Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10221 - 10240 of total 22772 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2012 - 04:32pm PT
BB
That's what we call crazy talk
No where in your rant was there any facts or truths, just spiritual speculation, fantasy and chrisitan mythology

But carry on, please
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 21, 2012 - 05:32pm PT
At the time of Adam and Eve the Bible describes other "tribes" on the planet. It calls them "hybrids". A description of part human part animal, species. Angels that mated with human women species. 9 foot tall human species. These species would have been evolving some 10, 20 30,000 years ago


 Now you freaks are really just making sh#t up to fit your narrow biblical view of the world.. squaring the circle so to speak…

P.S. where in your bible does it mention "hybrids", again?

I'm having a hard time finding that crazy talk...
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Oct 21, 2012 - 05:36pm PT
I think your neurologist friend would agree that the material brain produces consciousness, but she just has no idea how it works.

Not according to her. She says the "production, broadcast, creation" model is not scientific, but is based on models that work with other materials, but stumble horribly with experience and subjectivity. What you're talking about in terms "theories" about brain concern mental processing, not consciousness itself. We are very clear that the brain is a huge processor - neuro-feedback loop. This seems to be a task that the brain carries out.


The details have not been filled in, the theory explains the answer to the question in broader terms.


I think you're stuck believing that the causal chain thought to "produce" processing functions the same way in "producing" experience.


What is your theory?
I already know the answer, you don't have a theory, you just Don't like the material explanation.


I think you believe I have something against a mechanical view of this on some spiritual grounds, when that isn't the case at all. It's just that i never experienced consciousness as a thing, a function, nor have I or anyone else in space and time ever become an object that can look at self-consciousness from outside of it. There is no "us" talking about "it," as though consciousness existed separate from us. "It" is talking. So basically I'm saying that the entire approach of positing consciousness as another thing or function that was "created" by something or some sequence in the past comes in the first instance from your fictional and imagined "objective" ground.



I would rather you offered an opinion on what you think the answer is, we already know what you don't like.


I don't like things that have no chance of being true, such as subjectivity ever being objectivity, and vica versa. The only reason people cling to this awkward model is that they have no other means of investigating the shebang but the same way they look at stars, dog bones and horseshoes.

Basically I don't believe in "creation" at all.

JL
cintune

climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
Oct 21, 2012 - 05:41pm PT
where in your bible does it mention "hybrids", again?

Oh, it's in there. "Giants in the earth," Klimmer's been all over it elsewhere. At the time a passably good way to explain large fossil remains that turned up here and there, just like Chinese dragons.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Oct 21, 2012 - 05:56pm PT
blueblocr-

I think you're on the right path to coming to an understanding that will accomodate both the scientific and religious view, but you're lacking a whole lot of details from the science side.

The sequence of human- like beings runs Austrolopithecines 5-1 million years, Homo erectus 2 million -500,000, Homo neanderthal 300,000 - 27,000, and Homo sapiens 200,000 - ?. This is the simple version, there were others. I've often thought that stories of half human, half animal beings date from the time when there was more than one species of humans on earth.

The oldest physical evidence we have for religious beliefs actually dates back to neanderthals some of whom buried their dead with things they thought they would need in the after life. They were also doing rituals with stalagmites in caves. The human desire for there to be meaning in life beyond survival goes back a long ways before the Bible.

As for writing, the oldest evidence of that is found about the same time in Egypt and China - the beginnings of which are almost 6,000 B.C. Some of the oldest religious works that have survived include the Hindu Vedas from India written down about the same time as the first five books of the Old Testament/Torah. We see that people tend to discover the same things independently in different parts of the planet around the same time, indicating that there is an ongoing cultural evolution as well as physical one.

Why did it take us so long to learn to write? On the one hand we were too busy struggling with survival until the invention of agriculture starting around 6,000 B.C which gave us a food surplus and leisure time for the finer things of life, including writing. On the other hand, humans are conservative as a group since that generally favors survival. A lot of experimentalists, like teenage boys, end up dead. The group generally doesn't usually change until their survival is at stake.

