To expand a little more on it — after I visited Richard and Vineeto the first time, but before I had my first PCE, I had a hint that there is an actual world that actually exists. I could experience things that indicated there was an actual world - like pure intent. But I didn’t know for sure.
When I had my first PCE, that is the first time that I (as actual flesh and blood Claudiu) knew that I actually exist. I knew it for a fact, that this flesh and blood body exists – and that this world, this universe, and the trees and the birds and the squirrels and cars, actually exist as well.
It is this type or quality of existence that I am interested in.
Hi Claudiu - starting from your description that “what exists is that which exists”, and keeping the subject at hand based firmly on experience, would you agree that it is impossible to experience that which does not exist for the simple and obvious reason that that which does not exist does not exist to be experienced?
These quotes are only part of the contradictory mix I noticed in your discussion with @rick on the subject about the existence and actuality of feelings (and all that it led to), and now here.
In spite of all what you said in these two last posts, this very topic evidences your interest to ponder and rationalize, “wrap your head around”, and understand as a feeling being the existence or not, the actuality or not, of quasiparticles, particles, etc. And even when this are not experiential matters, just cognitive ones. Whether for feeling beings or free persons:
It’s not that I think these contradictions are a big problem, because you are a feeling beeing and it is to be expected. But it can be a problem if you do not notice them, and if they originate, as it often seems, in defending preconceived ideas regardless of what the other person says, in “knowing beforehand” that you can’t get anything from the other person if they have views contrary to yours, in not observing what is happening to you emotionally and experientially at that moment (which is what we are supposedly here to do, in addition to clarifying concepts); as if you were only meant to give to others and unwilling to receive (as evidenced by the last two posts you had to add despite what I wrote about why I preferred not to follow based on your interpretations, etc).
Maybe that explains why you often respond so quickly and profusely, even sometimes with a gish gallop technique, a modality that seems unhelpful.
Maybe all this will help you to observe something useful about your self.
The thrust of your query is best answered by reiterating the example of watching a video of a dog catching a ball. The video is experienced as occurring, and there is an experience of watching a dog catching a ball, but there is no actually existing dog that is actually catching a ball. It is an illusion of a dog. The illusion happens in the mind of the viewer, but there is no actually existing dog.
So would you say that it is possible or impossible to experience that which does not exist?
Is it that the question cannot be answered as-is?
The example you provide suggests you consider it possible to experience something that does not exist, is that correct?
I am drawing attention to the nature of experience because of your statement about how the nature of existence, or whether something exists, is an experiential matter:
Hmm, and yet I don’t see anything contradictory, or inconsistent, about the quotes of mine that you’ve provided here.
Just to clarify… I never said I am not interested in the topic of the existence or actuality of quasiparticles, particles, etc… I said I am not interested in philosophical debates about ontology and epistemology etc.
To clarify about what I mean when I talk about existence, I mean the existence that is experienced in a PCE, where you can see that the actual world actually exists - and not as an ontological or epistemological position, but rather as a plain fact - and that you do actually exist as a flesh and blood body - not as a philosophical, cognitive, reasoned-out theory or train of thought or chain of reasoning, but rather as a plain and obvious fact.
So when the topic of discussion is whether quasiparticles or particles exist or not… I am not interested in whether I personally conceive of them as existing, which, if I were to engage in such a topic, would depend upon labels, definitions, conceptualizations, and ontological positions etc. That is, I am not interested in whether they exist “for me”. Rather I am interested in whether they actually exist, period – which is a fact independent from me. And whether they actually exist, cannot, by virtue of the nature of existence itself that I am referring to here (the one that… actually exists), have anything to do with any labels, definitions, conceptualizations, ontology, etc.
Indeed, whether an electron exists does not really affect my experiencing so much - the lights stay on regardless of whether I think the electrons exist or not - and it is certainly a cognitive exercise to read these papers (I fully read every link you posted in this topic, including the entire Chapter 12 of “Why More is Different”) – but what I was getting at by saying that existence is an experiential matter, not a cognitive one, is that the answer to the question of whether electrons actually exist, cannot depend on anything thought out, any label, or definition, or any conceptualization, or an ontological position – it depends solely on whether electrons exist in the sense that existence can be ascertained apperceptively for yourself in a PCE.
