Is this the Red Pill? A Metaphysical Wake Up Call?

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Philosophy - Meta Forum » Is this the Red Pill? A Metaphysical Wake Up Call?

Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Author

Message

Anandavala

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:19 pm

Guest

I invite you to have a look at this latest metaphysical offering.

It challenges core beliefs, elucidates the nature of illusion and
inspires people to question their deepest assumptions about existence
and themselves. It Bridges the gap between science and spirituality.

An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
Holistic Science
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html

The discussion uses systems theory to go deep into the questions:
What am I?
What is the world?
What is happening?
What can be done?

It also addresses the issue of how does a vast complex system such as
a human life or a civilisation undergo a transition from a state of
delusion and obstruction to a state of awareness and abundance.

It may seem abstract at times but the roots of ignorance go deep into
abstract territory, subtly warping the familiar world of experience.
When experience is in conflict with reality we must challenge our
delusions and enter into the abstract (metaphysical) foundations of
our confusion.

It covers many many things. It delves to the core of certain
fundamental issues and clarifies deep seated misunderstandings, then
it explores the ramifications of this as the whole structure of
knowledge readjusts.

Some quotes from the preface...

"It contains some mind-blowing ideas (literally). As they flow through
my mind and out my fingers they are blowing my old paradigm into tiny
pieces - dissolving everything and re-casting it into a new paradigm
or vision of reality. So beware if you are attached to your familiar
world-view - you will find this discussion threatening. Read this only
if you are willing to question fundamental beliefs and assumptions,
and you seek a deep rational knowledge of your self, of the world, of
the nature of the phenomena and events in the world and how to
holistically, harmonious and effectively participate in reality. This
is the red pill, take it and I will show you "how deep the rabbit hole
goes". Or simply turn away; "take the blue pill and the story ends...
you believe whatever you want to believe."(The Matrix). The decision
is: "Do you live on in ignorance (and potentially bliss) [but for how
long?] or do you lead what Aristotle called 'the examined life'..."

"This discussion touches upon extremely controversial and off limits
subjects - subjects about which there is extreme misrepresentation and
misunderstanding, subjects about which most people have hard and fast
beliefs and prejudices and they never dare look into and question
them... these ideas challenge certain core beliefs that most people
have not seriously questioned."

"if you read through the discussion you will be able to identify the
assumptions, overcome the pre-conceived ideas and be able to
contemplate the topic from a new perspective that will make it much
clearer."

"The subject itself is the essence of simplicity but because of the
complexity of our ideas I must provide a very complex analysis to make
it connect with our world of ideas. So it may start off a bit too
technical for some and it may get a bit too metaphysical or abstract
for others. It is primarily meant for people who are attached to the
world of ideas but who are open to exploring its foundations and
seeing 'beneath' the world of ideas. It is particularly aimed at open
minded, rational, and skeptical, scientists, philosophers,
intellectuals and theologians but also for open minded, rational,
skeptical and enquiring people of all kinds. It covers such a vast
territory so much of it may be unfamiliar or may seem familiar on the
surface but be totally different to what you would expect. This
discussion describes a paradigm shift"

"Through questioning and deconstructing fundamental assumptions and
confusions then exploring the ramifications of this I seek to motivate
people to clarify and overcome these distortions in themselves and the
wider culture so that we can all better comprehend and participate in
reality. I do not propose any new ideology, grand theory or belief
system, just a 'device' that can assist in clarifying awareness. After
that, awareness and reality do the rest."

Check it out if you dare ;)

An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
Holistic Science
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html

Best wishes!
John Ringland
http://www.anandavala.info

Immortalist

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:30 pm

Guest

On Apr 20, 10:19 am, Anandavala <john.ringl...@anandavala.info> wrote:

Quote:

Are you sure it was Aristotle who mentioned the examined life? I
always heard it was Socrates. From the link you provided;

Quote:

This is the red pill, take it and I will show you
"how deep the rabbit hole goes". Or simply
turn away; "take the blue pill and the story
ends... you believe whatever you want to
believe."(The Matrix) [ref]. The decision is:
"Do you live on in ignorance (and potentially
bliss) [but for how long?] or do you lead what
Aristotle called 'the examined life'... The question
is asking us whether reality, truth, is worth
pursuing. The blue pill will leave us as we are,
in a life consisting of habit, of things we believe
we know. We are comfortable, we do not need
truth to live. The blue pill symbolises commuting
to work every day, or brushing your teeth. The
red pill is an unknown quantity. We are told that
it can help us to find the truth. We don't know
what that truth is, or even that the pill will help
us to find it. The red pill symbolises risk, doubt
and questioning."

http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html

The unexamined life is really not worth living, says Socrates, the
wisest man in ancient Greece. His credo has become the basic tenet of
the philosophical quest.

At his trial in 399BC by the citizens of Athens, Socrates declared
that from his incessant questioning, he found his contemporaries spend
their lives pursuing various goals -- money, ambition, pleasure,
physical security -- without asking themselves if these were
important. Unless they raised such a question and seriously sought the
answer -- through careful reflection, alert observation and critical
arguments -- they would not know if they were doing the right thing.

They might be wasting their energy, time and money in useless or even
dangerous pursuits.

How do we believe what we believe? How do we arrive at our underlying
set of beliefs (which includes assumptions, prejudices and
convictions)? It is important that we examine the process to determine
if we have acquired the correct set of beliefs because they influence
our thinking and motivate our action.

http://bystander.homestead.com/unexamined.html

Quote:

The discussion uses systems theory to go deep into the questions:
What am I?
What is the world?
What is happening?
What can be done?

It also addresses the issue of how does a vast complex system such as
a human life or a civilisation undergo a transition from a state of
delusion and obstruction to a state of awareness and abundance.

It may seem abstract at times but the roots of ignorance go deep into
abstract territory, subtly warping the familiar world of experience.
When experience is in conflict with reality we must challenge our
delusions and enter into the abstract (metaphysical) foundations of
our confusion.

It covers many many things. It delves to the core of certain
fundamental issues and clarifies deep seated misunderstandings, then
it explores the ramifications of this as the whole structure of
knowledge readjusts.

Some quotes from the preface...

"It contains some mind-blowing ideas (literally). As they flow through
my mind and out my fingers they are blowing my old paradigm into tiny
pieces - dissolving everything and re-casting it into a new paradigm
or vision of reality. So beware if you are attached to your familiar
world-view - you will find this discussion threatening. Read this only
if you are willing to question fundamental beliefs and assumptions,
and you seek a deep rational knowledge of your self, of the world, of
the nature of the phenomena and events in the world and how to
holistically, harmonious and effectively participate in reality. This
is the red pill, take it and I will show you "how deep the rabbit hole
goes". Or simply turn away; "take the blue pill and the story ends...
you believe whatever you want to believe."(The Matrix). The decision
is: "Do you live on in ignorance (and potentially bliss) [but for how
long?] or do you lead what Aristotle called 'the examined life'..."

"This discussion touches upon extremely controversial and off limits
subjects - subjects about which there is extreme misrepresentation and
misunderstanding, subjects about which most people have hard and fast
beliefs and prejudices and they never dare look into and question
them... these ideas challenge certain core beliefs that most people
have not seriously questioned."

"if you read through the discussion you will be able to identify the
assumptions, overcome the pre-conceived ideas and be able to
contemplate the topic from a new perspective that will make it much
clearer."

