Home | Community | Message Board


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

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
    #5374521 - 03/07/06 02:42 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

In any case, hyper-rational thinking is as bad as irrational thinking.

If by "hyper-rational" you are refering to continental rationalism, then I agree. Although it can be useful for filtering out things which are untruths, rationalism, used completely by itself, doesn't often lead to concrete truths. Many important theories appear to be contingent truths (logically, they can be either true or false), and rationalism alone cannot help us verify or refute them. For example, its logically possible for me to be bald, with rationalism, we can rule out the possibility that I am bald and not-bald, but whether I am actually bald or not, logic cannot decide. And thus, we move onto empiricism...

If by "hyper-rationalism" you're refering to a fanatical devotion to modern rationalism, which is a blend of modal logic and empiricism, then I don't agree so much. Unless some evidence is shown which falsifies it, I don't think you can have too much rationalism (unless it's being applied incorrectly.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
    #5374605 - 03/07/06 02:59 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Thus since no one had actually seen the edge of the earth, it was uncertain but sensible to conclude that it was flat (it was rational). If someone one day proclaimed that the world was round, it would have been taken as being "made manifest not by means of any underlying principle or logic" (arbitrary). Yet, in spite of their arbitrary assertion, they would have been absolutely right!

I can make a nearly infinite amount of silly, yet logical, hypothesis which may be true. What you seem to be implying is that, taking random shots at 'truth' while blindfolded is a valid way to obtain knowledge. Would it be sensible to believe the world was round without any evidence to support that claim? Its logically possible (but, not nomologically possible) that the world is a shaped like a pentagram. Does it make sense to believe this, simply because its possible?

However the theories presented by 'mystics' are based on personal experience

But, mystics seem to take the leap of faith that they're not simply experiencing a part of their own psyche. These experiences also appear to be completely internal, paranormal (untestable), subjective, and only causally effecting that person. It seems completely out of the realm of any empiric investigation.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
    #5374822 - 03/07/06 03:59 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Surely you aren't suggesting that anyone who believes anything other than what you do is irrational?

Of course not ? not anything.


Centuries ago, it would have been "uncertain but sensible" to conclude that the world was flat, because if you looked out the window, it looked flat! Thus since no one had actually seen the edge of the earth, it was uncertain but sensible to conclude that it was flat (it was rational). If someone one day proclaimed that the world was round, it would have been taken as being "made manifest not by means of any underlying principle or logic" (arbitrary). Yet, in spite of their arbitrary assertion, they would have been absolutely right!

An arbitrary statement is a statement without justification or reason. While most arbitrary claims are usually absurd ? not all of them are. Some of them might conform to possibilities we accept. For example, stating that ?There may be alien life on a specific planet.? isn?t necessarily absurd, for given our knowledge of life, it is a possibility that it exists elsewhere. Since such a possibility conforms to our knowledge, we have may have reason to believe that it exists in some planet ? but the statement is arbitrary because it states a specific planet without facts or evidence to support it. There is not ever a reason to accept arbitrary statements as truth ? and every reason in the world to treat arbitrary statements for what they are: statements made without factual support or reason.


If I was to one day proclaim that the fundamental unit of matter is a doughnut, and that we are all jelly-filled doughnuts walking about on a planet made of barbeque pork, then okay that would be arbitrary, as it would be based on no underlying principle or logic, nor on probability, expectation, or personal experience. Thus it could be said that such an assertion would be irrational and arbitrary. However the theories presented by 'mystics' are based on personal experience and logic that follows from it. Thus you cannot dismiss them as simply being arbitrary and irrational, as they are neither.

Simply because an experience is personal does not mean that it is exempt from being arbitrary. Your mystic-Jelly-Barbecue theory ?playing along with it- would be based on your personal experiences which are based on irrational premises. Implicitly or explicitly, we all have philosophical premises that dictate how we think, feel and act. Therefore, our experiences are subject to evaluation of tools of cognition.
Furthermore, logic is not some cheap throw-away tool that everyone can buy at the market and use it however they want ? although, people often act as if it is. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification, and used properly, requires full acceptance of all the facts at hand. Mystics misuse logic, thinking that they can ignore some facts while accepting the ones they like the most, and then proceed to construct fantasies in the air and then either cry or attack whenever under [constant] assault under reality ? i.e., whenever shown contradictions in their thinking.


