If God spoke again, would you listen?

[radarmark]

The Ch'an tradition and most neuroscience studies say the benefit occurs immediately (three minutes of focus without using the monkey mind). Are there added benefits if it goes on longer? I do not know, I cannot tell the difference between a 10 minute and a 2 hour meditation (if that long one is not troubled by monkey mind).

 

[radarmark]

I am not defending spinning the pryer wheel (nor do I abuse it like some). My point is that (1) you are comparing apples and oranges and (2) you are ignoring science.

Point 1: the overwhelming number of Vajrayana Buddhists do not spend 24/7/365 spinning the prayer wheel (read "How to Practice" by HH the Dalai Lama), nor are they more than 5% of the total Buddhist population (see Major Branches of Religions).

Point 2: See Awasthi, Kok et al, Vidal et al, or Yang and Posner. Notice those four alone come close to adding yet another 200 scientific citations that refute your thesis (meditation is bad for you).

 

[luecy7]

You cite science, yet you conveniently ignore it.

Are you on a mission to prove me correct?

Which perhaps could be consistent if you don't go around telling people that their philosophy is NOT the scientific method, demanding some empirical evidence from them, as if when you are ever convinced, then it is a proof.

 

[radarmark]

Different context. I demand proof in this way for empirical statements. But I hold that there are non-empirical statements and proofs, as well (which you do not).

"All men are mortal. Socrates was a man. Therefore Socrates was mortal."

"All X's are Y. Z is an X. Therefore Z is Y."

The binary truth of the conclusion is only a function of the truth value of the arguments. If the arguments are true, surer than night follows the day, the conclusion is true. And the meaningful content is something new, not contained in the arguments.

You do not have to believe this (though it has been part and parcel of Western, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese logic since they were first created). Fine. I am not validating what (IMHO) is an erroneous view.

 

[luecy7]

Different context. I demand proof in this way for empirical statements. But I hold that there are non-empirical statements and proofs, as well (which you do not).

"All men are mortal. Socrates was a man. Therefore Socrates was mortal."

"All X's are Y. Z is an X. Therefore Z is Y."

The binary truth of the conclusion is only a function of the truth value of the arguments. If the arguments are true, surer than night follows the day, the conclusion is true. And the meaningful content is something new, not contained in the arguments.

You do not have to believe this (though it has been part and parcel of Western, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese logic since they were first created). Fine. I am not validating what (IMHO) is an erroneous view.

You call this empirical, but you avoid discussing and relating to your own empirical evidence. Imagine that I said masturbating every single night is good. You tell me I have to provide proof, and tell me that I have to use a scientific method. Fine. What in the world are you asking? You want references to a million other people who masturbated, and reported that it was good for them? Is your logic so impotent, that you think there is a double blind study that serves as some form of proof that can be handed over as 2nd hand information? Yes, you demand proof. If you want proof of whether or not meditating is good, then go meditate. Report your results. Make a prediction: If another goes and meditates, what will happen? How long does it take you? Nobody is stopping you from employing the scientific method.

By the way... I accidently pasted over from a different thread. It fit this one too though!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Spending 24/7/365 days of the year turning a big prayer wheel accomplishes what exactly, Radarmark, that such time wouldn't be better spent in educating the children for life in modern times?

But it takes all sorts to make the world go round ... haven't you figured that out yet???

Tibetans are one great happy people.

 

[radarmark]

L7. You are welcome to use a more restrictive use of reality than I. You have the right to think that all things are chained to materialist monism.

There really is no way for you to prove that within the material world. Nor is there any way for me to prove my view within that same restriction.

See, qualia and consciousness are (like the belief in higher mathematics) notions (non-physical entities that do not exist in my brain as electro-chemical responses) which I experience. You are free to deny that. But (since you are not me) you cannot prove it within your empirical restrictive universe.

 

[luecy7]

Different context. I demand proof in this way for empirical statements.

But (since you are not me) you cannot prove it within your empirical restrictive universe.

That fairly well sums up what I have seen in your words, and it was the reason that I took time to exchange words with you here. 'Prove' there is inconsistent.

I find that we interact via a physical universe, no matter how limited the view, with hidden variables, hidden observers, and hidden do-ers. Things hidden become seen in interaction. If not, then what exactly do you demand from others as you demand scientific method and proof? Are you asking for some form of spirit gift?

 

[radarmark]

L7. I do not understand the question. I demand scientific method and evidence and proof in all things empirical. The proof for rational things (like metaphysics) is a matter of correct reasoning, there is no physical evidence, merely reasoning.

 

[luecy7]

L7. I do not understand the question. I demand scientific method and evidence and proof in all things empirical. The proof for rational things (like metaphysics) is a matter of correct reasoning, there is no physical evidence, merely reasoning.