"The subject itself is the essence of simplicity but because of the
complexity of our ideas I must provide a very complex analysis to make
it connect with our world of ideas. So it may start off a bit too
technical for some and it may get a bit too metaphysical or abstract
for others. It is primarily meant for people who are attached to the
world of ideas but who are open to exploring its foundations and
seeing 'beneath' the world of ideas. It is particularly aimed at open
minded, rational, and skeptical, scientists, philosophers,
intellectuals and theologians but also for open minded, rational,
skeptical and enquiring people of all kinds. It covers such a vast
territory so much of it may be unfamiliar or may seem familiar on the
surface but be totally different to what you would expect. This
discussion describes a paradigm shift"

"Through questioning and deconstructing fundamental assumptions and
confusions then exploring the ramifications of this I seek to motivate
people to clarify and overcome these distortions in themselves and the
wider culture so that we can all better comprehend and participate in
reality. I do not propose any new ideology, grand theory or belief
system, just a 'device' that can assist in clarifying awareness. After
that, awareness and reality do the rest."

Check it out if you dare ;)

An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
Holistic Sciencehttp://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html

Best wishes!
John Ringlandhttp://www.anandavala.info

Anandavala

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:52 am

Guest

On Apr 21, 12:30 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 20, 10:19 am, Anandavala <john.ringl...@anandavala.info> wrote:

I invite you to have a look at this latest metaphysical offering.

It challenges core beliefs, elucidates the nature of illusion and
inspires people to question their deepest assumptions about existence
and themselves. It Bridges the gap between science and spirituality.

An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
Holistichttp://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html

Are you sure it was Aristotle who mentioned the examined life? I
always heard it was Socrates. From the link you provided;

I personally don't care who said it - I just took that quote because
it expressed certain ideas - the ideas are the only relevant part. So
thanks for drawing my attention to this point of confusion. I have
removed all mention of "who said what" just to keep the ideas clear.

Best wishes
John Ringland
http://www.anandavala.info

ZerkonX

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:49 am

Guest

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:19:07 -0700, Anandavala wrote:

Just having fun...

Quote:

What am I?

What were you?

Quote:

What is the world?

What isn't?

Quote:

What is happening?

Everything

Quote:

What can be done?

What are you doing?

Your site must have been a lot of work. Seems like the 'answer' is the
process of finding out. Sounds good to me. Why be content with a point of
arrival when you can live in perpetual potential. Sure is more exiting,
more electric.

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:09 am

Guest

Hi.

I read it but I didn't like reading it nor agree with it. I will start
with some harsh criticism, which I hope you don't take personally. You
need to take this further.

I think the terms in the paper lack further definition and
investigation. I don't think you need to add more, I think rather that
you need to cut more out and be more delicate with your wording. There
is too much reliance on 'subjective, and objective' thought and this
weakens the ideas. The text is semi observational and the observations
used are also nonfactual and incomplete, or at least it comes across
that way in your 'word salad'.

How can you possibly hope to address questions such as

What am I?
What is the world?
What is happening?

using meta-physics ? Its just not practical. Metaphysics is better
used in motivational and spiritual philosophy where it belongs at some
extent the question 'What can be done?'. I don't think it works with
phenomenal or ontological reasoning well at all. This is why you have
resulted in word conflicts, such as Illusion and physicality. How can
something that is an 'illusion' (in your words VR) also have a natural
physical substrate. Im not saying that illusion's don't have a natural
physical substrate; What is grey matter after-all ?

The writing was also too complicated and filled with metaphors. Some
of what you call 'metaphors' aren't metaphors at all.

How I think you should proceed.

I think you should investigate further the phenomenological theories
that are currently being used in the arts and in cinema and apply this
to your work. You will find yourself no-longer using words like
'Illusions' and rather using 'the space of the moving image' or the
'representation of space'.

best r's

-y

Anandavala

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:44 am

Guest

Quote:

On Apr 22, 10:09 am, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi.

I read it but I didn't like reading it nor agree with it. I will start
with some harsh criticism, which I hope you don't take personally. You
need to take this further.

There's nothing personal about it - what I describe is a non-personal
approach to reality. I hope you don't take my comments personally
either. They are not meant that way - none of it is personal! I seek
to clarify understanding rather than just defend beliefs, that is how
I operate and I hope others do so too.

But on a personal note: thanks for providing this feedback Smile

You bring up some important issues for people who are first
approaching these ideas. I think many people would encounter these
problems when reading the discussion for the first time so I address
them in detail below. Thanks!

BTW how much did you read? Because the issues you raise are actually
addressed in the discussion if you persevere. You give some insightful
comments but you mainly seem to interpret things from the old-
paradigm, which is unavoidable to begin with, but it leads to great
confusion. People are generally used to simple extensions of the old-
paradigm and a paradigm shift is a difficult process to comprehend and
navigate.

Quote:

I think the terms in the paper lack further definition and
investigation.

I think want you are wanting is neat pre-definitions but such a thing
is impossible in this context because it is a paradigm shift and not a
simple extension of the old-paradigm. Any pre-definitions would have
to be in terms of the old-paradigm but the old-paradigm is not
meaningful in this context. The whole discussion is the gradual
creation of a context of understanding in which things are redefined.
Only then can neat definitions be given in terms of the new-paradigm.

One has to approach this much like mathematics, which many people have
trouble with. When they encounter the variable 'x' in an equation they
want a neat pre-definition of what 'x' actually means. But in most
mathematical cases the meaning of a variable has no simple definition
but rather it arises as a function of how that variable participates
in the holistic context. In this way if you read the discussion and
discern the meanings of things from how they relate within the
discussion you will come to understand the subtle meanings. However if
you apply pre-conceived ideas you will become very confused. It would
be like trying to understand y=x^2 when you think that 'x' means "x
marks the spot" or "generation x" - such interpretations would lead to
endless confusion.

So regarding "further investigation" I think you will find that if you
are careful about pre-conceived ideas and you read the discussion
carefully you will see that there is exhaustive investigation and re-
definition of things.

Quote:

I don't think you need to add more, I think rather that
you need to cut more out and be more delicate with your wording.

Streamlining the presentation is very important - I'm a thinker not a
writer so any help or advice is much appreciated. So please give me as
much advice as you have time for...

But what many people call delicacy is simply avoiding certain issues -
and any attempt to confront those issues will be perceived as in-
delicate. This cannot be helped if those issues need to be confronted.
Most people will not accept or like what is said, but some will gain
something from it. Furthermore I am not delicate when dealing with
people who have very overdeveloped egos, simply because they are not
ready for this discussion and it is safest for them if they are turned
away early before they encounter ideas that they are unable to
comprehend and would only confuse and agitate them.

As for cutting things out - I would love to simplify this - I could
express it all in a single sentence IF there was a common
understanding. But given that people are coming from the old-paradigm,
then everything needs to be clarified and re-contextualised within the
new-paradigm. So it is a complicated process whilst the underlying
idea is very simple. Overtime as people show understanding I could
present simplified versions but only when there is some degree of
common understanding.

Quote:

There
is too much reliance on 'subjective, and objective' thought and this
weakens the ideas.