As for printing, the oldest moveable block printing press was hand carved first in Korea about 751 and was used for Buddhist sutras. Gutenberg came nearly 700 years later.

There is so much interesting information to be learned, the question becomes one of how best to use our time. Most people on this thread think there is so much science to be learned, that's all they want to concentrate on, a few others seem to focus exclusively on human meaning according to a particular religious view. For myself, I try to balance the two and end up pleasing neither side most of the time. All of us though who participate here are on some kind of a journey. Otherwise we would never spend so much of our time here discussing things we can never agree on.

WBraun

climber
Oct 21, 2012 - 06:48pm PT
Jan said: "There is so much interesting information to be learned, the question becomes one of how best to use our time."

Einstein said, "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree".

Nikola Tesla said "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Nobel laureate physicist Erwin Schrodinger eloquently stated the abilities and the inabilities of science:

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us.

So ... if science was my only means of acquiring knowledge would I have to do a brain scan of Merry to find out what makes her annoyed? :-)

Duh ya think I'm stooopid ......?

:-)



BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Oct 21, 2012 - 07:44pm PT
7th inning stretch

America wrt:1895

Oh beautiful for spacious skies
For amber waves of grain
For purple mountain majesty's
Above the fruited plain!
America America!
God shed his grace on thee!
And crown the good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea

Oh beautiful for pilgrims feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thorough fare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America America!
God mend thine every flaw
Confirm thy soul in self-control
Thy liberty in law!

Oh beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife
Who more then self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain Divine!
Amen

Jus Salute'in
BB



Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2012 - 07:54pm PT
Largo
Those are the theories, agree with them or not. You can beleive anything you want, but don't knock them if you can't refute them.

Like the theory of Gravity, they were able to come up with it way before they understood it, or knew any details of how it worked,
they didn't need to observe a graviton to use the theory to make predictions and test it against models.

They had the theory before they knew about curved space and time.

Just like the other three, we know the basics, they fit the data, we will investigate the details for the next eternity.

But you don't want to know or investigate, fine, you are obviously not a scientist and don't care about the scientific exploration of our universe,

you would rather cherry pick through the deficiencies in the details and then flush the whole thing down because it's doesn't fit your preconceived idea that God, souls or spirits (or whatever) should be included.

We are different.

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Oct 21, 2012 - 09:56pm PT
But you don't want to know or investigate, fine, you are obviously not a scientist and don't care about the scientific exploration of our universe,

you would rather cherry pick through the deficiencies in the details and then flush the whole thing down because it's doesn't fit your preconceived idea that God, souls or spirits (or whatever) should be included.

We are different.


This, to me, is crazy talk.

For starters, every morning at 6:45 I investigate the subjective realm. I do not investigate the objective realm as you do, and I don't make any claims that my method of investigating is the best or only way to look at reality. It is one of many. You are the one who implies that you have an exclusive on investigating that has the true measure on truth - so long as we're dealing with things. I have called that scientism - that's the common name for this belief system. Science is inductive.

So far as cherry picking the deficiencies, I don't consider science to be presenting deficiencies per the stuff I am interested in, which is the subjective realm. Science doesn't have deficiencies on this because it isn't looking at it at all. It's looking at objective processing and some - not all but some - are insisting that they are the same.

When I lampoon the problems encountered with this moronic blending of terms and facts, note that they ALL are hooked to this illusion that you keep indulging in: that matter and your fundamental reality (the experience of being Craig) are selfsame "things."

IMO, this is a global glitch in your approach which strangely, you think is an asset. I merely am pointing out that you will never close the gap using that method. And the reason gravity cannot be "explained' with a graviton is that there isn't one.