I empirically interact through the physical. Also with God, or whatever metaphysical spirit that wants to tango.

I googled 'define reasoning', and I found this Here from the Annenberg foundation, whom I never heard of until I googled:

Simply defined, reasoning is the use of logical thinking to make sense of a situation or idea. Reasoning is a natural part of childhood. Young children use reasoning when they play games, classify items, solve problems, observe their surroundings, and listen to others.

Reasoning skills develop at a rapid pace in early childhood. Even before they enter school, children have many experiences with refining their thinking as their reasoning skills advance. For example, when young children first learn the word "ball," anything in their environment that is round is called a ball: The moon is a ball. A watermelon is a ball. But as children begin to identify additional characteristics of a ball (round, spherical, a toy), they refine their thinking about the items that do not fit this more sophisticated understanding. New words become part of their vocabulary to describe the items that were once known as "ball."

Reasoning with mathematical concepts follows a similar pattern. Children begin to reason about big mathematical ideas, and, as they mature, they refine or expand their ideas with the use of logical thinking. By making conjectures -- guesses made on the basis of experience or information -- and testing those conjectures, students make sense of the mathematics they are learning.

In this section, we will take a closer look at the use of patterns and classification in the early grades to help children reason about mathematical concepts.

"The ability to reason systematically and carefully develops when students are encouraged to make conjectures, are given time to search for evidence to prove or disprove them, and are expected to explain and justify their ideas."

Sounds like the scientific method to me. Do you disagree with the Annenberg foundation? Do you find their teaching non-scientific, or limited to the empirical? If a spirit comes along and drops a Truth in my lap, I may not immediately know that it is True, especially if it is something or someone that I have not been involved with, or something that I have never done before.

 

[radarmark]

I just cannot express it in terms you will accept. See, rationalism is a priori, necessary in and of itself and independent of contingent reality. Instead of looking up irrelevant citations (they may be relevant to you, but they are not to my thesis) try reading a few entries on Encyclopedia of Philosophy or look a few up on google scholar.

Again... the conclusion of "All Xs are Ys. Z is an X. Therefore Z is a Y" exists as a tautology beyond time and place (it is eternal). If the premises are true (they can be either empirically true or rationally true), the conclusion must be. Furthermore the notion expressed in the conclusion is a previously unvalidated fact.

If I run across that kind of structure (like when I study Nyaya school of Indian logic) empirically (I read an English translation of some very old text), I translate it from squiggles on the paper to ideas in my consciousness. I test its validity within my mind by reflexion. I then translate the mental state of my consciousness into (say) what I type here.

Of course physicality is part of the Kosmos (you will find I always include the Universe, that which physically exists as part of the Kosmos). Just like the Kosmos is part of my notion of G-d. They form a set of holons which can be expressed in a Venn Diagram where "Universe" is a cirlce entirely enclosed by "Kosmos" which, in turn, is entirely enclosed by G-d (this kind of relationship is what panentheism means).

You do not have to agree. Fine, I prefer logical, mathematical, and relational consistency to mere materialism.

 

[luecy7]

See, rationalism is a priori, necessary in and of itself and independent of contingent reality.

What rationalism would a rational person put forward that you would accept: One of rationalism, or an empirical proof with scientific method?

Instead of looking up irrelevant citations (they may be relevant to you, but they are not to my thesis) try reading a few entries on Encyclopedia of Philosophy or look a few up on google scholar.

Yet, the citations you provided were relevant? "Point 2: See Awasthi, Kok et al, Vidal et al, or Yang and Posner. Notice those four alone come close to adding yet another 200 scientific citations that refute your thesis (meditation is bad for you)."

I test its validity within my mind by reflexion.

Skinker too I imagine, and Lunitik, and anyone else that has contemplated the merit of meditation.

Fine, I prefer logical, mathematical, and relational consistency to mere materialism.

So you equate rationalism with non-materialism, and equate empirical evidence with materialism. You demand proof from the rest of us wavicle observer and pushers, but not for your own rationalism. Common magic trick.

 

[radarmark]

1) both (see Whitehead or James or Peirce for explanation.
2) yes, because your limited reference (Anneberg) is not looking at the philosophical concepts, but a social science application of reasoning and proof). My thesis was about rationalism as a philosophical stance.
3) nothing there about meditation... sorry, straw man arguement.
4) no, you just fail to comprehend... there are many reasons for denying mere material monism. Oh, and plenty for denying idealism as well (idealism, in philosophy is the opposite of materialism, like rationalism is the opposite of empiricism). I accept the material and the ideal (I call mental or spiritual) as well as the empirical method (where the contingent material universe is concerned) and the rational method (as a complement to empiricism).

Like good and bad, right and wrong, light and dark, these are directions on a scale that ought to be embraced... rising above thesis and antithesis to form a new synthesis.