|
 gribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/18/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 20 years, 8 months
|
 Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. 
#615878 - 04/22/02 10:28 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It has been said here a million times "scientific proof", "logical argument" etc. etc.
Logic and "science" is its own trap and its own end. Many times I have said "If you are so fond of objectivity, prove to me that there is objective reality". Nobody answered. Many times I have said "Logic doesn't work" just to hear a "prove it!" thrown back at me. And here I come, three months later just to see the same tireless Swami arguing the same tired argument with the same tireless Shroomism. What a joke!
Several times I have asked Swami to define to me what is it he calls "paranormal" just so I could see what it is he thinks doesn't exist. He failed to ever do so. Why do I think it is so important? Because those who separate normal from paranormal (be it sceptics or believers -- alike!) all miss the point. And the point is that
"A difference that makes no difference is no difference!" (Yes, this is from Swami's sig. I love this quote)
Separation and differentiation are the reason why logic doesn't work in a spirituality discussion. All because logic is a symbolic system used to manipulate discrete notions. Spiritual search leads one into an area where distinctions disappear. Logic doesn't work there. Period.
Personally, I don't give a shit whether or not telepathy exists. And I care even less if it is proven one way or another. Those who try to determine this are missing the point. They somehow spend years trying to find telepathy all the while carrying a cell phone in the poket. Hillarious!
I am about to make a statement more outrageous then claiming existance of telepathy or levitation. What I claim is this: "Everything that is imaginable is possible". But this is truly scary. If this were true, it would mean that we are waisting time on our petty problems, when we could've been doing some truly great things. So we choose not to see this, when it is simply staring us all in the faces! (Swami has wasted gigabytes of internet bandwidth trying not to see this. Shroomism has been helping him.) But, what a catch, this can't be proven by science or logic. Only by experience. And it is such a subtle thing, that even if one experiences it, he can't really tell about it to others. But! There are recipies to follow which might, given enough will-power, lead one to realize this. Unfortunately, one tends to find them all too stupid or combersome to follow through to the end. Only those who believe that they can do it do it. This is where belief comes in, not in "mechanics of telepathy". What bullshit to say that telepathy doesn't work when non-believers are present! I can understand why Swami is so upset...
Adios for another three months!
-- Grib
|
 Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: gribochek]
#615908 - 04/22/02 11:05 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It has been said here a million times "scientific proof", "logical argument" etc. etc.
No, at last count is was only 384,516 times.
Logic and "science" is its own trap...
Yes, the trap of fire, the wheel, all the way from cures for polio to space exploration. What other paradigm or methodology has proved 1% as useful?
Many times I have said "If you are so fond of objectivity, prove to me that there is objective reality". Nobody answered.
I certainly did, but you (and everyone else) refused to take the Swami "Rock-to-the-Back-of-the-Head Challenge" which is my version of the objective reality proof.
Many times I have said "Logic doesn't work...
And many times you have been full of shit as we are communicating through machines based on logic.
Several times I have asked Swami to define to me what is it he calls "paranormal" just so I could see what it is he thinks doesn't exist. He failed to ever do so.
And the significance is? Look it up in Webster as I accept the "common" definition. Are you too lazy to do that?
Spiritual search leads one into an area where distinctions disappear.
No distinctions? Is that why there are so many religions, sects and sub-sects? Or if you prefer, so many different channelers, future predictions and on and on?
Logic doesn't work there. Period.
And what does?
What I claim is this: "Everything that is imaginable is possible".
Claim away. Your impotent statement means nothing at all.
But, what a catch, this can't be proven by science or logic. Only by experience. And it is such a subtle thing, that even if one experiences it, he can't really tell about it to others.
This is the beauty of mindless drivel.
But! There are recipies to follow which might, given enough will-power, lead one to realize this.
And when one fails as one must, then the inevitable escape clause once more rears its ugly head: If you fail, then you did not have enough will-power. ANd if you do succeed using normal means, then you can claim some mysterious manifestation. For example: " I did visualization and affirmation and then found my soul mate." This type of thinking disregards the fact that most people meet their mate without using any esoteric techniques.
Unfortunately, one tends to find them all too stupid or combersome to follow through to the end.
You are right. I probably won't stand on my head for two hours each day chanting "Om mani padme hum."
Only those who believe that they can do it do it.
I COULD believe and do weird, exhausting exercises if someone demonstrated the efficacy of their methods.
