Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory > conclusion from the following two premises: > > (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws > of Nature [determinism]. > > (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I > am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that > may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take > full responsibility for them [free will]. > > The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, > that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, > every conscious mind that has ever said "I"--am the person, if > any, who controls the "motion of the atoms" according to the Laws > of Nature.
I think I can put my finger on where I disagree with him. it is where he speaks on behalf of "every conscious mind that has ever said 'I'" and then jumps to controlling the motion of atoms. He should have said, "controls the motions of our own bodies". The jump he is making is poetic but wrong. Just because we control our own bodies does not give us the right to claim controlling atoms.The atomic level is working on its own without the participation of the consciousness that emerges from the functioning of our brains which is driven by laws of nature at a completely different level. Am I missing something? Here is what I consider better poetry in this genre. Kabir through Bly through my memory: Inside this clay jug there are canyons and pine mountains, and the maker of canyons and pine mountains. All seven oceans are inside, and hundreds of millions of stars. The acid that tests gold is there, and the one who judges jewels., And the music from the strings no one touches, and the source of all water. If you want the truth I will tell you the truth, friend listen: The God whom I love is inside. I think if we are going to make stuff up about reality this is the bar to clear! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Damn Judy, I am only working on one cup of coffee here! Let me see if > I can make an intelligible response! > > > Coming back to this, because I think it's an > > important point: If Unity consciousness is as > > MMY defines it, and if he's in Unity consciousness, > > it isn't *up* to MMY, independently of nature, > > whether to perform siddhis. It's nature's call. > > > > So it wouldn't really be a falsifiable standard > > after all. > > I think he has already thrown his hat in to the ring of demonstrating > student's flying for marketing purposes. So it seems like nature has > spoken on this and just hasn't delivered the goods. He has used the > impression of science for his marketing and even revealed his strategy > in his "Science of Being". So it seems like it is too late for him to > claim that nature just doesn't want him to blow people away and gain > millions of followers by demonstrating something amazing. > > Maybe it was never meant as a falsifiable standard even though it was > presented that way. I may have been giving MMY too much credit for > being sincere about his interest in proofs and testing. > > Erwin Schroedinger's quote is interesting. If my single cup of coffee > brain can wrap around this multiple cups of coffee question... > > I don't buy his conclusion. He seems to be jumping levels of > existence unnecessarily. He starts with theory, determinism, goes to > personal experience, free will, and then lapses into poetry. > > I don't think his conclusion is logical at all, it is just put > together out of his imagination. It sounds beautiful, but it is not > how I think of it. When he is doing science he may be the man, but in > his forays into philosophy he just sounds like an old-school Chopra. > > We psychologically experience our free will acting as well as the > determined parts of our habits and the effects of past actions and > experiences coming into play and interacting with our will. Trying to > drop a bad habit puts this in our face clearly. As far as deciding if > the universe has some designs on our personal actions, this is an area > for philosophical speculations. Identifying our sense of "I" with the > "I" controlling the motion of the atoms is more poetry than > philosophy. Not that poetry is bad, I love it. > > So how do you understand it? > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > Another wrinkle: what exactly does "able to do > > > > the siddhis" actually mean in the context of > > > > Unity consciousness? Does it really mean "on > > > > demand"? > > > > > > This ends up in the broader question of free will and determinism in > > > general in any state of consciousness. Nice point about the paradox. > > > > > > I recognize, and others have pointed out, that MMY is unique in his > > > perspective of siddhis. Many other teachers claim they are > > > impediments to growth, or at lest distractions. But in his system > > > they serve a much more interesting role for me. They are indications > > > that one has gained certain masteries over the laws of nature. I > > > think they are important to distinguish "higher" states from just a > > > flowery description of what ordinary, aware people are walking around > > > in every day. Since he does demonstrate siddhis at their incomplete > > > hopping level, I can't see why he would not show the real deal. I > > > think it was commendable of him to use the performance of siddhis as > > > tests of consciousness. It gives a falsifiable standard. > > > > Coming back to this, because I think it's an > > important point: If Unity consciousness is as > > MMY defines it, and if he's in Unity consciousness, > > it isn't *up* to MMY, independently of nature, > > whether to perform siddhis. It's nature's call. > > > > So it wouldn't really be a falsifiable standard > > after all. > > > > And yes, it's all very much wrapped up in the free > > will/determinism paradox. I don't personally > > have any problem with the idea that my sense of > > free will is an illusion--that is, my "small > > self"'s sense of free will. I think we assume > > we have free will because we're dimly intuiting > > that the Self has free will. > > > > I think I've posted this quote from Schroedinger > > here before, but it's germane to this discussion: > > > > Erwin Schroedinger, in an essay called "The I That Is God," > > wrote: > > > > ...The space-time events in the body of a living being which > > correspond to the activity of its mind, to its self-conscious or > > any other actions, are...if not strictly deterministic at any > > rate statistico-deterministic....Let me regard this as a fact, as > > I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the > > well-known, unpleasant feeling about "declaring oneself to be a > > pure mechanism." For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as > > warranted by direct introspection.... > > > > Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory > > conclusion from the following two premises: > > > > (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws > > of Nature [determinism]. > > > > (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I > > am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that > > may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take > > full responsibility for them [free will]. > > > > The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, > > that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, > > every conscious mind that has ever said "I"--am the person, if > > any, who controls the "motion of the atoms" according to the Laws > > of Nature. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Damn Judy, I am only working on one cup of coffee here! Let me see if > I can make an intelligible response! > > > Coming back to this, because I think it's an > > important point: If Unity consciousness is as > > MMY defines it, and if he's in Unity consciousness, > > it isn't *up* to MMY, independently of nature, > > whether to perform siddhis. It's nature's call. > > > > So it wouldn't really be a falsifiable standard > > after all. > > I think he has already thrown his hat in to the ring of demonstrating > student's flying for marketing purposes. So it seems like nature has > spoken on this and just hasn't delivered the goods. He has used the > impression of science for his marketing and even revealed his strategy > in his "Science of Being". So it seems like it is too late for him to > claim that nature just doesn't want him to blow people away and gain > millions of followers by demonstrating something amazing. > > Maybe it was never meant as a falsifiable standard even though it was > presented that way. I may have been giving MMY too much credit for > being sincere about his interest in proofs and testing. > > Erwin Schroedinger's quote is interesting. If my single cup of coffee > brain can wrap around this multiple cups of coffee question... > > I don't buy his conclusion. He seems to be jumping levels of > existence unnecessarily. He starts with theory, determinism, goes to > personal experience, free will, and then lapses into poetry. > > I don't think his conclusion is logical at all, it is just put > together out of his imagination. It sounds beautiful, but it is not > how I think of it. When he is doing science he may be the man, but in > his forays into philosophy he just sounds like an old-school Chopra. > > We psychologically experience our free will acting as well as the > determined parts of our habits and the effects of past actions and > experiences coming into play and interacting with our will. Trying to > drop a bad habit puts this in our face clearly. As far as deciding if > the universe has some designs on our personal actions, this is an area > for philosophical speculations. Identifying our sense of "I" with the > "I" controlling the motion of the atoms is more poetry than > philosophy. Not that poetry is bad, I love it. > > So how do you understand it? > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > Another wrinkle: what exactly does "able to do > > > > the siddhis" actually mean in the context of > > > > Unity consciousness? Does it really mean "on > > > > demand"? > > > > > > This ends up in the broader question of free will and determinism in > > > general in any state of consciousness. Nice point about the paradox. > > > > > > I recognize, and others have pointed out, that MMY is unique in his > > > perspective of siddhis. Many other teachers claim they are > > > impediments to growth, or at lest distractions. But in his system > > > they serve a much more interesting role for me. They are indications > > > that one has gained certain masteries over the laws of nature. I > > > think they are important to distinguish "higher" states from just a > > > flowery description of what ordinary, aware people are walking around > > > in every day. Since he does demonstrate siddhis at their incomplete > > > hopping level, I can't see why he would not show the real deal. I > > > think it was commendable of him to use the performance of siddhis as > > > tests of consciousness. It gives a falsifiable standard. > > > > Coming back to this, because I think it's an > > important point: If Unity consciousness is as > > MMY defines it, and if he's in Unity consciousness, > > it isn't *up* to MMY, independently of nature, > > whether to perform siddhis. It's nature's call. > > > > So it wouldn't really be a falsifiable standard > > after all. > > > > And yes, it's all very much wrapped up in the free > > will/determinism paradox. I don't personally > > have any problem with the idea that my sense of > > free will is an illusion--that is, my "small > > self"'s sense of free will. I think we assume > > we have free will because we're dimly intuiting > > that the Self has free will. > > > > I think I've posted this quote from Schroedinger > > here before, but it's germane to this discussion: > > > > Erwin Schroedinger, in an essay called "The I That Is God," > > wrote: > > > > ...The space-time events in the body of a living being which > > correspond to the activity of its mind, to its self-conscious or > > any other actions, are...if not strictly deterministic at any > > rate statistico-deterministic....Let me regard this as a fact, as > > I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the > > well-known, unpleasant feeling about "declaring oneself to be a > > pure mechanism." For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as > > warranted by direct introspection.... > > > > Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory > > conclusion from the following two premises: > > > > (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws > > of Nature [determinism]. > > > > (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I > > am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that > > may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take > > full responsibility for them [free will]. > > > > The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, > > that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, > > every conscious mind that has ever said "I"--am the person, if > > any, who controls the "motion of the atoms" according to the Laws > > of Nature. > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