Note also something else I have repeatedly said that you either never read of simply don't believe: that you view reality either as a material fact - or as wu wu. These are your only two goggles, so to speak. So it's rather comical to see you trotting that out and saying I have a "preconceived idea that God, souls or spirits (or whatever) should be included."

The "whatever" is a nice but silly touch - as though anything not fitting a merely materialistic view of reality is perforce God, spirits, souls, Bart Simpson, witches, snake oil, holy rollers, LOL. How quaint. But also how sad that A) you can't see past the boundary of your own camp, and B) you actually believe what I have been saying is the product of an "idea," or maybe a feeling, or hallucination. But it has to be "produced" or created by something. Ain't that right?


JL
MH2

climber
Oct 21, 2012 - 10:28pm PT
JL,

No self-respecting rational person would claim that what you call the objective and subjective realms are "the same thing." There is too much missing information to make a comparison.

To make a simple statement, I don't see a sharp boundary between objective and subjective. It seems to me that both could be part of a larger whole. They certainly mix a lot. There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to rule out our mental experience being biological and physical. If we find otherwise,

Rather than draw lines and argue over territory and maps, why not adopt a view that acknowledges the value of both science and non-scientific human values? After all, the man says,


Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the
sense that he has no doubt of the significance
and loftiness of those super-personal objects
and goals which neither require nor are
capable of rational foundation.


http://www.panarchy.org/einstein/science.religion.1939.html
WBraun

climber
Oct 21, 2012 - 11:11pm PT
Dr F uses a lot grammatical word jugglery to screw out a meaning suitable for his "faith" that modern material science is the only knowledge that has any actual "worth".

A lot of them are bizarre and even his peers raise eyebrows, roll their eyes and shake their heads at a lot of these broad painted superficial strokes across its field.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Oct 22, 2012 - 12:00am PT
MH2,

You're a tricky read - but I respect your thinking. However I am stumped how you can blend these two thoughts:

--

No self-respecting rational person would claim that what you call the objective and subjective realms are "the same thing."

And . . .

There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to rule out our mental experience being biological and physical.


What do you consider to be the difference between subjective and objective experience. I've asked that question fifty time and not a single person has taken a crack at it.

JL

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Oct 22, 2012 - 12:33am PT
Scientific language

" if the speed of the car decreases, it is usual and meaningful to speak of deceleration; MATHEMATICALLY it is acceleration in the opposite direction to that of motion."

If math is the real truth in science. And this statement valid. Every time anyone says they are decelerating or slowing down they are literally lying. Without consciously knowing it.

Correct wording for the meaning is the crux!

Jus Sin'in
BB
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Oct 22, 2012 - 01:42am PT
Largo: For starters, every morning at 6:45 I investigate the subjective realm. I do not investigate the objective realm as you do, and I don't make any claims that my method of investigating is the best or only way to look at reality.

What exactly makes you think what happens for you at 6:45 has anything remotely to do with 'reality'? For that matter, what makes you believe the 'subjective realm' you so often speak of is open to being 'investigated' by your 'methods'? And last, how would you know you aren't just subjectively projecting over an entirely blank canvas?
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 22, 2012 - 08:50am PT
But also how sad that A) you can't see past the boundary of your own camp, and B) you actually believe what I have been saying is the product of an "idea," or maybe a feeling, or hallucination. But it has to be "produced" or created by something. Ain't that right?
Largo

Your the one painting me into a narrow corner

I told you many times that I have read 100s of Eastern Religious books, meditated for 25 years, and had a similar belief system as you.

So I know all the stuff you imply, and now reject it as insignificant, delusional, and just a wild goose chase.

I can see past ALL the Boundaries, I have gone past the Boundaries that You impose with your self limiting "we don't know".

To say that we can't know is just a philosophical viewpoint, and not part of the scientific worldview.
Basically, it's crazy talk.

Here is a test, ask your hallucination something you don't know, when it tells you something, tell us what it was, and we can make a couple million dollars on it.

Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 22, 2012 - 08:54am PT
No self-respecting rational person would claim that what you call the objective and subjective realms are "the same thing." There is too much missing information to make a comparison.
MH2

What??
the Objective can be the same as the subjective, but MAY just a not be the complete picture, there may be small differences, minor

When you look at El Cap, it is a subjective experience, But El Cap is still there in the objective reality, it is not any type of illusion or magic

More Crazy talk
WBraun

climber
Oct 22, 2012 - 09:08am PT
Dr F -- "I can see past ALL the Boundaries...."

Physicist Leon Lederman -- "We hope to explain the entire universe in a single, simple formula that you can wear on your T-shirt."

Astrophysicist Steven Weinberg: "As we make progress understanding the expanding universe, the problem itself expands, so that the solution always seems to recede from us."
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Oct 22, 2012 - 09:29am PT
I should probably refrain from indulging in this, because people's biases and blind spots are being so grievously exposed here that it's hardly noble or even instructive to show as much. But maybe it will stimulate the conversation:



Healyj sez:


How would you know you aren't just subjectively projecting over an entirely blank canvas?
--


"What" do you imagine I am projecting? The whole notion of (some) meditation is to stop projecting, detach and develop a capacity to be with and abide in what is simply there - the flux, the impermanent flow, and also the context, the "borderless container." Put differently, both figure and ground, foreground and background.

"Projecting" is what our nervous system and brain do, replicating what is out there and inside as well - note there is no border. "Objective projecting" in this case would be considering our bodies as a bio-machine that recreates external reality as well as our inner life. An illusion see widely on this thread is that what is recreated is "objective reality," but in fact what we experience is widely the fruit of our physical senses and the way our brains organize the soup out there.

However, this is just the opening act, the starting point. What happens over time is that the focus shifts to the "blank canvass" you mentioned, known variously as raw awareness, presence, etc. Because his has no fixed shape, size, etc., and is not a function in the normal sense of the word, it is not a "thing" with edges to measure so it remains "ungraspable."

Just as math has been the technique of choice for investigating objective reality in the broad sense of the word, meditation has for 2,500 years been the way to directly investigate the subjective realm. Like climbing and like math, it is not for everyone.

Questions for Healyj:

What is the picture you have in your head - and what do you mean by "subjective?"


Craig says:


I told you many times that I have read 100s of Eastern Religious books, meditated for 25 years, and had a similar belief system as you.

Not remotely possible since I have said "100s" of times that what I am saying has nothing to do with a "belief system." I totally believe that you do have a belief system per this conversation and it is a rigid one at that - you've made that abundantly clear.


So I know all the stuff you imply, and now reject it as insignificant, delusional, and just a wild goose chase.


Imagine if anyone ever said that about any field whatsoever? a "know-it-all" is by nature deluded. But more telling, if pressed, all the "stuff," and all the "chasing" that Craig believes I and others are engaged in is strictly of his own making because I have said many times that Zen has no content (no "stuff"), and the practice only has wings when one stops all "chasing" and settles.


I can see past ALL the Boundaries, I have gone past the Boundaries that You impose with your self limiting "we don't know".


In some grandiose way, the above statement is an approximation of how a westerner might view God Almighty: He can see past ALL boundaries, has gone past all boundaries, and is basically "all-knowing."

And yet for all of Craig's universal wisdom, he can't even tell us the difference between objective and subjective, and firmly believes that his experience of getting pricked by the quill of one of his cactus is the exact same thing as: y = √(x+7)y^2 = x+7 x = y^2 - 7 <----- inverse function, if you're wondering, Craig. And yes, I can do math if I want to).

JL
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 22, 2012 - 09:36am PT
Good one
But wrong
That is just your interpretation

so the cactus didn't prick me, it was just an illusion?
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Oct 22, 2012 - 09:49am PT
Killing time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2012/oct/22/thomas-schutte-interview-video
Messages 10221 - 10240 of total 22772 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews