Why does he always need to be eternal
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: Why does he always need to be eternal
(26-08-2014 03:28 PM)Impulse Wrote:  While thinking about "unmanifest reality" may be an interesting mental exercise, what evidence do we have that it's based in any more reality than "god"? Consider

First off, I'd say that evidence is never something "we" have.

It's always something "I" have, in that if I personally did not experience it for myself, then I'm taking it on hearsay or perhaps on the basis of authority if I accept it.

Someone telling me they have empirical evidence for their claim is not the same as me having that evidence. That won't happen unless I re-create their experiment for myself.

It's always worth bearing that in mind! People do sometimes blag it, and publish claims based on falsified data.

Re the "unmanifest", this is the experience that's needed to verify it's existence. If nobody you trust has had that experience, I guess you'll need to go looking for it yourself, or simply remain skeptical.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: Why does he always need to be eternal
(26-08-2014 04:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 03:28 PM)Impulse Wrote:  While thinking about "unmanifest reality" may be an interesting mental exercise, what evidence do we have that it's based in any more reality than "god"? Consider

First off, I'd say that evidence is never something "we" have.

It's always something "I" have, in that if I personally did not experience it for myself, then I'm taking it on hearsay or perhaps on the basis of authority if I accept it.

Someone telling me they have empirical evidence for their claim is not the same as me having that evidence. That won't happen unless I re-create their experiment for myself.

It's always worth bearing that in mind! People do sometimes blag it, and publish claims based on falsified data.

Re the "unmanifest", this is the experience that's needed to verify it's existence. If nobody you trust has had that experience, I guess you'll need to go looking for it yourself, or simply remain skeptical.

Phil

That is far too narrow a view. If the evidence is in principal reproducible by you, you don't actually need to reproduce it to call it evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: Why does he always need to be eternal
(26-08-2014 03:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 02:39 PM)phil.a Wrote:  They are.

Citation needed.

An overview of the Zen methodology of testing student insight


Quote:
(26-08-2014 02:39 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Zen for example has a clearly defined path for achieving the experience, it also has a methodology for testing persons who claim to have had the experience. It's identifiable because it leaves the person's mind to some extent permanently transformed.

Christianity for example has a clearly defined path for achieving its experience, it also has a methodology for testing persons who claim to have had the experience.

So what?

Well - everyone who has had the experience, regardless of religion or spiritual beliefs, agree that it's the same experience of the same underlying reality. Buddhist Sunyata == Hindu Brahman == new age 'unmanifest' == christian 'god'


Quote:
(26-08-2014 02:39 PM)phil.a Wrote:  This is not really much different to (for example) identifying someone with true rational thinking skills. Anyone who has abstract thinking skills can ask someone a few questions to quickly determine if they also have abstract thinking skills.

And you are defining "abstract" as ... ?

In terms of Jean Piaget's model of psychological development - Formal operational.

Quote:
(26-08-2014 02:39 PM)phil.a Wrote:  My personal experience of abstract thinking is a "subjective personal experience" occurring in my brain, nobody can actually join me inside my mind to verify i really am thinking abstractly. But they can ask me questions...

Thank you for that stunningly pointless observation. Why yes, others in fact do not experience your thought processes.

You are welcome.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: Why does he always need to be eternal
(26-08-2014 04:17 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 03:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Citation needed.

An overview of the Zen methodology of testing student insight

That doesn't substantiate the claim I questioned.

But thanks for playing?

(26-08-2014 04:17 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
Quote:Christianity for example has a clearly defined path for achieving its experience, it also has a methodology for testing persons who claim to have had the experience.

So what?

Well - everyone who has had the experience, regardless of religion or spiritual beliefs, agree that it's the same experience of the same underlying reality. Buddhist Sunyata == Hindu Brahman == new age 'unmanifest' == christian 'god'

Now there's a fiat assertion exemplifying the ol' "citation needed" if ever there were one.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: Why does he always need to be eternal
(26-08-2014 04:17 PM)phil.a Wrote:  An overview of the Zen methodology of testing student insight

What I found here was an overview of numerous different schools of Zen, each with its own methodology. This agrees with what I have previously read and heard about Zen. There is no single "Zen methodology".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
26-08-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Why does he always need to be eternal
(26-08-2014 04:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  What I found here was an overview of numerous different schools of Zen, each with its own methodology. This agrees with what I have previously read and heard about Zen. There is no single "Zen methodology".

Indeed. There are methodologies available, but there's no single methodology. Just as there's no single education methodology for developing/testing human thinking skills. Different countries do it differently, even different schools in the same country are often based on different theories of childhood development.

But back to Satori - in my opinion, all this is largely irrelevant because no rational thinker should be looking for "authority" on the subject anyway.

Rather, (s)he should be seeking direct personal experience to validate the claim personally and remain skeptical until such time as that validation occurs.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 06:13 PM
RE: Why does he always need to be eternal
(26-08-2014 04:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  First off, I'd say that evidence is never something "we" have.
I disagree. Unless "we" have it, it is only personal experience which is one of the worst types of evidence.

(26-08-2014 04:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  It's always something "I" have, in that if I personally did not experience it for myself, then I'm taking it on hearsay or perhaps on the basis of authority if I accept it.

Someone telling me they have empirical evidence for their claim is not the same as me having that evidence. That won't happen unless I re-create their experiment for myself.
It may help if you also experience whatever it is, but I don't see that as necessary. If many people experience it and can provide evidence independent of their experience, then that lends some credibility even if you don't personally experience it.

(26-08-2014 04:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Re the "unmanifest", this is the experience that's needed to verify it's existence. If nobody you trust has had that experience, I guess you'll need to go looking for it yourself, or simply remain skeptical.
I'll remain skeptical. My sister remains confident that her personal out of body experience is evidence for a soul despite my offering alternative explanations too. Personal experience, no matter how personally convincing, doesn't make something necessarily even likely to be true.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 01:15 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 01:59 AM by phil.a.)
RE: Why does he always need to be eternal
(26-08-2014 06:13 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 04:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  First off, I'd say that evidence is never something "we" have.
I disagree. Unless "we" have it, it is only personal experience which is one of the worst types of evidence.

OK fair point, although what I meant is that if you personally don't have the evidence for yourself, then it's not "we" who have the evidence, it's "they" who have the evidence.

Perhaps because there are a lot of them saying that it's true it gives the situation credibility, although that is essentially an argumentum ad populum

Perhaps the people saying it are believable experts in their field, and perhaps that gives the situation credibility, although that is essentially an appeal to authority

Which is not to say these things are meaningless, simply that it's going into the realm of discerning probabilities of truth, which in my opinion is a bit different to direct personal experience of something. I am a bit of a hardcore skeptic, I really do need direct, personal experience of something for myself in order to find it deeply meaningful.

Quote:
(26-08-2014 04:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  It's always something "I" have, in that if I personally did not experience it for myself, then I'm taking it on hearsay or perhaps on the basis of authority if I accept it.

Someone telling me they have empirical evidence for their claim is not the same as me having that evidence. That won't happen unless I re-create their experiment for myself.
It may help if you also experience whatever it is, but I don't see that as necessary. If many people experience it and can provide evidence independent of their experience, then that lends some credibility even if you don't personally experience it.

(26-08-2014 04:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Re the "unmanifest", this is the experience that's needed to verify it's existence. If nobody you trust has had that experience, I guess you'll need to go looking for it yourself, or simply remain skeptical.
I'll remain skeptical. My sister remains confident that her personal out of body experience is evidence for a soul despite my offering alternative explanations too. Personal experience, no matter how personally convincing, doesn't make something necessarily even likely to be true.

Perhaps she's correct? I doubt it, but I am not in a position to falsify her claim. And since neither you nor me had the actual experience, we lack the "empirical evidence" (e.g. direct experience) that your sister has. Sure, her conclusion may be based on faulty reasoning, but our conclusion may be based on faulty inference of the facts.

I personally would just remain completely agnostic over her claim. The idea of a "soul" does not fit in to my worldview as meaningful or relevant so I really don't need to concern myself over wether it's true or not. Hence - why even bother taking a position over it?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: