wandelaar

My rational mind has no problem with understanding (the basics of) virtue, love, wisdom, etc. I don't see what's so mysterious about that. Those phenomena are investigated by positive psychology, and so they are definitely not beyond the reach of scientific research.

That I can understand. There my logical mind protests. Virtue and integrity are not "things" or "substances", I don't see how they could be stored.

What is stored?

I have no problem with loud mouths on You Tube, that's just their own podium that I have a choice to visit or not. The problem are those loud mouths that invade decent discussions to post a barrage of nonsense. Those loud mouths will win out regardless of whether they are right or wrong simply by reason of the sheer volume of their "contributions" .

@ Stosh I largely agree. There are many things about which we are not certain, and the experts should admit that. Particularly in the medical, social and political sciences one has to be very careful with claiming something to be a good thing or not. Results (even spectacular ones!) have to be carefully replicated before they can be considered as being established facts. There is also a responsibility of the press to not blow things up to epic proportions which are still in the process of being investigated. Such spectacular claims often have to be retracted afterwards leaving the public with the false impression that science is just saying this today and that tomorrow and is better ignored altogether. But yes - scientists are not absolutely certain about anything. This however should not go so far as to conclude that science is just another opinion. There is a careful balance to be found here. What we see today is that people shamelessly and openly start from their own ill-informed preconceptions, search the internet for concurring views of whatever quality, completely ignore arguments opposing their own viewpoint, and then start spamming discussions with a barrage of quotes and links that overwhelm those participants that try to have a decent discussion on the basis of questions, answers and reasoned arguments. You cannot win from an idiot who completely ignores your carefully reasoned arguments, and keeps posting one stupidity after the other that he wrongfully imagines to proof his point. Those who actually know something of the subject under discussion will then simply be washed away by the sheer amount of nonsense. So sooner or later the more knowledgeable participants will leave the discussion, and stupidity will reign supreme.

Yes - not claiming to be an expert of anything is the safest thing one could do. But next best is only claiming to know those things that one actually knows something about. It would also become problematic for our society when the real experts of today would hide in obscurity. How would we than get to know their informed opinion?

Is this your paper? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308487733_Neurotypical_subjective_experience_is_caused_by_a_hippocampal_simulation

@ Otis How does your theory of consciousness differ from Dennett's? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

I was happy to see so much serious interest and well reasoned posts in the other topic about general relativity theory. But as that topic is about the question whether or not general relativity is a pseudoscience this topic is for questions and answers on the content of Einstein's two theories of relativity. No scientist worth his salt claims that scientific theories are eternal truths. And the same holds for relativity theory, it is the best we have at the moment. But in all probability still better theories will be found in the future. However that may be, the study of relativity theory is still very interesting in its own right. And that is why I have opened this topic. Those who want to dispute the status of relativity theory as a scientific theory may lay their eggs in the other topic...

@ Otis I have looked at the video, and I have some questions about it. But as this topic is about Einstein's relativity theories and not about any alternatives, I will ask you to open another topic about your own theory. Then we can discuss your theory in your own topic.

There has been some discussion on the photon sphere in the other topic. Now the photon sphere is a very subtle concept. See: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25657/black-hole-photon-sphere https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/47buvf/is_it_possible_for_photons_to_have_a_stable_orbit/ And: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

That's another way of saying the same thing. The crucial insight here is that one can behave in the way that seems best considering the circumstances and that that is the most sensible thing to do, but that there is no implied guarantee that things will then turn out fine. The ultimate man has eventually to rise above petty earthly concerns to find piece of mind. And that is something that's hard to do for mere mortals...

Apparently Mair considered the part "There was a certain Sun Hsiu who paid a call at the gate of Master Pien Sir Ch'ing (...) How could he not be alarmed?" as not belonging to the original text of the Chuang tzu.

The problem of Sun Hsiu was that he expected the world and the people around him to reward his efforts at being a good man. As that didn't happen, he started complaining. So apparently for Sun Hsiu the realization of having done the right thing wasn't enough. And the same goes for very many people around the world even today. The belief in a (basically or fundamentally or eventually or even after death or seen in the perspective of several incarnations) just world is too comforting for many people to let it go and accept the obvious truth that Tao doesn't care. We are just its straw dogs.

@ OldDog Now how about the infamous straw dogs... ? That's how I understand it: Tao doesn't care about people, and so it is silly to count on being rewarded for doing "the right thing" such as Sun Hsiu is doing.

Sun Hsiu made a show of his excellence and because of that was considered arrogant by all the people he met. But the ultimate man hides his treasures and knows that it's better not to pose as some superior human being as that would invite the hatred and/or ridicule of the masses. Now we can indeed choose how to behave and what we do, but how that is received in the world around us is beyond our power. So the ultimately man has to grow above those kind of earthly worries. The ultimate man - unlike Sun Hsiu - has also outgrown the belief in a just world. In short: Master Pien fears that his advise to Sun Hsiu will not be understood.

Anybody read Yinyang: The Way of Heaven and Earth in Chinese Thought and Culture by Robin R. Wang?

I will take a look. Thanks!

I already have a book by Elisabeth Rochat de la Vallée especially on chi.

Practice in my case usually follows understanding. And as my current understanding of yinyang is shallow at best, the book might just be the right thing to get my understanding in order. I am also looking for a good book on chi, as that is another concept I am having difficulty with understanding.

Well - that may have been so in the old days before Taoist Texts proved the General Theory of Relativity wrong. I guess mathematics and physics from now on will have to bow to the supreme authority of ancient Chinese texts and their philologically schooled exegetes...

Thank you! In that case it must be worth buying.

Is he still a member?

Why is that..?