I thought HN stood for Hacker News, not Hokum News? What's up with meditation crapola today? Moar space rocket stories, plz.
How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
21–30 of 32 posts
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, who would want to stop thinking? Though I'm sure we'll be told by someone we "just don't understand" and that it's ambiguously deeper than that.
I hear that you are questioning whether other's desires to reach enlightenment is right for you or not. To answer that, I'm going to point out you made two you/blaming statements in your comment. Bear with me here, I'm not attacking you. The first blaming statement is "who would want to stop thinking?". Logically this parses into asking a generalized question of whether there exists anyone at all who would want to 's…
Are blaming statements inherently a problem? It seems quite intentional to imply that certain activities are negative. I see the second blaming statement in particular as a combination of harmless venting, and warning away anyone that would butt in to provide a shallow explanation that isn't backed by understanding.
Now back to the first statement, I'll go to an extreme to provide an example. I would feel contempt toward a person that prefers to sleep 23 hours of the day rather than spend some of that time on productive activities. It is their right to do so if they desire, but I would not be ashamed to judge such a behavior. Is there a downside to my blaming here?
As to meditation, it seems like the description of 'stop thinking' is misleading, which is the source of the confusion, and what leads to the blaming tone. But if I'm right about that, then no actual person is being blamed, only an accidental strawman. But that will take some clarification to figure out. So: when you 'stop thinking' how long does that state last, and how does it affect your thoughts afterward? Does it matter how long you spend in that state?
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have experienced this a couple of times while meditating, I think turning off thoughts is a bad description. It is more like divorcing yourself from your thoughts. Your thoughts become just another something that is happening, like a sound, something not you but external to you. Once that happens enough times you get used to the weird feeling of observing yourself think and you notice that sometimes the thoughts ju…
I liken the brain to a mega-powerful but poorly put together computer. Why did I say this and what does it have to do with meditation? The brain is a product of an Evolutionary process. Dawkins described Evolution best as "The Blind Watchmaker". Evolution leaves a lot of room for improvement. It is like a terrible engineer who only ever gets things right by sheer luck. Evolution is probably a pretty sloppy process. T…
And none of these poorly put together computers even have a glimmering of how to simulate themselves. Meanwhile the presumably even less poorly put together computers perform amazing feats in ocean air and on land.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#24Enlightenment is beyond words. It's not to be intellectualized. So I believe science will never truly understand enlightenment, because science is intellectualization. Besides there are several grades of enlightenment, don't think you meditate a few years and you get it.
As for meditation, although it is the best path for enlightenment, turns out there's alot of benefits for common people. When you bring your thoughts to a halt, your true mind manifests. The true mind is unimpeded - it is effortless - and this true mind allows you to solve your daily problems more easily. You shut off your "stupid" brain, and the true wisdom starts to manifest. You won't become a zombie; you will naturally discard your stupid habits and become better focused at whatever is that you do.
What this means is that throughout the day we are able to gain a better understanding of ourselves and our environment; we will become gradually less scattered (due to the meditation process) and we will focus on what is important to us, wheter its programming or science or anything else. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I think it's a good basic description.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#25I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
It's not "cessation of ideas and thoughts", and the fact that the story gets it wrong could mean that science gets it wrong, which suggest science will never figure it out.
If the fact that science had gotten something wrong had meant science could never figure that thing, science would have brought nothing to mankind.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? Why does do you need science's permission to do anything?
I would say you need the laws of science's permission to do anything.
Actually, you need the Laws of Nature's permission. Science is a human attempt to get at them. Showing that you can do something in spite of the current laws of science is how you make them evolve and progress.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear that you are questioning whether other's desires to reach enlightenment is right for you or not. To answer that, I'm going to point out you made two you/blaming statements in your comment. Bear with me here, I'm not attacking you. The first blaming statement is "who would want to stop thinking?". Logically this parses into asking a generalized question of whether there exists anyone at all who would want to 's…
Are blaming statements inherently a problem? It seems quite intentional to imply that certain activities are negative. I see the second blaming statement in particular as a combination of harmless venting, and warning away anyone that would butt in to provide a shallow explanation that isn't backed by understanding. Now back to the first statement, I'll go to an extreme to provide an example. I would feel contempt to…
I believe the general idea is to allow choice in others. You don't have to agree with them, as that is your choice, but you should at least entertain their choice: hear them. Many things in our history were considered negative at first and were later adopted as the norm. I agree that venting is necessary, but understanding why you are venting is more important. Fears, interest, boredom, love. Those emotions drive us all, but few understand how they make us think.
There is no downside to your behavior in forming an opinion of another being. If someone is depressed, they have unresolved issues. If they choose this for themselves, well, that's their choice. If you perceive you can help them, it makes more sense you work on getting to the unresolved issues instead of telling them to do something they already know they shouldn't do - sleep 23 hours a day. Whether you want to dig into someone's nasty problems is up to you and your level of interest in the subject.
Yes, confusion frequently leads to blaming. I wasn't trying to indicate I was being blamed, and only used it as an example to prove a larger point: slowing or stopping your thinking opens you up to observation. Listening is a powerful thing.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#28Enlightenment is beyond words. It's not to be intellectualized. So I believe science will never truly understand enlightenment, because science is intellectualization. Besides there are several grades of enlightenment, don't think you meditate a few years and you get it. As for meditation, although it is the best path for enlightenment, turns out there's alot of benefits for common people. When you bring your thought…
If science works the way we believe it does, then nothing is beyond intellectualization.
Either the world and everything in it is accessible to empirical observation and the formation and validation of models (i.e., hypothesis formulation and testing, theory development) or it is not.
If there are things that are inaccessible to this process, then there is magic beyond the veil.
Where is the veil?
Given accessibility as described above, then there are those things that we have learned to measure and those things we have to learn to measure. Neuroscience is busily taking things from the latter set and placing them, slowly in the former.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#29I thought HN stood for Hacker News, not Hokum News? What's up with meditation crapola today? Moar space rocket stories, plz.
The biggest Hack is hacking yourself
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are blaming statements inherently a problem? It seems quite intentional to imply that certain activities are negative. I see the second blaming statement in particular as a combination of harmless venting, and warning away anyone that would butt in to provide a shallow explanation that isn't backed by understanding. Now back to the first statement, I'll go to an extreme to provide an example. I would feel contempt to…
I believe the general idea is to allow choice in others. You don't have to agree with them, as that is your choice, but you should at least entertain their choice: hear them . Many things in our history were considered negative at first and were later adopted as the norm. I agree that venting is necessary, but understanding why you are venting is more important. Fears, interest, boredom, love. Those emotions drive us…
I think there was a little confusion in there, I do practice meditation. It has been shown to provide valuable benefits.
What I suppose I didn't understand was why someone would want to achieve the cessation state, where they literally cease to exist. It sounds, simply from a clinical standpoint, like some kind of adverse symptom or effect on the brain being misinterpreted as a stage of something spiritual.
I can certainly see the meaning it might have to those who believe it's something more. But for those who don't hold these beliefs, it seems rather pointless. I guess the answer to my "blaming statement" would be "those who are spiritual and believe it is good would want to". To each their own, and while I don't share these beliefs, I needn't be so blunt when expressing differing opinions, I was out of line.