Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
"Objective" vs. "subjective" is losing its fascination for me here, Ed. All I can say for sure is that I'm aware. The academic questions are becoming a little empty for me recently. I'm not here to argue anything in particular. So much seems like a game to me. In all likelihood, everyone is right.
understandable
I'm not sure how fascinating the dichotomy is... especially as it has been hashed over so much. Perhaps at some point we'll understand it better, but it is likely, to me, that it continues to be a useful concept.
Physicists are promiscuous users of ideas, anything that helps to get to an understanding, "an answer" is used... the separation of our "subjective" state from the "objective" has been hugely important to making progress in physics (and modern science in general). The realization that we have to be increasingly more clever in making that separation is also recognized, as the implications of your line of questioning in "theory laden" observations is taken to heart by researchers interested in avoiding the pitfalls involved.
I am aware, and I am aware that I will not always be aware... we should have fun with that for the duration.
|
|
cintune
climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
|
|
Yeah, Werner is like Prabhupada's little pit bull.
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2012 - 04:58pm PT
|
Ed
I have recently read a simple explanation of Quantum Mechanics
Can you evaluate my simple description, and possibly clear up the misconceptions, and elaborate.
Quantum equals a single particle, or quantum.
Be it a single hydrogen atom, or subatomic particle
Quantum mechanics describes the mechanics of a single particle, and of course it's difficult to pin down the location and other qualities of a single particle, so statistics can be used to predict the probability
Classic Physics describes the Macro World
Quantum Mechanics describes the Subatomic World
|
|
Malemute
Ice climber
the ghost
|
|
Quantum equals a single particle, or quantum I think the original term came from the observation that light emitted from atoms was at discrete frequencies instead of in a broad set of frequencies. These discrete (quantized) frequencies were emitted (or absorbed) as electrons made transitions between various orbitals.
|
|
BES1'st
climber
USA
|
|
Largo I spoke to somebody last night and we got onto this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)
For all you others I ask, if Catholocism is the start of Christianity
is Christianity itself not Satanic is disguise? These hell teachings
I believe are not biblical prior to Christianity.
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2012 - 06:45pm PT
|
I had a college Classic Literature Class
and we had to read Homer's Iliad and Dante's Inferno or Purgatory, or whatever it was called
Talk about suffering
That's hard core suffering
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Allegedly Einstein stated science without god is lacking and god
without science is lacking.
really?
Einstein "stated" that?
wow, and all these years of reading damn near everything he wrote or was written about him, I never came across this!
So, Base, just to educate me, would you mind showing your quick easy to find google search showing when and where and what exactly were Einstein's words that you say he said?
just a link will do, thanks
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I think Base meant according to Wikipedia
"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
|
|
Donald Thompson
Trad climber
Los Angeles,CA
|
|
From my own point of view, the non-existence of God/gods has to do with an induction rather than a deduction. God/gods have been used to explain various phenomena and behavior, various origins, etc, for a very long time. Taking God/gods as a "primary cause" then, one can quickly perform the exercise of understanding whether or not God/gods need be involved in everything that goes on...
You started off good here with the first sentence but failed to clarify what particulars or premises are inducted to produce the general conclusion that God does not exist.
The rest of the paragraph then attempts to introduce the very opposite of the inductive approach, namely deduction.
Why would anyone who takes God ( or 'gods' if there are any pantheists lurking on this thread-and there may be) as a "primary cause" be concerned with performing exercises to understand that this primary cause need be involved in everything that goes on?
Am I missing something in this explanation?
|
|
BES1'st
climber
USA
|
|
WBraun,
I think that came from Dr. F at 1 time. I really don't believe
many if any at all of the 3'rd party quotes to others. No base
for me though I thought about it 1 time for a Yosemite descent.
I can't take another ticket with a commercial license and I
don't want tsa registration for HAZMAT as im not hauling that
stuff!
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
Faith has it's advantages, but I prefer to be open to the truth as it presents itself
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Ed says that the assertion that “mind is ungraspable” is a “theory of mind.” This comment lacks precision IMO.
If we hold that a “theory” is a rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the result of such thinking, I would say that the “ungraspable” true nature of mind comes not from thinking about mind, but by abiding IN mind, and relating the insights arising from that abiding. In fact we can’t think about mind, only what occurs within it. Mind and self are ungraspable and unknowable in the normal sense of the word. This is a rule of mind.
Now Ed asks the interesting question: How do I know that another human being has subjective experience, that she experiences the external and internal world like I do?