A few years ago I took the EAS Fitness Challenge. While I was not magazine-worthy at the end of a very rigorous 3 months, I was stiill highly pleased with my results, going from a 35" waist to a 31" wasit at age 44. I bring this up not as a boast, but as an example of following others who showed that a specific diet and exercise program would work. BTW, I was not a couch potato and had been working out for 25 years. Through applied LOGIC and understanding, I was able to transform my body.
Adios for another three months!
Thank God!
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (04/23/02 11:04 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#615937 - 04/22/02 11:44 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The only problems I see with your average logical advocate is the nasty cynicism, dissecting of statements, know-it-all-ism and superiority complex that seems to follow them around
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#615956 - 04/23/02 12:08 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Logic and "science" is its own trap...
Yes, the trap of fire, the wheel, all the way cures for polio and space exploration. What other paradigm or methodolgy has proved 1% as useful?
I wouldn't be so keen on science. The dinosaurs lasted 140 million years with no science whatsoever. Humans have been around for a mere 2 million, had science for 400 years and are on the brink of global environmental catastrophe (if we manage to avoid nuking ourselves in the meantime). Science will probably wipe the human species out.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: ]
#615972 - 04/23/02 12:46 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Xlea321]
#615974 - 04/23/02 12:48 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Xlea321]
#615977 - 04/23/02 12:54 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I wouldn't be so keen on science.
Then don't be hypocritical; please turn off your computer, your TV and walk to work.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: ]
#615984 - 04/23/02 01:06 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I forgot. Swami-bashing is OK. If you were truly spiritual, you would be just as indignant when ANYONE was lampooned, including me. Gribo's nastiness is somehow acceptable to you. At least I am consistent and not phoney.
Perhaps I should take your approach and post nonsense about perpetual motion machines, water-powered cars, crop circles or some other wacky flavor of the month.
But you are not arrogant - you only know more about ancient Egypt than all of the Egyptologists on the planet because you tripped or had a dream. If that is not a know-it-all-ism and superiority, then nothing is! Buy a mirror and take a long look.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616022 - 04/23/02 02:49 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Science is humanity's greatest accomplishment.
But is was something that was created by humanity. We imagined it and we made it possible. Who's to say we can't imagine other things?
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Xlea321]
#616059 - 04/23/02 04:46 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Science will probably wipe the human species out.
not science, the lack of spirituality
|
NextGenHippie
enthusiast
Registered: 03/30/01
Posts: 311
Loc: MD, USA
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
 Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: raytrace]
#616107 - 04/23/02 06:42 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I disagree, we will evolve, and then devolve into FLYING SPACE MONKEYS!!!
--------------------
[pot]Think left and think right[pot]
[pot]and think low and think high[pot]
[pot]Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try[pot]
-Dr. Seuss
|
gribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/18/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 20 years, 8 months
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616207 - 04/23/02 09:30 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Then don't be hypocritical; please turn off your computer, your TV and walk to work.
This argument or yours is soooooo full of it!
Computers:
Did you know that the transistor was first discovered by accident then explained by science? Do you think a computer has been created by science? What scientific law is there which predicts existance of computers? Computers have been invented using tools available at the time, most of which were discovered by accident
TV: Do you know that Radio has been discovered by accident and then explained by science? Do you remember the experiement which caused the discovery of the radio? Two broken circles of wire were placed nearby (accidentally!) when electrical current was applied to one, another one would spark. While we are at it, you might want to find information on how electricity was _discovered_ and how science was again lingering behind, busy trying to _explain_ things already known.
Bullshit, swami. Technological advancement has nothing to do with science. I challange you to dig up a technological device which you or I use every day which is based upon scientifically predicted phenomena, rather then one discovered accidentally.
-- Grib
|
gribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/18/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 20 years, 8 months
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616227 - 04/23/02 09:53 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
What other paradigm or methodolgy has proved 1% as useful?
Accupuncture, for example.
I certainly did, but you (and everyone else) refused to take the Swami "Rock-to-the-Back-of-the-Head Challenge" which is my version of the objective reality proof.
This doesn't prove objective reality. Only that a feeling of being hit by a rock is often followed by a feeling of pain.
And many times you have been full of shit as we are communicating through machines based on logic.
Machines are not based on logic. This is common misconception. They are about as based on logic as a piece of paper and pencil. Nothing can be based on logic except for more logic.
And the significance is? Look it up in Webster as I accept the "common" definition.
I have explained the significance, you must be blind.
M-W: Paranormal: not scientifically explainable.