Yes I would agree that is a fairly irrational and arbitrary conclusion, as it is based merely on wishful thinking and no logic or personal experience. However, throughout history I can think of no mystics that said this. Plenty of dogmatic and political churches have, though.

No mystics that has ever said that? You must have an entirely different meaning of what a mystic is. Let?s define our terms and elucidate what we are talking about. I am referring to the ancient, fundamental dichotomy that, ultimately, divides the world into two camps: the realists and the mystics. Or: The scientists and the witchdoctors. The mystics seek to evade reality, and/or re-write nature by methods which are all off-shoots of the axiomatic principle: The Primacy of Consciousness, which stems from a lack or refusal to distinguish and differentiate between the outer world and the inner world, between consciousness and existence, between epistemology and metaphysics.
History has shown this to occur in all walks of life, from the primitive savages who sacrifice lives to the ?angry? volcano, to the more erudite Christian mystic who attempts to beseech reality by offering prayers, to the young child who screams, cries and stamps his foot in anger at nature for not providing enough snow, to the medieval witchdoctor who tries curing diseases with arbitrary incantations and ritualistic ?spells?. Anyone or anything with the purpose of devising a method of evading facts, of attempting to change what they metaphysically cannot change, of any adulterated form of what is really the child?s ?foot-stamping and screaming? acting out, is a mystic. Anyone who professes a belief or system of beliefs that is apart or against man?s senses and man?s reason, is a mystic. Anyone who accepts arbitrary statements or any premises that have no factual evidence and rational basis, is a mystic. Anyone who tries to mine mystery for ores of intellectual onanism out of a personal dissatisfaction with reality, is a mystic.

A side-word of caution: I?ve recognized that there is a common tendency to group two certain tools in man?s repertoire with mysticism ? which is rather unfortunate ? creativity and imagination. This is only because these tools are used [rather, mis-used] by mystics to construct their premises of reality-evading fantasies. Without these two tools, mystics would have nowhere to hide. Creativity and imagination is nothing short of an immensely great tool for mankind ? but like tools, they can be used for construction or destruction, and hold no bias in and of themselves, no choice as to who shall use such intellectual powers. It is important to distinguish between the hammer and the mind behind the hammer.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (03/07/06 04:10 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5374958 - 03/07/06 04:37 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

If by "hyper-rationalism" you're refering to a fanatical devotion to modern rationalism, which is a blend of modal logic and empiricism, then I don't agree so much. Unless some evidence is shown which falsifies it, I don't think you can have too much rationalism (unless it's being applied incorrectly.)

...And only in relation to one who gets thier feelings hurt or feel threatened by another's finer and sharper rationality can such be labeled as "too much" rationality. What they really mean, is that it is "too much" for them - i.e., won't digest their intellectual litter.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5375561 - 03/07/06 07:12 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Of course not ? not anything.

Ah okay, just making sure :grin:, I wasn't sure how exactly to interpret your saying: a different way of thinking. I see it all the time. It's called "irrational thinking".

Simply because an experience is personal does not mean that it is exempt from being arbitrary.

Agreed. But a personal experience can most definitely be considered as reasoning to support a hypothesis or as justification for drawing a certain rational conclusion. In fact, personal experience is all we have as a basis to draw rational conclusions, unless someone's come up with a way to reliably experience something outside of the corporeal body.

If one person experiences something, say, Nirvana, and then tells everyone about it, but no one else is able to experience it, then that would throw the experience into doubt, just as a scientific experiment must be reproducable to be considered valid. However Nirvana is achievable by anyone with the will to achieve it. And for the past few millenia, people HAVE been experiencing Nirvana. This lends a lot of credence to the idea of it, regardless of whether or not you consider it 'mystical' or 'absurd'.

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification, and used properly, requires full acceptance of all the facts at hand.

Okay, but it's not always straightforward. For instance, what if the facts are contradictory, such as with quantum laws and the general law of relativity? 

Mystics misuse logic, thinking that they can ignore some facts while accepting the ones they like the most, and then proceed to construct fantasies in the air and then either cry or attack whenever under [constant] assault under reality

You're not necessarily wrong, but could you please provide an example of such a misuse of logic?

