to transcend 'samsara'

*shrug*

 

[Disco08]

Aren't choices merely events that have a cause and also in turn create an effect? How could one improve them?

Buddhism's causality is somewhat different to philosophical causality isn't it?

Is Buddhism woo?

I think the only thing logically necessary is to say if there is an event,then there must be a cause,or causes.

And equally if there is a cause there must be an effect, or effects?

 

[evo]

Aren't choices merely events that have a cause and also in turn create an effect? How could one improve them?

By making wise decisions.

Buddhism's causality is somewhat different to philosophical causality isn't it?

Yes it is more complex.

Is Buddhism woo?

Dependswhat aspect you mean.In my opinion transmigration of self through more than one lifetimes is woo.Lots of them seem to believe that.

And equally if there is a cause there must be an effect, or effects?

Yes.

 

[Disco08]

By making wise decisions.

Isn't a decision simply a caused event though? Isn't the effect of each cause (such as the effect one billiard ball has on another) predetermined?

Yes it is more complex.

And also not as focused on immediate effects, from what I know of it. Their causality focuses more on karma type cause and effect where the results of an action may not be seen for some time after, doesn't it?

Depends what aspect you mean.In my opinion transmigration of self through more than one lifetimes is woo.Lots of them seem to believe that.

Chanting to reveal one's Buddhahood and to have one's prayers answered would also seem like woo.

 

[evo]

Isn't a decision simply a caused event though? Isn't the effect of each cause (such as the effect one billiard ball has on another) predetermined?

Yeh,it's definately a tough one.

And also not as focused on immediate effects, from what I know of it. Their causality focuses more on karma type cause and effect where the results of an action may not be seen for some time after, doesn't it?

Chanting to reveal one's Buddhahood and to have one's prayers answered would also seem like woo.

Yeh Theres alot of different schools of thought under the banner "Buddhism" really.

I just find some of the very foundational stuff makes alot of sense such at the conditonality and the concept of 'emptiness'

Also 'Nondualism'(Advaita) which is actually from Hinduism originally also seems to have some explanantory power I suspect.

Still putting it all together though.