Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23698025 - 10/01/16 06:42 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

wiki continued

"Personality and spiritual life

Ramanujan has been described as a person of a somewhat shy and quiet disposition, a dignified man with pleasant manners.[89] He lived a rather spartan life at Cambridge. Ramanujan's first Indian biographers describe him as a rigorously orthodox Hindu. He credited his acumen to his family goddess, Mahalakshmi of Namakkal. He looked to her for inspiration in his work[90] and said he dreamed of blood drops that symbolised her male consort, Narasimha. Afterward he would receive visions of scrolls of complex mathematical content unfolding before his eyes.[91] He often said, "An equation for me has no meaning unless it represents a thought of God."[92]

Hardy cites Ramanujan as remarking that all religions seemed equally true to him.[93] Hardy further argued that Ramanujan's religious belief had been romanticised by Westerners and overstated—in reference to his belief, not practice—by Indian biographers. At the same time, he remarked on Ramanujan's strict vegetarianism.[94]"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23698032 - 10/01/16 06:44 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."  --L.W.

:shrug:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23698033 - 10/01/16 06:44 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

some things spin like Jiva's


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23698044 - 10/01/16 06:48 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23698053 - 10/01/16 06:50 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

All I can say is that the disparate elements do come together in my experience.  It's completely anecdotal, and I have no evidence for it.  It's not bait and switch -- would you expect a thread like this to have a neat resolution?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23698151 - 10/01/16 07:20 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Now it makes sense :manofapproval:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: sudly]
    #23698178 - 10/01/16 07:27 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

ahahahahaha

It doesn't render the original post moot, necessarily.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23698309 - 10/01/16 08:22 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
All I can say is that the disparate elements do come together in my experience.  It's completely anecdotal, and I have no evidence for it.  It's not bait and switch -- would you expect a thread like this to have a neat resolution?




As I said:

Another major difference is that neither system gets the benefits of the other. ... and ...

The Dali Lama 'and co.' do not do advanced math etc. This is not debateable. No zen masters or gurus are doing good science based on insights from meditation. The founders of Quantum physics argued for hours, days, months and years and were very high IQ mathematics guys, it did not come gratis to them from some enlightenment, and it is still a work in progress, with many unanswered questions.

and the physicists don't realize Anatta, the essential insight of Buddhism, or experience the jhanas, etc.

and neither physicists or guys that get insights thru drugs like the tim learys, or Teraance Mckennas, hold a Candle, as regards deep permanent insight to guys like Thich Nhat Hanh, who are world wide respected spiritual teachers and humanitarians.

It seems many who take DMT brim over for a short while with the feeling that earth shattering indescribable insights and experiences have happened to them. Who can argue with this? But does it have any significance? It seems, many such folks repeat the same thing over and over again, with the main result that ... they repeat the same thing over and over again ...


But I know of no scientists who think mystical experience equals science; (Although New Agers and new age book authors do). (Scientists may study mystical experiences - but that is, of course, different). And I know of no respected meditation teachers who think conceptual type brain activity, is a substitute for developing meditative states, which they take great care to distinguish from discriminating thought processes.

That there is an agreement that perceived reality is not actual reality is not a monopoly of quantum physics and Buddhism. This is  proved from the study of biology, chemistry, and psychology; as well as evident from common sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Nhat_Hanh


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23698405 - 10/01/16 09:05 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

That is an excellent post, and you are right that no physicist can attain the existential levels that a yogi or advanced meditator can, and vice-versa that no yogi or advanced meditator can solve the Schrödinger equation for a nucleon, for example.  I yet contend that, in certain states of mind, one can witness the quantum nature of reality as it unfolds not in, but as one's consciousness.  And I consequently feel that *some* of the physicists who wrote books about mysticism being related to the quantum were sincere, although most were probably not.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #23698635 - 10/01/16 10:45 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Just because a physicist from 75 years ago subscribed to a religious text says nothing about the veda being an insight into quantum theory.  Or that you can be taught about quantum theory from those religious texts as you can from a physicist who understands the science behind quantum theory. 

Lets get real here and critically think about where this leap in logic comes from and is it based on wanting something to be real or something actually being real.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #23698762 - 10/01/16 11:40 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

For what its worth my close friend is a leading Qauntum physicist he is also religious and very much into eastern philosophy. Our concepts of conciousness, time and dimensions all have alot to do not only the sciences we study but also the way we approach them.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: pineninja]
    #23699006 - 10/02/16 01:37 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Of course, quantum mechanics is much more detailed and rigorous than the sort of thing you'd find in the Vedas and in the East in general, but such knowledge was good enough to help the founders of quantum theory build foundations on which to formalize theory.




