Thoughts

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I shouldn't of

heh

[Mills 0]

shouldn't havehappy?

[JoeyJoJo 18]

shouldn't havehappy?

Not really, no.I was about to dust off my lesson plan for Rose.

[vbnautilus 48]

no, i was always talking about the visible disc in the sky - the layer (photosphere) at which the plasma over what is in relation to the diameter of the sun at that level an extremely narrow distance changes from transparent to completely opaque.when someone talks about boundaries in relation to the sun they typically aren't going to be deluding themselves or implying that there are any perfectly clean delineations between layers. it is used in the general sense. using the term doesn't imply misconception of reality.seems like you're just playing philosphical word games without consideration for what is or isn't useful.

I've already guaranteed that I accept the concept of sun is useful. We're discussing whether there really is such a delineated object outside of our mental concept of it. Most people (you included) absolutely do delude themselves into thinking that there is a real boundary between the sun and everything else. There's a difference between admitting that the boundaries are fuzzy and understanding that all boundaries are arbitrary and mentally imposed.

[Mills 0]

I've already guaranteed that I accept the concept of sun is useful. We're discussing whether there really is such a delineated object outside of our mental concept of it. Most people (you included) absolutely do delude themselves into thinking that there is a real boundary between the sun and everything else. There's a difference between admitting that the boundaries are fuzzy and understanding that all boundaries are arbitrary and mentally imposed.

it's true, you could say the boundaries exist for our benefit.. but why is that a bad thing? It's how we differentiate one from another.

[vbnautilus 48]

it's true, you could say the boundaries exist for our benefit.. but why is that a bad thing? It's how we differentiate one from another.

it's not a bad thing. on its own. what is a bad thing is when we believe the concepts to the point that we only see the world through them. it's my contention that the "wonder" emotion we've mentioned a few times comes when we allow ourselves to relate to reality itself without the lens of our linguistic concepts. that's why I think cultivating that experience is important for a scientist.

[crowTrobot 2]

I've already guaranteed that I accept the concept of sun is useful. We're discussing whether there really is such a delineated object outside of our mental concept of it.

i don't have a mental concept of the sun as a delineated object. we're discussing semantics of "real boundary".

Most people (you included) absolutely do delude themselves into thinking that there is a real boundary between the sun and everything else. There's a difference between admitting that the boundaries are fuzzy and understanding that all boundaries are arbitrary and mentally imposed.

your definition of "boundaries" is arbitrary and mentally imposed. word games.

[Mills 0]

it's not a bad thing. on its own. what is a bad thing is when we believe the concepts to the point that we only see the world through them. it's my contention that the "wonder" emotion we've mentioned a few times comes when we allow ourselves to relate to reality itself without the lens of our linguistic concepts. that's why I think cultivating that experience is important for a scientist.

This is the part where you always lose me. Science is based on what is observable and testable, thus that is how a scientist will view the world.. through what he can see and test. To do anything else would just be speculation, and how does that help us? We can all sit under the stars and wonder what might be out there, but all that does is bring us back to your phillisophical feedback loop. I would rather go foward.. or, at least try.

[vbnautilus 48]

your definition of "boundaries" is arbitrary and mentally imposed.

there we agree. but that doesn't mean you don't know what I am referring to when I use those words.

word games.

this I believe is your way of throwing in the towel. but there is a real point here about the role concepts play in our minds. it's not just gymnastics.

This is the part where you always lose me. Science is based on what is observable and testable, thus that is how a scientist will view the world.. through what he can see and test. To do anything else would just be speculation, and how does that help us? We can all sit under the stars and wonder what might be out there, but all that does is bring us back to your phillisophical feedback loop. I would rather go foward.. or, at least try.

I obviously don't advocate halting the progress of science. Of course we continue to observe and test and understand. But understanding through linguistic concepts should be balanced with a healthy dose of non-linguistic access to reality.

[Mills 0]

But understanding through linguistic concepts should be balanced with a healthy dose of non-linguistic access to reality.

Can you go a bit more in depth... what exactly do you mean by "non-linguistic accessto reality?"

[vbnautilus 48]

Can you go a bit more in depth... what exactly do you mean by "non-linguistic accessto reality?"

There are various things we can do to get outside of our ingrained linguistic concepts. But they usually start with just the intention to do so. Off the top of my head, the following come to mind: meditation, hanging out with kids, some kinds of art, psilocybin, surfing....

[Mills 0]

There are various things we can do to get outside of our ingrained linguistic concepts. But they usually start with just the intention to do so. Off the top of my head, the following come to mind: meditation, hanging out with kids, some kinds of art, psilocybin, surfing....

But...aren't you still identifying those things by lingusitic concepts? How do you know what you wanna do is to 'surf' for example, how dou you know what 'surfing' is?

[crowTrobot 2]

but there is a real point here about the role concepts play in our minds. it's not just gymnastics.

i'm not disagreeing with your point, just your example. i think there are objective reasons we see and define boundaries the way we do, and we're not fooling ourselves about what those reasons are. sorry for being anal about that

[vbnautilus 48]

But...aren't you still identifying those things by lingusitic concepts? How do you know what you wanna do is to 'surf' for example, how dou you know what 'surfing' is?

I am not advocating abandoning the linguistic concepts. Obviously we use them because they are useful.... Back to the map analogy: Maps are great. Just don't mistake them for the actual thing... and sometimes take your eyes off the map and look at the scenery itself. You asked me how to look at the scenery itself, and I gave some examples. There are of course, people who have gone through the ridiculously misguided practice if ceasing all verbal communication in response to this issue. I think that's ridiculous.

[Mills 0]

You asked me how to look at the scenery itself, and I gave some examples.

But how do those activities accomplish that?

[vbnautilus 48]

But how do those activities accomplish that?

Well they do. How they do it is really a very interesting question, and I can't give you a complete answer on that, only speculations. They don't all do it in the same way. And I just pulled these things out of my ass as on-the-fly examples, but I'll give it a go:Meditation (certain kinds): exercising the a-linguistic aspects of the mind, aka practicePsilocybin: pharmacologically interfering with the neural mechanisms for conceptual thought in the anterior temporal lobehanging out with children: mental contagioncertain kinds of art: violating cognitive expectations that result from holding conceptsetc.

[Spademan 94]

But...aren't you still identifying those things by lingusitic concepts? How do you know what you wanna do is to 'surf' for example, how dou you know what 'surfing' is?

Here are a couple of examples of how an adept responds to this question:A monk asked Chao-chou, “ ‘The Ultimate Path has no difficulties—just avoid picking and choosing. As soon as there are words and speech, this is picking and choosing (a common buddhist saying) .’ So how do you help people, Teacher?”Chao-chou said, “Why don’t you quote this saying in full?” The monk said, “I only remember up to here.”Chao-chou said, “It’s like this: ‘The Ultimate Path has no difficulties—just avoid picking and choosing.’ ”Or:Chao-chou, teaching the assembly, said, “The Ultimate Path is without difficulty; just avoid picking and choosing. As soon as there are words spoken, “this is picking and choosing, “ “this is clarity.” This old monk does not abide within clarity; do you still preserve anything or not?”At that time a certain monk asked, “Since you do not abide within clarity, what do you preserve?”Chao-chou replied, “I don't know either.”The monk said, “Since you don't know, Teacher, why do you nevertheless say that you do not abide within clarity?”Chao-chou said, “It is enough to ask about the matter; bow and withdraw.”

[Mills 0]

Well they do. How they do it is really a very interesting question, and I can't give you a complete answer on that, only speculations. They don't all do it in the same way. And I just pulled these things out of my ass as on-the-fly examples, but I'll give it a go:Meditation (certain kinds): exercising the a-linguistic aspects of the mind, aka practicePsilocybin: pharmacologically interfering with the neural mechanisms for conceptual thought in the anterior temporal lobehanging out with children: mental contagioncertain kinds of art: violating cognitive expectations that result from holding concepts

Let's say we were talking about religion, and I asked you how god created the universe. What would be the fundemental difference between what you wrote, and this?"Well he did. How he did is really a very interesting question, and I can't give you a complete answer on that, only speculations"I have a have a very hard time excepting "well it just is that way." As a viable answer to a question. If that's the answer, then we should probably look in a different direction.

[vbnautilus 48]

Let's say we were talking about religion, and I asked you how god created the universe. What would be the fundemental difference between what you wrote, and this?"Well he did. How he did is really a very interesting question, and I can't give you a complete answer on that, only speculations"I have a have a very hard time excepting "well it just is that way." As a viable answer to a question. If that's the answer, then we should probably look in a different direction.

The fundamental difference is that my speculations are testable hypotheses. I labeled them as speculations because I can't provide you with direct evidence in for those statements, they are just my hunches. That doesn't mean that we couldn't test them.

[Mills 0]

The fundamental difference is that my statements are testable hypotheses.

Well, that's a good start. But then the next logical question is how do we them?

[vbnautilus 48]

Well, that's a good start. But then the next logical question is how do we test them?

Welcome to the rest of my life.

[Mills 0]

Welcome to the rest of my life.

well.. then I would ask... what kind of results are you looking for? In other words, what result would falsify the hypothesis? What result would make the hypothesis true?

[vbnautilus 48]

well.. then I would ask... what kind of results are you looking for? In other words, what result would falsify the hypothesis? What result would make the hypothesis true?

The work that I do which is most closely related to this issue has to do with understanding how conceptual knowledge is represented in the brain. This is something we have to understand better before dealing with questions like the psilocybin one. We have a strong theory and some great experiments, but there is a long way to go. Not exactly sure what you're looking for.

[Mills 0]

The work that I do which is most closely related to this issue has to do with understanding how conceptual knowledge is represented in the brain. This is something we have to understand better before dealing with questions like the psilocybin one. We have a strong theory and some great experiments, but there is a long way to go. Not exactly sure what you're looking for.

basically i'm wondering if this hypothesis is falsifiable... And, as it is still a hypothesis with a long way to go, I am curious, why you are advocating it so strongly.

[vbnautilus 48]

basically i'm wondering if this hypothesis is falsifiable... And, as it is still a hypothesis with a long way to go, I am curious, why you are advocating it so strongly.

I think we're getting pretty far away from my main point, which was a logical one about the nature of mental concepts. As a result of your questioning, I provided speculations about the mechanism by which certain activities could lead to different mental states. Those are clearly testable, falsifiable hypotheses. But they are peripheral to the thread. There is nothing I have argued for that I did not provide reasoned arguments for. I'm not asking you to "have faith", I'm not appealing to a self-proclaimed authority... what's the issue here?