wandelaar

@ Song of the Dao I agree that even measurement systems introduce a subjective element. But they are tested against reality by doing experiments at the same time that the more theoretical elements of our scientific world view are tested. Measurement systems that don't somehow do justice to the world as it is will automatically prove insufficient sooner or later.

@ Jeff In my opinion the logical fallacy in Zeno's reasoning is that he supposes the impossibility of accomplishing infinitely many acts within finite time.

Calculus doesn't need infinite or infinitesimal numbers for a rigorous foundation, limits defined by means of the (ε, δ)-definition suffice. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(ε,_δ)-definition_of_limit However there are also some rigorous approaches to calculus that use infinite and infinitesimal numbers. See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_analysis

A paradox cannot be solved by placing another correct reasoning besides it, you have to actually pinpoint the error(s) in the paradoxical reasoning.

@ Taoist Texts There you go again! The usual fallacies (the straw man, false generalisation, PC tabooing). Don't expect me to waste my time on that.

I'm not aware of having admitted that I don't even know why the paradoxes were created or what they even mean.

That is correct. But the paradoxes in western philosophy are posed in the context of rational thought and the solution is also (usually) sought by means of rationale thought. But koans are expressly not supposed to be solved by means of rational thought. They have a quite different purpose.

That is another quite exotic possibility, but you need to provide some reasons for us to join you on that road or it will end in pure speculation. And from there to bizarre conspiracy or pseudoscientific theories is but a small step...

I will simply ignore the irrelevant mechanically self-repeating rantings of rideforever, ViYY, etc. They are not here to discuss anything, but only to preach to the supposedly unknowing masses about their own supposedly superior understandings. I have no need for nor interest in that kind of stuff.

Yes - in my opinion mere rationalism independent of observation and/or common sense is just as silly as confidently trusting in "what resonates with you" without caring about known facts.

Probably the latter. See: https://books.google.nl/books?id=0AzP9WLLJLcC&pg=PR6#v=onepage&q&f=false

In this topic I want to discuss the following suggestion by rideforever on Taoist meditation:

See you there!

It will have to wait for a while...

@ Song of the Dao This is opening a whole lot of other issues! I like to discuss one thing at a time. Now the Paradoxes of Zeno were what got me interested in philosophy. I did some study about that as a student, so maybe we could open a topic about those paradoxes to discuss whether or not they are solved by modern science?

Yes - I want to talk about what you are saying. But we've got to have a decent and clear openings post to limit what the new topic is to be about. Do you think the following is appropriate? Are chi, meridians, chakras, etc. just metaphors for experiences that are not to be understood as physical realities?

@ ilumairen Sure - it is very important to distinguish the different senses in which the expression free will is used. I have only one thing to add to your description: There is a possibility that some events (such as the exact moment of disintegration of a radioactive nucleus) are random in the sense of not being caused by anything else. Some philosophers and scientists think that this opens up the possibility of a certain amount of free will existing within the context of Natural Laws. But I don't think this works, because random events don't correlate with anybodies character and thus cannot be considered as somehow constituting the choices of somebody. Still another idea is that our consciousness could somehow influence the random events. But suppose this were possible, than we would simple have an extra process involved in the workings of our psyche. So that the question about the freedom of the will should be asked again for this new situation, and then the old philosophical problems simply reappear.

@ rideforever You are mistaken. What you are talking about is will power. But whether or not our will can be free in the philosophical sense of being beyond the reach of the Laws of Nature or Tao is a completely different question. Focussing on will power can easily lead to a sense of one's own superiority, and indeed most of your posts have a distinct smell of spiritual arrogance in the way that you are continually bashing common folks.

The conclusion doesn't follow. Yes we are automatons, but no it is not true that we don't make decisions. Obviously we continuously make choices. But our making of choices is part of the world process just like everything else, so there is no reason to suppose that what happens when we make choices somehow escapes from being determined by the Laws of Nature or Tao. That is - yes we have a will of our own, but no that will is not free in the sense of operating beyond the reach of the Laws of Nature or Tao. The Problem of Free Will is as old as philosophy itself, so nothing new is to be expected from the discussion between some bums on an obscure internet forum...

OK - can't help you with that...

I will concentrate on the physical aspects of your question. There are several things that could be relevant here, but the first thing I'm thinking of are the metal parts of the bath and the shower. Do you have the possibility to test whether your meter also gives increased values when held near large metal surfaces or long conducting wires outside of the bathroom?

I agree on that. However the further you move away from the Taoism of Lao tzu and Chuang tzu the more absurdities and empty rituals are added. The Hellenistic Epicureans, Stoics and Sceptics were at least as rational in presenting a philosophy of life as the ancient Taoists. It's more that the Taoists were more encompassing in their approach. What is of worth in the Epicureans, Stoics and Sceptics can also be found in the Taoists.

@ Desmonddf I agree with your point of view, logically thinking it trough to the very end leaves no room for free will. It has to be an illusion springing from the perception of oneself as standing in the world and acting upon it. What one doesn't realise is that the world includes oneself, and that the Laws of Nature or Tao also determine how one's own psyche functions and thus what one chooses. And even when there would be some room for true chaos (quantum mechanical or otherwise) than that would still leave no room for a free will because chaotic events (that is: events unrelated to anything else) are also unrelated to one's own character (they would not be choices made by you). But I have been here long enough to know that this chain of arguments will not impress those who want to preserve their faith in free will, they would rather be illogical than accept the non-existence of free will. And even this matter of fact is also a result of the non-existence of free will.

@ Song of the Dao My opponent was not a tyrant capable of having me killed. But parts of your Chuang tzu quotes are applicable nevertheless. There is often a lot of ego boosting involved even in supposedly objective debates. I too like to "win", particularly when I think I am provably right and my opponent is provable wrong. I feel like a warrior (or nonsense fighter) battling on a lofty mission. But however one might think about that, it simply doesn't work. People who don't share my perspective on truth will brush away my arguments as false or irrelevant no matter how convincing they seem to me. And the same goes for my opinion about the arguments of my opponents. Chuang tzu has some nice stories about this also. So basically trying to convince somebody with a fundamentally different perspective on truth by means of debate is hopeless, and one shouldn't even try. That is - unless one can do so in a playful manner, as a game, or to sharp one's wits.

When reading the posts of manitou in this topic I just now had my own "Tao in daily life"-experience. I had already started writing one more comment in a discussion in another topic that should have stopped much earlier. But then I remembered that everything had already been said. Just one more comment by myself would only result in jet another comment by my opponent until one of us would give up. So I have deleted the comment I was already working on. I will let my opponent have "the last word". Important Taoist rules of thumb in all this that I frequently use (but still sometimes ignore to my own detriment) are: "enough is enough", "know when to stop", "winning by loosing", and "avoiding useless debates".