Please explain how this weakens things? One of the main confusions
that this discussion seeks to clarify is the relationship between
subjective and objective - there are fundamental low-level confusions
regarding these that most people simply accept as reality - this
creates a false foundation upon which all of their later knowledge
rests. Most people assume that we have direct sensory access to
objective reality but this is TOTALLY FALSE. Even people who
intellectually state that they know we don't, still much of their
thinking is based on ideas and language usages that enshrine the
assumption that we do. All the talk of "the physical universe" as if
it is a commonly known and commonly experienced objective reality is
totally false. (There's a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy later that also addresses this issue)

All we have are subjective experiences and these experiences generate
ideas based upon our pre-conceived ideas and we communicate our
subjective experiences and come to believe in the idea of an objective
reality that is essentially the same as our subjective experience.
People do not enquire into the nature of subjective experience. If
they did they would realise that shared subjective experience differs
both subtly and radically from the actual objective reality, which we
cannot ever 'see' directly but only perceive its effects in the world
- such as consciousness, present moment existence, coherence on both
micro and cosmic scales, causality, intuition, psy-phenomena, quantum
entanglement, quantum non-locality, the quantisation of all aspects of
reality, relativistic constraints and so on.

Quote:

The text is semi observational and the observations
used are also nonfactual and incomplete, or at least it comes across
that way in your 'word salad'.

I accept that is how it seems to you (it is after all a paradigm
shift) but please explain or give some examples from the discussion -
otherwise I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.

If there is anything that you consider to be vague, nonfactual,
incomplete or inaccurate then PLEASE tell me and I will look into
them.

I deliberately create a 'word salad' because there is NO other way. If
I could state things directly I would, but only old-paradigm ideas can
be expressed directly in old-paradigm terms. If I was to speak openly
and directly to begin with I can guarantee that you would totally
misunderstand what it was I was trying to say. This happens all the
time when people with different paradigms try and communicate; it
leads mainly to confusion and agitation. So here I use a word salad,
which most people will turn away from out of apathy and the underlying
assumption that I am probably just a ranting crackpot. Such things are
unavoidable, but some people will hopefully persevere and reap the
benefits.

Quote:

How can you possibly hope to address questions such as

What am I?
What is the world?
What is happening?

using meta-physics ?

How can one hope to address them without metaphysics????????????
Is there any other way?

Quote:

Its just not practical. Metaphysics is better
used in motivational and spiritual philosophy where it belongs at some
extent the question 'What can be done?'.

Are we talking about the same thing when we say 'metaphysics'?

Quoted from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics)
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the
nature of reality, being, and the world.

Metaphysics addresses questions such as:

What is the nature of reality?
What is humankind's place in the universe?
Are colors objective or subjective?
Does the world exist outside the mind?
What is the nature of objects, events, places?

A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into
what types of things there are in the world and what relations these
things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify
the notions by which people understand the world, including existence,
objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.

---- end of quote ----

Perhaps you are thinking of the more modern usage of the word:

Quoted from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics)
More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used more loosely
to refer to "subjects that are beyond the physical world". A
"metaphysical bookstore", for instance, is not one that sells books on
ontology, but rather one that sells books on spirits, faith healing,
crystal power, occultism, and other such topics.
---- end of quote ----

I expressly DO NOT mean this meaning of 'metaphysics'!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems to me that you assume that there are different realities that
are totally separate? The separation exists only in our knowledge of
reality. There are countless disciplines of knowledge that seek to
understand reality and every one of them rests upon a metaphysical
foundation and an ontology - even the ones that claim they don't -
they just don't realise that they do - they enshrine certain
metaphysical beliefs and do not question them. Naive realism is a
classic example of this - it makes extreme ontological and
metaphysical statements but doesn't consider them to be a position
that can be questioned, instead naïve realists jthink that it is just-
the-way-things-are. Another important example is empirical science -
by its reliance on perception as its ontological foundation it
excludes all aspects of reality that are not directly perceptible.
This makes an extreme ontological position but empirical science does
not question this position - it just keeps to a positivist belief
system.

By the very fact that we have such fragmented and antagonistic
disciplines, this indicates that there are serious flaws in the
metaphysical foundations of our collective knowledge. There is only
one reality and that is the actual foundation for all our knowledge,
but we fragment that into artificial categories based upon assumptions
and then build separate disciplines upon the fragmented foundation.

Quote:

I don't think it works with
phenomenal or ontological reasoning well at all.

In what manner do you think it doesn't work? I guess you are talking
about the modern (popular) usage of 'metaphysics' but that is not what
I am talking about. Metaphysics is in fact the foundation of ontology
and seeks to explain the arising of all phenomena. One cannot
comprehend ontology or phenomenology except within some metaphysical
context - so it is good to question and understand one's metaphysics
rather than just conducting one's enquiry atop of an unquestioned set
of beliefs and assumptions.

One could assume 'perception' as a given and then build an empiricist
theory atop of this but it ultimately rests upon assumptions about the
nature of perception. Because of these assumptions many paradoxes
arise and much of reality is incomprehensible. To overcome the
confusions we need to question the nature of perception and then
renovate our metaphysical foundation and propagate these changes
throughout the entire structure of our knowledge otherwise we are only
dealing with a belief system and not a skeptical science. But the
world is so entranced by the empiricist belief system and people have
an irrational aversion towards questioning these beliefs. Because of
this a paradigm shift such as this one will be VERY difficult for many
people.

Quote:

This is why you have
resulted in word conflicts, such as Illusion and physicality. How can
something that is an 'illusion' (in your words VR) also have a natural
physical substrate. Im not saying that illusion's don't have a natural
physical substrate; What is grey matter after-all ?

This issue is addressed at length in the essay. I discuss exactly how
the experience and the idea of 'physicality' arises and how it relates
to information and illusion. Only if you interpret the words
'illusion' and 'physical' in the old-paradigm is there any word
conflict. The paradox arises because of fundamental confusions that
distort the metaphysical context of common language and common sense.
The language enshrines the paradox because it relies upon the
confusion. But once the confusion is clarified one can see how
'illusion' and 'physical' fit seamlessly together. The idea of
'physicality' arises due to the voracity of certain systemic
perceptual illusions that are reinforced by our empiricist bias toward
perceptual phenomena. By assuming that the perceptions represent the
reality we end up with many confusions and paradoxes within our
language and common sense. But once one separates out the confusions
there are no paradoxes at all. There are just many subtleties that
arise due to the nature of information, communication, perception and
so on.

Quote:

The writing was also too complicated and filled with metaphors. Some
of what you call 'metaphors' aren't metaphors at all.

Please tell me which metaphors aren't metaphors? I'm not sure what you
mean by this. Do you mean that they could be more accurately described
as analogies? Or do you mean something else?

And as for metaphors - when the language is built upon a distorted
metaphysics and it enshrines many confusions then I simply CANNOT
state things directly. The language inherently lacks the capacity to
express them and any expressions tend to reinforce the enshrined
confusions. So it is very difficult to express these ideas at all - it
is like trying to talk about 'peace' and 'freedom' in an Orwellian
'newspeak' language. Hence I must work around ideas but cannot
directly approach them and metaphors are essential for this. They help
present the basic structure of an argument or phenomenon by drawing
parallels with other similar structures, but one must look past the
surface ideas and discern the underlying structure otherwise one is
simply looking at the finger when the finger is actually pointing at
the moon. I discuss metaphors at length later in the essay and explain
how they are useful and how to use them.

Quote:

How I think you should proceed.

I think you should investigate further the phenomenological theories
that are currently being used in the arts and in cinema and apply this
to your work. You will find yourself no-longer using words like
'Illusions' and rather using 'the space of the moving image' or the
'representation of space'.

