Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 147

Thread: Socrates practiced QiGong!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    See, right there... you justified why one was less likely by simply implying the other is more likely. What is that?
    Because one of them is second hand knowledge. Certain results of Physics (at the scale required for the argument) are known only through the lens of a machine, because they are beyond the threshold of our perception, a machine which we built and who's results are modified already by what they were built to register and what our theory expected.

    Where as Consciousness is known first hand.

    You see? Now with exceptional evidence one can override ones own senses, of course. However, that evidence is no way near at this point.

    You are correct that 'I don't know' is the best answer. My Choosing to believe in it is an opinion. But there are a lot of people who take determinism as a given these days, and I think its nice to pay attention to the other side of the argument. Thats all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    I firm believer in Jesus would say the same thing. They would say knowledge of Jesus is "testable" within oneself and many have exercised such faith in groups and continue to share that through every possible medium. .
    I don't quite see how but I'll take your word for it, I don't really have so much experience with these groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    I dunno. I guess if believing in something you can't substantiate keeps you from doing bad things. Sure. Whatever works I guess. But what I think is more ethical and moral is to make an honest assessment of the world around you always aware and willing to admit what you KNOW and don't.
    I wish everyone did. I would not try to enforce this opinion. But it does seems sometimes that determinism is taken as a given. As such its nice to look at this perspective. Especially here in England, perhaps stateside its different.


    I mean, you said before you would lean towards determinism, why is that?
    Last edited by RenDaHai; 07-08-2014 at 04:14 AM.
    問「武」。曰:「克。」未達。曰:「勝己之私之謂克。」

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    The problem with saying that, by being conscious of choosing, we are conscious of free will(tm) is that, for that to hold, we would have to be unaware of past experiences and preferences that lead us to that choice, since those would be textbook determinism. All that remains are choices that have no precedent, which is not many of our choices.
    Well you are correct. So I can't know, its a preference of belief. That is why earlier I was trying to show how memory is such a huge factor in this debate and a lot of people ignore it. That is what makes it (possibly always) incalculable. And the vast majority of time humans run on pre-made scripts of behaviour, which is to our advantage. But then of the many creative things humans do free will seems to me to manifest. How could we bring knowledge from the unknown into the known without this leap of creativity?

    What if choice is the 'mobility' of memory, the minds ability to move across its memories and land on ones suitable to the current decision. And it is in THIS movement that exists free will?

    Our mind does not just experience the mathematical instant. It is constantly scanning its past and anticipating its future. This fluid movement of it across its own memories seems to me to be intertwined with free will.

    But of course, I don't know, I just like to believe in it.
    Last edited by RenDaHai; 07-08-2014 at 05:06 AM.
    問「武」。曰:「克。」未達。曰:「勝己之私之謂克。」

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    Well you are correct. So I can't know, its a preference of belief. That is why earlier I was trying to show how memory is such a huge factor in this debate and a lot of people ignore it. That is what makes it (possibly always) incalculable. And the vast majority of time humans run on pre-made scripts of behaviour, which is to our advantage. But then of the many creative things humans do free will seems to me to manifest. How could we bring knowledge from the unknown into the known without this leap of creativity?

    What if choice is the 'mobility' of memory, the minds ability to move across its memories and land on ones suitable to the current decision. And it is in THIS movement that exists free will?

    Our mind does not just experience the mathematical instant. It is constantly scanning its past and anticipating its future. This fluid movement of it across its own memories seems to me to be intertwined with free will.

    But of course, I don't know, I just like to believe in it.
    Towards the end of the thread below, there is a study showing that the brain sometimes just does things to be random (gross oversimplification on my part here), so, one could make the case that even sometimes when people do something completely new, it may be deterministic as well.

    The question is, did I choose to post this at all?

    EDIT: forgot to add a link, it's the "living in a material world" thread on OT.
    Last edited by Faux Newbie; 07-08-2014 at 11:17 AM.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    Because one of them is second hand knowledge. Certain results of Physics (at the scale required for the argument) are known only through the lens of a machine, because they are beyond the threshold of our perception, a machine which we built and who's results are modified already by what they were built to register and what our theory expected.
    Not sure what you mean here. I use my meter to measure resistance in a circuit, yeah of course it's not going to measure something else. I expect to measure resistance and that's what I get. I don't see that as limited so much as useful for it's purpose. A mass spectrometer is no different. In the sciences we come up with an idea for whatever reason, look for evidence, then spend the rest of the time trying to prove it wrong. An oversimplification of the process, I know, but you see what I'm getting at.

    Where as Consciousness is known first hand.

    You see? Now with exceptional evidence one can override ones own senses, of course. However, that evidence is no way near at this point.

    You are correct that 'I don't know' is the best answer. My Choosing to believe in it is an opinion. But there are a lot of people who take determinism as a given these days, and I think its nice to pay attention to the other side of the argument. Thats all.

    I think it's wrong to make conclusive statements without adequate proof, and that goes for all sides of any argument. I also recognize that incomplete views can be stepping stones to greater understanding. We see that in science all the time. But as far as consciousness is concerned, first hand is only relevant when it's true. I mean, how many examples can we point out where first hand experience was shown to be biased or just plain wrong, especially in the context it is sometimes used to justify certain positions. And to use consciousness of consciousness as a justification for the existence of consciousness just seems kinda... circular. Ya know. This is a weird topic.


    I wish everyone did. I would not try to enforce this opinion. But it does seems sometimes that determinism is taken as a given. As such its nice to look at this perspective. Especially here in England, perhaps stateside its different.


    I mean, you said before you would lean towards determinism, why is that?
    That's a good question. It fits with my world view, I guess. But ultimately I also completely admit that I don't know. But I'll give it some thought and let you know. I'm just the type who sees patterns. In the past this has caused me to make ridiculous speculations, but as I get older I have found it to be quite useful when properly harnessed.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Stillness is a hallmark of pretty much every religion and philosophy of the ancients, ex:
    Be Still and know that I AM God.
    Psalm 46:10
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  6. #36
    To take it one step further (and relate it to qigong), stillness in the Chinese tradition is seen as insufficient on its own. In Taoism, stillness is just a way to quiet oneself so that one can see the Tao for what it is. In Buddhism, stillness is a necessary prerequisite to observe the illusion of the self and the world. In Confucianism, stillness is merely a tool to then act out specific virtues.

    In each case, they are part of a discipline in which contemplation and action are the goals, not quietude on its own, and in which there are specific practical goals and steps.

    In the Western case, Christianity, even meditative prayer, came to differ vastly in the latter portion, as there is a division between seeing the wonder of Christ versus enacting it (except for a few fringe portions of Christianity where the goal is not seen as unachievable), whereas in Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, the specific goal is to enact the traits of their sages, even expand on them. Also, in the East, meditation was a part of all practitioners lives to some degree, whereas in Christianity, it came to be a mostly monastic tradition.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    To take it one step further (and relate it to qigong), stillness in the Chinese tradition is seen as insufficient on its own. In Taoism, stillness is just a way to quiet oneself so that one can see the Tao for what it is. In Buddhism, stillness is a necessary prerequisite to observe the illusion of the self and the world. In Confucianism, stillness is merely a tool to then act out specific virtues.

    In each case, they are part of a discipline in which contemplation and action are the goals, not quietude on its own, and in which there are specific practical goals and steps.

    In the Western case, Christianity, even meditative prayer, came to differ vastly in the latter portion, as there is a division between seeing the wonder of Christ versus enacting it (except for a few fringe portions of Christianity where the goal is not seen as unachievable), whereas in Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, the specific goal is to enact the traits of their sages, even expand on them. Also, in the East, meditation was a part of all practitioners lives to some degree, whereas in Christianity, it came to be a mostly monastic tradition.
    There are many differences between Christianity and eastern religions BUT in regards to THIS discussion the key difference is that Eastern view is "self-centered" ( You can do it yourself) and Christianity is "other-centered" ( you can't do it without God because that is the purpose of your existence - to be in a relationship with God which will make you "a god" ie: your true state).
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    Towards the end of the thread below, there is a study showing that the brain sometimes just does things to be random (gross oversimplification on my part here), so, one could make the case that even sometimes when people do something completely new, it may be deterministic as well.

    The question is, did I choose to post this at all?
    Yes, the paper wasn't free so I could only read the abstract.

    This is just the interpretation of the study. It appears they did indeed find indeterminism in their results, but instead of assigning it to being inconclusive or evidence for free will they decided to assign it to being random and therefore evidence for mechanism. The study looked a bit simple but I would have to read the whole thing.

    But lets take that, the idea of being random. What is true random?? Isn't it, like free will, seemingly acausal? You assume it is caused but we don't know the cause, hidden variables? Uncertainty? Inexplicable randomness? Can we judge by looking at the distribution?

    Lets look at radioactive decay. Individual decays are seemingly unpredictable, never the less over many decays a definite half life emerges. What implication does this have for the individual decay? A probability? The half life is a definite result despite a multiplicity of random events.... Does this kind of randomness preclude freedom? Are there hidden variables that could influence the result of random events on a macro scale? I don't know.

    Randomness itself is somewhat incomprehensible and it strikes me it is not a freedom killer.
    問「武」。曰:「克。」未達。曰:「勝己之私之謂克。」

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    There are many differences between Christianity and eastern religions BUT in regards to THIS discussion the key difference is that Eastern view is "self-centered" ( You can do it yourself) and Christianity is "other-centered" ( you can't do it without God because that is the purpose of your existence - to be in a relationship with God which will make you "a god" ie: your true state).
    I would disagree on one level. In Buddhism, self is an illusion, and enlightenment cannot be achieved through ignorance of that outside of the self. In short, samsara and nirvana are one thing, nirvana is simply the eradication of ideas of self that prevent a real understanding of things. In Taoism, the phenomenon of the real world must be observed and experienced in order to become a sage, and in Confucianism, Confucius and Xunzi are in agreement that observing the virtue of others is a vital lesson for the path. None suggest that you can do it on your own, and cite the entire world as well as texts and practices as necessary or helpful. Even Chan, which does not promote dependency on texts, still sees their usefulness, and samsara as an essential element toward enlightenment.

    In the case of Christian meditation, I would be interested in how they determine that what they see as God is not their own ego. This is an honest question, I have not seen a lot on this specific topic in reference to Christian meditation, but in Chan, one famous scholar and monk was clear in stating that quiet meditation, of all meditation, is most prone to confusing the ego with progress, and so ends each meditation of his own with "that was not the enlightenment I was seeking". If there is such a focus on avoiding confusion of the ego with God, I could see value there, but if not, then this could easily be self centered in a way none of the Eastern traditions are (on paper, of course!)
    Last edited by Faux Newbie; 07-08-2014 at 11:53 AM.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    Yes, the paper wasn't free so I could only read the abstract.

    This is just the interpretation of the study. It appears they did indeed find indeterminism in their results, but instead of assigning it to being inconclusive or evidence for free will they decided to assign it to being random and therefore evidence for mechanism. The study looked a bit simple but I would have to read the whole thing.

    But lets take that, the idea of being random. What is true random?? Isn't it, like free will, seemingly acausal? You assume it is caused but we don't know the cause, hidden variables? Uncertainty? Inexplicable randomness? Can we judge by looking at the distribution?

    Lets look at radioactive decay. Individual decays are seemingly unpredictable, never the less over many decays a definite half life emerges. What implication does this have for the individual decay? A probability? The half life is a definite result despite a multiplicity of random events.... Does this kind of randomness preclude freedom? Are there hidden variables that could influence the result of random events on a macro scale? I don't know.

    Randomness itself is somewhat incomprehensible and it strikes me it is not a freedom killer.
    Choice caused by a random synaptic flare would be caused, and thus deterministic, by an element outside of what we would normally call consciousness.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    I would disagree on one level. In Buddhism, self is an illusion, and enlightenment cannot be achieved through ignorance of that outside of the self. In short, samsara and nirvana are one thing, nirvana is simply the eradication of ideas of self that prevent a real understanding of things. In Taoism, the phenomenon of the real world must be observed and experienced in order to become a sage, and in Confucianism, Confucius and Xunzi are in agreement that observing the virtue of others is a vital lesson for the path. None suggest that you can do it on your own, and cite the entire world as well as texts and practices as necessary or helpful. Even Chan, which does not promote dependency on texts, still sees their usefulness, and samsara as an essential element toward enlightenment.

    In the case of Christian meditation, I would be interested in how they determine that what they see as God is not their own ego. This is an honest question, I have not seen a lot on this specific topic in reference to Christian meditation, but in Chan, one famous scholar and monk was clear in stating that quiet meditation, of all meditation, is most prone to confusing the ego with progress, and so ends each meditation of his own with "that was not the enlightenment I was seeking". If there is such a focus on avoiding confusion of the ego with God, I could see value there, but if not, then this could easily be self centered in a way none of the Eastern traditions are (on paper, of course!)
    Yes in Buddhisim self is an illusion BUT to get to that point the SELF must be prioritized, one must become selfish to be selfless.

    Prayer isn't really meditation per say, it is other centered, it is allowing God to come into Us and being One with Him while realizing He is the one doing it, not Us.
    The voice of Christ is unmistakable and undeniable (though it can be rejected), not I said VOICE not voices, there is only ONE voice and He is Christ.
    How do we know it is not US but God, not our ego but God?
    Believe me, you know, it is a voice that lays your spirit bare like a red hot blade.
    He sees through you and all you are.
    That is why repentance is so hard for so many because true repentance means baring the full weight and pain of our sins against others, against self and against God.
    Most would rather end up in "hell".
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    Yes in Buddhisim self is an illusion BUT to get to that point the SELF must be prioritized, one must become selfish to be selfless.
    This is at odds with sutras and most established practices. Monks who never left the temple to practice benevolence were generally denigrated by the major Buddhist proponents. Additionally, Christianity has no defense against the same sort of accusation, since there is definitely reward, and that that reward is sought by many.

    Prayer isn't really meditation per say, it is other centered, it is allowing God to come into Us and being One with Him while realizing He is the one doing it, not Us.
    That depends on the prayer, and again, without a defined means to prevent one's own ego from being involved, that seems like a huge factor.

    I understand this is the distinction between proper prayer and ego based, but that is no different than applying the same idea to Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism, when all three emphasize that one's place in a much larger context is the key.

    That is why repentance is so hard for so many because true repentance means baring the full weight and pain of our sins against others, against self and against God.
    Most would rather end up in "hell".
    This is not so different that Buddhism or Taoism, knowing samsara, one realizes that harming others for one's own benefit is foolish, seeing one's own actions as foolish is not easy. In Taoism, seeing what we want for being based in ignorant preferences is not easy for most. Still, there HAS to be a practice to avoid basing these judgments on ego, imo. I would imagine moreso when one's eternal place in heaven is at stake. I understand that one is not expected to be Christ, but I also think one is supposed to meet him halfway is my point.
    Last edited by Faux Newbie; 07-08-2014 at 12:24 PM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    Choice caused by a random synaptic flare would be caused, and thus deterministic, by an element outside of what we would normally call consciousness.
    But IS randomness deterministic? Assuming no hidden variables, then randomness is, well, a kind of free.
    問「武」。曰:「克。」未達。曰:「勝己之私之謂克。」

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    But IS randomness deterministic? Assuming no hidden variables, then randomness is, well, a kind of free.
    If randomness is imposed on you, then you are not making a free choice, random events are forcing your hand.

    A random event that occurs to me is, itself, random, but my response may be determined by it, and thus, not random at all.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    This is at odds with sutras and most established practices. Monks who never left the temple to practice benevolence were generally denigrated by the major Buddhist proponents. Additionally, Christianity has no defense against the same sort of accusation, since there is definitely reward, and that that reward is sought by many.
    The "reward" you speak of is given freely not earned "so that no man may boast". The moment we do something to get a reward, the intent has forever tainted the act.

    That depends on the prayer, and again, without a defined means to prevent one's own ego from being involved, that seems like a huge factor.
    No, not really.
    Remember that prayer is OTHER centered not self centered and when one is in communion with Christ ( actual oneness) there is no ego because one isn't "like we are now".



    This is not so different that Buddhism or Taoism, knowing samsara, one realizes that harming others for one's own benefit is foolish, seeing one's own actions as foolish is not easy. In Taoism, seeing what we want for being based in ignorant preferences is not easy for most. Still, there HAS to be a practice to avoid basing these judgments on ego, imo. I would imagine moreso when one's eternal place in heaven is at stake. I understand that one is not expected to be Christ, but I also think one is supposed to meet him halfway is my point.
    The gift of God's grace is an unmerited gift, nothing we do makes us merit it.
    There is no ego when you realize that you can't do anything to merit His grace and that He has done EVERYTHING for you already.
    Heaven isn't what is at stake, that is just an end destination, it is return to Man perfect state of relationship with God that is at stake BUT the price for that has already been paid, by the Son of God.
    Because any action we would do would be with the intent to "get something" then those actions will never be good enough, the intent is tainted, it is full of EGO.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •