/sci/ - Science & Math

It should be understood by everyone that meditation is not some mystical power that magically improves concentration and focus; the benefit to meditating comes from the fact that practicing meditation is practicing concentration and focus.

trying to focus my attention on a specific part of my body. Generally I start with my big toe on my left foot - begin by paying attention to the feelings coming from that toe (the pressure of your leg on it, the opposed pressure of the carpet, etc), and in doing so you will be refining the focus of your attention. Then, while focusing on that area, imagine that every time you breathe out, your breath travels down through your body and goes out through your toe. A few times doing this makes my toe feel quite relaxed, and if you begin to feel your pulse in your toe, you've got it and can move on. Feeling the pulse there isn't necessary to move on, that's just what works for me. Other people feel a tingling sensation, heaviness, etc.


Then do the same thing for all the areas of your body - the whole foot, lower leg, upper lag, butt, back, chest, face and so on - and eventually you end up feeling very relaxed and inclined to sit still and not move.

That is good practice meditating in and of itself, but it's primary value is in helping you to not become distracted by bodily sensations while doing other kinds of meditations for longer periods of time. This is because when one attempts to meditate, itching, rearranging clothes, moving your hair, yawning etc, are all distractions that interrupt mental focus.

/sci/ suppose that today is Tuesday. Then all of the following will be true:

[Today is Monday tomorrow is Tuesday]

[Today is Monday tomorrow is Wednesday]

[Today is Monday tomorrow is Thursday]

What about the following?

If today is Monday, tomorrow is Tuesday

If today is Monday, tomorrow is Wednesday

If today is Monday, tomorrow is Thursday

How good are these translations? Well certainly if John is Welsh but does not like rugby, "If John is Welsh, he likes rugby" is false. So if it is true, the suggested translation must also be true too, because it will be false only if John is Welsh but does not like rugby. But it is not so clear that the converse holds. If John is not Welsh, that is enough to make the translation true; but is it enough to make the original true? And, if John likes rugby, that is enough to make the translation true, but is it enough to make the original true? Suppose, for instance, that all Welshmen, except possibly John, loath rugby.

Some people have argued that such translations are perfectly good and that in each case the original and the translation would be true in exactly the same circumstances. The apparent differences, some have claimed, lie in the fact that the original implicates something additional. So, if we are tempted to think that the original is false in certain circumstance while the translation is true, we are mistaking the falsity of what is implicated (which does not make the original false) for the falsity of what is logically implied (which would).