That may be good advice; it is a relevant field, but it is such a vast
field that is very unfamiliar to me. Can you point me in some
direction? Perhaps the name of a person who's work touches on this?
But currently in my mind it seems that using phrases like 'the space
of the moving image' would just be using euphemisms. They might be
less confronting but also less accurate. Because what is 'space',
'movement' and 'image'? To whom does the image appear? By what process
is the image formed? What exactly is the image of? What relationship
do we propose between the image and reality? All these issues arise
within the virtual space and all are ultimately illusion. But you
should ask yourself, what does 'illusion' mean in the new-paradigm -
what am I actually saying by using that word?

I would recommend this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy:
Epistemological Problems of Perception
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/

Below is a quote from it:

The historically most central epistemological issue concerning
perception, to which this article will be almost entirely devoted, is
whether and how beliefs about physical objects and about the physical
world generally can be justified or warranted on the basis of sensory
or perceptual experience -- where it is internalist justification,
roughly having a reason to think that the belief in question is true,
that is mainly in question (see the entry justification, epistemic:
internalist vs. externalist conceptions of). This issue, commonly
referred to as "the problem of the external world," divides into two
closely related sub-issues, which correspond to the first two main
sections below. The first of these issues has to do with the nature of
sensory experience and its relation to the physical world; it is
typically (though as we shall see not altogether perspicuously)
formulated as the question of what are the immediate objects of
awareness in sensory experience or, in a variant but essentially
equivalent terminology, of what is given in such experience. Perhaps
the most historically standard, though not currently the most popular
answer to this question has been that it is sense-data (private, non-
physical entities actually having the experienced sensory qualities)
that are the immediate objects of awareness or that are given. The
second issue has to do with the way in which beliefs about the
physical world are justified on the basis of such sensory experience.
If it is concluded that physical objects are not themselves given, the
two main answers to this question are representationalism (the view
that the immediate objects of experience represent or depict physical
objects in a way that allows one to infer justifiably from such
experience to the existence of the corresponding "external" objects)
and phenomenalism (the view that physical objects are reducible to or
definable in terms of the occurrence and obtainability of such
experience). A third alternative view that has received attention in
recent discussion is direct realism: the view that physical objects
are after all directly or immediately perceived in a way that
allegedly avoids the need for any sort of justificatory inference from
sensory experience to physical reality...
.....

The Argument from Illusion
(Or, perhaps better, the argument from illusion/perceptual relativity/
hallucination.) This very widely advocated argument (first offered
explicitly in Berkeley [1713]) appeals to the immense variety of cases
in which: (i) what is immediately perceived or given has different
qualities from different perspectives or under different perceptual
conditions, even though the relevant physical object does not change
(perceptual relativity); or (ii) in which qualities are immediately
experienced that the relevant object clearly does not possess
(illusion); or (iii) in which qualities are experienced in a situation
in which there is no physical object of the relevant sort present at
all (hallucination). Some fairly standard examples: viewing a circular
coin from different angles, resulting (allegedly) in the experience of
a variety of elliptical shapes; viewing a white or colored object
under different kinds of lighting; feeling the temperature of a luke-
warm bucket of water with a hand that has previously become inured to
water of substantially higher or lower temperatures; viewing a
straight stick that is immersed in water and so looks bent;
hallucinating a non-existent object such as pink rat or a dagger.

The basic claim is that in cases of illusion or hallucination, the
object that is immediately experienced or given has qualities that no
public physical object in that situation has and so must be distinct
from any such object. And in cases of perceptual relativity, since
objects with different qualities are experienced from each of the
different perspectives or under each of the relevant conditions, at
most one of these various immediately experienced or given objects
could be the physical object itself; it is then further argued that
since there is no apparent experiential basis for regarding one out of
any such set of related perceptual experiences as the one in which the
relevant physical object is immediately experienced, the most
reasonable conclusion is that the immediately experienced or given
object is always distinct from the physical object (or, significantly
more weakly, that there is no way to identify which, if any, of the
immediately experienced objects is the physical object itself, so that
the evidential force of the experience is in this respect the same in
all cases, and it is epistemologically as though physical objects were
never given, whether or not that is in fact the case).
---- end of quote ----

So when I say 'illusion' I mean it in the sense that colour is an
illusion. It is a perceptual phenomenon that leads us to believe that
objects possess colour when in fact they don't. There are frequencies
of light but this light has no colour. Only when a very narrow range
of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum stimulate our senses
and are interpreted by consciousness does colour arise. So one could
say that colour exists only in 'the space of the moving image' but it
is more accurate to say that it is an illusion. It is a phenomenon
that arises in consciousness but which has no exact correlate in
objective reality. In this same way the experience of objects in space
and time that arises in a virtual reality is an illusion because there
are no objects that ontologically exist and ontologically possess the
perceived attributes - they only arise when perceived from a
particular perspective (within the simulation). In this respect they
are illusion, but they are not meaningless fantasy, they are very
loosely based on some aspect of reality so I call them virtual.

Thank you so much for this feedback. I think many people would
encounter these problems when reading the discussion for the first
time. I hope I have help clarify things for you. If you are up to it I
would recommend keeping these issues in mind and re-reading things,
you may see it in a different light... If you persevere and read further
you will see that things are re-defined and investigated and that very
compelling and startling realisations come out of this re-imagining of
the holistic context. The world is not what it seems and neither are
we.

Best wishes Smile

John

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:40 am

Guest

Quote:

I read it but I didn't like reading it nor agree with it. I will start
with some harsh criticism, which I hope you don't take personally. You
need to take this further.

There's nothing personal about it - what I describe is a non-personal
approach to reality. I hope you don't take my comments personally
either. They are not meant that way - none of it is personal! I seek
to clarify understanding rather than just defend beliefs, that is how
I operate and I hope others do so too.

Of course.

Quote:

But on a personal note: thanks for providing this feedback Smile

No problem.

Quote:

BTW how much did you read? Because the issues you raise are actually
addressed in the discussion if you persevere. You give some insightful
comments but you mainly seem to interpret things from the old-
paradigm, which is unavoidable to begin with, but it leads to great
confusion. People are generally used to simple extensions of the old-
paradigm and a paradigm shift is a difficult process to comprehend and
navigate.

I tried to read all of it. About 75% or so.

Quote:

I think the terms in the paper lack further definition and
investigation.

I think want you are wanting is neat pre-definitions but such a thing
is impossible in this context because it is a paradigm shift and not a
simple extension of the old-paradigm. Any pre-definitions would have
to be in terms of the old-paradigm but the old-paradigm is not
meaningful in this context. The whole discussion is the gradual
creation of a context of understanding in which things are redefined.
Only then can neat definitions be given in terms of the new-paradigm.

Yes I want neat definitions. Yes I want you to provide those
definitions even if it means that you 'redefine' words, objects or
ideas. What I don't want is you to tell me to 'beware' of the paradigm
shift. It is not impossible for you to do this. Pre-definitions are
whatever you predefine them. Then it is possible for philosophers to
take you seriously if they decided to hermeneutically analyse what you
present. You kind of do that at the start successfully with cynic,
skeptic etc. But what you also do is assume the reader is a moron and
not ready for your amazing paradigm shift. Clearly, what you do is
make an enemy of the reader right from the beginning. I hope you can
see that.

Quote:

One has to approach this much like mathematics, which many people have
trouble with. When they encounter the variable 'x' in an equation they
want a neat pre-definition of what 'x' actually means. But in most
mathematical cases the meaning of a variable has no simple definition
but rather it arises as a function of how that variable participates
in the holistic context. In this way if you read the discussion and
discern the meanings of things from how they relate within the
discussion you will come to understand the subtle meanings.

(x) is always considered a variable as well as the object being
sought. A pre-definition of x might be yes, the force of something, or
some other value.