If paranormal phenomena does not exist (as you seem to be suggesting over and over) means that science can explain everything that exists (logical, right?). If a paranormal phenomena is discovered and reproduced in a laboratory setting it will be accepted as existing and then it will be attempted to explain it using scientific method, which will certainly succeed, given how adaptable the scientific approach is. Which will make it not paranormal. This means that paranormal does NOT exist. By definition. Is that what you are trying so hard to show us? If so, you are pretty stupid. But I don't think that's what you are trying to do. That is why I ask you again, give me a definition of paranormal that would at least "allow" it to exists.
No distinctions? Is that why there are so many religions, sects and sub-sects?
There are many religions, sects and sub-sects for two reasons. 1. People are gullible. 2. There are many ways to skin the cat. Not all religions sects and sub-sects give one the true teaching. But the true teaching can be gotten in many different ways. But all of this misses the point. These were not the distinctions I was referring to. Logical true vs. false, exists vs. doesn't, etc. You wouldn't understand.
-- Grib
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616234 - 04/23/02 10:05 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I was stating my opinion. I just figured if it was ok for you to lampoon all the time, I could do the same.
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616260 - 04/23/02 10:35 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I looked in the mirror and took a long hard look. I have long hair and am dead sexy.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: gribochek]
#616285 - 04/23/02 11:03 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Did you know that the transistor was first discovered by accident then explained by science? (This argument or yours is soooooo full of it! )
If you haven't guessed by now, I know almost everything. A device discovered in lab researching solid-state devices is hardly "an accident".
1945 - Kelly restarts solid state device research after WW II pause
Jan. 1946 - The Bell Labs Solid State Device group is in place
Led by W. Shockley and S. Morgan Includes: W. Brattain, J. Bardeen, G. Pearson, B. Moore, R. Gibney. Focus of the group is on silicon and germanium
1947 - Bardeen suggests that surface states prevent FET action
Dec. 16, 1947 - Transistor effect discovered by Bardeen, Brattain
Dec. 24, 1947 - Transistor shown to Bell Labs top management.
June 30, 1948 - Bell Labs publicly announces the transistor discovery.
*in a whiney voice* But Gribulator, you promised not to post for another 3 months...
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (04/23/02 11:14 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: gribochek]
#616292 - 04/23/02 11:14 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
This doesn't prove objective reality. Only that a feeling of being hit by a rock is often followed by a feeling of pain.
Ha, ha hahahah, ha, ho, heh heh, he he, hah!
First you say no one replied which was a lie, then you follow with more nonsense.
Webster:
objectivity: of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
It proves that those that talk about no objectivity don't believe it in themselves! They KNOW they will feel pain which clearly meets the definition of objectivity (The same action will yield the same result for everybody), no matter what words you dress it up in, nor how you wriggle.
Machines are not based on logic. This is common misconception.
I have degrees in electrical engineering and computer science. Without logical principles, It would be impossible for me to design a circuit board or write a program. I guess I make a living, through misconceptions...
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: ]
#616294 - 04/23/02 11:16 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I looked in the mirror and took a long hard look. I have long hair and am dead sexy.
Got plans for Friday night?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616316 - 04/23/02 11:37 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah
|
Revelation
ॐ
Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 6,135
Loc: heart cave
|
 Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: gribochek]
#616318 - 04/23/02 11:38 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"Everything that is imaginable is possible"
So true. I've been thinking about this a lot the last couple of days (funny that), imagination is the tool we were given to create our reality. The implications of this are astonishing. There is an excellent article on the web about this that can be found here.
Sample quote:
"Reality is a 100% reflection of who we are as a person. We created all of our reality, and we constantly re-create it every second of every day.
Life is a mirror of our thoughts, beliefs and actions. This is what karma really is - life reflecting who we are. In fact, the judgment-worn word karma could be better replaced with the more descriptive word reflectance."
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: ]
#616329 - 04/23/02 11:54 AM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Damn!
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616333 - 04/23/02 12:08 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah you know how that goes.. anyways I am hetero and live a good 3000 miles away from you
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 22 years, 1 month
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616409 - 04/23/02 01:22 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I really don't understand how pain can be objective. First of all, that definition of objectivity is bogus. How can a sensible experience possibly be independant of individual thought or be perceptible by all observers? Wait, I know how you will reply: anyone who is hit in the back of the head will feel pain. But which comes first - our experience or our labeling of the experience? "Existence precedes essence" -Sartre Which means: "Man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself." Life is not a computer program. There is no entity in the world with which we can compare our experience, and therefore it must be subjective. And this doesn't mean that we can't figure out how things in our world work, but these come AFTER our thrust into existence in which there is no reference point and hence NO OBJECTIVITY.
