Karma

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Karma is a very common and fundamental part of Indian philosophy. It figures prominently in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism. 

It is generally seen as 'What goes around...comes around'.

Here is something on this intriguing subject....

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/karma/

Cheers.

Sriram

[Stranger]

Here is something on this intriguing subject....

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/karma/

Got as far as:

"Karma is required to explain the great differences that we see in the personalities of different humans and the many different circumstances that people are born in and live in everyday. The innumerable differences among different humans and their lives cannot be explained by science."

At least I got a laugh out of it.

[Maeght]

Got as far as:

"Karma is required to explain the great differences that we see in the personalities of different humans and the many different circumstances that people are born in and live in everyday. The innumerable differences among different humans and their lives cannot be explained by science."

At least I got a laugh out of it.

Me too 

[Sriram]

And what explanation, according to you,  does science offer for these differences....besides 'chance'?!

[Maeght]

And what explanation, according to you,  does science offer for these differences....besides 'chance'?!

Nature and nurture.

[Stranger]

And what explanation, according to you,  does science offer for these differences....besides 'chance'?!

You do seem to be unable to accept the idea of chance or effective randomness for some reason, despite the evidence that it does play a significant part in all sorts of situations. No idea why, you've never justified it.

That there are different circumstances that people get born into is, of course, due to all sorts of reasons. That people have different personalities is, as Maeght said, down to nature and nurture and also life experiences.

You're trying to 'explain' something that is already adequately and almost trivially explained already.

[Sriram]

You have explained nothing. Chance is not an explanation. It is a cop out.

For people like me who believe in a deeper meaning and purpose to life, karma is a more meaningful explanation.

[Udayana]

You have explained nothing. Chance is not an explanation. It is a cop out.

For people like me who believe in a deeper meaning and purpose to life, karma is a more meaningful explanation.

Who doesn't like a reassuring fairy tale?

[Stranger]

You have explained nothing. Chance is not an explanation. It is a cop out.

So you assert. The problem is that just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and that it isn't an explanation. The evidence is that things happen for reasons that are often effectively random chance in the sense that they are complicated and not actually related to the subject you're focusing on. It is also the case that even systems that are fully deterministic can be unpredictable, see chaos theory. And, of course, there may be true randomness from quantum effects.

For people like me who believe in a deeper meaning and purpose to life, karma is a more meaningful explanation.

So you're basing your conclusion on blind faith. 

[Sriram]

So you're basing your conclusion on blind faith. 

That's what you like to think.

[Stranger]

That's what you like to think.

It's pretty much what you said. You said "For people like me who believe in a deeper meaning and purpose to life..." - a belief for which you have never provided any evidence or reasoning, then "...karma is a more meaningful explanation." Hence, you chose it because it fits with your unjustified beliefs - blind faith.

[Sriram]

There is nothing  supernatural about the idea of karma. If you had read the article in full you would have seen that the idea of karma could basically be seen as moving from unstable high energy states to more stable low energy states.   

[Stranger]

There is nothing  supernatural about the idea of karma. If you had read the article in full you would have seen that the idea of karma could basically be seen as moving from unstable high energy states to more stable low energy states.

Searched through for that bit. More laughs. Desperate attempt to dress up obvious woo to look a bit like your poor understanding of atoms. I mean, seriously?

"We can picture the proton as the Higher self and the electron as our Lower Self.  The further away the Lower Self is from the centre, the more energy it has and the more unstable it is. It tends to bond with others and get involved in activities more and more.

Needs and desires can be seen as high energy requirements that lead to mental and emotional instability. These energies lead to activity and karma. If however, the energy is released, the individual self (Jivatma) moves closer to the centre and becomes more stable. There is then less karmic energy. 

So, the idea is that ‘bad karma’ is about acquiring energy and becoming unstable while ‘good karma’ is about releasing this energy, moving closer to the centre and becoming more stable."

[Outrider]

There is nothing  supernatural about the idea of karma.

Can you give a natural explanation for it, then? Or, at least, propose an experiment within natural cause and effect by which we could test it? Otherwise, it's a supernatural explanation. That doesn't explicitly mean that it's wrong, but it does make it significantly more likely.

If you had read the article in full you would have seen that the idea of karma could basically be seen as moving from unstable high energy states to more stable low energy states.

Except that you can't measure these 'energies' or show the effects of these 'energies' or quantify these 'energies' or in any way explain, categorise or quantify these 'energies'. Piling that on top of the assumption that people considered to be in a current 'low energy' state were once 'higher energy' and are headed is not demonstrated in any way. Even if the energy system were there, you can't show people moving in one direction or another, or indeed that people are moving at all.

Absolute tosh, start to finish.

O.

[Sriram]

Just because we can't measure something empirically does not mean it cannot exist. This attitude is what leads to scientism.

Philosophically speaking, it is a possibility and ties in with the lives of most people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you give a natural explanation for it, then? Or, at least, propose an experiment within natural cause and effect by which we could test it? Otherwise, it's a supernatural explanation. That doesn't explicitly mean that it's wrong, but it does make it significantly more likely.

Except that you can't measure these 'energies' or show the effects of these 'energies' or quantify these 'energies' or in any way explain, categorise or quantify these 'energies'. Piling that on top of the assumption that people considered to be in a current 'low energy' state were once 'higher energy' and are headed is not demonstrated in any way. Even if the energy system were there, you can't show people moving in one direction or another, or indeed that people are moving at all.

Absolute tosh, start to finish.

O.

Energy is a word that science borrowed and gave it’s own definition to. A process the mechanics of which are plain in the appropriation of the word ‘nothing’ by Krauss et al.
Not only does the word have a flexible,to suit, meaning for these operators, Krauss is seen imposing his new definition on the past.

[Stranger]

Just because we can't measure something empirically does not mean it cannot exist. This attitude is what leads to scientism.

Well, if you can't measure it somehow then all you've got is hand-waving. You can't possibly make all the silly claims about "moving from unstable high energy states to more stable low energy states" because you can't say what is "high", "low", and "stable".

Scientism has nothing to do with it. It is you has tried to claim that this is somehow science, or at least similar, when you started babbling about energy levels and compared it to atoms.

Philosophically speaking, it is a possibility and ties in with the lives of most people.

All sorts of things are possible, but without a philosophical argument (logic) they are nothing but baseless speculation. You lost all credibility when you claimed that science couldn't explain "the innumerable differences among different humans and their lives". This is an absurd claim even by your standards.

[Outrider]

Energy is a word that science borrowed and gave it’s own definition to.

Just like information technology stole 'avatar' (and then Hollywood stole it from them)... that's how language works, words get recycled and reused and reinvented.

A process the mechanics of which are plain in the appropriation of the word ‘nothing’ by Krauss et al.

Actually, Krauss' book is about exactly the opposite - it's about how people use the term 'nothing' incorrectly in that sense, because what they're talking about isn't 'nothing' it's an equilibrium state between fluctuating amounts of 'something' and 'anti-something'.

Not only does the word have a flexible,to suit, meaning for these operators, Krauss is seen imposing his new definition on the past.

No, Krauss is showing that the language of the past isn't always capable of explaining the learning of the present.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just like information technology stole 'avatar' (and then Hollywood stole it from them)... that's how language works, words get recycled and reused and reinvented.

Actually, Krauss' book is about exactly the opposite - it's about how people use the term 'nothing' incorrectly in that sense, because what they're talking about isn't 'nothing' it's an equilibrium state between fluctuating amounts of 'something' and 'anti-something'.

No, Krauss is showing that the language of the past isn't always capable of explaining the learning of the present.

O.

No it’s linguistic piracy, coupled with shuffling and intellectual totalitarianism.

[Outrider]

No it’s linguistic piracy, coupled with shuffling and intellectual totalitarianism.

That would be 'piracy' from the Greek peirein, meaning 'to attack' or 'to try'. Is that piracy in the sense of seaborne raiders (which this clearly isn't) or the broadcast of unsanctioned entertainment (which this questionably is) or are you having the temerity to repurpose words?

O.

[Sriram]

Certainly, karma is a more meaningful explanation for the differences in human lives, than chance. Science relies far too often on chance and randomness which can never be true explanations.

Measurement and precise knowledge is not really important. In psychology for example, we hardly have precise knowledge or precise predictions.

Reality is a spectrum that  moves from exact to inexact  phenomena. Physics...chemistry.....biology.... psychology.....spirituality.  Each subsequent field is less precise than the one before. That is the way reality is. Let us face it.

[jeremyp]

Certainly, karma is a more meaningful explanation for the differences in human lives, than chance. Science relies far too often on chance and randomness which can never be true explanations.

Measurement and precise knowledge is not really important. In psychology for example, we hardly have precise knowledge or precise predictions.

Reality is a spectrum that  moves from exact to inexact  phenomena. Physics...chemistry.....biology.... psychology.....spirituality.  Each subsequent field is less precise than the one before. That is the way reality is. Let us face it.

I don’t know why you think this supports your view: psychology is beset with problems precisely because it’s difficult to measure psychological phenomena.

[Stranger]

Certainly, karma is a more meaningful explanation for the differences in human lives, than chance.

Sorry to break it to you Sriram, but your subjective opinion about how 'meaningful' an explanation is has bugger all to do with whether it's correct or not.

Science relies far too often on chance and randomness which can never be true explanations.

This is one of your silliest claims.

Whereas whether true randomness exists in nature is an open question, there is no doubt that effective randomness (random for all practical purposes) does. Think about flipping a coin or rolling dice. The outcome isn't truly random, it's due to the exact details of the forces applied, encounters with other surfaces, and so on. It is widely accepted, however, that the outcomes are effectively random because the influences are complicated and finely balanced so as not to favour one outcome over the others. We accept the effective randomness because we know how the outcome is determined and that it follows no patterns.

It's similar for the differences in human lives. We actually know why people's lives are different: different nature, nurture, and experience. It's not statistically random like dice and coin flips because many of the factors are due to politics, economics, climate, culture and so on. Where you're born and the economic circumstances of your parents play a huge role.

However, the main point is that there is simply no need for further explanation. What we know already explains what we see perfectly adequately.

Trying to shoehorn 'karma' into it seems to be nothing but superstition and wishful thinking. You, as usual, have no evidence and no sound reasoning.

It's also worth noting that you are introducing unfounded superstitious ideas of a person as separate form nature. Phrases like "Science does not know of any factors that decide which person would inherit which set of genes..." are arse about face. There isn't a bank of people waiting to get born with some set genes. It's the other way around. The genes, and the subsequent nurture and experience, produce the person. I couldn't possibly have been born in different circumstances with different genes, because the result would have been a different person, not me. You and me were not landed with our nature, nurture, and experiences, we are the people we are because of them.

[Sriram]

It is true that '"Science does not know of any factors that decide which person would inherit which set of genes...".  It is only chance.

In spiritual philosophy....the soul chooses its body and circumstances according to its level of development.

[Stranger]

It is true that '"Science does not know of any factors that decide which person would inherit which set of genes...".  It is only chance.

It would help if you actually read what has been said before 'answering'. There is so much wrong with this it's difficult to know where to start.

Firstly, chance can be a perfectly good reason, so there is no either/or about a reasons or chance.

Secondly, science knows of lots of reasons why circumstances of birth, genetics, etc. vary, as I explained.

Thirdly, the question is framed in such a way that it assumes your unevidenced superstition about people being somehow separate from nature so pre-existing people get somehow allocated genes and all the rest. In fact, according to the evidence we have, people are the end result of genetics, other factors in their nature, plus nurture, and life experiences. There is no evidence that there is anything at all that is separate that you could use to identify a particular person. So it's a non-question based on an invalid premiss.

In spiritual philosophy....the soul chooses its body and circumstances according to its level of development.

So why should anybody believe this without evidence?