PeterJ

I find the talk of randomness and probability in relation to the primes very difficult since they are such slippery words. I think you're right that arguments start because people use them in different ways. I'd prefer to say that primes are difficult to calculate so it is often practical and convenient to treat them as being probabilistic. We're not talking decaying protons. It certainly would seem odd to say that that the primes are in fact probabilistic, since this would suggest that the products of the primes are unpredictable in detail. .

Amazing? How so?

Okay. I know when I'm beat. Once again I leave this forum in despair. It is as if it is bewitched. Whatever, I cannot cope.

Thanks Lightmeow. You saved me saying the same. As a staunch supporter of logic and analysis I cannot recognise Tar's complaint here. The only thing I am arguing for is doing justice to theories before dismissing them. If we want to do some logic though, here's some. The theory that underlies karma is a neutral metaphysical position. This states that all positive or partial metaphysical theories are false. It cannot be demonstrated that they are false, but it can be demonstrated that they give rise to contradictions and must be judged absurd. This would explain why philosophers are unable to make any of them work despite a few millennia of trying. .We see this when Kant writes, 'All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable'. It is not possible to decide between two absurd theories. This is all about logic and little else. As I have said already, while logic endorses the theory that underpins karma it appears to leave the question of karma open as a 'lemma'. It is not demonstrably absurd, but nor is it an ineluctable consequence of a neutral metaphysic. So I wouldn't want to argue about karma other than to note that it is not what Tar thinks it is. .

What question was that?

Yes, that's probably the best thing. I have no idea how to proceed under the circumstances.

Sorry, Tar, but I don't intend to spend time explaining anything. It would be a waste of my time when all the information is readily available. Not readily comprehensible, maybe, but I can't help much with that. All I'm trying to do is convince you that you don't know enough about the topic to have a reliable opinion, so are in danger of making mistakes. My apologies for the third-person comments. I shouldn't do that. Alan - I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't discuss anything. I was suggesting that as this is a quite academic site when we do discuss something it should be as a good philosopher or scientist might. "There is a road that seems right to man, but the end thereof is death. " Yes, This is the karmic road. To overcome karma would be to overcome death. This would be the answer to Tar's question. We are an individual and subject to karma until we realise that we are not and learn how to escape. So, there are individuals and there are not, depending on how we look at it. For the theory of karma we would need to become familiar with the Buddhist doctrine two worlds and two truths, the conventional and the ultimate.

Alan - The idea of having to post a link to show that the Buddha did not teach reincarnation is exactly my complaint. This is a science forum and the topic is reincarnation and everybody has an opinion. How on earth would it be possible for it not to be well known here what the Buddha taught on the topic? I was objecting the use of the words, since rebirth is better, but I did at least assume that those expressing their opinions had got as far as Wikki.

Yes. The Buddha did not teach reincarnation. As I've been trying to point out for a while.

Sorry Tar, but I cannot figure out what to say to you. I just cannot see where you're coming from. Yes. metaphysically speaking there is no such thing as an individual. Indeed, nothing really exists. Did you know that the claim that nothing really exists is part of the theory of karma? From here it looks like you simply don't understand the theory since your objections are wide of the mark.

Well, here's the thing. It would be impossible for anyone to prove the truth of karma to you. The only way to be sure would be 'empirically', by direct experience of the nature of reality. This is why arguing about the truth of karma is largely a waste of time. It would be possible, however, to investigate whether karma can be refuted in logic or whether it would contradict any known facts. Philosophy is permanently unable to establish what is true or false about reality, it can only tell us what would be most sensible to believe. To establish what is actually true would require more than logic, as Aristotle is careful to note. This is a dangerous thing for a philosopher to forget. The philosophical question is not whether karma is true of false but whether it can be falsified, whether it solves any problems, whether it explains anything and so on. I have no argument at all for its truth or falsity but I do know that it is an extremely subtle theory that cannot be understood easily. I do happen to believe that it is basic principle of the Cosmos, but that's a belief and I wouldn't expect anyone else to take any notice of it. Our beliefs are irrelevant to anything. What is relevant is the framework theory within which karma sits, because this can be investigated in logic and science. Logic can demonstrate that it works and that no other theory does. The wider theory has many names but it is commonly nondualism. It translates into metaphysics as a neutral metaphysical position. Unless this general theory is understood then there's not much point in discussing karma because it would be impossible to make any sense of it. I hope it's becoming obvious that I'm not arguing against anybody's particular view here, but just for remaining dispassionate and open-minded and giving every idea its due attention before dismissing or endorsing it. Otherwise discussions go round and round in circles, unable to break out of the constraints of our unexamined assumptions. dimreeper - I thought you'd be able to find my blog. I won't be thanked for writing a million words here. Or you could simply could google 'nondualism'. If you google 'neutral metaphysical position' you'll probably find my dissertation on the topic. For a physicist writing on nondualism you could check out Ulrich Mohrhoff. Erwin Schrodinger endorsed it for the last forty years of his life and wrote extensively. It's very well known and is the oldest cosmological scheme on record. It isn't well known in the sciences or academic philosophy, but I believe that this is changing, possibly thanks to the internet.

So, it seems we're going to deny that there are such things as facts. It would follow that the falsity of the theory of karma is not a fact. All very confusing. I can only keep repeating that karma can make no sense with no grasp of the wider theory. It's like trying to discuss non-locality armed with no knowledge of quantum mechanics and no familiarity with the data. Good fun but hardly likely to be useful.

John - You asked - "On a scientific site what does this thread bring to the party?" I would ask the same. It's not the topic that is the problem, Any topic can be discussed 'scientifically', thus with rigour and care for the facts etc.. But this is not what is happening here. So yes, I'd ask the same question. What is the point of discussing a topic with so little effort to do it justice? Might as well chat about the weather. So far I haven't seen a description of karma that is accurate, let alone any attempt to address the question of whether it is 'logical' and survives philosophical analysis. Perhaps the dictionary entry for the 'Principle of Charity' could be made a sticky for philosophy discussions. Mods?

There you go, dimreeper, my point is made. Nothing even changes around here. Utterly pointless to get involved.

I will continue to be obdurate. I am suggesting that we should not take decisions in philosophy until we have understood the issues. I have no intenton of altering this view. From here it appears that Tar is a visitor from another planet, and I really don't know what to say to the latest post. It demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and a great deal of confusion mingled with an assortment of bold statements and confident assertions that no real philosopher would make. I'm trying to do the guy a favour. But no matter. .

Oh hell Tar. Do you not see that your comments are painfully naive? It is quite easy to define the difference between science ands mysticism. Any good dictionary will show you how to do this. As for all your questions, I'd suggest you try to answer them. All the information is available, I haven't made a strawman argument because I haven't made an argument. I'm just trying to get you to admit this is a topic about which you know nothing. This would be a necessary precursor to learning something about it. But you don't want to do this, and this Is why it; would be daft for me to continue corresponding. As I have said previously, it is no use trying to make sense of karma with no knowledge of the general theory within which it sits. I have no interest in arguing for or against karma. I'm suggesting that you learn what the theory is before forming an opinion. It's called research, and it contrasts with plucking ones views out of a hat.

Ha. Good question. If I believed you were interested I'd answer it. I used to think people were searching for answers but I have learnt that most people know them all already. Tar thinks that western philosophy is a success. What is one to say? If it's all sorted then no need for me to waste anybody's time. You guys just assume I'm talking nonsense and I doubt I'll ever convince you otherwise, so I'll be off. Metaphysics required careful logical analysis, not a lot of opinions wafted about.

I appreciate what you're saying. dimreeper, but I can't just force myself on Tar. We've spoken many time before. He shows no interest and I don't feel any need to start an argument. Starting arguments used to be my tactic for generating interest but it's too tiring. For a person to be interested in a solution they first have the realise that there's a problem.

Tar - I cannot penetrate your defences. There's not even a crack to let the light shine in. You say that western philosophy is a success despite the fact that it has made no progress in two thousand years, so I must assume you are happy with simply not having a clue about it. Fair enough. Not everybody is curious. But I have nothing of any interest to say in this situation. I've never seen such a head in the sand approach.

Nice one Alan. Tar - Please be careful with the words. I did not say that the last 2000 years of western civilisation was a failure. It is the western approach to philosophy that has always failed. Mind you. when Ghandi was asked what he thought of western civilisation he replied, "Yes, that would be a good idea". .