I always did find it interesting and somewhat odd when I heard that Einstein used to read the Bhagavad Gita regularly.

Quote:

But I personally believe that objective reality can be touched on, and this is in part the motivation for suggesting the dichotomy.




May I ask how?


In response to some of the other posts. I think there is definitely something to be gained in physics through eastern wisdom/practices (meditation), and something to be gained in Eastern wisdom/practices from the western scientific model, and I think the relationship is more direct than most parties tend to admit, but that doesn't change the fact that ultimately it is quite hard to bridge such a broad intellectual and experiential gap. They are disparate practices, and, for the most part, require extremely different skills to succeed in.

It's definitely fun and interesting to try to find metaphorical overlap between these two fields though.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: secondorder]
    #23699592 - 10/02/16 09:22 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

secondorder said:
May I ask how?





I'd like to refer you to an interesting book that tries, with some success, to broach this distinction.  It is called "The Self-Aware Universe," and it's by a former physics professor from the University of Oregon.  He deals with potential answers to such questions better than I can.

Here is a small quote from the book:

"Realize that the self of our self-reference is due to a tangled hierarchy, but our consciousness is the consciousness of the Being that is beyond the subject-object split.  There is no other source of consciousness in the universe.  The self of self-reference and the consciousness of the original consciousness, together, make what we call self-consciousness."

He then goes further into the subject-object split, which I believe is the root of a proper response to your question.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23699653 - 10/02/16 09:44 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I think I understand where you're going with this, and I think you simply mean something different by 'objective' than I thought you did.

By 'objective' I thought you meant something like: 'The stuff that exists independent of mind' (which I gather most people mean by the term) but you seem to be alluding to more of a 'That which is greater than the self'. Needless to say I think the former is unattainable. The latter is more or less spirituality.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: secondorder]
    #23699694 - 10/02/16 10:02 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Right, if by mind you essentially mean consciousness (and not just its contents), then no, I don't think anything exists independently of mind.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23700062 - 10/02/16 12:25 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Also amusing to consider that rocket scientists and mathematicians can calculate how to send a rocket to the moon, but can't throw a fast ball.

Whereas a pro baseball pitcher can throw a 90 mile an hour ball, and control it's placement within inches, but can't do calculus.
So how does the pitcher do it?

Or course if you asked either to tell you what muscles they used to,  for example, do something as simple as walk; and in what order, all those muscles need to contract and let go, they wouldn't have the faintest inkling, and neither would a guru or quantum physicist.
Same goes for even moving a finger, or talking, or chewing, - no one knows. (Although,of course few biologists and animators have studied the human gait, etc.)
But if anybody tried to consciously maintain their bodily functions that equal life, they would be dead within minutes. Respiration, digestion, nerve signal transmission, and the brain are all individually complex beyond imagination, let alone synchronized, or the even subtler cellular machinery,
and 3-D protein folding it’s all based on.

So it's easy to say it's 'all mind', but as no one can say definitively what the mind is, that seems rather uninformative - and certainly as pointed out above, most of it is unconscious, so saying it's (reality/aka the cosmos etc.)  'all consciousness',  also strikes me as glib.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23700198 - 10/02/16 01:13 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

not mostly unconscious - no consensus on what that even might be. so please refrain from echoing it.

but yeah specialists know their thing and not much about another.
seeing the strangeness of another (like vedanta to the physicist) can be inspiring and can drive their specialty further.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23706401 - 10/04/16 10:56 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Subjective impressions are every bit as valid in sensing the nature of reality as objective measurements are. For example, depending on one's spiritual attainments, one can know just as much about the quantum nature of reality as a physicist does without ever having opened a physics textbook. Many Buddhist scholars have done just this over the centuries. The sensation of redness is every bit as legitimate as asserting the frequency of red light. One frame of reference is in no way superior to the other. These are two sides of the same coin that comes out of nature's purse. In our materialist, modern world, with science as the new authority, it seems we have denigrated the validity of subjective experience in favor of a more objective one, which we now somehow regard as truer. Both views of the world are equally valid, and totally complementary.