You can of course say that, whether I am aware of it or not, I am tacitly assuming a definition and an ontological position – but that would be missing the mark. I assume nothing – rather I rememorate a PCE to bring the flavor of actual existence back into my awareness, such as to connect with that actual existence, and then the question is pondered and contemplated from that point onwards. It is not me that is defining or taking a position – it is the nature of the universe that it is the way it is, and I seek to allow the experience of that to happen.
So, if we look at what you quoted, the above is simply a fleshed out version of Quotes #1, #2, and #3:
As for Quote #4:
This is not contradictory to the above. It is entirely in line with it – the fact that ‘I’ do not actually exist is an experiential one, and therefore everyone who is in accordance with what is actual (be they actually free or not) agrees on this point. We are free to conceptualize the surrounding ontological matters if we want – why not? But doing so is besides the point when it comes to the topic of actual existence. They are an excess thing, something we can think about, but ultimately it doesn’t matter that much - which is what @Srinath and @geoffrey were saying, for example:
As for Quote #5:
As @solvann put it, to ponder about what sort of existence a unicorn in a dream has, it is a “step out into philosophy” – as in, we leave the realm of experiential matters and actuality, and now we enter the philosophical realm, of definitions, ontological positions, etc. In this realm, “existence” is a word that takes different meanings based on the context, the definitions used, the ontological position, etc., and so when we are in this realm, it can be said that things that are not actual (as in, experientially confirmed to exist via apperception), do exist – because of how ‘existence’ is defined. But we have already stepped into philosophy now.
There is no contradiction in my agreement with @solvann here, and what I’ve written in this thread.
As they are evidentially not contradictions – then the rest of what you write here is a non-sequitur.
Incidentally I believe this is the point at which the ball you dropped on Dec 25, 2021, turned into the “undesirable snowball” you feared it would grow into – as this is the point where you changed the topic from the content of the topic under discussion (quasiparticles and the existence or not thereof) into a topic about Claudiu’s defensiveness, close-mindedness, lack of self-awareness, lack of openness, and penchant for gish-galloping – all criticisms about Claudiu himself and his style, as opposed to a meaningful discussion.
And as you foresaw the destiny of this snowball a day before it happened, it would seem that it was already on your mind. And I genuinely wonder, why is that so? That’ll be something for you to ponder, discover, and perhaps share – which may be fruitful as then it will settle matters and we can continue having a fruitful discussion.
Until then, it might help your pondering to know that the reason I “had to add” my last two posts was, primarily, to encourage you to continue the discussion as I found what you had posted to be valuable (“Sure” - as in, I acknowledge your reluctance to continue and you have no obligation to do so if you don’t want to - “but I did appreciate the links you provided and enjoyed reading them as I understand the topic of quantum mechanics and the debate surrounding the existence of the particles and fields etc., much more thoroughly now.” - as in, expressing my appreciation of your contribution with the aim to have the conversation continue if you so desire).
And I followed this up with a clarification on an earlier point as I thought it would clarify matters - though apparently it wasn’t clarified yet, based on your following replies - but perhaps this post will succeed where my earlier ones didn’t.
If my understanding of your position is incorrect, then, of course, you will have to point that out for me to gain the correct understanding. If you are unwilling to do so, then you will be choosing not to provide me an opportunity to understand your position - which is fine, but then you cannot fault me for continuing not to understand it in all its nuance and detail .
Well, it seems to me that this post is further evidence that you just don’t notice or don’t want to notice some facts/behaviours (I didn’t want to notice a lot of things about myself throughout my life; and it may still happen); which may respond to causes different from the characteristics I pointed out (that’s why they were ventured with “ifs” and “maybes”).
But I didn’t know how to avoid referring to Claudiu himself when I think that some of his characteristics sometimes prevent a meaningful discussion with that self beyond a certain point (because I really appreciate his/your contributions). If so, there’s something “you” might be able to work on with “him” (just in case, I’m joking with the third-person because you referred to Claudio in the third-person) .
If not, so I am wrong even about having encountered/observed those facts/behaviours at length in Rick’s topic, in other topics, and now here. For example: in my view, it’s happening to you again here with Rick; and I could be wrong.
