|
 |
Karma versus Logic Part1
Posted by: GregSolomon
Video duration: 580 seconds
I take a look at "Karma" from a logical perspective and apply the "empirical method" to it as a way of either proving it or disproving it.
Related: blog, buddhism, carlogambino, evil, good, hindu, hinduism, karma, mafia, religion, vlog
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
|
|
 |
Karma versus Logic Part 2
Posted by: GregSolomon
Video duration: 598 seconds
Part 2 of my look at "Karma" and my application of the "Empirical Method" to "Karma."
Related: blog, buddhism, carlogambino, evil, good, hindu, hinduism, karma, mafia, religion, vlog
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
|
|
 |
My Reply To The Atheist Video Clip
Posted by: GregSolomon
Video duration: 1179 seconds
There are errors in the atheist video clip.
http://www.youtub e.com/watch?v=fdVucv o-kDU&mode=related&s earch=
Related: atheism, atheist, blog, carlsagan, christian, christianity, god, isaacasimov, noamchomsky, thomasedison, vlog
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
|
|
|
Latest comments made on this video:
By: Notar89. on 28 Nov 08, 21:12:29
Dharma is the correct name of law. The karmic laws is that 'all the rational is real', than because the men use dialectic to explain their mind, i think karmic law in dialectic is true: if you arent in truth you suffer; if you are in truth, you'll be happy. You can't explain the evil. The entropy, the time, the arrow is in what we name the truth. Epicurus says "the plasures is the good".
By: aaron343432. on 19 Nov 08, 21:26:17
OK One thing I will also ponit out.. I said karma is an illusion that was probly wrong. Karma is a word it's english translation is action. It is not a law in of itself. So to claim to disprove karma is to say you disprove people act. In Buddhist sutras buddhist describes actions as that cause future suffering. They are all immoral actions. They can cause suffering in the present moment, or in the future. You be your own judge whether they bring cause harm to yourself.
By: roysensei. on 30 Oct 08, 05:14:31
Greg, using the imperical system, actually disproves karma in this video... You guys seriously didn't get the point here. Greg provided a counterexample for Karma (disproving it). He could NOT provide a counterexample for Gravity.
By: mikamai. on 20 Oct 08, 02:38:36
So, in that sense, neither karma nor gravity are laws? That's an interesting perspective. I need to wrap my head around it for awhile before I can form my own opinion-- right or wrong, what you said was very smart and well thought out! Thank you for taking time out of your day to help broaden my mind. :)
By: aaron343432. on 19 Oct 08, 18:54:14
Please read the two comments before this in reverse order.
By: aaron343432. on 19 Oct 08, 18:53:03
Then; to make it so called, 'proven' by science, there are measurements taken and it is made visible that these measurements are consistent with eachother. In my view; it is actually very stupid. The scientists should just be honest with themselves and say the theory is that if you drop something it will fall. You're mind is what makes it fall; and everything.
By: aaron343432. on 19 Oct 08, 18:46:27
hehe perhaps there is a need for some sense. I feel it is clear that all things are connected. Things can effect eachother in ways that defeat our innate way of thinking. I agree when Greg says that those who believe karma say that it is a law like gravity. But I disagree with him when he says that gravity has been proven by science. If you make a theory that the reason something has fallen to the ground when dropped is something called gravity; that is simply conceptualizing an observation.
By: mikamai. on 18 Oct 08, 15:14:21
I think I understand what your getting at. I agree with the remorse comment (in some people) but I'm a little iffy (personally) on the "punch in face" comment. You do NOT have to be sorry for your "confusing" comment. I have confusing days too! (Plus, I was a little rude in the way I responded to your origional comment.) :)
By: aaron343432. on 18 Oct 08, 14:05:11
I meant that it is simply a word that has a meaning. Action. Now.. if you do a harmful action; you will be harmed. The is the law of "what goes around comes around" If you punch someone in the face, if you have any sense you can see that someone bad is going to happen to you. If you kill a frog; something bad will happen to you. You would feel remourse; whatever form; everything comes back. Sorry I made a confusing comments.
By: mikamai. on 09 Oct 08, 03:53:43
Wait... what? That makes no sense at all. Dropping a rock off a building and noticing that it falls shows that there IS a force working on the rock... we call that force gravity. How does picking up an apple prove that moral actions have equal reactions?
By: aaron343432. on 29 Sep 08, 05:45:49
You drop a rock off a building it's going to hit it. So that "proves" gravity. By that logic picking up an apple "proves" karma.