So true, and this highlights one of my points in the thread I just made about UFOs and brings me to another-- its almost a synchronicity as I haven't read any threads on the shroomery in the past week or so, I just logged on and started writing... yet our threads are totally complementary.

I was basically saying that the UFO experience is a subjective mystery which objectively happens, and due to its inherent mysteriousness and subjective nature, it is prone too way to many "seemingly logical" explanations all of which suspiciously seem to follow the same archetypal pattern. 
what I find most true given most explanations of UFO phenom (or really any subjective something) isn't the content itself, but the typical archetypal pattern its presented in and that the phenom is in fact, a phenomena and not a complete fault of subjectivity.

although this subjective fault is very real and relative to the subject matter, its clearly obvious that something is going on. By remaining agnostic on subjective subjects such as this or spirituality it becomes clear that there is something objective in these wholly subjective fields, and there are ways to objectively study them.

Its just that nobody has devised universally accepted methods to really do so.


  The subjective experience has been nearly completely written off by Scientism as such generally accepted scientific methods of inquiry into subjective experiences are limited (psychology). 
I feel its definitely important, if not necessary, to seek and find union between much of what we separate as subjective and objective, not only for experiencing this union directly as a human being but for understanding and progressing general knowledge of the universe we find ourselves in.

I feel attitudes are changing, though, and slowly something awesome will come from it.
The evidence for a generalized change of heart can be found in this very subforum!
  just a few years ago when I first came to the shroomery, probably around a year before you made your first post here DQ, materialism and scientism were the reigning philosophies here. Anyone who challenged this ideal was ganged up on and basically out-maneuvered by cheap debate tactics which were designed to make the challenger look and sometimes actually feel stupid..without ever really proving a point. A constructive conversation to the contrary was near impossible.

now it seems a lot more people are starting threads and posting about subjects considered complete taboo on this forum just a few years ago and are not getting completely flamed for it, the general attitude of PSP has evolved.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: hTx]
    #23706489 - 10/04/16 11:24 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Nice post.  Yes, something is clearly going on, some coherent objective phenomenon that has various subjective correlates.  Robert Anton Wilson did a lot of writing about this, Terence McKenna too, and even people like Jung did a little.  The dominant culture shrugs these things off as "mere" "hallucination," but if you read a book like The New Inquisition (which I heartily recommend), this starts to appear totally absurd.  And like you said in the other thread, for centuries this phenomenon was correlated with religious visions.  Now it's aliens, and if you actually look into the body of evidence (which is huge), it's impossible to dismiss as merely a subjective phenomenon.  Truly impossible.  As you suggest, hopefully more legitimate investigation can be done of these phenomena; it is surely warranted.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewolfiewolfie
Just wingin' it.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/16/15
Posts: 2,177
Loc: Australia Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #23711727 - 10/05/16 10:47 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I tend to entertain the idea of subjective more so than objective. I can personally validate subjective reality as I am experiencing it first hand 24/7, however I can not 'conclusively' prove the existence of an objective reality. That is not to say it doesn't exist, it just seems logical to adhere to a framework that can be verified.

Belief's and choices also play a big role here. We all have the choice to believe in whatever we want so why not choose beliefs that will have a positive effect on our experience? From my perspective believing in a subjective reality benefits me personally more than the alternative, which seems sort of restrictive and limiting. You can experience an objective reality subjectively, getting the best of both worlds but you can not experience a subjective reality objectively.

Just my 2 cents.


--------------------


The only reason why T-rex's can't walk backwards is because they're extinct, which perfectly explains why there are no headaches in the rainforest; The parrots eat 'em all.

My Drawings


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Subjective v. Objective Reality
( 1 2 all )
Joshua 4,235 24 01/31/03 07:31 PM
by Joshua
* Subjectiveness ska8ball 1,305 8 04/03/03 03:07 PM
by shaggy101
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 5,852 35 04/24/03 05:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Reality is subjective
( 1 2 all )
Huehuecoyotl 2,394 34 07/21/04 06:54 PM
by tak
* Objective Truth
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Huehuecoyotl 6,795 72 09/14/05 11:10 PM
by falcon
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Anonymous 21,744 157 12/21/04 06:31 AM
by deafpanda
* Physicists: "Reality is an illusion!"
( 1 2 all )
exclusive58 3,336 29 10/10/05 10:13 AM
by Gomp
* Rationality, Objectivity and Logic
( 1 2 3 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 6,620 45 10/15/05 11:19 AM
by BlueCoyote

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,522 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.