Nothing serious in either case, and nothing that we don’t all have in varying degrees in either case.
But it would be neither logical nor honest from my part to continue discussing a topic as if I did not observe those facts/behaviors.
What I could have done is not to say more than what I had already said: that I wanted to drop the ball there because I already believed that your misinterpretations (I mentioned one; I did not mention others) were due to the characteristics pointed out (or to others if I am wrong; doesn’t matter), so I thought they would reappear in successive answers regardless of my arguments (they would constitute the snowball I alluded to -and, as I said, I think they indeed showed up again in your last three posts-).
However, after that I chose to say more to go against the temptation I observed in me to keep quiet avoiding annoyances, “backlashes” in the possibility that you take those remarks as an attack, everyone thinking badly of me (damaging my “image”), convincing me it was useless, etc.
But I’m trying to follow Vineeto’s private advice about exposing myself to all this:
“the mailing list forum is the perfect place for those who practice actualism with the intent of becoming actually free as the opposition they are facing can often reflect their own doubts and fears and certainly elicits what to expect when talking to others about actualism. I understand your comment of people taking ‘a shot at someone’ but facing the notoriety of one’s peers is in my experience an essential step in becoming free from the human condition”.
(with taking ‘a shot at someone’ she refers to a comment I made to Richard by email about his mailing list, which actually said
“judging by most messages I’ve read, it’s a good place to take a shot at being ‘someone’”
telling him that in my view most of the participants were seeking and succeeding in enlarging their self through endless and mostly theoretical discussions (instead of participating with the purpose of changing their lives using AF) -I’m not saying I was right, though–
So years later I wrote her that I tried to follow her advice and expose myself to participate in Zulip,
“but without much success (Ha, Ha!), especially because I was not seduced by most of the exchanges that took place and the way they were happening (Sri’s final reaction was just one of many examples of the egos that were evidenced in most of us with more or less strength… which reminded me a lot about the contributions of many members in the Actual Freedom’s lists…)”
To which she responded in turn
“As for other people’s egos, they give you plenty of opportunity to get to know your own personality better and how your own ‘self’ operates. Enjoy the journey of exploration and choice to decline getting annoyed for instance – it is a fascinating journey”.
So then I opted to continue in Slack and here I am now trying to exposing my ideas and exposing myself to all that.
But, at the same time, trying not to play the same games that egos still want to play -and force others to play- in order to gain strength and remain in place.
Should an actualist or actually free person really have a concrete position on the makeup of the universe - especially in its aspects that are not readily discernible to the senses (e.g. subatomic particles or the extent of the cosmos)? Is there some sort of fear perhaps of actual freedom not being an absolute guarantor of knowledge?
I think we risk backing ourselves into a corner by taking rigid stances in domains of knowledge that we lack expertise in. I can’t pretend that I understand quantum physics and I doubt that anyone on here does either, with any degree of proficiency. Still it is fun to speculate and debate such things, so I’m just throwing my hat in the ring here with yet another angle.
Actual freedom showed me the truth of Haldane’s ‘the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose’ Maybe, just maybe the universe is queerer than even an actually free person can suppose.
If I am inconsistent or self-contradictory then I certainly want to know about it! I experience myself as being consistent indeed, so if I am not so then that is a good opportunity for exploration.
But the examples you gave, which I did think about thoroughly, did not appear contradictory to me at all. Rather it seemed that it was apparently contradictory at first glance, but as I thought through what I was saying it ended up that it all hung together.
I find switching to third person helps to depersonalize things at times, in a positive sense, as in, not taking it personally.
My view is that I see where Rick is coming from, yet Rick doesn’t see the point of what I’m saying – and as I already spent a lot of time on stating it, thoroughly reflecting, writing at length, etc., to elucidate that point, and it didn’t work, I don’t currently see it as productive to continue.
Certainly. But there’s no point speculating about each other’s internal states and intentions. We can agree we are on the same page of self-exploration and looking into ourselves as we communicate here. For example, I did feel attacked when I first read your reply. And I wondered, why does it bother me, what you said? So I reflected on it a lot, threw away a few drafts of replies when I thought I wasn’t bothered anymore but still was, and only sent the final draft which I wrote after I was no longer bothered indeed.