Well, it's no use asking me to show you the research when it's all out there and you don't want to read it. And if you had read my blog (or a dictionary) you'd know that metaphysics and mysticism are utterly different things. I've made no attempt to convince you. btw., I'm just pointing out that your view takes no account of the facts. How would you explain the utter failure of western philosophy? Do you not think it might be something to do with looking at things in the wrong way? Do you want to see another two millennia of failure? Do you not find it all completely boring and pointless? The modern academic philosopher is so useless that some scientists are calling for the abolition of philosophy. This the state it is in. Yet you buy into it hook line and sinker. As an ex-CEO I have no time for this everlasting doodling about. Get the problems solved and move on would be my approach. As for the idea that we should stick to ideas that work, this is the approach I'm recommending in the face of your determination to endorse ideas that never have worked. I feel that the neuroscientists have taken you in. Best to ignore their nonsense unless you want to be stuck in the same rut going nowhere. But this is all a bit daft. If you are going to reject ideas on the basis of assumptions and absent any attempt to grasp what they actually are then we'd best leave this.

Okay Tar. Occasionally I have a go at changing your mind but you always know too much already. You seem determined to misunderstand mysticism even if it means never reading anything, If this sounds rude I'm sorry but from here it seems to be the case. I won't labour the point here since I talk it to death on my blog. It can be demonstrated that only one metaphysical solution works, but not everyone wants it to work and it is ignored. So round and round we go getting nowhere. I don't want to play that pointless game for another thousand years. You sum up your view so, "Mystic things are magic things that only live in people's minds." And you expect to be taken seriously? Not by me. This sort of approach is what I call anti-intellectualism. Unless you mean that everything is in our mind, which I could go along with. Then everything is 'mystic'. But in fact you seem to be muddling up the different meanings of the word. No matter. I know when I'm beat. .

Tar - I think it is sad that you close yourself off from one entire area of life and study by pre-judging the issues. I really do think it's better to grasp an idea and then dismiss it, if it has to be dismissed, rather than the other way around. But then you do say you're a bit weird in this respect. I would not say weird but anti-intellectual. You just don't want to think about these things. Not weird at all but bang in line with the current fashion for adopting metaphysical views with no examination. If you cannot see why I would use the words 'mysticism' and 'research' in the same sentence then this explains a lot about your views. I expect you believe they are 'scientific' even though they are plucked out of thin air. I don't want to argue with you because you've made up your mind, but I would want to point out that you don't have the slightest idea of whether there is any truth in karma, rebirth or more generally the perennial philosophy. You have simply decided that the books aren't worth reading and the practice would be useless. This makes any comments I might make equally useless. But why? Why would you not bother to find out what you're opposing before opposing it? A science forum member would surely be expected to be interested in these things, not to simply waive them away. Do you think that I am mad? I suppose you must. Decades of research, dissertations, proofs and formal arguments and I've got it all wrong, no research at all and little thought and you've got it all right! What are the chances? Don't you ever wonder why stereotypically 'western' philosophers cannot make any progress in metaphysics? Compete stagnation for twenty centuries. How would you explain this? Blind stupidity? Or is it possible that they are missing something because they have pre-judged the issues? Faced with this fait accompli there's little I can say.

Okay. You have your opinions. Still, I'd suggest looking into this properly and replacing those opinions with research results. The idea that karma is a conjecture not grounded in experience is clearly absurd since nothing at all is endorsed by mysticism unless it derives from direct experience. Conjectures are a waste of time. Of course, you don't have to believe it. But it's no use misrepresenting an idea and then arguing against it. I feel that you wildly underestimate the intelligence and honesty of the people who investigate these things, as well as failing to read what they say. This a bit weird since you clearly have a real interest.

Yes, well, this is why it's a difficult idea to grasp. You use the phrase 'operationally true' and it's a good one. Freewill would be operationally true but metaphysically meaningless. This would be one of the hardest aspects of mysticism to get to grips with. Perhaps googling 'Wu Wei' or 'non-action' as it appears in Taoism might turn up some explanations. It is a view that reduces the freewill-determinism contradiction. Even in western philosophy 'compatatibilism' is the most popular solution for freewill, and this would be a form of compatabilism.