When delving into this question, it is instructive to remember that we are simultaneously dealing with our singular, time-bound, perishable subjective (as in ONE subject) experience – i.e., the “one,” and the limitless, unborn nature of mind and self (NOT ego), aka, raw awareness, or presence. The “one” is easy to grasp. The unbound requires a lot of unpacking to even approach.
Understand subjective experience is not a thing but a dynamic process. We cannot freeze-frame subjective experience itself because the moment the flow of qualia halts, subjective experience ceases to exist. Also, a cross section of subjective experience can only reveal qualia (thoughts, feelings, memories, sensation, et al), which we can qualify as a kind of output, content, or brain processing; but the same cross section will never reveal self or mind.
Next, all subjective experience is self-referential and accessible only to a subject identified with a singular physical body. The body/nervous system is a remarkable and diverse feedback loop whose qualia is experienced (known) only by the subject.
Lastly, most of what we “know” about subjective reality is not the mental/symbolic quantifications we drum up for objective “things,” but rather is embedded in our behaviors and assumptions. For example, we intuitively know that behavior always divulges the deeper truth. I might tell her I love her, but when I spend all my time in the Valley, she knows where my priorities really are. If we steal a car and tell the judge that we don’t have free will and that the charge of grand theft is therefore bogus, the judge will laugh because we all intuitively know we have a choice – qualified by many things, certainly, but we behave on the knowledge that we can choose this or that, regardless of what the math might say.
We also intuitively know the twin aspect of mind – the self-aware aspect (self, mind, etc.), and the experiential aspect. Note that one of the interesting sci-fi fantasies we all can imagine is that we might fire-wire into another person’s body so our mind/self can experience the stream of qualia in that other person and therefore would “know” what it is like to “be them.”
Anyhow, when Ed asks for proof that I “know” he or anyone else has subjective experience, just as I do, perhaps what he is asking for is for some criteria – subjective, objective, or who knows what – that would let me know for sure that I am not the only one with subjective experience. But I don’t have that fire wire from the Sci-Fi show. Nobody does. And for that matter, what “proof” do I have that I, JL, has experience?
None at all.
Experience and mind are ungraspable. The moment we try and quantify it, to freeze it and drag it through our evaluating mind, it is no longer subjective and experiential, but objective and static. And we know these are not selfsame. Experience does not exist as an enduring thing that we can represent numerically, replicate in a lab or a machine and predict its behavior.
But this is still the “shallow view.” Looking deeper we find that subjective experience had to await the existence of humans, but mind never did because mind is unborn and is not a brain generated phenomenon like qualia and processing. Mind is non-local - but that is another topic.
What is objective and subjective? That’s the next question, and it’s a whopper. This will address the shadow side of realism, which holds that entities exist independently of the human mind in the same form that they appear in our subjective experience. El Capitan, as we know it, exists exactly as it appears to us whether we are here to see it or not. That's realism.
The question also addresses another key idea: To what extent does our evolved brain fashion our beliefs about objective reality – amongst other things.
JL
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Bes1st
Hey man you actually got it backwards. Our date 2012 started when Jesus was crucified. It wasn't until 400 years after Christ died that the Roman Catholic church began. The original Christians were his 11 apostles. And all their followers. After Jesus was crucified they spread throughout the world to start the true churches. Some 400 years later the Romans jealous of the popularity decided to start one of their own. They nominated a Pope to represent Jesus and started calling him father which is blasphemy. The Catholic church is strewn with paganistic rituals and idols. And they have their own Bible. They've done just about everything that Jesus warned against. IMO. you cannot be a Catholic and know Jesus. Just like you cant be a Muslim and know Jesus. You can know of Him but there's no personal relationship there. The King James version is the only English translated true Bible. And without Jesus none of it works! Just pray in the name of Jesus and God with a contrite heart, and
GOD WILL RECEIVE YOU!
Jus Share'in
BB
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 01:44am PT
|
Am I missing something in this explanation?
the induction is that the increase of scientific understanding decreases the need to seek an explanation in God/gods... they become irrelevant in the limit that we understand everything...
...now we will not understand everything, but not because it is not understandable, but because it is vast... so by induction, there is no need for God/gods...
"theory of mind" is an open reference to how we think other people are thinking and experiencing things... I suppose that Largo has consciousness, thinks and experiences things pretty much the same way I do...
Largo explains how we know this as "intuition." I think he can do better.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 06:04am PT
|
"Objective" vs. "subjective" is losing its fascination for me here, Ed. All I can say for sure is that I'm aware. The academic questions are becoming a little empty for me recently. I'm not here to argue anything in particular. So much seems like a game to me. In all likelihood, everyone is right.
JL-2012
understandable EH
JL:
Just another wild goose chase. Jstan- 2011
And while I am here.
|
|
BES1'st
climber
USA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 07:22am PT
|
BLUEBLOCR
im also aware that Messianism began prior to jesus or his disciples.
Yes im aware Christianity and their cults have different bibles. Mormons
included.
Jehovah's Witnesses bible.
http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-11-word-was-god
Other Christians bible.
http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm
Catholics I read say the above has nothing to do with the trinity doctrine.
I buy into none of them and a attorney from the Reagan administration told
me around 2008 that no religous bias is wanted within the military weapons
programs which most certainly did exist.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 07:35am PT
|
Blueblockr-
You really need to read some early Christian and Biblical history from sources other than the ones you are using. Your facts are really incorrect. The earliest Christian churches weren't Roman but they also weren't American style fundamentalist churches either. Read up on the Copts, the Syrian and Greek Orthodox, the Nestorians, the Chaldeans, the Assyreans, the Armenians and the Malankar church in India if you want to know about the earliest Christians. If you really want to stretch your mind, read about the Gnostic and Apochryphal Gospels.
As for versions of the Bible, the Catholic Vulgate Bible was the only Bible in the West until the Reformation. It was no less than Martin Luther who threw four books out of the Old Testament because they referred to the Jews as praying for the dead and that was politically inconvenient in his campaign against indulgences. In the East, the oldest Bible is the Aramaic version of the Chaldean and Assyrians. Look up George Lamsa.
You know I grew up hearing a lot of the prejudices you've expressed but when I investigated for myself, I discovered it was just that, Protestant prejudice. As for whether some one has a personal relationship with Jesus, who are you to judge someone else's personal relationship? Didn't Jesus teach us not to judge? Not to mention you must not have met too many devout Catholics in your life. I think you might find it a humbling experience.
|
|
BES1'st
climber
USA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 07:36am PT
|
"Our date 2012 started when Jesus was crucified"
Blueblockr-
Have you looked into BC and BCE(before the common error)?
I think it also has to do with the Julian and Gregorian time
change? I may look into it again as I don't remember much about
it now.
I think this thread title is confusing as they seem
to fit together throughout history.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 08:17am PT
|
Am I missing something in this explanation?
Just about all of it, I think. You're looking for an explanation that fits your understanding.
the induction is that the increase of scientific understanding decreases the need to seek an explanation in God/gods... they become irrelevant in the limit that we understand everything...
By "understand" you of course mean "quantify." It is clearly your belief that quantification has no limits, but this forces you to insist that every phenomenon is itself material, or material output, "created" by material, and that the output and the material are "selfsame." If so, kindly quantify "self" and raw awareness itself.
-------
...now we will not understand everything, but not because it is not understandable, but because it is vast... so by induction, there is no need for God/gods...
What Ed means here is so-called mathematical induction, which is a form of rigorous deductive reasoning. In other words, it is the use of the evaluating mind to logically plot out and quantify a phenomenon, and then go from there, working up the proofs and so forth.
What Ed does not understand is that there are some phenomenon that are NOT understandable (quantifiable) by way of induction. This is very slippery to get hold of, and the reason I mentioned earlier the need to hold two concepts in mind when we are looking at this - Whenever we investigate "mind" and "experience" we are simultaneously dealing with two properties: The "one," which is experience, qualia flow, and so forth, which can be approached by way of induction, and the "all" (mind/self) which can NOT quantify because quantification means "counting and measuring that maps human sense observations and experiences into members of some set of numbers."
In other words, quantification or Ed's "understanding (measuring) means limiting the size or breadth or vastness of something to finite or measurable limits and/or dimensions. And the moment we do that we no longer are dealing with mind or self, which are NOT a discrete size, are not a discrete thing or phenomenon.
This next part is key to why Ed and others keep getting hung up on this.
Inductive reasoning (aka induction) constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples. Put differently, to perform induction, our mind must grock onto a "specific example," onto one thing or phenomenon. The problem is that this evaluating only works with the aforementioned "one," NOT with the aformentioned "all."
In insisting on applying induction to mind/self, Ed and others are attempting to impose a kind of backwards process dependent on evaluating my Uncle as my Aunt, so to speak, that is, considering the All as the One because only in that way can we derive our numbers.
Perhaps this talk about all and one makes little sense, but it becomes clear once you spend time with it. The fact that we cannot quantify the ALL is simply the Zen motto of the mind being ungraspable played out. The insistence that we can and will quantify mind, and that this is the only valid handling of same, and that everything else is quackery, is the doctrine of scientism.
Gotta work.
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!