Quote:

Not if the variable "Y" was also defined in that it was the rate of
population change of (generation x). Do you understand ? You are
conveniently missing out crucial aspects of the communication process
in order to manipulate. This is wrong, and serious philosophers wont
recognise you. Bertram Russel says the skill in being a philosopher is
keeping things simple, and I agree.

Quote:

So regarding "further investigation" I think you will find that if you
are careful about pre-conceived ideas and you read the discussion
carefully you will see that there is exhaustive investigation and re-
definition of things.

I don't want to be careful. I want you to be clear.

Quote:

Well that is very difficult. First like I have said, define ideas
properly at the beginning. For instance you use the word 'virtual'
often. What is virtual ? You can also cut out allot of stuff that is
simply not factual. For instance. Electrons, are measurable. Just
because we do not see something with the naked eye doesn't mean that
the information of this thing cant be made available to our 'bare'
senses. By virtue of electrons being measured makes them observable.
The same way that it is observable that light has momentum.

Quote:

But what many people call delicacy is simply avoiding certain issues -
and any attempt to confront those issues will be perceived as in-
delicate. This cannot be helped if those issues need to be confronted.
Most people will not accept or like what is said, but some will gain
something from it. Furthermore I am not delicate when dealing with
people who have very overdeveloped egos, simply because they are not
ready for this discussion and it is safest for them if they are turned
away early before they encounter ideas that they are unable to
comprehend and would only confuse and agitate them.

As for cutting things out - I would love to simplify this - I could
express it all in a single sentence IF there was a common
understanding. But given that people are coming from the old-paradigm,
then everything needs to be clarified and re-contextualised within the
new-paradigm. So it is a complicated process whilst the underlying
idea is very simple. Overtime as people show understanding I could
present simplified versions but only when there is some degree of
common understanding.

Ok, theres a start. Write that sentance, and then provide a list of
all the words in that sentance and give definitions to that list in
the fascicular sense like a dictionary.

Quote:

There
is too much reliance on 'subjective, and objective' thought and this
weakens the ideas.

Please explain how this weakens things? One of the main confusions
that this discussion seeks to clarify is the relationship between
subjective and objective - there are fundamental low-level confusions
regarding these that most people simply accept as reality - this
creates a false foundation upon which all of their later knowledge
rests. Most people assume that we have direct sensory access to
objective reality but this is TOTALLY FALSE. Even people who
intellectually state that they know we don't, still much of their
thinking is based on ideas and language usages that enshrine the
assumption that we do. All the talk of "the physical universe" as if
it is a commonly known and commonly experienced objective reality is
totally false. (There's a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy later that also addresses this issue)

I don't believe that it is false. How can you say what someone
believes or even creates is false ? You mean the universe is not
physical ? You would greatly benefit from use of the word
'representation'. Are you familiar with Lefebvre ? Then you will come
to better understand the difference between man made objects, nature
made objects and the natural physical substrate that they all belong
to.
As you see, in my last sentence I presented an entire philosophy and
it is easy to read.

Quote:

All we have are subjective experiences and these experiences generate
ideas based upon our pre-conceived ideas and we communicate our
subjective experiences and come to believe in the idea of an objective
reality that is essentially the same as our subjective experience.
People do not enquire into the nature of subjective experience. If
they did they would realise that shared subjective experience differs
both subtly and radically from the actual objective reality, which we
cannot ever 'see' directly but only perceive its effects in the world
- such as consciousness, present moment existence, coherence on both
micro and cosmic scales, causality, intuition, psy-phenomena, quantum
entanglement, quantum non-locality, the quantisation of all aspects of
reality, relativistic constraints and so on.

hmmm, depends what you are talking about. I think that most of what we
experience is objective. What is an object ? What is a subject ?
Personally I do enquire into the nature of subjective experience,
however I tend to think that it is comprised of objects Smile

So when you
speak to me in future, you'll know where I'm coming from.

Quote:

For example you compare a Virtual Reality system to the universe. It
sounds very Baudrillard inspried to whom I am vehemently opposed. To
Baudrillard VR is like another dimension far from the reference of
physical reality. To me this is wrong, because when I put the glasses
on, my physical mind is a point of reference between the physical
reality where I stand, and the perceived reality of the VR. I will
also add that VR is not just a perceived reality, it is also part of
physical reality. Is VR not made by material ? To think that it is not
is absurd. However, YES, in VR there are clearly two kinds of material
being presented. We don't need VR to make this comparison, a simple
photograph can suffice. In a photograph you have the photo of material
as well as the material of the photo.

Quote:

If there is anything that you consider to be vague, nonfactual,
incomplete or inaccurate then PLEASE tell me and I will look into
them.

I deliberately create a 'word salad' because there is NO other way. If
I could state things directly I would, but only old-paradigm ideas can
be expressed directly in old-paradigm terms. If I was to speak openly
and directly to begin with I can guarantee that you would totally
misunderstand what it was I was trying to say. This happens all the
time when people with different paradigms try and communicate; it
leads mainly to confusion and agitation. So here I use a word salad,
which most people will turn away from out of apathy and the underlying
assumption that I am probably just a ranting crackpot. Such things are
unavoidable, but some people will hopefully persevere and reap the
benefits.

How can you possibly hope to address questions such as

What am I?
What is the world?
What is happening?

using meta-physics ?

How can one hope to address them without metaphysics????????????
Is there any other way?

Its just not practical. Metaphysics is better
used in motivational and spiritual philosophy where it belongs at some
extent the question 'What can be done?'.

Are we talking about the same thing when we say 'metaphysics'?

Sorry. No we are not. I was using metaphysics in a different paradigm.
My apology. However I will say that modern metaphysics has come to
denote spiritual dialectic. But your right. . .

However. Your argument is MORE phenomenological than it is
ontological.

Ok, please give me two sentences. What is the old paradigm ? What is
the new paradigm.

-y

Immortalist

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:54 am

Guest

On Apr 21, 4:52 am, Anandavala <john.ringl...@anandavala.info> wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 21, 12:30 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 20, 10:19 am, Anandavala <john.ringl...@anandavala.info> wrote:

I invite you to have a look at this latest metaphysical offering.

It challenges core beliefs, elucidates the nature of illusion and
inspires people to question their deepest assumptions about existence
and themselves. It Bridges the gap between science and spirituality.

An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
Holistichttp://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html

Are you sure it was Aristotle who mentioned the examined life? I
always heard it was Socrates. From the link you provided;

I personally don't care who said it - I just took that quote because
it expressed certain ideas - the ideas are the only relevant part. So
thanks for drawing my attention to this point of confusion. I have
removed all mention of "who said what" just to keep the ideas clear.

Best wishes
John Ringlandhttp://www.anandavala.info

Fair enough, peace brau.

Healthy Bodies, Healthy Souls
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/f517b0043bf2c3fe

JAM

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:01 am

Guest

On Apr 21, 8:49 am, ZerkonX <ZER...@zerkonx.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:19:07 -0700, Anandavala wrote:

Just having fun...

What am I?

What were you?

What is the world?

What isn't?

What is happening?

Everything

What can be done?

What are you doing?

Your site must have been a lot of work. Seems like the 'answer' is the
process of finding out. Sounds good to me. Why be content with a point of
arrival when you can live in perpetual potential. Sure is more exiting,
more electric.

Hi Zerkon

I'm replying to you because of a special interest in your,
" process of finding out. Sounds good to me. Why be content with a
point of arrival when you can live in perpetual potential. Sure is
more exiting".

Karl Frederick Gauss, one of the greatest philosopher/mathematics of
all time observed that the mathematical fundamental, "The Enigma of
Asymptotical Infinity" applies to universal existence.

The awesome "word salad" of the site is overwhelming to say the least!

My interest in the substance tempts me to try to absorb more of it but
the time magnitude is breathtakingly impossible to contemplate.

I can't conceive of the possibility that anyone could spend the time
to read more but Gauss' observation reinforces the whole rant:
See - http://jamdialogues.blogspot.com/

JAM

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:48 pm

Guest

On Apr 21, 8:49 am, ZerkonX <ZER...@zerkonx.net> wrote:

Quote:

ZerkonX

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:34 am

Guest

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:48:00 -0700, JAM wrote:

Quote:

My interest in the substance tempts me to try to absorb more of it but
the time magnitude is breathtakingly impossible to contemplate.

Somewhere along the line, years ago, a group was talking about
photography. The question was, 'How much does subject matter determine a
good picture?' After much discussion we agreed that a good photographer
can get a good picture out of anything. If a good picture is the goal, a
good photographer could take one with any subject at any time. Or, it's
not what you are thinking about it's how you are thinking.

Anandavala

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:36 am

Guest

Dear Y,

First let me say that you have shown enormous perseverance and this is
an extremely positive sign. You probably won't like what I have to say
here but if you don't take it personally and you don't get too
frustrated because it doesn't conform to your expectations then there
is much that you might learn from this. Thank you for your comments,
you have helped me understand how these ideas seem to people on their
first approach. From the incredible depth of the misunderstanding
between us I realise that a glossary might help reduce this confusion
a little so I have made a small glossary of the less-controversial
terms that might be useful at the begining. Thank you for showing me
this. Its a wonderful idea!

You can see it at:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#glossary

Let me know if there are other terms you'd like clarified and I'll see
what I can do...

On Apr 22, 7:40 pm, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Consider the case where I only spoke Chinese and you only spoke
English - how do we begin to develop understanding. You don't seem to
understand that we are speaking different conceptual languages and you
keep insisting that I simply say it in your conceptual language but
quite frankly I have no idea how to say what I am trying to say in
that conceptual language. It isn't even possible! Yes I do speak the
common conceptual language but it can only comprehend a very limited
range of things - beyond that the language is impotent. If I just
blurt things out in my language right now you won't understand the
meanings and their subtle relations, you will just experience the
words based on your own associations which are TOTALLY different to
mine and the message will not be conveyed. Even worse, you will
probably think that some message has been conveyed but all that passes
is just nonsense. Don't you understand this? It is simple information
theory - we need an encoding/decoding protocol that does not introduce
too much noise and distortion - otherwise the signal is not conveyed.

Quote:

You kind of do that at the start successfully with cynic,
skeptic etc.

Cynic and skeptic retain much the same meanings in either paradigm
that is why it is trivial to define them.

Quote:

But what you also do is assume the reader is a moron and
not ready for your amazing paradigm shift. Clearly, what you do is
make an enemy of the reader right from the beginning. I hope you can
see that.

Its amazing how different things can seem in different people's minds.
You take offense to the warning sign because you totally misunderstand
the territory that you are wandering into, you assume that it is
trivial so any warning is an insult to your intelligence. But it is
interesting to note that you have stumbled on nearly every obstacle
that I warned you to take care with. THIS CONCEPTUAL TERRAIN IS NOT
TRIVIAL!!!! You ignored the warnings and got confused exactly because
you ignored the warnings. If you treat this as trivial you will
constantly be tripping over. If these ideas where trivial then how
could they be the Red Pill? If they were just a minor extension of the
old-paradigm how could they break you out of the matrix? To break out
of a lifetime of illusion and billions of years of biological
programming is NOT a trivial matter. I give an extended metaphor at
the end of this post that explains how I see the situation of you
charging in and stumbling - you either begin to take this seriously or
you should leave it alone for your own sake.

Check the glossary for 'confusion' because some people might take
offence to that word:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gConfusion

Quote:

Yes it is easy to find very particular examples where variables have
easy pre-definitions but that doesn't change the fact that "in MOST
mathematical cases the meaning of a variable has no simple definition
but rather it arises as a function of how that variable participates
in the holistic context". Besides - the mention of mathematics is just
an explicit idea within a metaphor:

See 'metaphor' in the glossary:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gMetaphor

By focusing on the explicit ideas and not discerning the underlying
pattern and not applying that pattern within the implicit context -
what you are doing is looking at the finger when the finger is
actually pointing at the moon. Even if the explicit ideas are
incorrect or fantastical mythic nonsense it doesn't matter - the
explicit ideas themselves are totally irrelevant so long as you are
able to use them to discern the underlying pattern. This is why so
many ancient legends and myths are so fantastical - they are
metaphors! But in this example the explicit ideas ARE correct - but
whether they are or not is irrelevant.

Quote:

However if
you apply pre-conceived ideas you will become very confused. It would
be like trying to understand y=x^2 when you think that 'x' means "x
marks the spot" or "generation x" - such interpretations would lead to
endless confusion.

Not if the variable "Y" was also defined in that it was the rate of
population change of (generation x). Do you understand ? You are
conveniently missing out crucial aspects of the communication process
in order to manipulate. This is wrong, and serious philosophers wont
recognise you. Bertram Russel says the skill in being a philosopher is
keeping things simple, and I agree.

You seem to totally underestimate the difficulty of this subject
matter and you do not understand the subtleties of communication
across a vast paradigm gulf. It is often the case that it takes
generations for revolutionary ideas to be recognised. At first people
are so caught up in their current paradigm and they don't understand
how different other paradigms can be. They assume that their current
paradigm is the only sane paradigm and they naively interpret things
from their current paradigm and get confused then they assume that the
new idea is nonsense.

See 'naive' because some people take offence to this word too:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gNaive

But gradually people's paradigms shift and in a few generations people
suddenly see that those nonsense ideas where actually clear and simple
statements that make obvious sense. Quantum physics is a very relevant
contemporary example - only now after nearly a century are people
begining to understand it. It has been by far the most accurate
calculational tool ever developed but because it challenges core
beliefs people have been unable and unwilling to think about it
clearly and to take it seriously. Physicists have taken the approach
that we should stick to our empiricist materialist understanding and
just use the mathematics to do calculations but to never think about
what the science actually means. But recently quantum physicists are
starting to understand what it means, and they are starting to drop
their naive realism, empiricism and instrumentalism, and to move more
towards scientific realism and rationalism.

See these if you want to know more:

Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

A Critique of the Empiricist Interpretation of Modern Physics (PDF)
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~gholling/home/quantumMechanics.pdf

Physicists bid farewell to reality? Quantum mechanics just got even
stranger.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/070416-9.html

As for keeping things simple - they should be as simple as they can be
and no simpler otherwise one starts crippling the ideas.

Quote:

If you are unwilling to apply your own judgment, present moment
awareness and intelligence then there is nothing that anyone can do to
help you. We are not birds and I'm not going to pre-digest all your
food and vomit it down your throat. Even if I did it would not lead to
any depth of understanding unless you actually assimilate the ideas.
If you wish to eat and draw nourishment then you must put in a little
effort yourself.

Quote:

I don't think you need to add more, I think rather that
you need to cut more out and be more delicate with your wording.

Streamlining the presentation is very important - I'm a thinker not a
writer so any help or advice is much appreciated. So please give me as
much advice as you have time for...

Well that is very difficult. First like I have said, define ideas
properly at the beginning. For instance you use the word 'virtual'
often. What is virtual ?

Have a look at the term virtual:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gVirtual

In my understanding this term should be quite clear but I see from
your responses that it isn't clear to many people.

Quote:

You can also cut out allot of stuff that is
simply not factual. For instance. Electrons, are measurable. Just
because we do not see something with the naked eye doesn't mean that
the information of this thing cant be made available to our 'bare'
senses. By virtue of electrons being measured makes them observable.
The same way that it is observable that light has momentum.

I assume you are commenting on the quote that I took from:
A Critique of the Empiricist Interpretation of Modern Physics
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~gholling/home/quantumMechanics.pdf

[Empirical science claims] "that a good theory need only provide an
empirically adequate description of observable phenomena. Any
unobservables, such as electrons and quarks, are simply empirical
tools for describing the observable world... [hence] our epistemic
knowledge is limited to the observables."

This position is not important to my argument it merely explains the
position that empirical scientists have held throughout most of the
history of empirical science - so if you think it is non-factual you
should take that up with the empirical scientists. I personally say
that the unobservables are more real than the observables. By the very
fact that we observe them and they manifest in the mind, this means
that the observed 'object' is an object of perception and a
modification of the mind. It is just a reflection of reality and it
has no ontological reality of its own. Behind these appearances in the
mind there is a reality of some kind but that reality does not
directly manifest within the mind, it only creates reflections in the
mind and the form of these refelctions depends on the form of the
mind. The true objective reality is that which underlies all existence
and underlies the process of perception and experience. It is the
'process' of perception and not merely the 'content' of perception.
Anything that can be observed and experienced is a construct of the
mind, and behind those constructs there is something but it is not
what we naively believe it to be.

However I disagree that the postion of empirical science is non-
factual. It is quite true that electrons are unobservable. And
although we can 'measure' them this is not a trivial process. The very
process of measurement involves an enormous amount of theory that
involves concepts and phenomena of a similarly unobservable nature.
The measurement merely detects some variation in the condition of the
measuring equipment and from that we use our theories to infer what
that variation means. It is true that there is something there but
when a theory say that it IS an electron all it is saying is the the
conceptual model that we call an 'electron' can be made to fit the
experimental data within certain limits so it is therefore a plausible
working hypothesis that these mythical things called electrons can be
said to exist. But the latest theories claim that electrons-as-
particles do not exist and neither do electrons-as-waves, instead it
is the wavefunction that is the deeper reality and it is pure
probability or potential existence that is non-local in both space and
time. So our measurements are only as good as our theories and our
theories rely upon the measurements. This is a common problem in
experimental science and quantum physicists are especially careful
about it because they have been forced to overcome the illusion of
being separate objective observers.

Within commonly accepted science there are many mythical entities that
exist and function within our theories. The degree to which they
correspond to reality is not a matter of simple measurement but rather
a matter of deep philosophical analysis of the process of perception,
how the objects of perception relate to reality and how our knowledge
of these objects relates to our perception of things.

So if you understand the complexity of the process of 'measurement'
and the mythical nature of all theoretical entities then what that
quote says is entirely factual, electrons are unobservable just as
quarks are unobservable. But here it is not that important what
empirical scientists think, they are just expressing the old-paradigm
whilst I am trying to express the new-paradigm.

Quote:

I have done that countless times within the discussion but you have
not recognised it because there is no common understanding!
I strongly suspect that you have no idea what a paradigm or a paradigm
shift is. Or perhaps you only think of very tiny and mild paradigm
shifts - but I am talking about the most radical and world changing
paradigm shift that is possible. Otherwise I would not say that "this
is the red pill". These ideas can take you out of the illusion and
break you out of the matrix - they are profound ideas that are NON-
TRIVIAL and very alien to the every day world of the matrix.

Have a look at:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gParadigm
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gParadigmShift

Quote:

So you believe that you have direct sensory access to reality and that
ontological physical objects just appear to your mind as they actually
are in reality? That kind of implies an inert physical universe and
disembodied minds that have magical access to the physical universe.

I'm not asking anyone to believe anything - I am urging people to
think about things and to overcome their beliefs.
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gBelief

If one confuses the objects of perception with the idea of physical
objects then the idea of the physical universe arises and it seems
that we have perfect access to the physical universe because that so
called physical universe is actually an idea that is composed of the
objects of consciousness. We make it with our minds and then confuse
it with reality and then think that our minds have perfect access to
reality - it is a doubly compounded illusion (re-read that sentence
and think about it). But if one doesn't make that VAST leap of faith
and one remains skeptical and rational then one must look into the
nature of perception and cognition and one sees that we only ever
experience cognitive representations of sensory signals. How those
representations are constructed depends on the structure and the
contents of the mind. Therefore what we experience is the contents of
the mind being stirred into motion by something, but we have no idea
what that something is. We can assume that there is some reasonable
correspondence between the objects of perception and that 'something'
by the fact that we continue to survive. But all that means is that
the idea of 'objects' is adequate for basic animal existence but if
one seeks deep and reliable knowledge it is not adequate to rely on
the in-built animalistic beliefs and assumptions about objects in
spacetime, we need to go deeper and question those beliefs. Indeed the
fact that our survival is increasingly being threatened implies that
somehow our world view is seriously out of alignment with reality
somewhere and I clearly show that it is our belief in empiricism and
materialism.

Quote:

How can you say what someone
believes or even creates is false ? You mean the universe is not
physical ?

I mean that the idea 'physical' is not what most people think it is...
it is a compelling perceptual illusion that arises from fundamental
principles of information, communication, information spaces and
information systems.

Have a look in the glossary at the terms:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gPhysical
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gUniverse
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gPhysicalUniverse
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gInformation
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gInformationSpace
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gInformationSystem

Quote:

You would greatly benefit from use of the word
'representation'. Are you familiar with Lefebvre ? Then you will come
to better understand the difference between man made objects, nature
made objects and the natural physical substrate that they all belong
to.

I already well understand these differences. I suspect that through
your confusion my words appear to you as very confused. I can only
imagine how they appear in other people's minds - it totally depends
on the particulars of their current paradigm and how that paradigm
connects or clashes with my own paradigm. But I will look up Lefebvre.

Quote:

As you see, in my last sentence I presented an entire philosophy and
it is easy to read.

You presented a simple statement within the context of the old
paradigm using language that already implies that paradigm so of
course it is easy. You have CLEARLY spent too much time within just
one paradigm and have no idea how different a different paradigm can
be and how much our everyday language is steeped in a particular
empiricist materialist paradigm, making it almost impossible to say
anything directly that doesn't rest upon those same empiricist and
materialist beliefs! To give you a glimpse of the manner in which the
words in that sentence are steeped in profoundly arbitrary beliefs
that propagate whenever the words are used, consider the word 'you',
it normally implies an isolated egoic entity in a material world that
has desires, aversions and agendas, that is born, that lives and that
will die.

See 'ego':
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gEgo

The ontology and metaphysics that are implicit within the word 'you'
is entirely a construct based upon certain systemic illusions and
deeply seated biological and historical assumptions. However the
language takes these 'I', 'you', 'it' and so on as real ontological
entities. It constantly reinforces the illusion of separate egoic
existence. This is a valid perspective but it is only one amongst
countless billions of valid perspectives - another valid perspective
is to say that the whole of existence is concentrated in a single
point of pure awareness that is timeless without begining or end and
other than this there is NOTHING else. That perspective is getting
closer to the actual reality and it seems incomprehensible because it
is a long way from our mind made illusory world constructed from our
beliefs, and the language of that mind made world cannot comprehend
the deeper truths.

If one spends one's entire time within an empiricist and materialist
belief system then the language will seem to be universally expressive
because it can express any idea that comes to your mind, but your mind
is limited by the empiricist materialist beliefs. If you step out of
that belief system then you will see how difficult it is to express
anything in that language that isn't empiricist and materialist.

Quote:

So when you
speak to me in future, you'll know where I'm coming from.

I see we have different associations with the word objective as well.
Because according to my associations, if you accept that your
experiences are private subjective cognitive phenomena that are only
stimulated by some external source then it is a contradiction to say
that "most of what we experience is objective". It is as if the
contents of our minds gets swept up by the winds of sense perception
and all we actually experience is the contents of our minds being
blown about. The wind stirs each of our minds into motion but what we
actually experience depends on the contents of our minds. We
experience private subjective impressions and these arise from an
objective context that exists "as it is" regardless of how we think
about it, but all we actually experience are subjective impressions
that are constructs of the mind, that are based upon our beliefs, pre-
conceptions, assumptions, agendas, hopes and fears. Not to mention the
biological constraints and the inherent systemic illusions.

When you say: "Personally I do enquire into the nature of subjective
experience, however I tend to think that it is comprised of objects Smile

" do you think of those objects as objects of perception or do you
think of them as being objectively real. The latter case is a common
naive realist confusion. Of course there is something real there but
do you think of that something as 'objects' or do you think of it as
"something that you cannot see directly but which produces the
experience of objects when it resonates with the contents of your
mind". To make the assumption that they actually are ontological
objects is a HUGE LEAP OF FAITH in the abilities of the human mind and
senses to comprehend the ontological nature of reality. This leap of
faith is biologically programmed into us so its natural to take it but
it is entirely irrational. It is this irrationality that underlies
empiricism, materialism and naive realism. They are very superstitious
belief systems really - believing that we have a God's eye view on
reality and believing that the human perspective is some kind of
perfect or ultimate perspective on reality. Furthermore they believe
that these are not beliefs but simply the-way-things-are.

Quote:

The text is semi observational and the observations
used are also nonfactual and incomplete, or at least it comes across
that way in your 'word salad'.

I accept that is how it seems to you (it is after all a paradigm
shift) but please explain or give some examples from the discussion -
otherwise I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.

For example you compare a Virtual Reality system to the universe. It
sounds very Baudrillard inspried to whom I am vehemently opposed. To
Baudrillard VR is like another dimension far from the reference of
physical reality. To me this is wrong, because when I put the glasses
on, my physical mind is a point of reference between the physical
reality where I stand, and the perceived reality of the VR. I will
also add that VR is not just a perceived reality, it is also part of
physical reality. Is VR not made by material ? To think that it is not
is absurd. However, YES, in VR there are clearly two kinds of material
being presented. We don't need VR to make this comparison, a simple
photograph can suffice. In a photograph you have the photo of material
as well as the material of the photo.

I'm very surprised that you persevered through 75% of the discussion
whilst carrying such a huge misunderstanding, you have enormous
perseverance! - it's my fault for not clearing up certain terms to
begin with but I honestly thought those terms where clear. But in this
context I come from a background of theoretical computer science and
theoretical physics and not from general cultural influences and
consumer products. It never occurred to me that people might assume
that VR goggles and physical human beings are intrinsic to the concept
of 'virtual', thank you for bringing this to light. In my use of
virtual there is no physical computer and no physical humans - all
observers of the VR exist within the VR just as we exist within the
universe and all concepts of 'physical' arise only in the minds of the
observers due to certain systemic illusions and deep seated beliefs.
Physicality only exists as an idea in the minds of the observers -
beyond this there is nothing that is physical. If you interpret my
words with the understanding of 'virtual' that you have just expressed
- I can't imagine what it is that you think I am saying - it must seem
like utter nonsense - which it is if it is interpreted from an
empiricist materialist perspective. I am surprised you have had the
patience to speak with me when it must seem to you that I am talking
absolute nonsense. Most people just ignore me or they throw a few
derisive insults and then ignore me. I don't take any of it
personally, its just a necessary part of working with revolutionary
ideas - these people are simply not ready. It may well be a few
generations before anyone really understands me...

Quote:

If there is anything that you consider to be vague, nonfactual,
incomplete or inaccurate then PLEASE tell me and I will look into
them.

I deliberately create a 'word salad' because there is NO other way. If
I could state things directly I would, but only old-paradigm ideas can
be expressed directly in old-paradigm terms. If I was to speak openly
and directly to begin with I can guarantee that you would totally
misunderstand what it was I was trying to say. This happens all the
time when people with different paradigms try and communicate; it
leads mainly to confusion and agitation. So here I use a word salad,
which most people will turn away from out of apathy and the underlying
assumption that I am probably just a ranting crackpot. Such things are
unavoidable, but some people will hopefully persevere and reap the
benefits.

How can you possibly hope to address questions such as

What am I?
What is the world?
What is happening?

using meta-physics ?

How can one hope to address them without metaphysics????????????
Is there any other way?

Its just not practical. Metaphysics is better
used in motivational and spiritual philosophy where it belongs at some
extent the question 'What can be done?'.
Are we talking about the same thing when we say 'metaphysics'?

Sorry. No we are not. I was using metaphysics in a different paradigm.
My apology. However I will say that modern metaphysics has come to
denote spiritual dialectic. But your right. . .

Great, that's one misunderstanding out of the way :)

Quote:

However. Your argument is MORE phenomenological than it is
ontological.

If you understood what I was saying you wouldn't say that. I say that
the whole of empiricist knowledge is not objective but only
phenomenological because of its reliance on concepts that are based
upon sense perception and the appearances of things in the human mind.
I describe how to go beyond the phenomena of the mind and to
comprehend the reality that exists prior to perception, which is not
composed of the objects of perception and which implements the very
process of perception. Most of what I talk about takes place in a
context prior to the operation of any observers, because the
transcendent objective context is not a perceptual construct. But the
worlds that we each experience through the senses and mind is a
perceptual construct.

Maybe also check out 'world':
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gWorld

The role of observers is intrinsic to the unfolding of the virtual
systems within systems that make up the virtual universe so there is
no neat separation of objective and subjective. There is no inert
objective world with subjects that observe it. All systems are
observers and the very process of virtual existence is fundamentally
driven by perceptual processes. The artificial separation of objective
and subjective exists only in our ideas - in reality they are
intimately entwined within the virtual universe. Even in the
transcendent computational context, it also relies on representation
and discernment so even here they cannot be neatly separated, they are
like yin and yang in this sense, each arises out of the other, each
folds into the other and they are inseparable parts of a whole.

Quote:

Ok, please give me two sentences. What is the old paradigm ? What is
the new paradigm.

The old paradigm is the set of empiricist and materialist beliefs that
are unquestioningly built upon many systemic, biological and
historical illusions that can clearly be shown to be illusions, and
the old-paradigm confuses the objects of perception with the idea of
physical objects and then tries to build on ontology out of those
objects, people hold these beliefs for no rational reason but simply
because of the voracity of sensory experience. The new paradigm
comprehends the holistic context and not just the contents of sensory
experience. Beyond that I cannot say much more because there is so
little common understanding between us that even simple statements
seem to create problems. But if you have read 75% of the discussion
then you would have passed by many statements that neatly sum it up -
but if you don't understand the paradigm you wouldn't have recognised
them - they wou