What I found is — at first it is that my identity was attacked. I identified as someone who is consistent, not self-contradictory, writes well thought-out things, etc. And it’s like look at me, I put all this effort in, only to be criticized. The key was to “take myself out of the picture”, so to speak. It’s like, ok I see this is ‘my’ identity, now what if ‘my’ identity were to “go over here” (somewhere a bit away from my head) – now I can see that ‘my identity’ is being attacked. So already I didn’t take it personally anymore, although recognizing it is my identity (not dissociating as in “this is not me”, but rather stepping out of myself for a bit), and then I was able to see that it didn’t matter if my identity is attacked – I mean, rather that it is silly.
Basically I saw it is just a lot simpler to stay in the factual realm of being connected to pure intent, sticking to facts and what happens as opposed to beliefs or identity, and reporting from my experience rather than what I conceive to be the case. Because then I can’t “go wrong”. I report what I experience, and what seems sensible - and if I make a mistake, there is no big deal, it’s easy to correct. And the general thrust is always on point. But if I speak from a place of identity then I’m just saying things I wish are true, and anything to the contrary is an attack on that. It’s just not a sensible way to be in the world.
So once this bit of identity was gone, I saw that I still wanted to reply… but couldn’t see a reason why. What point to reply if not to defend myself? Why did I still want to reply? And from here I had a nice experience of pure intent, of that realm of actual-existence hoving into view, where I saw that it would make sense if it would help you to experience what I was experiencing then – that purity of actuality. You would then see what I see, and this would be a beneficial thing for you. And this wasn’t a compassionate or empathic ‘wanting you to see it’ – it was a simple, pure, harmless, seeing of the fact that if you were to experience this too it would benefit you, and then you wouldn’t need my (or anyone else’s words) to continue seeing it. So this is what actually made the decision for me to reply.
Now after the (relative) purity of that experience faded I saw that anxiety and nervousness still crept in regarding what I was writing, anticipating your reply, etc… and this didn’t sit well with me either. I saw that I had a feeling-stake in you “getting it”. I “wanted you to get it” – in a self-centered way, as opposed to the (relatively) self-less way from the (I guess Excellence Experience) before. And this is when I saw that actually I have no obligation to “show you the way”. There is no moral duty that I have to “make you” understand… it is a free sharing. If you don’t get it then there is nothing lost - you had the opportunity and I did what I could. Without this moral requirement then there’s no need for anxiety or nervousness either.
I’m glad you said more than what you already said, as it allowed me to have the exploration I did above. I found it interesting that you had the some of the same doubts I did – fearing backlashes, not wanting it to be taken as an attack, etc.
That being said I don’t think it’s sensible to speculate on each other’s internal motivations or characteristics. Much more fun to read what the other person shares about it - then we can really know what is happening (presuming the other is sincere - which I think has been established here for the both of us).
But what does make sense is engage with what we actually write - which is why I was happy to engage with you on what was apparently contradictory about what I wrote (and less so on your speculation of my characteristics).
I think my latest post elucidated why there wasn’t a contradiction in the five quotes you posted. If you still think it’s contradictory, then it’ll require some more elucidation on your part. But to me it seems they only appear contradictory due to a lack of a full appreciation of what I’m saying and where I’m coming from.
I found it interesting we both shared similar doubts about continuing – it’s always a risky proposition, as a feeling-being, engaging another feeling-being in a conflict, as tensions can rise, be they actualists or not. But at least with actualists there is an apparently good chance of at least the tensions being resolved. It’s worked out well for me on a number of occasions, this one included.
Indeed, and the forum is a more vibrant and engaging place because of it.
Indeed. It’s always easy to stop playing the game… it’s as simple as not taking it personally, not having a personal stake in it, and staying firmly rooted in pure intent, and finding one’s way back to that pure intent when the thread of it is lost.
Well it apparently isn’t, as you disagree with Richard and Vineeto (she mentioned something to me about photons not actually existing, in an exchange I wasn’t able to locate) about the existence of subatomic particles . It is unclear if it’s a fully vs peace-on-earth free, a matter of reflecting upon the topic more, or a matter of opinion (i.e. maybe it’s not a fact that electrons aren’t actual, as Richard says, but an opinion).
Or it might be you are looking at it from an ontological perspective - as in, how can we define or conceptualize ‘existence’ and by which differing definitions can we say electrons exist - as opposed to an experiential one, as in, are electrons the same or different from the rocks, the trees, the flesh and blood body apperceptively perceived?
You already place these things in different categories - so the question is, what is it that makes you agnostic of the existence of the category different to the experiential one?
But it seems simple and not a “rigid stance” once you see it. For example, from the brief history portion of the video I initially posted, the classical theory of thermodynamics was successful, but nobody understood what a gas really ‘was’. So the kinetic theory of gas was developed, which posited three things, i.e. was founded upon three axioms (actually four, according to Wikipedia):
The application of kinetic theory to ideal gases makes the following assumptions:
The gas consists of very small particles. This smallness of their size is such that the sum of the volume of the individual gas molecules is negligible compared to the volume of the container of the gas. This is equivalent to stating that the average distance separating the gas particles is large compared to their size, and that the elapsed time of a collision between particles and the container’s wall is negligible when compared to the time between successive collisions.
The number of particles is so large that a statistical treatment of the problem is well justified. This assumption is sometimes referred to as the thermodynamic limit.
The rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with the walls of the container. All these collisions are perfectly elastic, which means the molecules are perfect hard spheres.
Except during collisions, the interactions among molecules are negligible. They exert no other forces on one another.
Following these axioms/assumptions, the math is developed, and leads to a model that accurately predicts how gases behave.
But the “fact” that the gas is made up of “very small particles” whose size is negligible compared to the volume of the container of the gas is an axiom of the theory, not an empirical result, not derived from evidence or experimentation. There is no particular reason to assume that this means that these microscopic constituents of the gas actually exist. Someone just decided to posit that they do - and developed a successful theory as a result of it… but that doesn’t mean that they do.
Clearly the gas actually exists (as experientially verified) and is made of something. But the nature of that something that actually exists, is not necessarily that of billions of “very small particles”. The “very small particles” that the kinetic theory of gases speaks of, do not actually exist. They are mathematical objects, not actual objects. There must certainly be something that actually exists that constitutes the gas in some manner, that may or may not be like small particles or like something else, but the mathematical success of the theory does not transform the ‘very small particles’ into something actual.
This is not even to mention that the “ideal gas” the theory describing is “a theoreticalgas composed of many randomly moving point particles that are not subject to interparticle interactions” – i.e. not an actually existing gas in the first place!!
There is actually no ‘stance’ being taken here, just an appreciation of the nature of the ‘very small particles’ of the theory - that they are posited to exist, and treated as mathematical objects, not something verified to exist via experimentation or observation.
And similarly for atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, phonons, quarks, etc…
Now we can take the ontological stance that, say, if we can predict the properties of a thing, therefore it exists - and therefore electrons exist as we can predict how they move, behave, interact, etc. - but that is an ontological debate, which may be fun indeed, but is besides the point when it comes to whether something actually exists.
Aye it is great fun indeed!
For example I had great fun discovering that in the double-slit experiment, the portion of the experiment where it is said that if a detector is placed on one of the slits it will ‘collapse the wavefunction’ and result in no diffraction pattern is a thought experiment, not an actual experiment, and as far as I have been able to ascertain it has never been actually performed.
It was also amazing to watch the video and read the paper of the first double-slit experiment actually performed with electrons, wherein a device was setup to fire “electrons” “one-by-one” , through a double slit, and observed the expected diffraction pattern on the other side - and of course, no diffraction pattern with one side completely blocked (which is not the same as placing a theoretical detector there). The universe truly works in very fascinating ways!
It was also interesting to read how the said electron detector (a microchannel plate detector which is basically an array of electron multipliers) actually works - which as far as I can tell is a plate with many small detectors embedded on it, each one amplifying a tiny electric charge into a larger electric charge that can then be picked up by another device.
Anyway it is fun indeed, and having an opinion on this is not a prerequisite to become actually free, obviously, so I like to read about it and see how things work, for myself, from what I can gather of experiments actually performed.
Yes, and from our position we have no sure way to judge, other than from repeated experiments / intimacy with whatever relevant facts can be tangibly contacted.
From stability, consistency, constancy, many-points of contact, experience is developed which serves as confirmation of sorts.
It’s still different from the sort of direct sensory-experience we get from our eyes, tongue, fingertips. Apperception is what the actual experience consists of.
Apperception provides apperceptively-experienced facts-of-the matter, but there is still a huge amount of the universe which consists of things we can’t quite see or recognize. I don’t see any contradiction in that.
We get a slight clue that ‘something is going on,’ but we don’t know what. Perhaps similar to seeing a distant plume of smoke or gas. Are there humans over there? A forest fire? A dragon?
What I have seen many times in myself and others is a felt need to ‘over-reach’ into a certainty that just isn’t there. It’s an aspect of fantasization/reality.
It’s a good model but I don’t believe it’s accurate. Yet it might be.
It’s a bad model so I highly doubt it’s accurate. Yet it might be.
Those seem like the only two reasonable takes. There are other unreasonable ones like:
It’s a great model so it must be accurate.
It’s a shitty model so it can’t possibly be accurate.
It’s not a model. We can deduce these things are real through a series of tests.
As long as there isn’t an alternative explanation that works just as good or better then saying the current model is inaccurate (or accurate) is a belief. Heck, even if there are alternative models that work much better, saying something to be totally false is a belief. Eg, Persephone returning from the underworld each March warms up the northern hemisphere. It’s a shitty theory. And I don’t believe it. Yet I don’t believe it to be false either. What I know for a fact is that it’s a shitty theory. And we have a much better one to use.
Ftr, I agree with Claudiu. I think it’s a bad model. Obviously it’s far superior to the Persephone model but I agree with Claudiu that it rests on assumptions which have never been tested. Using it to predict things isn’t a test. It’s only a test of how useful the model is. Didn’t Newtons laws predict everything until Mercury was discovered?
But particles are explained as something tangible unlike laws of motion. And if we can’t repeatedly verify a tangible thing with our own senses then we can’t be sure. And on this point I agree with Miguel. What counts as verification? Do telescopes count? Do electron microscopes count? Does sprinkling dust over where we think they should be count? In this gray area where Claudiu and Miguel are arguing whether these particles have been verified or not, I have no idea. I merely suspect they have not. Mainly, because it’s too early in the game.
But the kinetic theory of gases doesn’t say anything about whether they do exist. It says IF we model a gas as billions of tiny, perfectly hard spheres… THEN we expect the gas to behave like this… and then we observe that a gas does behave that way. This means the model is predictive and accurate. It doesn’t mean the gas actually is composed of billions of tiny, perfectly hard spheres.
The theory may be accurate or inaccurate, as in it might be predictive or not… but not matter how accurate, it doesn’t show that the axioms are what actuality is.
For example, one can model traffic flow (as in cars driving on roads) as a fluid:
If one looks into traffic flow from a very long distance, the flow of fairly heavy traffic appears like a stream of a fluid. Therefore, a macroscopic theory of traffic can be developed with the help of hydrodynamic theory of fluids by considering traffic as an effectively one-dimensional compressible fluid. Traffic Flow Modeling Analogies
Now let’s presume this model of traffic flow is predictive. By your logic, by default we would therefore have to assume that traffic actually is a stream of fluid - specifically, a one-dimensional compressible fluid.
Which, of course, it isn’t. Traffic is essentially “many cars on a road”. This doesn’t mean the model is wrong, and nor did the model ever say that traffic was a one-dimensional compressible fluid. Rather it said that IF we model traffic like this… THEN we expect this behavior… and then we see if it is accurate or not.
A model is just that, a model. A model is not actuality.
This didn’t really 100% completely fully click for me until writing my post to Srinath explaining the argument that Richard made about subatomic particles, via the kinetic theory of gases instead. It is really very simple and again does not appear to be a stance at all, be it rigid or otherwise.
Further if you dig into it and read what the scientists themselves write, they disagree on whether electrons and other subatomic particles actually exist, are just mathematical models, are actually fields, are actually something else, etc. If it were a fact that they exist then this fact would be plainly available and open for everyone to see, just like other facts are. That there are still debates about it today indicates that it isn’t a fact indeed. It is just presented as a fact to the populace, for whatever reason.
I think this is an artifact of how scientists are made into an another authority, and the things authorities say are imbibed as beliefs, taken as facts, whether or not the ‘authority’ themselves take it as facts or not.
It’s inherent to ‘selves’ to look for / create authorities who know everything and can explain everything
I agree. However, I simply can’t shut out the possibility the model happens to be an accurate description of things. I do find it unlikely. And we may never know. There are other models that may have been recently verified to be an accurate description of things. The model that has the wobble of stars being caused by an orbiting planets gravitational pull has been strengthened with actual images taken by telescopes. The theory of DNA was just a model but recently a double helix protein chain was photographed by an electron microscope. I’m not sure if electron microscopes are reliable or not. I’m not sure if these telescope observations are reliable. A discussion on the matter would be appreciated. But the articles always say “Scientist find another planet.” “Scientist photograph DNA.” Nothing about models. Nothing about how reliable this new generation of equipment is.
My guess is that the theories of double helix protein chains and planets causing stars to wobble are on firmer ground than the theory that subatomic particles are responsible for certain observations. You do a good job of explaining how that model rests on an unverified assumption.
The nature of experience itself is that we can never genuinely know ‘directly.’
The closest we can come is actual experiencing, wherein there is not interrupting ‘being’ in the way of senses and thoughts.
But any kind of causality is always a best-guess. There are always layers of sub-layers of details of unknowns and surprises… as we have already seen as science has matured.
What we get in freedom is apperception - the mind’s uninterrupted experiencing of itself.
This still doesn’t tell us everything about how everything works, there’s a reason Srinath doesn’t say anything about what quantum mechanics are or aren’t above.
The reason Richard is willing to make statements about such things is that he researched to an insane degree. The man moved to India and taught himself Pali for the sake of understanding the teachings of the Buddha more clearly (by way of example).
And even with that it isn’t the same as ‘genuinely knowing,’ directly, all the machinations of the universe… Richard doesn’t claim to have that ability. What he claims is, clear experiencing aka apperception.
• [Richard]: ‘(…) it has to be experienced, as a flesh and blood body only (as in here in this actual world) in order to understand how things operate in actuality. And, just as stone-age natives thought of cameras/ photographs as ‘magic’ boxes/ ‘magic’ pictures (and not as the readily explicable technology it is) so too is the way in which things can operate here quite ‘magical’. [07 January 2010].
In other words, just as it took millennia for humankind collectively to comprehend heliocentricity, for instance, so too may it be ages before the way things operate in actuality – how things function here in this actual world – be properly examined, be hypothesised about, be rigorously tested and, thus, explained in such a manner that the word ‘magical’ (as in ‘magic’ boxes/ ‘magic’ pictures) need never be utilised again’.
In that brief scintillating instant of bare awareness, that twinkling sensorium-moment of consciousness being conscious of being consciousness, one apperceives a thing as a nothing-in-particular that is being naught but what-it-is coming from nowhen and going nowhere at all. Apperceptiveness is very much like what one sees with one’s peripheral vision as opposed to the intent focus of normal or central vision. One experiences a smoothly flowing moment of clear experiencing where one is interlocked with the rest of actuality, not separate from it. This moment of soft, ungathered sensuosity – apperceptiveness – contains a vast understanding, an utter cognisance, that is lost as soon as one adjusts one’s mind to accommodate the feeling-tone … and subverts the crystal-clear objectivity into an ontological ‘being’ … a connotative ‘thing-in-itself’. In the process of ordinary perception, the apperceptiveness step is so fleeting as to be usually unobservable. One has developed the habit of squandering one’s attention on all the remaining steps: feeling the percept, emotionally recognising the qualia, zealously adopting the perception and getting involved in a long string of representative feeling-notions about it. When the original moment of apperceptiveness is rapidly passed over it is the purpose of ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ to accustom one to prolong that moment of apperceptiveness – a sensuous awareness bereft of feeling content – so that uninterrupted apperception can eventuate.
.
.
I find switching to third person helps to depersonalize things at times, in a positive sense, as in, not taking it personally.