By: aaron343432. on 29 Sep 08, 05:43:00
karma is proven. It means action. I will prove it now. You want an apple on your computer desk. So your arm moves and you pick up the apple and eat it. Done.
By: clandestine6760. on 31 Aug 08, 14:11:34
The naive realism and materialistic foundations of the thinking of most of the scientific community can be refuted by the application of some of the Eastern Philosophical schools, such as the Prasangika Madhymika (Kadampa Buddhist) point of view. It first has to be established that consciousness does not amerge from physical, or material phenomena. When this is understood clearly, other more subtle topics, like karma can be addressed. This subject is outside the scope of empiricism.
By: clandestine6760. on 31 Aug 08, 14:09:14
Greg, I like your posts, they are very concise and clear. The thing is with karma, though is that it's nature and function is outside the sphere of empirical enquiry. In oreder to fully understand karma, one has to understand the actual nature of the mind, or consciousness.
By: ToumasuKun. on 04 Aug 08, 23:09:48
Part 1 why does it have to be logical ? :D science can't prove anything unless you accept in your mind that 1+1=2, but the rationalising never stops, like a horse running behind a carrot attached to its own head. Keeps going on until you think you actually know anything :) that's kinda hard in an infinte universe einstein has said some nice things about buddhism by the way ;) it's all about relativity.
By: ToumasuKun. on 04 Aug 08, 23:08:54
Part 2 Your definition of Karma is also wrong ;) but what i meant to say was; "why does it have to be logic" tomorrow they'll tell you that they were actually not right about gravity etc etc.. the only constant in the universe is change. The only certainty is ucertainty; check heisenbergs principle for that matter and if you want to talk about 'proving' stuff then i suggest you check Gödels theorem. Science can't prove shit, but it's the task of a scientnist to at least try it. Thats true!
By: ToumasuKun. on 04 Aug 08, 23:07:51
Part 3 Have a nice time filming your small point of view in your empirical illusion ;p that must be the reason your films are all grey ^^ no hard feelings pal, i wasn't trying to bash you or anything but just hoping you could broaden your point of view and see, like all great scientiists (einstein, hawking), that we can't prove anything!
By: Philotus1018. on 21 Mar 08, 05:47:25
So yes, he "himself",his choices, his mind and thoughts somehow emerged from nothing, became something and will become nothing again. That flies in the face of reason.
By: SticknYOU. on 20 Mar 08, 08:36:22
He obviously dosnt believe in an after life, which many do. He himself and his choices cease after death yes his body will move on but not his mind and thoughts.
By: Philotus1018. on 06 Feb 08, 14:55:28
Are you saying that "you" were nothing before you were conceived, became something and will return to nothing when you die?
By: littleitaly96. on 01 Feb 08, 15:41:56
omg he talks soo slow! get to the point already no reason this video needed to be over 9 minutes. like clan said karma extends into other lives, which explains perfectly why a young boy or girl that has never done anything in this life might get abused. he uses gravity as well, the true nature of gravity is being highly questioned now in the scientific community, should have picked a better example. to me karma is logical
By: clandestine6760. on 28 Dec 07, 15:08:15
That's a fair comment, but it's only superficially correct. There are many people who are very pleasant to everyone, yet negative situations arise regardless of their shiny outlook and attitude. This is because of past negative karma manifesting. On the other hand, if you spend your time being a dick to people, it is more lightly that past nagative karma will be triggered.
By: byrdsl. on 28 Dec 07, 07:42:10
I think this misses a significant point. Consider it from a practical perspective. If you are a dick to people, people are more likely to be a dick to you. If you're kind to people, people are more likely to be kind to you. If you accept that, then you accept karma to a degree.
By: clandestine6760. on 05 Nov 07, 14:29:13
Everyone seems to be trying to draw conclusions on whether ot not karma actually exists or not... The main hitch is the fact that this guy has not taken into account that the results of actions may not appear in this lifetime. its only when the external conditions become supportive that the results are experienced.. I suggest that you read up on Buddhist logic and practice. Karma is so subtle, and it cannot be realised withough developing a very strong mind through meditation..
By: bobbico03. on 04 Oct 07, 09:09:40
Just because you can't prove many things with empirical research it doesn't change the fact that science does use the empirical method to derive theories and it doesn't discredit everything science has established. So please please do some reading and pay attention before throwing out comments!