Replies

• 

  Roaring Lovely January 17, 2016 at 6:15am

  I have also been wondering too why i am left to talk alone!
• 

  Acute Observer January 16, 2016 at 9:03pm

  It bothers me that so few of the ACC members bother to comment or discuss your excellent pieces of Food for Thought.
• 

  Roaring Lovely January 14, 2016 at 7:17am

  To summarise it for you:
  A:Though we cannot agree on how hot a stove is by merely touching it, certainly we agree that it is hotter than ice and colder than a furnace.
  
  THIS IS ALL WHAT MEASUREMENT IS!!
  
  B:Though we cannot agree on how long a stick is, we can agree that is greater than, equal to or shorter than a given mark on a ruler.
  
  There is nothing more correct about using a thermometer. It is only more CONVENIENT. We can amuse ourselves that thus temperature is all about expansion due to the kinetic energy in jiggling particles that eventually cause thermometer to expand but we are cheating ourselves! Temperature transhends jiggling of balls!
  
  When we understand that felt temperature or anything else like that is not more 'in' than anything else, we understand that there is no 'in' and 'out'. The 'hard question' of consciousness is solved. IT SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST! Every question is that 'hard question'!
• 

  Roaring Lovely January 14, 2016 at 6:50am

  THE ORIGIN OF OBJECT-SUBJECT DICHOTOMY
  
  Its origin to physics is traceable to what I may term it as 'galilien physics'. Galileo abbused the culture of measurement and put it on the pedestral of UNDERSTANDING. This marked the crucial turning point in object-subject dichotomy.
  
  Sure enough, Galileo and his disciples missed the whole point of what it is we do when we measure; compare. So you hear the modern scientist say that there are two knowledges; subjective vs objective. Sure, it is there but this difference is trivial to UNDERSTANDING.
  
  Here it goes, lets consider HEAT. Almost everyone is trained to think that we get accurate knowledge of what temperature is by immercing thermometer to water other than by touching the hot container. This is a disaster in modern science. As far as touching is concerned, it is tempting to think that all you get is your subjective perception temperature. What a terible eror in thinking! The reason why we can agree on what a thermometer indicates has nothing to do with the mark and the thermometer being outside of you. It has all to do with the fact that you are COMPARING the glass with the liquid. without the marks, we would never get to agree on the temperature even though we would notice that the thermometer is expanding. The use of thermometer is more of cultural than a fact about temperature. We could also mark the hotness level of an object and we would all agree on what object is hotter than what by merely touching it. What we would not agree is how hot the object is as compared to our body. But we would agree on how hot the various objects are as compared to themselves. But this is also so when we use rulers or thermometers.
• 

  Roaring Lovely January 14, 2016 at 6:02am

  FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
  It is hard to understand why many scientist miss this point. Some, like Erwin Schrodinger seems to have gotten it well:
  
  "consciousness cannot be understood in terms of anything lesser than itself"
  
  But it is the object-subject dichotomy that is the major problem in our scientist's pattern of thinking. 'objective' doesn't mean anything other than 'shared subjective'. All what we think understand 'out there', including electrodynamics and even the brain is SUBJECTIVE!! Therefore what exactly is out there is tied to the question of what exactly we are. To truely understand what the brain is, we must understand what consciousness is because the brain is nothing but what we are conscious. Using the brain to understand consciousness begs the question that we understand the brain completely. WE DON'T!! Neither do we understand anything else for that matter. Why? Because everything is in the awareness which we don't understand.
• 

  Roaring Lovely January 14, 2016 at 6:01am

  FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
  It is hard to understand why many scientist miss this point. Some, like Erwin Schrodinger seems to have gotten it well:
  
  "consciousness cannot be understood in terms of anything lesser than itself"
  
  But it is the object-subject dichotomy that is the major problem in our scientist's pattern of thinking. 'objective' doesn't mean anything other than 'shared subjective'. All what we think understand 'out there', including electrodynamics and even the brain is SUBJECTIVE!! Therefore what exactly is out there is tied to the question of what exactly we are. To truely understand what the brain is, we must understand what consciousness is because the brain is nothing but what we are conscious. Using the brain to understand consciousness begs the question that we understand the brain completely. WE DON'T!! Neither do we understand anything else for that matter. Why? Because everything is in the awareness which we don't understand.