What is Enlightenment?


#141

And stop conflating science and technology :stuck_out_tongue:

They are not the same thing

Technology:

World English Dictionary
technology (tɛkˈnɒlədʒɪ)

— n , pl -gies

  1. the application of practical sciences to industry or commerce
  2. the methods, theory, and practices governing such application: a highly developed technology
  3. the total knowledge and skills available to any human society for industry, art, science, etc

[C17: from Greek tekhnologia systematic treatment, from tekhnē art, skill]

Science

the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms
2. the knowledge so obtained or the practice of obtaining it
3. any particular branch of this knowledge: the pure and applied sciences
4. any body of knowledge organized in a systematic manner
5. skill or technique
6. archaic knowledge

[C14: via Old French from Latin scientia knowledge, from scīre to know]

Now compare and contrast and it will become apparent that science is about knowledge and technology is about techniques, applications and methods.

Knowledge can come from any means. Through direct observation and measurement, reliable testimony, phenomenmology, logical reasoning and intuition.

We had found technologies like batteries in Baghdad, equivalent to the volta cell. Does this mean the ancients people of Baghdad knew how it worked? Probably not. So they had a technology that was more than a 1000 years in advance, without knowing the science. Similarly, you can have a science 1000 years in advance, without having a technology.

How one applies a science is very specific to the culture. Your application depends on your needs, interpretations and values. It is perfectly conceivable that there are a people in this universe who know about nuclear energy but never made a nuclear bomb.

Now coming to mathematical formalism. Do you know where this tradition first originated? The greeks my friend. The Greeks developed deductive logic which is based on axioms and deriving from axioms statements and definitions and giving proof. You can derive a proof only from your assumptions. As a mathematican you must be aware of Godel’s theorem of incompleteness - Godel proved that no mathematical proofs were actually absolute, because the assumptions themselves were in need of proof. Giving proofs and formulas is a very distinctly Western cultural tradition. In medieval Europe evolved the tradition of giving mathematical proofs for physics, because of the dogma that this was a perfect clockwork universe created by god. Later, Descartes solidified this by asserting mathematics was the language of god and that everything had to be spoken in this language.

Hindus never gave proofs. Even if you read the mathematical content it often occurs in texts on astronomy, most of them are written in verse form. In fact Hindus were very stringent when it came to writing. They wrote very tersely, gave no explanations or elaborations. This is clear if you read the Sutra literature, very complex subjects are dealt with with just 100-200 sutras. The entire grammar of Sanskrit is constructed in 3000 sutras.

Why was this the case? Well it can be traced to our own tradition which was an oral tradition before it was a written tradition. It was believed that hearing something directly rather than reading it had more power within it. Even today Hindus don’t actually like reading all that much - they were rather just go and listen to a katha(story) or watch a play or drama. It was believed that when something was written down it lost some of its potency. Later on, when writing became more popular, even then Hindus were very economical. Some of the Upanishads are only like a 1-2 pages long.

If you watch modern day discourses by Hindu gurus you will see the same theme. They will begin a discourse with just one statement, and then will give you 1-3 hour discourse on just one statement. As sutras are highly concentrated and condensed statements with each word requiring paragraphs of explanation, you could probably hold a 1 hour discourse on just one sutra :smiley: If you read the Vaiseshika sutras, there are at most 60 sutras per book and each book is divided into two sections. When students use to study Vaiseshika they would study only 1-2 sutras a day. Obviously there existed commentaries(some are extant) but the elaboration would be done orally - rather than in a written textbook. The main emphasis was on through the medium of language to get the concepts across.

We are very much a language based culture rather than a number based culture - quality vs quantity; idea vs things. We saw very little need for physical technologies and mathematical formulas - and frankly nor do I :stuck_out_tongue:


#142

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58119]Nietzsche, if Indian science was only advanced “for its time” then find me an equivalent to Paninian logic and linguistics in that time period.[/QUOTE]

I will once you find the equivalent of a…hmm, lets start simple.

How about Coulomb’s law?


#143

Coloumb is wrong :stuck_out_tongue:

We don’t even know something as basic as what electricity is. We say it is a current of electrons, but what are these electrons are they particles or waves :wink: Quantum mechanics now says they don’t even exist until we observe and find them in a location. Prior to that they are just pure probability - potential, but not existent. Now, this understanding I can indeed find you a parallel in Indian science with Samkhya. Samkhya says that all mater exists as pure potentiality within moolprakriti, until the observer collapses prakriti and causes matter to appear as massive in time and space. Indeed this follows a whole causal chain of manifestation beginning from the level of pure process at the guna level and ending with what you see to be a flow of electrons.

This important distinction has to be made when talking about physical things. What you see and what it really is. In philosophy of science we say the former is the manifest image and the latter is the scientific image.


#144

By the way if you are going to talk science - talk LATEST science. Not outdated science :wink:

I will add all energy like electricity, magnetism, electromagnetic, sonic, atomic, mechnical all come from moolaprakriti. There is no such thing as a multiplicity of energies, they are all just different forms and manifestations of the same universal field. The same point Tesla was trying to prove when he came into contact with Samkhya.


#145

Hi Surya Deva,

I have made it more than crystal clear why you are a damn racist, and I did that not by saying “uza razizt!” I already gave you every chance to prove you’re none, but you failed to take any of them. Now you fear that it becomes obvious even to your target group of stooopids and hold a large speech about how you are only a, uhm, what’s it called again…? Ah yeah, a “cultural supremest”. Not a racist. You’re only a cultural supremest. I see. Would have a question here:

How come your culture is supreme? I mean the Indian one of course, you know, that country you’ve been to on a few occasions, Mr. Reject-everything-Western-but-live-in-Britain-voluntarily. Please explain.

Next:

Now let us come back to something, I am afraid to say, I have more knowledge, understanding and insight into than yourself Q.
Huh?

Why?
Yeah, why?

Well, because I specialised in philosophy of science for my dissertation and obviously my knowledge and understanding was considered valid enough for me to pass with a distinction. The topic I examined was indeed Western science vs Hindu science. I have read the academic literature in philosophy of science, and the most important works in the field from Hume as the first skeptic of science to postmodern criticms of science by Popper and Kuhn. Philosophy of science was one of my electives. In addition to this I have read the primary texts in Hindu philosophy of science too(Nyaya sutras, Vaiseshika sutras, Samkhyakarika etc) So I have not only a detailed understanding and insight into Western philosophy of science, but also Hindu philsophy of science, thus I am in a position to compare and contrast.

Now why is it important to make this clear. I don’t like boasting about my academic accomplishments and I don’t tell everybody I meet, “Guess what, I got a first class degree in philosophy” But why it is important in this case is because you are undermining my understanding of science. Obviously, my understanding of science cannot be this poor, for me to get a distinction in a dissertation specialising in the area of the philosophy of science. Also, for you to be more humble to somebody who knows what they are talking about and not to immediately dismiss their perspective. This is the mark of a fool.

First let me saying something about what philosophy of science is and why a professional scientist in the field, has lesser understanding about science than a philosopher of science. A scientist simply does his job, he does experiments, makes measurements, he uses instruments and machines, he applies existing theories and does calculations and produces reports and statistics. Most scientists in fact work in companies to solve problems for them or do experiments on their products to produce statistics for their products and get their funding from them.

What a scientist does not generaly do is ask important questions about the scientific methods, the assumptions a theory is based on, the ontological status of theoretical entities like atoms, electrons, or even questions about the reality of the world they are measuring and whether it can even be measured(How long is a piece of string?) The epistemology of science and the difference between empiricism and rationalism. Postmodern philosophers especially look at the sociology and politics of scientists and the discourses on power and the social construction of science.

Basically the philosopher of science puts science itself under the microscope. The scientist on the other hand just does their job. Kuhn called scientists, “puzzle solvers” He said scientists operate within a paradigm(Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum, String etc) to solve puzzles for that paradigm. But the puzzles one is solving for a Newtonian paradigm is incommensurable with the puzzles of a relativity paradigm or a quantum paradigm. A paradigm is not just a theory or the improvement on a previous theory, it is an entirely different worldview.

As you have already been told the Einstenian worldview and the Newtonian view are worlds apart. They are not the same thing at all. In the former we have space-time inertial frames of reference which make up the physical universe in which time flows at different speeds and slows down due to gravitional energy. Where gravity rather than being an actual force is simply a depression in the fabric of space-time. Where matter and energy are constantly transforming into one another at the speed of light, such that it is possible to convert any matter to pure energy and vis versa(what is done in an a-bomb) Where light travels at a finite speed, behaves both as a particle and a wave under different circumstances and can be harnessed to produce energy.

In the latter space and time are absolute, a real framework in which a multiplicity of objects are suspended and upon which forces act. There are planets, billiard balls, gasses liquids, light, heat, energy, rocks all separate and particular things. This entire universe is kept together by forces acting upon one another in some kind of perfect harmony, keeping the planets in their orbits around the sun. Nothing ever happens unless a force is applied. Action at a distance is an impossibility. Eveything obeys the universal law of motion. This is a clockwork universe based on the metaphor of a clock. It reflects the prejudices of the time towards clockwork mechanisms.

It is clear for anybody to see these are radically different paradigms. Simply because Relativity can accomodate Newtonian physics if we ignore all relativistic variables, does not mean Newtonian physics can accomodate Relativity. Your “limits of validity” is an absolute fallacy. We could say Aristoltian mechanics is a special case of Newtonian physics if we simply ignore gravity.

The fact is relativistic effects DO take place even in the everday context of an aeroplane or a car, but they are so negligible that the are not worth considering for any practical calculations - so we use Newtonian physics today even purely for practical purposes. It serves our interest. But that does not mean the science of it is not wrong. It is as wrong as Aristotlian mechanics is. We know that matter does not have its own wills like he believed and we know that heavier objects do not fall faster than light objects, and we know arrows do not sail forward because a vacuum is created behind them and the vacuum fills it up - and yet despite the fact that the Aristotlian world knew nothing about gravity - they could still build bridges, pendulums and buildings with it.

Science and technology are not the same thing. Science is simply having knowledge about something. You can have knowledge about something and yet choose not to create a technology using it. I have knowledge of electricity and magnetism, but I have not created a motor. Similarly, it is blatantly clear from what I have cited so far from Hindu science, that they knew about atoms and atomic reactions and how they combine, they knew about energy and matter transformations, they know about thermodynamics, they knew about gravity, the laws of motion and vectors, they knew about quantum matter and observer effects, they knew about cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe.

These facts cannot be denied. It is another question why they didn’t develop any physical technology or give mathematical formulas, but the fact they knew this knowledge cannot be denied. How they knew it is yet another question.
Bombast. Large speech adressing stupid people to obfuscate the actual points. “Awwww”, these go, “YOU…” they say.

Now let’s get back to said actual points. The actual subject of this discussion is wether western science is advanced and correct and how it compares to Indian science. You introduced this subject because it is your agenda to belittle western science, because you’re a damn racist. You deny western science all accomplishments. That’s how this strain of debate in this thread started, you stating that ancient Indian science would be far ahead western science.

As an example of a great and important accomplishment of western science I gave finding all the elements as an example. Again, it was simply because I had watched a documentary recently. It’s one of many possible examples, Newtonian physics is another one, the theory of relativity is another one (thought up by a single westerner while he was working in a patent office), quantum mechanics is another one and there are many more. Hubble for example (the person) found out about the nature of the universe in reference to the existence of galaxies. In biology, we have Mendel (monk, laying the foundations of genetics in his monastery’s garden), Darwin (sailed around the globe and found out about natural selection), and then Watson and Cricks. Etc. etc., I still could go on and on, electricity, astronomy, neurology, etc. etc. Any of these example would be fine to prove my point, which, sorry, audience, I have to point out over and over again, because you are an unfair debater who plays tricks 25/7:

Western science is advanced, has made great findings of great significance, and is not based on knowledge or technology stolen from India, which alltogether proves, that western people are not, as you claim, primitive barbarians that know nothing and are inferior to Indians.

See. That’s my point. Your large speech about… whatnot, is fully irrelevant. It is of no relevance for what I am proving here. In a bunch of cases, I don’t opose it. I do opose what you say about the relevance and accuracy of the periodic table of elements. It is accurate and it is ultra-relevant. No advanced science can not find all elements and study them in detail. India, btw, has not even found the two most basic and most frequent elements in the universe, hydrogen and helium. Equally is Newtonian physics not at all wrong, again I have already told you when we discussed last year, that it’s validity has borders and it is indeed a border case of relativistic mechanics. Yet it is not wrong or outdated, as you imply.

And my friend, while some stupid people in the audience might buy your stuff, most probably because they’re into your actual case of hating the “white man” (Nietzsche for example), smart people without an agenda and some nationalistic or racist ideology will know exactly that what I say is the case. It’s true. No matter how many alleged academic degrees you boast about or how many novels you write about the philosophy of science. You can only fool fools, sorry. And I assure you another thing: The bullcrap you speak about elements being outdated and Newtonian physics being wrong, you did not write in any dissertation that was accepted by any university, east or west. You did not write that, never.
Bout this:

Similarly, it is blatantly clear from what I have cited so far from Hindu science, that they knew about atoms and atomic reactions and how they combine, they knew about energy and matter transformations, they know about thermodynamics, they knew about gravity, the laws of motion and vectors, they knew about quantum matter and observer effects, they knew about cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe.

If you continue to deny that they did not have this knowledge I can only deem you a fool, because I am producing blatant citations from the primary texts to show this knowledge is there and it is clearly stated.
Again I say that I admit at any time that Indians are smart people too. Toooooooooo. Because they are people too. They are people like any people and they are capable of what any people are capable of. I am not at all and not even remotely interested in belittleing Indian science or Indian people.

Let’s assume Indian science has found out all about atoms, atomic reactions, how they combine, about energy and matter transfomration, thermodynamics, gravity, laws of motions and vectors and quantum matter and observer effects and cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe.

What’s the point? So they found out universal laws too. Of which, Mr. I-have-a-“first-class”-(lol)-degree, you say they’re invented. Western science did not steal all this from India. You’ve surely watched the documentary on chemistry, the findings were not stolen from India. Newton did not steal his insights into physics from India. Einstein did not read ancient Indian scriptures in his patent office. Neither are quantum mechanics based on Indian scriptures, even though one important physicist was interested in some of them. Darwin did not come to his theory through Indian science, neither did Mendel. So even if Indian science had found anything western science has found, what western science found is an achievement of western scientiest, who are not stupid monkeys that can’t do anything but steal and kill.

But - again - I have to disagree with your “clearly stated” stuff. Nothing is clear in your citations whatsoever. We can find some ancient philosophical texts that have some vague ideas and that can be interpreted as modern findings of science. Like for example that system that categorizes the physical world according to the five senses. It is an interpretation that it would have anything to do with for example the four forces of the standard-model. If Indian science would be so advanced, it would be as clear in it’s expression as for example Panini is clear in describing Sanskrit or as Indian mathematicians are clear in describing mathematics. It wouldn’t be vague at all, it would be on the spot and crystal clear and it would come with the necessary mathematics to describe it, and not some “oh I meditated and all become clear” or “I drank Soma and finally understood it all”. But the clearest scientific statements you have are on a very basic level, that does not even compete with Newton, as it’s has no formalism:

*Action is the common cause of conjunction, disjunction and movement. For example the motion that is produced in the arrow is due to the action in the bow and disjunction of the arrow.

  • Every action has an equal and opposing reaction
  • Gravity is the cause of falling, when there is no conjunction. By the term conjunction impediments is implied. In the absence of impediments, due to gravity as the non co-herent cause, falling results…in a bird it is volition that is the impediment to falling. In an arrow discharged it is the initial momentum that is the impediment to falling. In the case of a body resting high on a tree branch, the tree branch is the impediment to falling.
    *The horizontal motion of a discharged arrow though, though it is acted on by gravity, results from the initial impulse/momentum energy, but in the case of a falling arrow, when it loses it momentum energy due to gravity it falls.
  • The first action of the arrow is produced from the momentum energy by the bow, the second action is from the propogation of the initial momentum energy, and in like manner the next and the next. The arrow would continue in like manner infinitely and at constant velocity, but by disjunction of gravity, the arrow gradually loses its momentum and falls.
    and

Hindu theory of thermodynamics

  • The sun’s rays cause the cause the assent of waters with conjunction with wind. The waters conjuct with the sun’s rays and then conjunct with the wind, in the same way water is boiled and then evaporates.

*The freezing and thawing of water is due to light/heat. The aqueas atoms solidfy to form a binary atomic aggregate due to the absence of heat and thus lose their fluidity(kinetic energy) and appear to look solid. It might be asked what proof is there that snow and hail etc are water? Action is produced in the solid atoms by conjunction with a powerful heat. This leads to disjunction of the solid atoms originating fluidity within the binary atomic aggregate, hence the thawing of the snow, melting of hail. The efficient cause is heat.
This is without doubt great stuff for 600BC, if it is from 600BC - I did not find this text online, can you provide a link please? Still it is merely observation and not at all a scientific theory like for example the corresponding Newtonian formulae. The only reason we know this is accurate (to some degree) is because western science has actually proven these things with experiments and has provided it with mathematical formulae, that allow to make predictions, which again prove the theories to be correct.

Also, it is wrong in some spots, for example is the ascent of water not caused by wind as well as a liquid does not necessarily need a sunray to vaporize, it needs heat, that can as well come from a fire. Also are there no “aqueas”-atoms. I guess “aqueas” means water? My dictionary does not have it, I go with aqua. Water is a molecule and each consists of three atoms. Not to mention that these atoms are not atoms, because there are smaller elements of matter than atoms - beat you with your own stupid rethorics. However, the atoms as well don’t “solidfy”, when water freezes, the water-molecules are bound stronger to each other and they are not non-solid before. This is not described as well, how come. I also wouldn’t know what a “binary atomic aggregate” should refer to. What’s binary there? Water consists of three atoms per molecule. In ice, I think each water-molecule is connected to four other water-molecules, see

You said back there:

Your dad not have a similar theory of thermodynamics and the states of matter or the recognition of heat and light being the same thing until the 18th century.
I’m not so familiar with the history of science and I don’t know what western people thought ice would be before the 18th century, however, to call these few passages a “theory of thermodynamics” is already very laughable, and that it does not even remotely compare to for example the Laws of Thermodynamics: Dude, isn’t it obvious. It’s vague and mostly common sense. Sure does heat cause ice to melt and water to vaporize. Sure must something cause stuff to fall down, sure stuff ain’t falling down when it’s lying on some surface. Sure is it the string of a bow that causes the arrow to fly. This is, sorry, piffling trifles compared to Newtonian, not to mention 19th and 20th century science. For it’s time: Good stuff, no doubt, though. But ahead of current science? Sorry, no.

PS:

And stop conflating science and technology :stuck_out_tongue:

They are not the same thing

Technology:

World English Dictionary
technology (t?k’n?l?d??)

? n , pl -gies

  1. the application of practical sciences to industry or commerce
  2. the methods, theory, and practices governing such application: a highly developed technology
  3. the total knowledge and skills available to any human society for industry, art, science, etc

[C17: from Greek tekhnologia systematic treatment, from tekhne art, skill]

Science

the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms
2. the knowledge so obtained or the practice of obtaining it
3. any particular branch of this knowledge: the pure and applied sciences
4. any body of knowledge organized in a systematic manner
5. skill or technique
6. archaic knowledge
I wonder what you’re :-Ping at. Noone said that science and technology are identical, it’s just misleading the stupid in the audience again. What’s been said is, that scientific knowledge and findings lead to technology. It’s the case. And - as far as I can judge it - Indian technology is on the level of Indian science. The visible science, you know, not the one found in meditation, some vague ideas, something that states “there are atoms”. That’s not science, science would actually prove there are atoms. And there is no science that would for example allow building a steam-engine, or is there? Or something that would allow to build a telephone, or is there? Has Indian science found electricity for example? And again, not some vague mentioning of lightening or an electric fish or any other natural phenomenon. Actual science, that explains how it works, that would allow the one who has that knowledge to build a battery for example. Not to mention a radio or even a computer.

Unfortunately, it’s obvious over and over again that you evade the points, that you distort the arguments, that you obfuscate what your opponents want to say. You’re an unfair debater. Dude, I have degrees in language, I must know, bow to my authority NOW! :lol:


#146

Have we figured out what enlightenment is yet?


#147

[QUOTE=David;58135]Have we figured out what enlightenment is yet?[/QUOTE]

Hang in there!.. This is a question mankind tackles with for a thousand years :stuck_out_tongue:


#148

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58050]Interesting. Where have you learned this?[/QUOTE]

From the interpretation of Mahayana texts. Penguin classics series, if inclined :slight_smile:


#149

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58126]Coloumb is wrong :stuck_out_tongue:

We don’t even know something as basic as what electricity is. We say it is a current of electrons, but what are these electrons are they particles or waves :wink: Quantum mechanics now says they don’t even exist until we observe and find them in a location. Prior to that they are just pure probability - potential, but not existent. Now, this understanding I can indeed find you a parallel in Indian science with Samkhya. Samkhya says that all mater exists as pure potentiality within moolprakriti, until the observer collapses prakriti and causes matter to appear as massive in time and space. Indeed this follows a whole causal chain of manifestation beginning from the level of pure process at the guna level and ending with what you see to be a flow of electrons.

This important distinction has to be made when talking about physical things. What you see and what it really is. In philosophy of science we say the former is the manifest image and the latter is the scientific image.[/QUOTE]

HAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!

Dude, lets get something straight.

I am taking college level Physics in High School.

I am considered one of the best Physics students in my school.

Please don’t tell me whats false, disproved, or outdated when I have more knowledge of Physics than you.

Quantum Mechanics does not disprove Coulomb’s law. I have my Physics textbook in front of me at this moment, and am studying Electric Potential of Point Charges.


#150

[QUOTE=David;58135]Have we figured out what enlightenment is yet?[/QUOTE]

No. But judging by the posts in this thread, the answer clearly lies in whether Western or Indian civilization is superior.


#151

[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl;58129][/QUOTE]

Good post Q.

There is one thing I want to point out; Western civilization would not have invented and accomplished the things it did were it not for the accomplishments of the civilizations preceding it or conquered by it.

Other than that, you should be proud of your accomplishments. Hell, if I was a German, I would be the proudest German in history, proud of Einstein, Pauli, Gauss, Leibniz, [insert all German philosophers], [insert all German musicians], [insert other German scientists], and [insert other German mathematicians].

All I we ask is that you remember the price at which such knowledge was bought…the blood of hundreds of millions of “uncivilized” and “un-Christianized” people.

Be proud but not supremacist.


#152

I have made it more than crystal clear why you are a damn racist

No, you haven’t. If it was crystal clear why is it not clear to High Wolf who condemned you for your allegations of repeatedly saying I was a racist.

You have failed to produce any evidence to show I am racist. Cough it up, or shut up.

How come your culture is supreme? I mean the Indian one of course, you know, that country you’ve been to on a few occasions, Mr. Reject-everything-Western-but-live-in-Britain-voluntarily. Please explain.

Already answered, because of our culture. We worship knowledge and our scriptures are called the books of knowledge. The course of history of a given culture is based on its foundational ethos. Our foundational ethos was knowledge, so went onto to develop a highly scientific culture.

That’s how this strain of debate in this thread started, you stating that ancient Indian science would be far ahead western science.

It is not would be far ahead. It is far ahead :wink: Admitted by Western scientists themselves.
Now you have confirmed we had nanomedicine :wink:

As an example of a great and important accomplishment of western science I gave finding all the elements as an example. Again, it was simply because I had watched a documentary recently. It’s one of many possible examples, Newtonian physics is another one, the theory of relativity is another one (thought up by a single westerner while he was working in a patent office), quantum mechanics is another one and there are many more. Hubble for example (the person) found out about the nature of the universe in reference to the existence of galaxies. In biology, we have Mendel (monk, laying the foundations of genetics in his monastery’s garden), Darwin (sailed around the globe and found out about natural selection), and then Watson and Cricks. Etc. etc., I still could go on and on, electricity, astronomy, neurology, etc. etc. Any of these example would be fine to prove my point, which, sorry, audience, I have to point out over and over again, because you are an unfair debater who plays tricks 25/7:

I congratulate all these luminaries in Western science. Like I said earlier, they could probably all beat me in a game of chess. However, how do they compare to our luminaries? Quite poorly.

Hubble discovered the universe was expanding by measuring the red shift. Pat on the back for Western civilisation. We explained thousands of years that not only is it expanding, we also know that in the future it will contract again and return to the point of singualrity it began in and then process will repeat again ad infinitum. We call these cycles of the universe known as kalpas and have estimated that each cycle is 311 trillion years long.
This is known as the cycle of evolution and involution. The cause for each of these cycles is when the fundamental forces(gunas) come out of balance.


The Samkhya system is based on Satkaryavada. According to Satkaryavada, the effect pre-exists in the cause. Cause and effect are seen as different temporal aspects of the same thing – the effect lies latent in the cause which in turn seeds the next effect.
More specifically, Samkhya system follows the Prakriti-Parinama Vada. Parinama denotes that the effect is a real transformation of the cause. The cause under consideration here is Prakriti or more precisely Mula-Prakriti (Primordial Matter). The Samkhya system is therefore an exponent of an evolutionary theory of matter beginning with primordial matter. In evolution, Prakriti is transformed and differentiated into multiplicity of objects. Evolution is followed by dissolution. In dissolution the physical existence, all the worldly objects mingle back into Prakriti, which now remains as the undifferentiated, primordial substance. This is how the cycles of evolution and dissolution follow each other.

Most of the Samkhyan cosmology is concerned with the unfolding of the prakriti principle; or more precisely mulaprakriti or unmanifest root-nature (equivalent to the Greek concept of Hyle or formless matter). Mulaprakriti is described as “unmanifest” (avyakta), “uncreated” or “unmade” (avikriti), and “the chief one” (pradhana) [ Gerald J. Larson, Classical Samkhya, pp.160-1, (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1979)]. It is the original primordial root-nature from which everything else arises through a process of self-unfolding, triggered through the proximity of the purusha or centre of consciousness. All things, and all subsequent tattwas or evolutes, are contained within Mulaprakriti, but in a subtle or unmanifest form. Here then we have a theory of creation that begins not with the Absolute Reality itself (as in all the monistic emanationist cosmologies), but with the principle of Unmanifest “Nature”. Because of that, it is probably more correct to understand the Samkhyan theory of creation in terms of an evolution or unfolding rather than an emanation.

Mulaprakriti itself contains or is made up of three primary qualities, the three constituents or strands, called gunas. In the unmanifest Mulaprakriti these exist in a state of equilibrium and balance, and so there is no manifestation. When the gunas are disturbed however through the presence of the purusha the equilibrium is destroyed, and creation, both gross and subtle, comes about. Here we have a parallel with the Chinese Yin-Yang cosmology and the emergence of the universe through the manifestation of the polar opposites of Yin and Yang from the originally unmanifest Tao.

The creation hoiwever is not simple but involves a series of 23 fuurther tattwas, the later ones being derived from or unfolding out of the earlier ones. The basic series is as follows:
From prakrti emerges mahat (“the great one”), also called buddhi. This is the subtlest form of mental activity, and the source of will and the unconscious. From buddhi evolves ahamkara, the “I-maker”, which is the source of the sense of ego or individual identity. From ahamkara there is a four-fold unfolding into mind (manas), sense organs (jnanendriyas), the organs of action (karmendriyas), and the subtle elements (tanmatras). Of these the mind and senses are predominantly sattva, the organs of action rajas, and the subtle elements tamas. These latter are the source from which evolve the five gross elements of the material world.
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Samkhya/Samkhya.htm

The Process of Evolution and Involution
The Sankhya evolution of elements is based on the principle that matter is not destroyed. It undergoes changes both during creation and destruction. According to Sankhya theory, matter undergoes evolution, dissolution and quiescence. There is no such thing as total destruction. In destruction, the effect is involved into its cause- that is all. The creation and dissolution
takes place in cycles. Every real effect has a real cause behind it. The effect pre-exists in its cause in a potential state. In dissolution the gunas are in a balanced state.

When Purusha comes in proximity to Prakruti, its equilibrium is disturbed called Vikruti. And evolution begins with different elements. Prakruti is the root of the universe. Prakruti is the cause of everything material including time and space.

Like this, Sankhya divides universe in 25 principles.

The Purusha is neither a production, nor is it productive. According to the Sankhya, when a Jiva can understand these elements, he will be emancipated from material bondage, which is the ultimate purpose. During dissolution of the world, the products return by a reverse movement into the preceding stages of development, and ultimately into Prakruti. Earth merges in water, water in fire, fire in air, air in space; space in Ahamkara (egoism); Ahamkara in Mahat (intellect) and Mahat in Prakruti.

http://www.sanatandharma.org/page3.html


Mendel laid the foundation for genetics by making observations in his garden of inherited plant charactertics. Pat on the back for Western civilisation. We explained thousands of years ago that constitution of the body of a child is inherited by its parents, this can include disorders as well, and yes we also mentioned genes and chromosomes.


Congenital diseases & Ayurveda (Genetics)
Ayurveda had a deep insight into the origin of congenital diseases. It is evident from the following line from a book called Sushruta Samhita (sutra sthana. 24/4)
“Tatra adibalapravritta ye Shukrashonita doshanvayah, Kustarshaprabrutayah, tc api dvividhah"

  • Matrujah Pitrujahscha.
    Adibalapravritta diseases a groups of illnesses which are attributed to defects inherent in either the shukra (the male reproductive element) and shonita (the female reproductive element) which form the primary factors of being.
    Examples are skin disease like vitiligo (leucoderma) , arshas, (Haemarrhoides), meha (diabetes) etc. Even in Charaka Samhita which is regarded as one of the oldest texts in Ayurveda, there is a references about genes. He called it Bijabhagavayava, meaning bija (meaning seed indicating) male sperm & female ovum bijabhaga indicating chromosomes. Bijabhagavayava indicating genes. If parents have certain diseases by the imbalance of vata pitta or kaphas then it is reflected in the bijabhagavayava, and hence can cause illness of the offspring.
    Hence ayurveda advises cleansing of the male & female body before planning to have a child and to take rejuvenation therapy to restore health which prevents the appearence of genetic disorders.

http://www.ayurvedasara.com/content/congenital-diseases-ayurveda-genetics

In a nutshell, a healthy sperm and ovum gives rise to an healthy progeny. According to an Ayurvedic principle there is a balance of Vata, Pitta & Kapha within the body of each and every individual. It’s proportion (Qualitatively and Quantitatively) is fixed at the time of birth i.e. its Tara and Tama bhava. On the % of Vata, Pitta & Kapha Prakriti (Sharir & Manas) of an individual is formed. All these factors play an important role in forming ones immunity.

Acharya Charaka ( Ch.In. 1/5) has described 6 varieties of Prakriti in individuals. From which the first twp i.e. “Jatiprasakta” & “Kulaprasakta” can light our view.

“Jatiprasakta” - in some races there is tendency for hypersensitivity e.g. a “Bhanushali” race of Jamnagar is highly sensitive to certain drugs which are commonly used.

“Kulaprasakta” i.e. Family disposition. This can be related with chromosomal abnormalities. There is genetic inheritance, influencing the future generation.
The above explanations may be enough to throw light on the role of heredity in the manifestation of allergic diseases.


  1. The contributions of Charaka in genetics are worth exploring. Genetic engineering to change the sex of the fetus has also been described. The microscopic structures like genes; chromosomes; DNA and RNA have all been described.
    What factors other than genes are responsible for unique characteristics have also been expounded. Least explored section in Ayurveda known as Arista lakshana and shareera sthana have statements, which are based on genetics. Charaka has explained many procedures like panchakarma, rasayana, sadvrtha etc, which undoubtedly transform the genes to behave beneficially. Charaka states that Alzheimer’s is passed on to the off spring by the father’s genes.

http://integrativehealthcareinstitute.org/journal/articles/charak-club-2.html


Equally is Newtonian physics not at all wrong, again I have already told you when we discussed last year, that it’s validity has borders and it is indeed a border case of relativistic mechanics. Yet it is not wrong or outdated, as you imply.

In that case Aristotlian mechanics is a border case of Newtonian mechanics. All we need to do is take gravity out of the equation :wink: Just like you want me to take space-time and energy out of the equation. Newtonian mechanics is wrong, the world does not at all behave as the Newtonian paradigm says it behaves as.

A very clear fact today is quantum entanglement where action at a distance is taking placed, been demonstrated by experiments conducted all around the world, which completely violated the Newtonian view which assumes a world of space with multiple and real objects suspended within it separate from everything else. Like I said relativistic effects are happening even in objects travelling at normal speeds, but they are so neglible, we can ignore them. This does not change the fact that they are taking place, however minute they are. Simiarly, we know today that quantum effects are happening all the time like discontinuity in what appears to be motion. At the perceptual level this is not apparent, but at the scientific level we know this is going on. Every moment reality literally is flashing in and out of the quantum field. We don’t see it, but that is exactly what is happening.

Get this into your head: the reality that we see is nothing like the reality as it is. You cannot factor out consciousness which leads to the world as we see it.

CONSCIOUSNESS + FIELD = REALITY AS IT APPEARS

If you get this simple equation you will experience a mini enlightenment :wink:

See. That’s my point. Your large speech about… whatnot, is fully irrelevant. It is of no relevance for what I am proving here. In a bunch of cases, I don’t opose it. I do opose what you say about the relevance and accuracy of the periodic table of elements.

Already told you, it’s wrong. We don’t use it anymore in modern physics. We use the standard model. The standard model of 4 fundamental forces can account for all visible matter in the universe except waves.

We have a 4 element theory now in classical physics. The 5th element that explains waves is quantum mechanics. So far they cannot be unified - but when they do we will have a 5 element theory - just like the Vedic theory :wink: (You’re backwards, hasn’t the penny dropped yet)

But - again - I have to disagree with your “clearly stated” stuff. Nothing is clear in your citations whatsoever. We can find some ancient philosophical texts that have some vague ideas and that can be interpreted as modern findings of science. Like for example that system that categorizes the physical world according to the five senses. It is an interpretation that it would have anything to do with for example the four forces of the standard-model. If Indian science would be so advanced, it would be as clear in it’s expression as for example Panini is clear in describing Sanskrit or as Indian mathematicians are clear in describing mathematics. It wouldn’t be vague at all, it would be on the spot and crystal clear and it would come with the necessary mathematics to describe it, and not some “oh I meditated and all become clear” or “I drank Soma and finally understood it all”. But the clearest scientific statements you have are on a very basic level, that does not even compete with Newton, as it’s has no formalism:

I am citing not from any scripture, but the formal rational schools known as the darsanas, each of which have their teachings summarized in sutras. There is nothing vague about them, they are clearly stated.

1.1.9 A substance and quality will only originate other substances of the same class
2.1.6. Fluidity is the result of heat(or energy) conjunction, and is common to water, wax, lac, ghee etc
2.1.8 The fluidity of tin, gold, silver, iron, lead when conjoined with heat, become like water atoms
2.2.2 Heat is the property of the light element
5.2.5 The suns rays cause the evaporation of water atoms by conjunction with air atoms
5.2.6. Through the impress of the impulse(by the suns rays) the sun conjoins the water atoms with the air
5.2.7 The freezing and thawing of a substance is due to conjunction of(and absence of) heat
5.2.11 The cause of the sound of thunder is the conjunction of the water atoms with the air atoms to form a cloud and then the disjunction in the cloud
1.1.7 The common actions are throwing upwards, throwing donwards/falling, expansion, contraction and moving
1.1.17 The definition of an action is which causes conjunction and disjunction to a substance or object
1.1. 14 Every action is opposed by an equal reaction (Third law of Newtons)
1.1.20 Action is the common cause of conjunction(holding things together) disjunction(breaking things apart) and motion/momentum
1.1.23 Any substance is in fact constituted by parent substances(parent atoms, molecules)
1.1.30 Conjunction and disjunctions of any entity require the application of action(any kind of energy can be considered an action)
5.1.7 In the the absence of conjunction an object falls due to gravity
5.1.8 No upward or sidewards movements takes place without a strong application of action
5.1.9 The motion of an object is directly proportional to the action applied
5.1.14 Action takes place on grass due to conjunction with wind
5.1.15 The movement of the needle from the magnet is caused by an invisible action
5.1.16 Particular non-simultaneous conjunctions are the cause of the diversity of an arrows actions
of the action, and in like manner the next and the next
5.1.17 The action of the arrow is from the initial momentum energy(provided by the bow) and second action is through self-reproduction of the action, and in like manner the next and the next
5.1.18 Falling results from gravity causing loss of its self-production(i.e., its momentum energy) In modern language: the horizontal component of the arrow reduces, and the vertical component of gravity increases - causing it to lose its momentum and fall.
If you can speak English there would no problem understanding what these sutras are saying. You can find all of Newton’s laws of motion here, particularly in these sutras:
5.1.17 is saying Newton’s first law that an object either remains at rest or continues in a straight line unless a force is applied
5.1.9 is saying Newton’s second law that the accelerlation of an object is directly proportional to the force acting ot
1.1.14 is saying Newton’s third law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction
5.1.16 and 5.1.18 are talking about horizontal and vertical components of forces

It is very clear the Vaiseshika darsana understood Newtonian mechanics very well. I have only cited the sutras here. There is nothing vague, scriptural or philosophical here. This is based on direct observation and valid inferences.

The Vaiseshika school had very well developed theories of causality, atoms and physical reality and used very technical descriptions and precise taxomies. The master categories are substances, qualities, actions, difference, generality, inherence. These categories are used to explain the entire phenomenal universe.

This is without doubt great stuff for 600BC, if it is from 600BC - I did not find this text online, can you provide a link please? Still it is merely observation and not at all a scientific theory like for example the corresponding Newtonian formulae.

We don’t do formulas and mathematical equations in our tradition. We prefer to explain things using language. I already explained this point earlier to Neitzche. Both of you are narrow minded on this subject. What is so great about mathematical formalism anyway? It is just another way of expressing what can be expressed in language. I don’t care how knowledge is expressed, as long as it is clear the knowledge is there.

Also, it is wrong in some spots, for example is the ascent of water not caused by wind as well as a liquid does not necessarily need a sunray to vaporize, it needs heat, that can as well come from a fire.

I posted both the sutra and the commentary within the Vaiseshika school. The sutra is giving the example of the sea where the conjunction of the sun’s rays with waters in the sea cause the water to vapourize, and the vapour then rises due to the air. It says it it is the same process that goes on when water evaporates when heated. It later says the vapour condenses to form the clouds and then via disjunction in the cloud there is the rolling of thunder and then rain. In fact the Vaiseshika were not the first to assert the hydrological cycle, but this fact has long been known in the Vedas. The Vaiseshika even state, “This is also asserted on authority of Vedas”

Also are there no “aqueas”-atoms. I guess “aqueas” means water? My dictionary does not have it, I go with aqua. Water is a molecule and each consists of three atoms. Not to mention that these atoms are not atoms, because there are smaller elements of matter than atoms - beat you with your own stupid rethorics. However, the atoms as well don’t “solidfy”, when water freezes, the water-molecules are bound stronger to each other and they are not non-solid before. This is not described as well, how come.

Aqaueas atoms is describing the type of atom being observed. As in the Vaiseshika classification system there are 4 types of primary atoms: solid earthy atoms, liquid watery atoms, light, heat atoms and finally force atoms. It describes here that the difference between the solid state of water and the liquid state of water is owing to fluidity caused by heat energy i.e, the solid state is where the water atoms have less fluidity and water is where the atoms have more fluidity, and air even greater fluidity.

I also wouldn’t know what a “binary atomic aggregate” should refer to. What’s binary there? Water consists of three atoms per molecule. In ice, I think each water-molecule is connected to four other water-molecules, see

You fail to understand what is meant by “binary aggregate”. The Vaiseshika say atoms of each type aggregate first as binary atoms, then as teritary atoms etc(Like Dalton said atoms combine) The usage here is to show how the atoms in the water aggregate to form a solid(ice) and as solid is the next level up it also called “binary aggregate” It then says that by the means of the application of heat, the atoms gain fluidity destroying the binary aggregate and reordering the atoms.

This is a very blatant description of kinetic energy and the changes in states of matter as a result of more or less kinetic energy. I challenge you to find this knowledge anywhere else in the world prior to the 18th century.

Sure does heat cause ice to melt and water to vaporize. Sure must something cause stuff to fall down, sure stuff ain’t falling down when it’s lying on some surface. Sure is it the string of a bow that causes the arrow to fly. This is, sorry, piffling trifles compared to Newtonian, not to mention 19th and 20th century science. For it’s time: Good stuff, no doubt, though. But ahead of current science? Sorry, no.

You are misrepresenting what is being said. I will correct them: Yes, it is common sense that heat caues ice to melt, but this is caused by the fact that atoms of the ice are in an atomic structure with low kinetic energy, gets disordered by the application of heat leading to high kinetic energy is not. Nor is to obvious that the sun’s rays is what causes the seas water to evaporate to form clouds. This same knowledge was not rediscovered until the 18th century.

Yes it is obvious that something causes things to fall. But it is not obvious that there is an invisible force called gravity which acts down on objects. It is not obvious that objects will travel continously forever at constant velocity through self-reproduction of the initial force applied, unless a force is applied. It is not obvious that every action will be opposed by equal and opposite force. This same knowledge was not rediscovered until the 17th century.
If this knowledge is so trivial then simply show me the knowledge before it was rediscovered in modern times by your people. I will remind you that right up until the 16th century you were still using Aristotle’s mechanics.

wonder what you’re ing at. Noone said that science and technology are identical, it’s just misleading the stupid in the audience again. What’s been said is, that scientific knowledge and findings lead to technology. It’s the case. And - as far as I can judge it - Indian technology is on the level of Indian science. The visible science, you know, not the one found in meditation, some vague ideas, something that states “there are atoms”.

Again you are misrepresenting what is being said. These texts do not just say “there are atoms” they describe the various types of atoms, how atoms combine to form atomic aggregates, how atomic aggregates are broken by applying heat-force, the states of matter. There is nothing vague here. It is clearly stated. It is a well known school and loads of literature exists on it.

You are deliberately behaving like an ignoramus(I guess it comes natural to you) It is easy to misrepresent what is being said to create strawmans you can tear down - but harder to deal with actual arguments being made.

Show some more honour next time, otherwise consider our discussion over.


#153

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;58145]HAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!

Dude, lets get something straight.

I am taking college level Physics in High School.

I am considered one of the best Physics students in my school.

Please don’t tell me whats false, disproved, or outdated when I have more knowledge of Physics than you.
[/quote]

That’s nice Neitzsche and I hope you do very well. I am a university level graduate in philosophy, with specialism in philosophy of science :wink:

You are suppose to memorize information read in a textbook and reproduce it in an exam. While, my job is to ask questions about the fundamental assumptions in that informaton, to critically analyse it and compare and contrast with other information and to analyse the methodology that has been used to ascertain that information.

And I am telling you what you are learning is wrong from an outdated paradigm. I am very well aware at what level we are today in modern physics. This is what level we are at:


Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra “hidden variables”. Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism – giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).

Some 40 years ago the physicist John Bell predicted that many hidden-variables theories would be ruled out if a certain experimental inequality were violated – known as “Bell’s inequality”. In his thought experiment, a source fires entangled pairs of linearly-polarized photons in opposite directions towards two polarizers, which can be changed in orientation. Quantum mechanics says that there should be a high correlation between results at the polarizers because the photons instantaneously “decide” together which polarization to assume at the moment of measurement, even though they are separated in space. Hidden variables, however, says that such instantaneous decisions are not necessary, because the same strong correlation could be achieved if the photons were somehow informed of the orientation of the polarizers beforehand.

Bell’s trick, therefore, was to decide how to orient the polarizers only after the photons have left the source. If hidden variables did exist, they would be unable to know the orientation, and so the results would only be correlated half of the time. On the other hand, if quantum mechanics was right, the results would be much more correlated – in other words, Bell’s inequality would be violated.

Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.

Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.

They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

Nature journal is by the way one of the most prestigious in the physics community.


#154

Neitzsche and Q you are simply unaware of where we are today and emerging new paradigm in physics. You are stuck in old paradigms of periodic tables, laws of motion, space and time. Ever since the quantum entered this world the foundations have physics have been shaken. And who think this is not the case, do not understand quantum theory.

Max Plank the founder of quantum theory said this upon accepting his nobel peace prize:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. "

Erwin Schrodinger, the father of quantum mechanics said this:

"This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the “whole”; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear: tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as “I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.”

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/articles_hinduism/96.htm

A growing number physicists, chemists, biologists psychologists are now coming out of the woodworks and stating that there is an intelligent consciousness field that underlies all of reality. They are all affimring consciousness is the highest reality. They can no longer deny the hard empirical evidence their research is showing them. This emerging view is being called the consciousness revolution.

Rupert Sheldrake observed just how much regularity and order was in animals like a school of fish, a flock of birds or ants, how synchronized their behaviour was with one another another even when they could not even see each other and mostly only operate by instinct and lack cognition to learn through seeing. What explains such coordinated activity? The same is true for a species of animals like say monkeys on an island, it is observed that when a new habit is acquired or an evolutionary trait, the entire population acquires it, despite the fact that they can’t see each other learning it. The shocking part is the change takes place not just for the population on the island, but for the population of the same species on another remote island. This strongly then suggests there is an invisible field through which information is transmitted. Sheldrake has dubbed this the “Morphogenetic field” Its existence cannot be denied otherwise a lot of these facts like I described could not be explained.

The fact is clear quantum physics is loudly asserting today such a field exists. We got so many names for it: zero point energy field, quantum field, even akashic field. Matter exists first only as a possibility in this field, and then manifests as something existent and real only when it comes under the purview of consciousness. Then a potentiality becomes a reality.


#155

Hi Surya Deva,

[quote]I have made it more than crystal clear why you are a damn racist

No, you haven’t.[/quote]yes I have. And for every “no you haven’t” I herewith say “yes I have” in advance. :stuck_out_tongue:

If it was crystal clear why is it not clear to High Wolf who condemned you for your allegations of repeatedly saying I was a racist.

You have failed to produce any evidence to show I am racist. Cough it up, or shut up.
Rethorics rethorics rethorics. Some random High Wolf said something; who cares. I explained him everything too, he failed to reply, that’s your backup-buddy: :lol:.

I told you exactly and crystal clear why you are a racist. I gave you the chance to explain why you think Indian culture would be superior again in my last post, again you did not reply. Since you’re obviously stuffed with time, you simply spam pages over pages of text and try to force me to discuss all sorts of irrelevant crap. From all I have said about your racism, you quote “You are a racist!” Pathetic.

Here:

[quote]How come your culture is supreme? I mean the Indian one of course, you know, that country you’ve been to on a few occasions, Mr. Reject-everything-Western-but-live-in-Britain-voluntarily. Please explain.

Already answered, because of our culture. We worship knowledge and our scriptures are called the books of knowledge. The course of history of a given culture is based on its foundational ethos. Our foundational ethos was knowledge, so went onto to develop a highly scientific culture.[/quote]So your culture was ahead because of your culture. So you were great because you were great. Wow dude, you really live up to your first class degrees. :lol:

The reason why you don’t want to discuss this significant point (like you don’t ever want to discuss significant points) is, that it will show that your culture was ahead because of circumstances, that would have taken any culture ahead. Because of lucky coincidences, and not some inner virtue or because “that’s the way it is”. You don’t want to admit that any people who would’ve been lucky enough to happen to live there at that place at that time would’ve gotten far ahead, because you are a racist. You insist that the advances of Indian culture lies within itself, in the blood, in the flesh: In the race. Because you, Sir, are a damn racist.

I’d also like to ask one more time what about me is so demonic and barbaric. You call me “Asura”, as you say “for a reason”. You said I need to change my mindset. I had asked you what’s asuraic about me, what about my mindset I would have to change, and you claimed the reason was that I would take glee in the butchering and rape of Indian people. Which clearly is not the case. So I ask you again: How and why am I a barbaric demon and what is wrong with my mindset? The only thing I can see being wrong with me from your perspective: I am a white man with blond hair and blue eyes. That’s it. And that’s damn racism once again.

You are a racist.

I congratulate all these luminaries in Western science.
No you don’t. You behave like it was nothing what they found. Here you do the same:

Like I said earlier, they could probably all beat me in a game of chess. However, how do they compare to our luminaries? Quite poorly.
Same procedure.

Hubble discovered the universe was expanding by measuring the red shift. Pat on the back for Western civilisation.
And again.

We explained thousands of years that not only is it expanding, we also know that in the future it will contract again and return to the point of singualrity it began in and then process will repeat again ad infinitum. We call these cycles of the universe known as kalpas and have estimated that each cycle is 311 trillion years long.
This is known as the cycle of evolution and involution. The cause for each of these cycles is when the fundamental forces(gunas) come out of balance.
Always the same. My friend. I told you this:

Edwin Powell Hubble (November 20, 1889 ? September 28, 1953) was an American astronomer who profoundly changed understanding of the universe by confirming the existence of galaxies other than our own, the Milky Way.
He confirmed the existence of galaxies. That changed our understanding of the universe profoundly. Just like our understanding of the universe was changed profoundly, when it was found out, that our solar system is only a tiny part of the milky way. Finding out about galaxies other than our own is a huge scientific achievement. Just like our understanding of the universe was change due to finding all chemical elements. Like it was changed due to Newtonian mechanics, then due to the theory of relativity, through quantum mechanics, through the theory of evolution, finding the DNA. Achievements of western science, that have no match in Indian science - except for one or the other vague philosophical theory, with no proof, that can be interpreted as being somewhat similar to said findings of western scientist. Who are not on the level of barbarians or even animals, as you claim.

Why don’t you just end this nonsense and clearly state that I am right? Why don’t you just end this by saying “yes, western people are the same as Indian people, they have faults and did a lot of bad things, but they also have great minds who achieved great things”? I know of only one reason: Because you are a damn racist.

Hubble found the galaxies. Great mind, great scientist. You just ignore this. Speak about the redshift. Totally different subject.

And then you have some creation myth or whatnot in ancient Indian scriptures and you say: Look, we had this first. One of a bazillion theories, that might - I didn’t read that scripture myself - remotely resemble the conclusions of finding the redshift. But ancient Indian science, my friend, did not even know about galaxies. Not to mention that there was no scientific proof. There was just some speculation, a philosophical theory, a creation myth like there are many. And many creation myths make use of the idea of a “World Egg”. You can interprete all of them as ancient big bang theories and claim those cultures were far ahead modern science.

[quote]Equally is Newtonian physics not at all wrong, again I have already told you when we discussed last year, that it’s validity has borders and it is indeed a border case of relativistic mechanics. Yet it is not wrong or outdated, as you imply.

In that case Aristotlian mechanics is a border case of Newtonian mechanics. All we need to do is take gravity out of the equation :wink: Just like you want me to take space-time and energy out of the equation. Newtonian mechanics is wrong, the world does not at all behave as the Newtonian paradigm says it behaves as.[/quote]So you say the world does not at all behave as Newtons says. And then you say

relativistic effects are happening even in objects travelling at normal speeds, but they are so neglible, we can ignore them. This does not change the fact that they are taking place, however minute they are.
So in other words if I sad 3.14 is the number of Pi, that’s wrong. There is no way to give a correct number of Pi, right? Any number you give of Pi is wrong, even if you give one with 2304837459873495739457395798734987634085734985793857938475 digits. It’s wrong. It’s “not at all” Pi. And therefore, finding this number, 3.14, is worthless. It’s not an achievement. It’s crap. Nonsense. Some monkey came up with that. A barbarian, who is far behind real scientist.

Hilarious.

Newtons mechanics are not wrong, they are applied every day, tought every day. No engineer who builds machines and no archtiect who builds houses works with relativistic mechanics or quantum mechanics. They work with Newtonian mechanics. Cuz they’re correct. You perform rethorics. I had already admited that there are limits of validity last year, but you insist Newtonian mechanics is wrong to belittle western science and you behave like I wouldn’t know about it’s limitations to belittle me. In the eyes of people with no education and no intelligence. Pathetic. The great Newton who revolutionized physics and science overall can’t stand up to som ancient Indian world egg creation myth and the “discovery” that ice melts in the sun and an arrow flies because it’s shot off with a bow.

Is that:

a) what an academic with a first class degree or
b) some random idiot with a racist agende

says?

But speaking of the sun: It’s shining, and I’m now going to the beach with my family. :smiley:


#156

Hi Nietzsche,

Good post Q.

There is one thing I want to point out; Western civilization would not have invented and accomplished the things it did were it not for the accomplishments of the civilizations preceding it or conquered by it.

Other than that, you should be proud of your accomplishments. Hell, if I was a German, I would be the proudest German in history, proud of Einstein, Pauli, Gauss, Leibniz, [insert all German philosophers], [insert all German musicians], [insert other German scientists], and [insert other German mathematicians].

All I we ask is that you remember the price at which such knowledge was bought…the blood of hundreds of millions of “uncivilized” and “un-Christianized” people.

Be proud but not supremacist.
I almost overlooked this, holy sh…ame that would’ve been. It really makes me happy that you say this. Put a smile on my face and that one will stay there for quite a while, thank you for that.

As I had noted already, I don’t believe in pride, not even for what I accomplished myself. What brought into the position to be able to? What gave me my intelligence? What made me a human being? What made me being born in Germany of the 20th century, instead of into slavery in 10.000 BC. Pride is a deadly sin, noone has a reason to be proud. I feel sometimes a certain happiness when I accomplished something, for example when a huge work-project is finished and I go through all the parts and pages and I know it’s good. You know, like god. Because I simply know it’s good. And sometimes I am actually proud of my son, what he can do, while still I know that much is as well no accomplishment of his own, like mine aren’t of mine.

Or imagine aliens would arrive, and we’d learn there are thousands of alien races. Wouldn’t we then “have to be” proud of what menkind achieved, instead of thinking on the small scale of “oh, there’s an imaginary boundry, now I can be proud of what people on this side did, but not what those on the other did”? So if you’re into being proud, be proud of the achievements of German scientists and musicians. They’re all human like you, there is no difference. People try telling you there is, but really, what could it be? It’s not true.

Gotta go now. :slight_smile:


#157

I am afraid you are not an honourable debator. You do not represent what is being said to you, but misrepresent it and turn it into a strawman, then attack the strawman. I will give you several examples:

You insist that the advances of Indian culture lies within itself, in the blood, in the flesh: In the race. Because you, Sir, are a damn racist.

Nope, I said that the foundational ethos of a culture dictates the course that civilisation takes. In our case the foundational ethos was to love and worship knowledge, wisdom and enlightenment and that is the course our civilisation took.

Hubble found the galaxies. Great mind, great scientist. You just ignore this. Speak about the redshift. Totally different subject

No, I said “I congratulate all these luminaries” However their findings were already known to the Hindus, and then I gave you citations showing the knowledge was already there.

And then you have some creation myth or whatnot in ancient Indian scriptures and you say: Look, we had this first. One of a bazillion theories, that might - I didn’t read that scripture myself - remotely resemble the conclusions of finding the redshift. But ancient Indian science, my friend, did not even know about galaxies. Not to mention that there was no scientific proof. There was just some speculation, a philosophical theory, a creation myth like there are many. And many creation myths make use of the idea of a “World Egg”. You can interprete all of them as ancient big bang theories and claim those cultures were far ahead modern science.

No, I gave you citations directly from the rational schools of Hindu philosophy(known as the sadarshanas) and cited the statements showing the advanced knowledge. I did not quote from a single scripture. I also gave you supplementary material by providing you external links giving clear information. The material I gave you in regards to big bang etc did not talk of myths of “World egg” it gave a very coherent clear description of a systematic theory developed in the Samkhya school: The theory of evolution and involution:

Originally matter was in an unmanifest and undifferentiated state. This matter is consistiuted of three fundamental forces which were originally were in equilbirum. When consciousness comes into proximity of the original matter, the equibrium is collapsed and the forces are are caused to vibrate causing them to break out of equilbrium. At this point the original unmanifest and undifferentiated matter breaks out of this state and becomes manifest and differentiated and space and time appears and expands under the impetus of the fundamental forces in a state of vibration. Then the universe expands from the original point of singularity(known as bindu, literally point-source). When the fundamental forces begin to resolve again sequence will revert and the universe will revert back to singularity and return to the unmanifest and undifferentiated state. This entire cycle takes 311 trillion years.

This account is accepted by every school of Hinduism.

Now compare that to your strawman of world egg myth. It is obvious you are not making any attempt whatsoever to understand your opponents arguments or represent them accurately.

So in other words if I sad 3.14 is the number of Pi, that’s wrong. There is no way to give a correct number of Pi, right? Any number you give of Pi is wrong, even if you give one with 23048374598734957394573957987349876340857349857938 57938475 digits. It’s wrong. It’s “not at all” Pi. And therefore, finding this number, 3.14, is worthless. It’s not an achievement. It’s crap. Nonsense. Some monkey came up with that. A barbarian, who is far behind real scientist.

No, I said that Relativity introduces radically new variables like space-time and energy which are unknown in the Newtonian paradigm. This leads to radically new model of the universe where matter and energy are getting transformed all the time, gravity is bending space, and time is flowing differently in various areas of the universe.

In conclusion: You are ignorant, you lack honour, you do not examine or consider any arguments or evidence given to you, such as what I did to show the knowledge of genetics in Ayurveda and I deliberately provided you several sources to make the point clear, but you still say, “vague scriptural myth” There is no need continuing this debate with you if you are not going to have the deceny to represent what is being said to you accurately.

A debate can only continue if you respond to the others points. You are only responding to your own strawmans. I see no hope that you are going to get civilized anytime soon, so we might as well consider this “debate” terminated. You lose by default because you failed to counter any of the actual arguments or evidence provided.


#158

Neitzsche,

To address our disagreement further on classical physics being wrong. It is wrong, because is does not account for mind and consciousness. You cannot have a theory of physics without factoring in mind or consciousness because of the very fact that world that the physical world we see would not be possible without consciousness. I mentioned this equation earlier:

CONSCIOUSNESS + REALITY = REALITY AS IT APPEARS TO YOU

You must understand this crucial point which is incidentally exactly what Hinduism teaches:
The physical world you see is an appearance. Here is an argument to prove it, given by a contemporary philosopher: You see the vast sky above you and agree that vast sky you see is constructed inside your brain. Then this means your skull is bigger than the sky.

This is simply an undeniable point that no cognitive scientist or neuroscientist would disagree with today. Whatever you see of the world is a REPRESENTATION of what is there. Just like a mathematical function will process the input in it and output a processed version of the input. If you understand this core point you will understand exactly where we are today in modern physics and why the founder of quantum theory would say there is no matter and speak of an intelligent consciousness field underlying everything.

Scientists have found today in their own lab that after they reduce the entire physical universe into nothingness, into pure vacuum - there is still something there. Something purely non-physical underlying it. Like I said we have various names for it zero point energy field, quantum field, akashic field, consciousness field, ether. We have also discovered this field is the exact opposite of physical reality. It does not have any space or time, it has no mass, it is interconnected, it is holographic. When I say holographic I mean that every part of it contains the whole(Schrodinger) Such that if you do something to anything else, the changes occur in everything else that is entangled with it at once. As the universe was at one time one unit, everything is entangled. Now this all happens at the level of mind, because the physical ends at the quantum barrier.

Thus any theory of physics or matter has to account for the fundamental level of mind. This is why classical physics is blatantly wrong. It assumes a universe made out of space, time, energy - electricity, magnetism, chemicals, nuclear, completely separate from mind and consciousness and working by random chance. It cannot explain even basic facts about the world such as psychosomatic effects, how the mind interacts with the body, how a body is kept together and how evolution and metamorphosis such as inanimate matter like a seed producing a tree, or a catapillar transforming into a butterfly takes place or why there is life at all.


#159

Hi Surya Deva,

I am afraid you are not an honourable debator. You do not represent what is being said to you, but misrepresent it and turn it into a strawman, then attack the strawman. I will give you several examples:
wow, so I do exactly what I accuse you to do the whole time and proved to you the whole time by giving you one example after the other? And now you prove the same to me? Holy lord. :lol:

[quote]You insist that the advances of Indian culture lies within itself, in the blood, in the flesh: In the race. Because you, Sir, are a damn racist.

Nope, I said that the foundational ethos of a culture dictates the course that civilisation takes. In our case the foundational ethos was to love and worship knowledge, wisdom and enlightenment and that is the course our civilisation took.[/quote]I see. Look, you keep saying your “culture” (cough race cough) is supreme. And then I ask

How come your culture is supreme? […] Please explain.
It’s really a simple question, isn’t it. Your culture is supreme, I ask: How come. How did that happen? And you say:

Already answered, because of our culture.
Get it? Once again

My question:
"How come your culture is supreme?"
Your answer:
“because of our culture”

You’re great because you’re great. It has no reason coming from anywhere, it lies within. As I said:

You insist that the advances of Indian culture lies within itself, in the blood, in the flesh: In the race. Because you, Sir, are a damn racist.
You reply:

We worship knowledge and our scriptures are called the books of knowledge. The course of history of a given culture is based on its foundational ethos. Our foundational ethos was knowledge, so went onto to develop a highly scientific culture.
Ok. How was that foundation laid? How did this work? I mean, really, it’s a simple question. How come your culture is

Deva (??? in Devanagari script) is the Sanskrit word for god or deity. In modern Hinduism, it can be loosely interpreted as any benevolent supernatural beings.
How come you guys are benevolent supernatural beings?

[quote]Hubble found the galaxies. Great mind, great scientist. You just ignore this. Speak about the redshift. Totally different subject

No,[/quote]Yes. It’s there, dude. I said Hubble found the galaxies. You just ignore this, speak about the redshift and claim there was something alike in ancient Indian scriptures. How can you lie so openly? Have you no shame.

I said "I congratulate all these luminaries"
Ironically I perfectly know what irony is. I’m the local authority on anything language and rethoric, remember. You use the word luminary to suggest it was no big thing, it’s not sincere, because it opposes what you said about western science and people before: They’re barbarians, thieves, murderers and like animals.

However their findings were already known to the Hindus, and then I gave you citations showing the knowledge was already there.
See, there you lie again, in the wide open. I said Hubble found the galaxies, your ignored that, spoke of redshift and then claimed that something like the conclusion of the redshift, which is that the universe expands, is in some ancient Indian scripture. And it is another lie that you cited that scritpure, or did I miss it? You cited a part of a Wikipedia-article that interpreted a text that I have yet to see. And that text was neither about galaxies, nor about the redshift, nor about the universe, but it sounded to me like some sort of world-egg-myth, here it is:


The Samkhya system is based on Satkaryavada. According to Satkaryavada, the effect pre-exists in the cause. Cause and effect are seen as different temporal aspects of the same thing ? the effect lies latent in the cause which in turn seeds the next effect.
More specifically, Samkhya system follows the Prakriti-Parinama Vada. Parinama denotes that the effect is a real transformation of the cause. The cause under consideration here is Prakriti or more precisely Mula-Prakriti (Primordial Matter). The Samkhya system is therefore an exponent of an evolutionary theory of matter beginning with primordial matter. In evolution, Prakriti is transformed and differentiated into multiplicity of objects. Evolution is followed by dissolution. In dissolution the physical existence, all the worldly objects mingle back into Prakriti, which now remains as the undifferentiated, primordial substance. This is how the cycles of evolution and dissolution follow each other.

I say Hubble found the galaxies, proved there are galaxies, a highly significant finding to profoundly change our understanding of the universe and our place in it. And India has nothing like it. You ignore that and quote a part of a Wikipedia-article. That’s what you do, my friend. Because you are an unfair and spineless debater. There is nothing like galaxies in ancient Indian scriptures. Nothing. Like there is nothing like Newtonian mechanics. What you quoted about an arrow and melting ice is not even remotely comparable to Newtonian mechanics. And Newtonian mechanics is not at all wrong. And there is nothing like western chemistry in ancient Indian science. Ancient Indian science did not even isolate the two most frequent elements in the universe, hydrogen and helium. Your answer: Chemical elements are not the innermost elements of matter, they’re arbitrary. It’s no problem when a super-advanced science, one that is allegedly more advanced than todays world-science has not found it.

Stars do nothing but synthesize chemical elements. You have a first class academic degree and know all about science, and you say that chemical elements are irrelevant, uninteresting, arbitrary. Newton mechanics wrong.

Hilarious. :wink:

No, I gave you citations directly from the rational schools of Hindu philosophy(known as the sadarshanas) and cited the statements showing the advanced knowledge. I did not quote from a single scripture.
Yeah, that what I mean. You did not quote from a single scripture. You presented what already are interpretations, and by the terms used, one can see that such interpretations have been made in modern times, refering to modern science. I am the big authoritiy in language, remember. You gave us interpretations of scriptures we never saw, which were created by Hindus, of whom some, as you demonstrate, are ultra-right-winged extremists nationalists who do anything to present India as the ultra-supreme culture. Your stuff is worthless.

I also gave you supplementary material by providing you external links giving clear information. The material I gave you in regards to big bang etc did not talk of myths of “World egg” it gave a very coherent clear description of a systematic theory developed in the Samkhya school: The theory of evolution and involution:
I know very well what you do, you spam this thread with your stuff, tons over tons of information that have nothing to do with anything this thread is about. I say “a western scienctist found the galaxies, you gotta recognize this achievement!”, and you reply - totally unrelated - this:

The creation hoiwever is not simple but involves a series of 23 fuurther tattwas, the later ones being derived from or unfolding out of the earlier ones. The basic series is as follows:
From prakrti emerges mahat (“the great one”), also called buddhi. This is the subtlest form of mental activity, and the source of will and the unconscious. From buddhi evolves ahamkara, the “I-maker”, which is the source of the sense of ego or individual identity. From ahamkara there is a four-fold unfolding into mind (manas), sense organs (jnanendriyas), the organs of action (karmendriyas), and the subtle elements (tanmatras). Of these the mind and senses are predominantly sattva, the organs of action rajas, and the subtle elements tamas. These latter are the source from which evolve the five gross elements of the material world.
Tattwas? Praktri? Mahat? Buddhi? Mental activity? Ahamkara? I-Maker? Source of the snese of ega? Manas? Jnanedryas? Karmendriyas? Tanmatras? Predominantly sattva? Rajas?

Is that all, Surya Deva? Nothing else? But galaxies you don’t have, do you? No galaxies. You have, my friend, philosophy. A series of 23 tattwas. And so on. But galaxies you have not. And you have no hydrogen and no helium. You have no theory of evolution, no survival of the fittest. You have no physics that compares to classical mechanics, not to mention quantum mechanics or relativistic mechanics. You have a whole lot of philosophical systems and ideas. And you know why? Because the people of India had a lot of time to think, when science was still in it’s infancy.

But again: Your theory of evolution and involution is not what this is about, this was about Hubble finding the galaxies, without stealing the info from Indian scientist. That’s the point. Of this whole debate. That. For example Hubble being a great scientist who made great findings. You refuse to recognize that and so you spam this thread with tons of information that is overwhelming to anybody, that takes years to analyze. If there was a mentioning of galaxies? It would be crystal clear, easy to understand, it would say “there are large clusters of billions of stars all over a vast universe” or so. Ancient Indian astronomy didn’t find galaxies, so there is no mentioning of this, so why not be decent and recognize the achievements of western science.

Originally matter was in an unmanifest and undifferentiated state. This matter is consistiuted of three fundamental forces which were originally were in equilbirum. When consciousness comes into proximity of the original matter, the equibrium is collapsed and the forces are are caused to vibrate causing them to break out of equilbrium. At this point the original unmanifest and undifferentiated matter breaks out of this state and becomes manifest and differentiated and space and time appears and expands under the impetus of the fundamental forces in a state of vibration. Then the universe expands from the original point of singularity(known as bindu, literally point-source). When the fundamental forces begin to resolve again sequence will revert and the universe will revert back to singularity and return to the unmanifest and undifferentiated state. This entire cycle takes 311 trillion years.

This account is accepted by every school of Hinduism.

Now compare that to your strawman of world egg myth. It is obvious you are not making any attempt whatsoever to understand your opponents arguments or represent them accurately.
Sure I understand your arguments, you evade the actual topic to begin with. Again - isn’t it boring? :lol: - I note that Hubble found the galaxies and ancient Indian science has nothing like it. So you drop this highly significant thing and go on a tangent. Hubble also found the redshift, that’s your keyword. Here you have something to note about Indian philosophy, which is about an expanding universe and then you speak about an interpretation of a scripture that speaks about an expanding universe in a way noone here can judge, because neither is the scripture here to read, nor has anybody the time to analyze this vague stuff. To understand what a galaxy is? Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
A galaxy is a massive, gravitationally bound system that consists of stars and stellar remnants, an interstellar medium of gas dust, and an important but poorly understood component tentatively dubbed dark matter.[1][2] The name is from the ancient Greek word galaxias [?a?a??a?], literally meaning “milky”, a reference to the Milky Way galaxy. Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million (107) stars,[3] up to giants with a hundred trillion (1014) stars,[4] all orbiting the galaxy’s center of mass. Galaxies may contain many star systems, star clusters, and various interstellar clouds. The Sun is one of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy; the Solar System includes the Earth and all the other objects that orbit the Sun.
Compare that with

The creation hoiwever is not simple but involves a series of 23 fuurther tattwas, the later ones being derived from or unfolding out of the earlier ones. The basic series is as follows:
From prakrti emerges mahat (“the great one”), also called buddhi. This is the subtlest form of mental activity, and the source of will and the unconscious. From buddhi evolves ahamkara, the “I-maker”, which is the source of the sense of ego or individual identity. From ahamkara there is a four-fold unfolding into mind (manas), sense organs (jnanendriyas), the organs of action (karmendriyas), and the subtle elements (tanmatras). Of these the mind and senses are predominantly sattva, the organs of action rajas, and the subtle elements tamas. These latter are the source from which evolve the five gross elements of the material world.
Why don’t you speak about galaxies? You obviously make not only no attempt whatsoever to understand my arguments, you do anything to evade them, ignore them, obfuscate them, ridicule them, belittle them.

And here is your cultures world-egg-myth:

The earliest ideas of “Egg-shaped Cosmos” comes from some of the Sanskrit scriptures. The Sanskrit term for it is Brahmanda (Brahm means ‘Cosmos’ or ‘expanding’, Anda means ‘Egg’). Certain Puranas such as the Brahmanda Purana speak of this in detail.

The Rig Veda (RV 10.121) uses a similar name for the source of the universe: Hiranyagarbha, which literally means “golden fetus” or “golden womb”. The Upanishads elaborate that the Hiranyagarbha floated around in emptiness for a while, and then broke into two halves which formed Dyaus (Heaven) and Prithvi (Earth) - concepts that existed in nearly every ancient culture, and were also articulated by the Abrahamic religions. The Rig Veda has a similar coded description of the division of the universe in its early stages.
Which probably stems from a much older myth that many cultures shared.

[quote]So in other words if I sad 3.14 is the number of Pi, that’s wrong. There is no way to give a correct number of Pi, right? Any number you give of Pi is wrong, even if you give one with 23048374598734957394573957987349876340857349857938 57938475 digits. It’s wrong. It’s “not at all” Pi. And therefore, finding this number, 3.14, is worthless. It’s not an achievement. It’s crap. Nonsense. Some monkey came up with that. A barbarian, who is far behind real scientist.

No, I said that Relativity introduces radically new variables like space-time and energy which are unknown in the Newtonian paradigm. This leads to radically new model of the universe where matter and energy are getting transformed all the time, gravity is bending space, and time is flowing differently in various areas of the universe.[/quote]No, my friend, you say that Newtonian physics are wrong. I mention Newtonian physics as a great achievement of western science and you say it’s wrong to negate it’s greatness. You know exactly that I know what the theory of relativity is about, and I, my friend, know exactly that you know that Newtonian physics isn’t wrong. You play games, because you lack honour, do not examine or consider any arguments or evidence given to you.

In conclusion: You are ignorant, you lack honour, you do not examine or consider any arguments or evidence given to you, such as what I did to show the knowledge of genetics in Ayurveda and I deliberately provided you several sources to make the point clear, but you still say, “vague scriptural myth” There is no need continuing this debate with you if you are not going to have the deceny to represent what is being said to you accurately.
I give you a source you provided me about genetics, here:

http://integrativehealthcareinstitute.org/journal/articles/charak-club-2.html
The Charaka club started in 1900 at New York is a sure way to respect our ancient seer but it would be much better if we could really understand the principles and practices and adopt some of them today.

Do we need to explore Charka’s contributions? Is it worth diving into the depths of this bottomless ocean today as conventional medical system is still groping to find answers? Could we find some questions answered here?

There are various medical societies, clubs and associations in different parts of the world, each having special objectives in view. Charaka Club was one such formed with select gathering in November 1898 and was simply known as medico-historico-social club that discussed a range of subjects involving fields like medical, medical history, literature and poetry even.

This club was founded by a group of four doctors - Charles. L. Dana, Joseph Colleirs, Fedrick Petterson and Barnad Sachs. In the eighth meeting of the club held in January 1900 at the residence of Atpad Gerster, Barnad Sachs presented a paper on Hindu medicine in which he said that Charaka was the oldest medicine man and priest whose works were still extant. Immediately after this statement was made there was a whisper in the group ?we have a name for the club ?.

Since then the nameless happy group began functioning under the name ?The Charaka Club?. In the meeting of April 1900 the name was officially adopted and in the seal in 1901. Among the various papers presented in this club by the members few papers read up till April 1944 have beenlisted below-
I need to read this? What for? I have no time for this.

Then it says, as you said:

  1. The contributions of Charaka in genetics are worth exploring. Genetic engineering to change the sex of the fetus has also been described. The microscopic structures like genes; chromosomes; DNA and RNA have all been described.
    Oh really. Well, if some random website says the Charaka club says so, I guess it’s the case. Or maybe it’s just some random website saying some unreliable stuff that is worth: -Less. So what now? Ok, I look for “Charaka”, let’s try Wikipedia first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charaka
Charaka, sometimes spelled Caraka, born c. 300 BC was one of the principal contributors to the ancient art and science of Ayurveda, a system of medicine and lifestyle developed in Ancient India. He is sometimes referred to as the Father of Indian Medicine.

Charaka knew the fundamentals of genetics. For instance, he knew the factors determining the sex of a child. A genetic defect in a child, like lameness or blindness, he said, was not due to any defect in the mother or the father, but in the ovum or sperm of the parents (an accepted fact today).
So he said that lamenness and blindness was a defect in the ovum or sperm. That’s now genetics? Genetics is this:

Genetics (from Ancient Greek ?e?et??? genetikos, “genitive” and that from ???es?? genesis, “origin”[1][2][3]), a discipline of biology, is the science of genes, heredity, and variation in living organisms.[4][5]

Genetics deals with the molecular structure and function of genes, with gene behavior in the context of a cell or organism (e.g. dominance and epigenetics), with patterns of inheritance from parent to offspring, and with gene distribution, variation and change in populations. Given that genes are universal to living organisms, genetics can be applied to the study of all living systems, from viruses and bacteria, through plants (especially crops) and domestic animals, to humans (as in medical genetics).

The fact that living things inherit traits from their parents has been used since prehistoric times to improve crop plants and animals through selective breeding. However, the modern science of genetics, which seeks to understand the process of inheritance, only began with the work of Gregor Mendel in the mid-19th century.[6] Although he did not know the physical basis for heredity, Mendel observed that organisms inherit traits via discrete units of inheritance, which are now called genes.

Genes correspond to regions within DNA, a molecule composed of a chain of four different types of nucleotides?the sequence of these nucleotides is the genetic information organisms inherit. DNA naturally occurs in a double stranded form, with nucleotides on each strand complementary to each other. Each strand can act as a template for creating a new partner strand. This is the physical method for making copies of genes that can be inherited.

The sequence of nucleotides in a gene is translated by cells to produce a chain of amino acids, creating proteins?the order of amino acids in a protein corresponds to the order of nucleotides in the gene. This relationship between nucleotide sequence and amino acid sequence is known as the genetic code. The amino acids in a protein determine how it folds into a three-dimensional shape; this structure is, in turn, responsible for the protein’s function. Proteins carry out almost all the functions needed for cells to live. A change to the DNA in a gene can change a protein’s amino acids, changing its shape and function: this can have a dramatic effect in the cell and on the organism as a whole.

Although genetics plays a large role in the appearance and behavior of organisms, it is the combination of genetics with what an organism experiences that determines the ultimate outcome. For example, while genes play a role in determining an organism’s size, the nutrition and health it experiences after inception also have a large effect.
And did Charaka really know and had he actually proven where lameness and blindness comes from, or was it just some vague theory? Who knows, I only know: I don’t.

I could research this further, read the Charaka Samhita, but you know what? I’m pretty sure already that it has nothing that equals for example this:


And you know why I think so? Because if there was something like it, I would already know there was something like it. And if I hadn’t already know, you would’ve presented it. But all you have is a phrase on a Wikipedia page:

Charaka knew the fundamentals of genetics.
and some claim from some club:

  1. The contributions of Charaka in genetics are worth exploring. Genetic engineering to change the sex of the fetus has also been described. The microscopic structures like genes; chromosomes; DNA and RNA have all been described.
    To even argue with this is pathetic, and again: If you actually wrote a dissertation, you did not argue there like you do here. You did not link to some Charak Club website and then said “Ayurveda was ahead modern genetics and knew DNA and RNA and the micrcosopic structure of genes”. You did not.

And again: Even if ancient India had this knowledge, Mendel would still have found it by himself. Cuz he ain’t a barbaric animal and stoopid and a devil and murderer and thief. He was a great minded scientist, who deserves not only some ironic “tap on the back”, but to be acknowledged as a great man with a brilliant scientific mind.

Why do you deny him that? Explain!

A debate can only continue if you respond to the others points. You are only responding to your own strawmans. I see no hope that you are going to get civilized anytime soon, so we might as well consider this “debate” terminated. You lose by default because you failed to counter any of the actual arguments or evidence provided.

Dude, has there ever been anybody who had not your racist right-winged-nationlist opinion who did not lose by default. :wink: Your evidence is a joke, your arguments hilarious. Even if we don’t mention that all this stuff is off topic. Even if Charaka knew all about genetics, what Mendel found Mendel found on his own, so his mind is obviously a brilliant one and western science - dude, which is the point of this discussion - did not steal all it’s knowledge from holy Indian Devas. I have no reason to respond to any of your “other points”. When I say “Hubble found the galaxies”, I have no reason to respond to

The creation hoiwever is not simple but involves a series of 23 fuurther tattwas, the later ones being derived from or unfolding out of the earlier ones. The basic series is as follows:
From prakrti emerges mahat (“the great one”), also called buddhi. This is the subtlest form of mental activity, and the source of will and the unconscious. From buddhi evolves ahamkara, the “I-maker”, which is the source of the sense of ego or individual identity. From ahamkara there is a four-fold unfolding into mind (manas), sense organs (jnanendriyas), the organs of action (karmendriyas), and the subtle elements (tanmatras). Of these the mind and senses are predominantly sattva, the organs of action rajas, and the subtle elements tamas. These latter are the source from which evolve the five gross elements of the material world.
U gotza b kiddin me. :lol: When I say western scientist found all chemical elements and you say it’s irrelevant and arbitrary, I have no reason to reply to such nonsense. When I say Newtonian mechanics is a great scientific achievment, I don’t have to respond to your claim it would be wrong and therefore no achievement. I should suggest the stooopid ones in the audience to read a book instead of buying such false knowledge, because obviously some believe you. You know, like that Shaman who thinks that teleportation would be going on if he downloads a file from the internet. Your backup-crew, SD, impressive. :wink:

Again, it’s simple: Get over your hatred and give up your racism. Western scientist made great findings too. Many great findings were only possible with corresponding technology, so it’s no surprise ancient India did not know of the DNA, did not know of galaxies, did not know all elements. Also, science needed and needs to go a long way and indeed, India was too troubled by being conquered and raped to go that way. Again: This is not about belittleing India, this is about setting straight your attempts to belittle the West and to refute the false knowledge you spread like a virus.

Some quotes from the Yoga-Sutra, a great book from India, translated by B.K.S. Iyengar, a great man from India:

1.7 Correct knowledge is direct, inferred, or proven as factual.

1.9 Verbal knowledge devoid of substance is fancy or imagination.

2.34 Uncertain knowledge giving rise to violence, whether done directly or indirectly, or conditioned, is caused by greed, anger or delusion in mild, moderate or intense degree. It results in endless pain and ignorance. Through introspection comes the end of pain and ignorance.
Come to your senses, SD, before it’s too late for you.


#160

Q,

you suffer from a narrow mind. You want a system from another culture to match exactly the system in your culture. You ask where is the periodic tabe, why have they not mentioned galaxies, where are the formulas, equations, graphs and technologies. You assume this would be universal in every culture in the universe. Even the aliens should have them :wink:

Although you have been provided very strong evidence from the primary texts itself and supplementay material to make you aware that the knowledge was known, you ignore it all, simply because it is not in exactly the same form as your culture. For example I provided you direct citations from the Vaiseshika sutras describing the laws of motion sometimes almost identically to Newtons(An object remains rest or continues in a straight line unless a force acts on it, the motion of an object is directly proportional to the force applied, every action is opposed by an equal reaction) but just because those laws are expressed as language statements and not equations you reject it.

So basically you will accept only exact copies of your system to acknowledge the knowledge is there. Which makes you a fool to be honest. A real scientist would be startled to find the laws of mechanics in a text thousands of years before Newton expressed so clearly. They would be started to find descriptions of force vectors acting on objects and clear descriptions of gravity causing objects to fall.(You say this is trivial, but if it is so trivial why was it not known in your culture until Newton?)

If your mind is so narrow that you cannot accept different cultures could have their own unique scientific method, their own unique ways of representing that knowledge and their own unique ways of applying it, then you are most defintiely a narrow minded ignoramus. There is no cure for a narrow mind. It is a developmental problem. At the age of 40 if you have such a narrow mind, it is unlikely you will ever be able expand it. This is why I think it is best I terminate this debate with you. Why waste time trying to convince somebody who no longer has the cognitive capacity to understand anything you are saying.

Anyway I will quickly answer what our scientific method is, how we represent knowledge and how we apply it. The fact the knowledge is there is undeniable unless you willfuly want to be blind. Clear descriptions of laws of motion, gravity, force vectors, states of matter as a function of kinetic energy of atoms, cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe, observer effects on matter, and the equivalence of all matter and energy and conservation of energy, and the breaking and forming of atomic bonds through application of hear or energy. A real scientist would never ignore this, considering all this knowledge was unknown in the West till at least the 18th century, most of it in the 19th century, and some of it in the 20th century.

The method that has been used to ascertain this knowledge is simply pure logical reasoning. Logical arguments are given for why for example the arrow has motion, why it continues in a straight line, and why it falls. The argument is that no effect takes place without a cause. All objects will remain at rest unless a force is applied There has to be cause for the arrow leaving and this is obviously the original momentum provided by the bow. Thus the velocity of the arrow would be directly proportional to how force was originally applied. The reason the arrows then continues in a straight line and should so do forever is because there is no cause present to end its motion. But this is not the case, because it is observed that the arrow does indeed fall after a distance and follows a parabolic path. As there cannot be any effect without a cause and it is observed that a force must be applied to make an object at rest move, we must infer the existence of an invisible force acting downwards on the arrow. This is gravity.

A similar argument is used to explain the motion of a needle and a magnet. The fact that there can be no motion without the application of a force leads to one to infer that an invisible force exists between the needle and the magnet, that causes the needle to move. A similar argument is used to explain why atomic bonds break or form, there must be a cause to break the atomic bond or to form it. This cause has been identified as an application of a force, heat or energy. Likewise, even the atoms holding together are explained by a force holding them together, in the absence of which, it breaks apart.

You really should get the picture now on how we knew what we knew. They obtained this knowledge by simple observations and pure logic. This is known as rationalism in epistemology - whereby ones uses pure logic to come to knowledge.

Your scientific method uses what is called empiricism in epistemology - whereby measurements are made of things, these measurements then lead to forming mathematical models to make sense of the measurements. This leads to theories. Theories depend upon measurements. We cannot measure everything at once, so new measurements means revising or even rejecting theories.

How knowledge is represented and tested. We represent knowledge through language statements eg, “every effect has a cause” It is tested through formal debate, if the statement can be disproved, it is rejected. The condition is that the reason for the statement must be absolute and no other reason can be possible. This is called invariable concomitance. Such as smoke and fire have relationship of invariable concomitance.

You represent knowledge through equations and formulas e.g., “F = MA, E = Mc^2, S = ut + 1/2at^2, Gmm/r^2” and test it by doing experiments over and over again in order to produce replicable results. This is fine, until you do an experiment and get a wrong result, which leads to revision of the formulas or inventing entirely new formlas.

How knowledge is applied. We apply knowledge in terms of how it can end human suffering. Every tradition in dharmic culture is concerned with this question only and everybody provides their way on how to end suffering. Nyaya(logic) says suffering is ended when we have a right view of reality. Vaiseshika says suffering is ended when we understand the particularity of everything in reality and understand how everything works. Samkhya says suffering ends when we gain discriminative knowledge between consciousness and matter. Yoga says we end suffering by stilling the mind completely and dissolving all its modications. Vedanta says we end it through knowing the ultimate reality. Buddhism says we end suffering by ending desire. Jainism says we end suffering by becoming perfected beings and shunning all imperfections.

You apply knowledge by making a technology out of it or building a machine in order to make your material life more comfortable. In order to maximise your productivity and ineffiency. Hence why there has always been a tendency towards automation - this is clear in the Greco-roman period where automatic machines like water dispensers, steam powered doors. In modern times automation has gone to the extreme that the distinction between man and machine has been blurred, and some people are even putting machine implants inside them.

You have now been provided very detailed answers to these questions that if you still do not understand that not every culture in the universe would do science using your ways of empiricism and create mathematical models, represent and test knowledge through equations and formuls and experiments, and apply the knowledge by creating technologies to make material life more comfortable and maximise productivity and effiency -
If you still cannot fathom this - then like I said there is no cure for a narrow mind. I am simply going to leave you to your devices(cough senileness cough)