I am referring to the ancient, fundamental dichotomy that, ultimately, divides the world into two camps: the realists and the mystics.

Before we go any further, I would strongly suggest checking this out:
http://www.alanwatts.com/flash/prickles_n_goo.swf . It's a flash animation discussion just what you're talking about.

The Primacy of Consciousness, which stems from a lack or refusal to distinguish and differentiate between the outer world and the inner world, between consciousness and existence

Are you suggesting that I exist inside of a bag of skin? That I am somehow SOMETHING separate from my body and my surroundings? This doesn't seem rational to me. There is no little man inside of my head pushing buttons and pulling levers directing me about. I am just as much in my stomach as I am in my brain. Did the brain evolve a stomach to feed it and keep it going, or did the stomach evolve a brain to ensure a reliable supply of food? Consciousness is an aspect of existence. Or maybe consciousness=existence and existence=consciousness (let's not go that far just yet though, to keep it simple). Consciousness is not separate from existence. We were not clay vessels that were inanimate and then God came down and blew on us and then suddenly we had consciousness and became animate. I am also not separate from my surroundings. You cannot consider an organism without considering its environment. If I'm walking down the street, you must consider the street I'm walking on. I can't simply be dangling my legs in empty space, that wouldn't work. 

to the more erudite Christian mystic who attempts to beseech reality by offering prayers

I have my doubts about petitionary prayer too, but there apparently have been some cases where it would either be an enormous synchronicity or the petitionary prayer was actually successful. I know Markosthegnostic has had such an experience.

Anyways, my definition of mysticism is close to that provided by Wikipedia: "Mysticism from the Greek μυω (muo, "concealed") is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is an important source of knowledge or understanding."
Mysticism is going about achieving unitive knowledge of "ultimate reality" "the divine" "conscious-awareness" "the Tao" or "the Godhead".

But, mystics seem to take the leap of faith that they're not simply experiencing a part of their own psyche.

I disagree. From the mystical literature I've read, it has never been claimed that one experiences something other than oneself. In essence, they say that once you lose your self (you stop identifying with your ego, and let desires and attachments drop away), then you are able to become aware of the Self (also known as the Atman) that is present in you, and no distinction is made between the Self and the nonduality (Brahman).


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
    #5376040 - 03/07/06 09:57 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

If one person experiences something, say, Nirvana, and then tells everyone about it, but no one else is able to experience it, then that would throw the experience into doubt, just as a scientific experiment must be reproducable to be considered valid. However Nirvana is achievable by anyone with the will to achieve it. And for the past few millenia, people HAVE been experiencing Nirvana. This lends a lot of credence to the idea of it, regardless of whether or not you consider it 'mystical' or 'absurd'.

From what you've told me, I wouldn't consider it absurd OR mystical - depending on how you [or others] interpret and define such an experience - or if at all. If your interpretation do not rest upon factually based evidence rather than chasm-jumping assumptions and blind faith, then it becomes quite arbitrary - or to be more accurate, your interpretations of the facts become arbitrary.


Okay, but it's not always straightforward. For instance, what if the facts are contradictory, such as with quantum laws and the general law of relativity?

Then we must check our premises. Contradictions don't exist in nature - only in man's interpretations and premises. Nature is all there is, it cannot contradict itself.


You're not necessarily wrong, but could you please provide an example of such a misuse of logic?

How about when a mystic claims to believe in free-will, but then constructs or adopts fantasies of witchcraft that fosters his evasions of reality -to accept various facts- i.e., the fact that he must expend effort [and take risks] to find a romantic partner - or the fact that there are some individuals who [he thinks] do not like him or get along with him. This leads to him practicing "black magic" to control the actions of those individuals to obey his wishes and commands. Of course, this contradicts his view that free will exists - for how can one have free will if one's actions are subject to being manipulated by some candle-burning, spell-chanting moron from far away?


Before we go any further, I would strongly suggest checking this out:
http://www.alanwatts.com/flash/prickles_n_goo.swf . It's a flash animation discussion just what you're talking about.


I've read much of Alan Watts, and have his books in my personal library. I've made a thread in this forum with that exact passage from The Book - or was it "The Wisdom of Insecurity"? But, yes - that is another example of what I am talking about.


