wandelaar

Success!

A useless discussion, both the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang tzu promote meditation, although the Tao Te Ching does it in a more concealed manner as accords with the nature of the book. We also have given the citations that prove it, but Stosh simply refuses to acknowledge it because he doesn't like it. And so any time this point comes up he will again start questioning the obvious and distorting the evidence. Let him have his own Stoshian Taoism. For those who want to know what Lao tzu and Chuang tzu (or those who wrote in their name) most likely thought about (the uses of) meditation I can commend the articles and books of Harold D. Roth. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_D._Roth

It could be that the variation in the number of stalks of the right heap differs when you divide bundles with less than 49 stalks. But that will come later. First I have to complete my research on the division of the bundle of 49 stalks.

First results! I have repeatedly divided the bundle of 49 stalks just roughly in half as shown in the video but with my eyes open and counted the number of stalks in the right heap afterwards. I plan to do this a total of 200 times, but it is interesting to see the results so far: 28 27 22 23 25 22 24 26 21 27 27 22 23 23 24 28 27 25 29 24 27 24 27 25 23 30 24 24

Maybe there is some truth in that because it takes some time even for a severed head to actually die.

Cannot find anything about it on the internet. Perhaps it doesn't matter as long as you just roughly divide the bundle in half and don't try to achieve a particular division.

Ah - I see. A theory that consists of the assumption that the process is under the guidance of 'something' that knows how to throw the coins so that they would land a certain way and where that 'something' is incomprehensible for the (linear) mind must indeed stop right there. By definition it cannot amount to anything more because it's a "closed door" as far as science or even common sense is concerned. This position might be the end point after trying all you can to understand the working of the I Ching, but as I am only starting to research the working of the I Ching I prefer to leave open the possibility that it can be explained. My impression until now is that most I Ching users simply don't want to know how it works, because they don't want to spoil the mystery. But I am again getting into debate here, and that's not why I started this topic. What I wanted to know is whether there are any sensible perspectives on chance apart from the usual western approaches. We already have: 1. One such perspective is that what we call chance is really the work of an incomprehensible 'something' that is (al least sometimes) trying to help us. 2. Another is that behind (some?) apparent random events actually "resonance" ganying is at work. Are there any further alternative perspectives besides?

In other topics the point of perspectives on chance related to the I Ching has repeatedly come up, but without any discussion about what those perspectives amount to. I would like to know.

My first experiment will be estimating the variation of the number of stalks in the right and left heap. In the above video found on YouTube the division into two heaps is done with eyes closed. Is that the usual way to do it?

@ Michael Sternbach There is absolutely no possibility to influence the binary representation of pi by means of your or anybody else his individual mind be it intuitive or otherwise. That is the crucial difference between throwing the I Ching for say the next 20 consultations by means of the binary representation of pi and throwing the I Ching for the next 20 consultations by means of coins. In the case of coins there could be psychokinesis at work, but in the case of using the binary representation of pi even psychokinesis is powerless. You are free to accept or not accept the results of a consultation, but doing the experiment involves interpreting the hexagrams as if they were produced by means of coins, and only afterwards evaluating whether using the binary representation of pi worked just as good as the good old coins. This is something every I Ching user can do at home, but it will only work when approached with an open mind. You have to at least leave open the possibility that the pi-method might work. Perhaps the experiment can be improved so that the I Ching user doesn't know which method is used when? But such considerations belong to the other topic.

The problem is that there is also another more naturalistic conception of death in the Chuang tzu as reabsorption in the cycle of life and death where parts of the deceased are reused to constitute other living beings.

But excluding personal involvement in the throwing process is possible! I already proposed such an experiment here: The "process" in the above proposal is pseudo-random and completely deterministic, no quantum mechanics is involved.

A difficult one, because it seems to presuppose survival after death. But it could also be meant to demonstrate how little we actually know for sure. One wouldn't think Chuang tzu to actually consider himself to be a butterfly, but in another story he does recognize that himself being a butterfly dreaming to be a human being cannot be absolutely ruled out either. The story of the scull might be another speculation meant to confront us with the boundaries of our knowledge. There is also a reversal of values involved in his discussion with the ghost, and this fits in with Chuang tzu's ethical relativist position. The ghost talks like a Buddhist, except that there is no cycle of reincarnation involved.

When personal involvement in the process of throwing the I Ching isn't necessary, than such personal involvement cannot be the crucial factor that explains the surprising results of using the I Ching.

I don't know if you want to test whether that is actually happening, but it should be easy to do so. When you use a deterministic process (such as an algorithm or the binary representation of pi) instead of throwing coins than the I Ching should no longer give you the right answers. That is what should happen if your explanation is correct.

Thank you.

You are part of nature. So what nature automatically does within you is what the unconscious part of you does within you. There is no contradiction. It's an open question whether or not the world is deterministic. It looked like it in the days of classical mechanics but quantum mechanics paints a different picture. So it isn't known whether the future is already determined. You don't have to fight nature as it acts within you, because you are what you are precisely because nature acts within you. At least that is how I see it. And this fits in well with philosophical Taoism because Tao specializes to Te in individual beings. Besides, nobody is able to objectively "know what is right". We only have our personal understandings of what is right. And naturally you will try to follow your personal understanding. You don't need a supernatural Self within you to follow what you think or feel is right. I think we are all puppets in the grand play of the Tao anyway, whether we know it or not. It's an exhilarating thing to realise.

The concept of "free will" is causing all this trouble. It's nonsense, a will that is free of everything should also be independent of your own personality. But than it wouldn't be your free will, would it? Nevertheless there is such a thing as your will, as opposed to what others want you to do. That's the only relevant distinction. Your will isn't free in any absolute sense, because you are part of nature. Just like everything else. Your will is the product of automatic processes within you. How could it be otherwise?

Could well be, but than you have another theory. As I understood it resonance would be a natural process that takes place whether or not someone notices it. Except of course when it is someone's mind that is resonating with something else. But I like to know your explanation of the working of the I Ching also. So please tell us about it.

Another idea for an experiment: One could write a computer program that keeps on printing the number 5 except for say the 10th, the 20th, the 30th etc. number that are randomly chosen from the numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Resonance would than predict that the randomly chosen numbers are more often 5 than expected on the basis of pure chance. The randomly chosen numbers in this experiment have to be derived from a real random source (such as noise) that has the freedom to "resonate" with the surrounding 5's, not from a pseudorandom algorithm that is purely deterministic.

The problem I have with that is the lack of solid empirical support. If such resonances exist it should be quite easy to demonstrate them. For instance one could throw a die in a room decorated with pictures of the number 5. In that case one would expect to throw the number 5 more often than expected on the basis of pure chance. Or if that doesn't work one could use six rooms decorated with the respective numbers 1 to 6 and change the room used on the basis of a random experiment itself, and see whether the you get a correlation between the numbers that decorate the room during a throw and the numbers that are found by throwing the die. Have such experiments or something like it already been done?

One could perhaps reason that individual chance events such as a hexagram found by throwing the I Ching happen in the context of the question asked and the current situation and so the hexagram that best resonates with that question and situation becomes the most likely answer of the I Ching on that occasion. But a theory without empirical backing is just a speculation, so is there any empirical reason to believe resonance explanations to be correct?

In the Tao Te Ching it is mentioned that it is best to solve problems before they appear. (I don't remember the exact chapter.) This is the more general form of the principle.

OK - thanks so far.

Is there also a modern perspective on chances that would account for appropriate answers of the I Ching.