Does this make sense? <-- please answer this question Swami. I am asking you if my message is coherent, not if it is logical (which I think it is)
Am I still wrong?
Peace.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: JPAtanat]
#616437 - 04/23/02 01:48 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I really don't understand how pain can be objective.
It is both objective and subjective.
Subjective:
A. We all have varying sensitivity to pain, both physical and societal (Take it like a man!)
B. How we perceive the pain. Muscle burn can be extreme during hardcore bodybuilding, but is transformed through the knowledge of results. (No pain, no gain.) In a similar way, western women have been taught that childbirth pain is extreme and should be numbed by drugs. Other societies find the pain to be part of the bonding and the experience and would not think of drugging themselves.
Objective:
We ALL have neural pathways that respond to stimulus such as heat, cold, pinprick or sudden whack in the head.
Unless one has a severed nerve, everyone will feel the whack and it is possible to translate that to pleasure of some sort (masochism). No matter how you filter it, all people will suffer physical damage from the death of a few cells to a crushed skull dependant on the force applied.
If there was no objectivity whatsoever, we would not even be able to communicate even on the most basic level with each other as each person's world would be unrelated to another's. We all have commonalities and differences.
I think what you are saying is that we start basically the same, but then redefine ourselves as we accumulate experience.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616571 - 04/23/02 04:33 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I don't see how this is so hard to comprehend.
Why don't the anti-Swaminists take a class in logic (you can argue with the teacher all you want)...
Then come back and argue why there is no objective reality or why logic is useless.
Okay, even if you don't agree with the logic course... at least you'll be able to see (clearly... well, in theory) our perspective.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 22 years, 1 month
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616806 - 04/23/02 09:06 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, ok.
i agree that we can say that contact results in an experience of it and that we have neural pathways that react to stimulus. But I was saying the basis of our existence is subjective. We can then determine causes and effects of various phenomena, and learn from that, and becaues of that we can develop language and computers, systems of logic, etc. But I still don't think that that makes existence objective. I am not saying that logic doesn't work - it clearly does, it just means that the true nature of existence transcends the boundaries and abstractions set up by logic, and any way of thinking.
does that make sense?
do you agree?
Peace.
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 22 years, 1 month
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Sclorch]
#616813 - 04/23/02 09:17 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
you fool. first of all, i do comprehend what Swami is trying to say. I am tryins to say something too, and I am not so eloquent and sometimes I get the feeling that people do not understand. that is all. People in the opposing camps do not very often reply with an "I understand, but...." instead it is systematic debunking of each statement. I did take a logic course, and I have never claimed logic to be useless. In fact it is supremely useful. All i wish to say is that logic did not come first. Subjectivity came first, and is the underlying truth of our lives. I do see clearly your perspective. It is very straightforward and easy to understand. But I still have not gotten an indication that you understand my viewpoint. Swami's last post was the close as it has gotten to a consent. So please, we can disagree, but I am just trying to see if you guys understand my point.
Peace.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: JPAtanat]
#616839 - 04/23/02 09:37 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
. I am not saying that logic doesn't work - it clearly does, it just means that the true nature of existence transcends the boundaries and abstractions set up by logic, and any way of thinking.
Of course it does. Yet what other approach is there in trying to comprehend the incomprehensible? Experience is a starting point, but because of our thousand filters may or may not be interpreted correctly. No matter how far one penetrates, there will always be a point beyond which nothing can be said.
If we solved the riddle of existence, we could all pack up and go home.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Traps and pitfalls of logic and science. [Re: Swami]
#616874 - 04/23/02 10:06 PM (22 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"Then come back and argue why there is no objective reality"
For the record, I do believe in an objective reality.
But it could be argued that the only evidence of an objective reality is in that reality itself. There can be no independent confirmation of it. So you can only accept on faith the reality of what you are seeing.
I accept my senses on faith, not logic. It can't be proven logically that what you're seeing is really what is there because logic depends on the senses that are being questioned.
"No matter how far one penetrates, there will always be a point beyond which nothing can be said"
I would say that we are at that point from the start. And whatever reality we build from that point is real.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
lucid
1 2 3 all )
Swami
MAGnum
Asante
Ego Death
The_Visionaire
gettinjiggywithit
Jared