Are you suggesting that I exist inside of a bag of skin? That I am somehow SOMETHING separate from my body and my surroundings? This doesn't seem rational to me. There is no little man inside of my head pushing buttons and pulling levers directing me about. I am just as much in my stomach as I am in my brain. Did the brain evolve a stomach to feed it and keep it going, or did the stomach evolve a brain to ensure a reliable supply of food? Consciousness is an aspect of existence. Or maybe consciousness=existence and existence=consciousness (let's not go that far just yet though, to keep it simple). Consciousness is not separate from existence. We were not clay vessels that were inanimate and then God came down and blew on us and then suddenly we had consciousness and became animate. I am also not separate from my surroundings. You cannot consider an organism without considering its environment. If I'm walking down the street, you must consider the street I'm walking on. I can't simply be dangling my legs in empty space, that wouldn't work.

Once more, I must point out again - differentiation is JUST as important as integration. I clarified that differentiation is crucial, and you followed up with a clarification that integration is crucial as well. One without the other only leads to imbalance. Hell, I've even argued for integration just as you are doing right now, in the past. Yes, consciousness is an aspect of existence, just as vision, as is hearing, as is digestion, and so forth. But to say that my vision, or my hearing, or my consciousness, is anything more than an aspect of existence, is to drop the context of what such actually does and what we actually observe it doing.


I have my doubts about petitionary prayer too, but there apparently have been some cases where it would either be an enormous synchronicity or the petitionary prayer was actually successful. I know Markosthegnostic has had such an experience.

I haven't seen or heard of a case of praying which would convince me that such conclusions typically drawn were cases of underestimating one's own brain [which has enormous power for self-deception as well] and its ability for self-direction. Much of what our brain picks up on in reality, i.e., visual cues, etc., are subconscious. Most people [99.99%] aren't consciously cognizant of the various signals sent by miniscule facial movements when communicating with others - it is done subconsciously. Of course, people don't know this, and in presence of such nescience, do what most people do: strike up some arbitrary premise claiming that they must be "psychic" because they just "couldn't" have known what the context of the other's mind must've been. Most people have not learned about concept-formation, and thus cannot answer the problem [least, not rationally and coherently] about universals, and so on and so forth.


Anyways, my definition of mysticism is close to that provided by Wikipedia: "Mysticism from the Greek μυω (muo, "concealed") is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is an important source of knowledge or understanding."
Mysticism is going about achieving unitive knowledge of "ultimate reality" "the divine" "conscious-awareness" "the Tao" or "the Godhead".


All a very nice dressing for the window of mysticism. Note how it alludes to "other-worldly" realms, and "divine revelation" and plainly refers to the exact subject discussed in this thread: God. Unless they explicitly define each and every single vague term, without referring to anything arbitrary and remain grounded in reason without contradictions to reality - they are espousing mysticism in it's superficial, best-selling pitch - or at best, simply speaking in high-flying, colorful and analogous language [due to nescience on what is actually occuring in reality underneath their interpretations] about various aspects of human nature - that can actually be expressed articulately, intelligently and rationally. Alan Watts does a good job of doing that with Eastern Religions. Abraham Maslow does an excellent job of conveying what some would refer to as "mystic experiences" in his books as well. See my thread: Transcendence.






--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (03/07/06 11:12 PM)


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

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


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pascal's wager and a counter wager. AlphaFalfa 1,475 11 08/31/10 06:03 PM
by AlphaFalfa
* Pascal's Wager from an Atheistic Perspective
( 1 2 all )
it stars saddam 4,588 39 03/17/07 03:35 PM
by vigilant_mind
* Pascals Wager
( 1 2 all )
CapZilla 2,118 34 02/15/10 04:51 PM
by Icelander
* Everything is a Wager
( 1 2 all )
Swami 2,326 27 12/05/04 04:44 PM
by freddurgan
* The greater truth behind PASCALS WAGER Noteworthy 276 0 07/05/11 10:26 PM
by Noteworthy
* Mystical Experience?
( 1 2 all )
Swami 3,230 25 07/15/03 05:25 PM
by Grav
* The Human Experience
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 5,362 33 06/26/02 07:01 AM
by Swami
* Boundaries - Drawing Arbitrary Lines Around Groups
( 1 2 all )
Swami 3,030 30 07/04/02 08:22 AM
by hongomon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,000 topic views. 0 members, 15 guests and 1 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 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.