Great stuff! Have you considered exploring any non-dual approaches to the mind body problem? Would be amazing to see a guest like Swami Savrapriyananda on your podcast.
What is wrong with dualism? We have a monistic universe, most agree, but to analyse it we need to make cuts/categorise things out into things. The mental / physical distinction is incredibly practical and useful, philosophically there doesn't need to be any inate or fundamental distinction, but to generate knowledge, do science etc, the distinction appears to be very well baked in.
@@bradmodd7856 That is a great question. In my amateur opinion i would say that dualism could have limitations in bridging the gap of the hard problem of consciousness. The separation of mind and matter leaves two substances, that while they can be correlated - they cannot be equated. Non-dual philosophy is not useful for deciphering how the brain may produce consciousness, it is more about the position that consciousness is the irreducible foundation of reality that all facets of existence appear in.
@@rbudhai Mr. Vishvarupa (AKA Swami Sarvapriyananda) is undoubtedly a VERY intelligent man, but the fact that he supports the three most pernicious institutions in the history of the earth (democracy, feminism, and carnism), says much about his true moral character: F.I.S.H. Paragraph 28. Feminism is the penultimate evil at present because feminism is based on the misguided assumption that women are equal to or even superior to men. Although a female can exhibit superior traits, skills, etcetera, to some men, a woman can never have AUTHORITY over a man. Truth be told, no true man would ever descend to the level of accepting counsel from any of his subordinates. A man should fully obey his appointed masters and never emasculate himself by submitting to the dictates of a female. Feminism and democracy are guaranteed to destroy society, as can be clearly seen at present. However, feminism will NEVER EVER be destroyed until the most pernicious institution is first destroyed: F.I.S.H Paragraph 26. Democracy is evil because the masses will invariably choose the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus. This planet is surely doomed unless the most pernicious institution ever known to man (democracy) is replaced by the only legitimate form of government (monarchy - preferably a good monarch, though even a bad king is preferable to being ruled by an elected official who can never be good). Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon, since it is the government’s role and sacred duty to enforce the law. Just because good and bad are relative, does not imply that they do not exist. They do exist but are relative. A democrat can never be good, despite appearing so. One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, communism and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to attempt to control or at least influence the personal lives of every single citizen. For example, in the wicked, decadent nation where this holy scripture was composed, The Southland (or Australia as it is known in the Latin tongue), the demonic government tries and largely succeeds in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not) and even trying to influence what people eat and wear. Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are modestly dressed, which is hardly the case in Australia and similar nations. Basically, the worst of the democratic governments promote or at least permit all things contrary to God’s perfect and pure will such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, gambling (even running lotteries themselves), illegitimate abortion of poor innocent unborn children, irreligion, drug addiction, disrespect for authority and promoting materialism and ignorance via a powerful network of institutions of miseducation (so-called “schools, colleges and universities”). Let it be known however - democracy can not and will not endure. The truth shall triumph! Democracy is only acceptable within large business corporations, where the shareholders must vote on who will be the company bosses and other matters. To read the remaining chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most accurate spiritual precepts so far in human history, Email me with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟 “The gateway to KNOWLEDGE is ignorance”. 🤓
24:45 -- he used to 'believe' in determinism, but he looks back on that as "intellectual m*sturbation", and "it's not the world we live in." (???) "it's... uh, you know... you have to make decisions and uh, you have to confront multiple possibilities." (begging the question) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? i'm baffled at such ludicrous mental gymnastics and intellectually dishonest weaseling. what even does that mean??? he's dismissing causal/acausal determinism due to what? vibes? wth??? 'uh, you know, uh, we have to eat cakes and uh, that's just the world we live in, it's uh, you have to choose cakes and i find lemon cake delicious, so lemon cake has the objective property of deliciousness' level of reasoning there. outrageously ridiculous mental gymnastics.
the kind of demure, disarming softness and consistent relaxed manner in which he presents his BS mental gymnastics is reminiscent of charismatic cult leaders. i'm shocked at how he weasels out from determinism, when it's truly simple. every event is either causally determined by at least one other event, ot random (unexplained, brute occurrence). but that is "not the world we live in." ??????????? so what kind of world is he living in? (if he's just referring to vibes and introspective phenomenology, fine, but that's not clear as he repeatedly dismisses determinism as obsolete (???) without offering any empirical motivation.)
@@real_pattern 🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: INTRODUCTORY PREMISE: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This lesson is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are “spiritually” enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. STANDARD DEFINITIONS: Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is rather misleading, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know. So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! FREEDOM OF CHOICE: The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph). ACADEMIC STUDIES: University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE: If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will. Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I resolved to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!! Cont...
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Great stuff! Have you considered exploring any non-dual approaches to the mind body problem? Would be amazing to see a guest like Swami Savrapriyananda on your podcast.
Thank you! I've tried making contact with him or his team with no success. I'd be delighted to host him - hopefully our paths will cross soon.
What is wrong with dualism? We have a monistic universe, most agree, but to analyse it we need to make cuts/categorise things out into things. The mental / physical distinction is incredibly practical and useful, philosophically there doesn't need to be any inate or fundamental distinction, but to generate knowledge, do science etc, the distinction appears to be very well baked in.
@@bradmodd7856 That is a great question. In my amateur opinion i would say that dualism could have limitations in bridging the gap of the hard problem of consciousness. The separation of mind and matter leaves two substances, that while they can be correlated - they cannot be equated. Non-dual philosophy is not useful for deciphering how the brain may produce consciousness, it is more about the position that consciousness is the irreducible foundation of reality that all facets of existence appear in.
@@rbudhai
Mr. Vishvarupa (AKA Swami Sarvapriyananda) is undoubtedly a VERY intelligent man, but the fact that he supports the three most pernicious institutions in the history of the earth (democracy, feminism, and carnism), says much about his true moral character:
F.I.S.H. Paragraph 28. Feminism is the penultimate evil at present because feminism is based on the misguided assumption that women are equal to or even superior to men. Although a female can exhibit superior traits, skills, etcetera, to some men, a woman can never have AUTHORITY over a man. Truth be told, no true man would ever descend to the level of accepting counsel from any of his subordinates. A man should fully obey his appointed masters and never emasculate himself by submitting to the dictates of a female. Feminism and democracy are guaranteed to destroy society, as can be clearly seen at present.
However, feminism will NEVER EVER be destroyed until the most pernicious institution is first destroyed:
F.I.S.H Paragraph 26. Democracy is evil because the masses will invariably choose the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus. This planet is surely doomed unless the most pernicious institution ever known to man (democracy) is replaced by the only legitimate form of government (monarchy - preferably a good monarch, though even a bad king is preferable to being ruled by an elected official who can never be good). Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon, since it is the government’s role and sacred duty to enforce the law. Just because good and bad are relative, does not imply that they do not exist. They do exist but are relative. A democrat can never be good, despite appearing so.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, communism and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to attempt to control or at least influence the personal lives of every single citizen.
For example, in the wicked, decadent nation where this holy scripture was composed, The Southland (or Australia as it is known in the Latin tongue), the demonic government tries and largely succeeds in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not) and even trying to influence what people eat and wear. Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are modestly dressed, which is hardly the case in Australia and similar nations. Basically, the worst of the democratic governments promote or at least permit all things contrary to God’s perfect and pure will such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, gambling (even running lotteries themselves), illegitimate abortion of poor innocent unborn children, irreligion, drug addiction, disrespect for authority and promoting materialism and ignorance via a powerful network of institutions of miseducation (so-called “schools, colleges and universities”).
Let it be known however - democracy can not and will not endure. The truth shall triumph!
Democracy is only acceptable within large business corporations, where the shareholders must vote on who will be the company bosses and other matters.
To read the remaining chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most accurate spiritual precepts so far in human history, Email me with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
🐟
“The gateway to KNOWLEDGE is ignorance”. 🤓
24:45 -- he used to 'believe' in determinism, but he looks back on that as "intellectual m*sturbation", and "it's not the world we live in." (???)
"it's... uh, you know... you have to make decisions and uh, you have to confront multiple possibilities." (begging the question)
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
i'm baffled at such ludicrous mental gymnastics and intellectually dishonest weaseling. what even does that mean??? he's dismissing causal/acausal determinism due to what? vibes? wth???
'uh, you know, uh, we have to eat cakes and uh, that's just the world we live in, it's uh, you have to choose cakes and i find lemon cake delicious, so lemon cake has the objective property of deliciousness' level of reasoning there. outrageously ridiculous mental gymnastics.
the kind of demure, disarming softness and consistent relaxed manner in which he presents his BS mental gymnastics is reminiscent of charismatic cult leaders. i'm shocked at how he weasels out from determinism, when it's truly simple.
every event is either causally determined by at least one other event, ot random (unexplained, brute occurrence). but that is "not the world we live in." ??????????? so what kind of world is he living in? (if he's just referring to vibes and introspective phenomenology, fine, but that's not clear as he repeatedly dismisses determinism as obsolete (???) without offering any empirical motivation.)
@@real_pattern
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
INTRODUCTORY PREMISE:
Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu.
This lesson is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are “spiritually” enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
STANDARD DEFINITIONS:
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is rather misleading, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know.
So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical!
FREEDOM OF CHOICE:
The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts.
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control.
At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph).
ACADEMIC STUDIES:
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established.
RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE:
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc.
True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will.
Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I resolved to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!!
Cont...