How to determine the reality of mystical experiences?

[Doctordick]

Thus we must conclude from these simple facts that it is not my solution, but your "explanation" of my solution, that is meaningless, and since you cannot derive a logical argument against my explanation, one is left to conclude that my explanation "can not be interpreted in a manner which makes it a solution to" your equation, and thus your model is falsified.

I repeat, I never made the first claim about "deriving" any explanations of anything or any "refutations" of any explanations. The issue here is "interpreting" your explanation. The interpretation that your posts are no more than a collection of words thrown together for the fun of it is a perfectly consistent explanation of your posts.

The issue of my proof is what can be deduced from the information available. If an explanation of the information available is to be internally consistent, there must exist an interpretation of that information which satisfies my equation. It is perfectly clear that you do not understand that sentence.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Rade]

... If an explanation of the information available is to be internally consistent, there must exist an interpretation of that information which satisfies my equation...

Let us look symbolically at your argument above.

1. Let A = an explanation of a thing
2. From Webster Unabridged we find that A = "the act of ...interpretation"
3. Let C = information available for a thing
4. Let D = rule that A be internally consistent
5. Let E = rule that there exists an A as an act of interpretation of C
6. Let F = your equation is satisfied

Symbolically, your argument is thus reduced to:

If A of C = D
Then E of C = F

Now, since it is always true that for any thing with C then A = E,
your argument becomes

If D, then F

Thus your argument simply informs that any A which is internally consistent satisfies your equation. But, it is internally consistent that not D (~ D) may be internally consistent, thus D = ~ D. Thus your argument is reduced to:

If D, then F
If ~ D, then F

And since your argument reduces to a contradiction, your model is falsified.

 

[Rade]

...The issue here is "interpreting" your explanation. The interpretation that your posts are no more than a collection of words thrown together for the fun of it is a perfectly consistent explanation of your posts.

The logical flaw of your argument here is your mis-use of the words "interpretation" and "explanation"--they represent the same concept as shown below, where A = B:

A = The interpretation that your posts are no more than a collection of words thrown together for the fun of it is a perfectly consistent explanation of your posts.

B = The explanation that your posts are no more than a collection of words thrown together for the fun of it is a perfectly consistent interpretation of your posts.

Since your model (and equation) are formed by a flawed use of the two terms (interpretation & explanation), your model (and equation) are not derived from a logically valid argument, and thus are falsified.

 

[Doctordick]

Rade, do you really think that deserves a response?

Dick

 

[Mickey]

I hope this thread wasn't under so long that I can't bring it back. PIT2 linked to it in another thread.

"Determining the reality" of whatever is not, in my opinion, a very honest way to approach any problem. It assumes too much and is intellectually stuffy with bravado on what reality is when we're still not finished learning about it yet. We do not determine the reality of theories or claims. We only determine how and when they agree or don't agree with observation.

Consider the claim, "I can fly." Well, I have been able to determine that this claim agrees with my observations when I have the assistance of a flying machine and/or when I'm dreaming. The assistance of a flying machine in dreams is apparently unnecessary, but it agrees with my claim nonetheless. Therefore, the honest approach is for me not to agree that I can or can't fly, but to recognize that the claim fits these special cases.

If you have experiences that interest you and wish to have them again, first, recognize the cases and conditions under which you have already had them. Then proceed to explore those conditions and, if possible, follow leads to other conditions, using your discretion.

Make careful notes, wash, rinse, and repeat.

 

[Eric England]

Rade, do you really think that deserves a response?

It must have, since you responded.

I can understand your frustration (believe me), but there are two glaring insufficiencies in your approach.

If an explanation of the information available is to be internally consistent, there must exist an interpretation of that information which satisfies my equation.

What exactly is the "interpretation" that satisfies your equation? Unless I'm mistaken about the scope and intent of your findings, doesn't your equation have to satisfy interpretation(s)?

The other insufficiency in your approach, in my opinion, is your attitude. A useful finding is not created by us, it is discovered by us in a spirit of humility.

I am humbly working with Paul and Canute (primarily) in the thread Canute was gracious enough to have started, regarding your findings.

You wish (and rightfully so) to have them well-considered and that is what you are getting. If you think that your findings are above our heads, then you shouldn't take any of us seriously, should you?

Your have the right to post, but you also have the responsibility to consicely respond to others (or not respond at all). The English language is not a vague and relatively useless methodology. It can be used that way, but that is user-error only.

As for it all boiling down to mathematics, what exactly have you establised that is rightfully beyond the pale of pre-existent findinigs? In addition, what perspective do you have to offer, that shows that mathematics is the "big box" that contains physics, philosophy, and religion?

I think these questions are concise and deserve a concise response. I will concisely resopond to your comments. If the answer is "I don't know", let's talk about that as well.