WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 08:28am PT
|
So the sum substance of modern materialistic science assumes, thru their so called advancements,
that what is so called claimed as God is ultimately material therefore there is really no need for invoking God into their theories.
This assumption is as we are like "this" therefor everything else we acquire thru our senses must be similar and there is nothing beyond what we can acquire thru our senses.
Since the mind is the center of all the activities of the senses, it becomes the reservoir of all "ideas, theories, and mental speculations"
which are then acquired thru the senses and processed by the mind which is directed by "intelligence".
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 08:54am PT
|
Best1st
Yeah messianism started from the Old Testament prophets. They prophesized of one Messiah coming to alleviate the burden of sin. Thus fulfilling the law. Otherwise known as the Christ.
Trinity is not a term from the Bible. It was brought about to describe the relationship between, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as being tribunal. Or together as one.
The difference between the KJV and all the other Bibles. They've included books that allow for an escape hatch to go to heaven. That's saying if you take Jesus out from the Bible you may still go to heaven if you complete enough "good deeds". That is if you follow their inoculation
Of laws you can still acquire some different level of heaven. This is absurd! Absolutely not what Jesus taught. Only understanding of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross and it's supernatural ability to cleanse our souls of sin are you found holy in Gods eyes! Amen
Jus Define'in
BB
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 09:01am PT
|
Blueblockr-
The Catholic New Testament has exactly the same things in it as the King James Version. Only the last four books of the Old Testament are different.You are stating your personal biases as fact but you don't know the facts. If you want to criticize Catholic beliefs, then state them as your opinions, don't say things about scripture that aren't true.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 09:06am PT
|
Largo likes to punch at the strawman that some how I am advocating science as a philosophy which he calls scientism. He has broad hyperbolic statements, bombastic as is his style, which have little substance. It doesn't have to be that way, but he is avoiding some really common sensical issues to make his point and is contorting his view and his good arguments out of recognition.
What we can and cannot know is probably the domain of philosophy (and religion) if we seek some absolute notion, MikeL is big on this, too. Basically this criticism of science is based on our inability to pin down agreements on just how science is done. Can we prove that the scientific method leads to advancing knowledge? No one has done this in a way which is very convincing. But that is a philosophical opinion.
Science, on the other hand, does lead to an advance and an increase of our knowledge. This is not the mere collection of fact through observation and experimentation, but also the stitching together of theory to not only explain in a unified manner those observations and measurements, but to project them into realms which have not been observed or experimented in, and thus provide grounds for empirical challenge. The theories are scrapped, or modified, or new ones created depending on the outcome of these challenges. A theory is never proven, it is only falsified in this structure.
Largo has made the statement above the basis of his argument against a scientific approach. Basically he posits that one cannot know everything. Therefore, he goes on, you cannot know everything. He does not have anything to stand on except his experience, and he invites us to recall our own experiences which support his contention. The only proof he would offer is the inability, so far, for science to provide an explanation of a number of phenomena, say consciousness, life and the creation of the universe. It is his choice to use these as the modern frontier, and he assumes that science will never cross that frontier, but he doesn't know.
Largo's appeal to our "sensibility," interestingly, has to do with his (and our) own model (or theory) of how humans think. While he has laid his knowledge of this to some mysterious "intuition" of what behavior means, he is avoiding long standing knowledge on this from anthropology and sociology.
I posted the reference to the Clinical Recovery Score (CSR) because they represent a practical approach to understanding when a patient has emerged from anesthesia, recall that anesthesia is the chemical inducement of unconsciousness that allows a surgeon to enter into our bodies. How odd that sounds from a non-objective point of view, where our very subjective experience is suspended by chemical processes occurring in our nervous system.
The CSR section to evaluate consciousness depends on our ability to communicate verbally as a test of our conscious level. Is the patient responsive, presumably to command, e.g. raise your hand, etc... then "fully" verbal, able to have a "higher level" discussion and finally, is the patient "awake."
This later score is interesting since it uses the "wake/sleep" experience as another practical definition of consciousness. Interestingly, our experience with wake/sleep are different if we are an observer, or if we are the subject... we experience sleep as a mental activity, we dream for instance, but certainly there are large parts of sleep which we have no recall about. To an observer of a sleeper, there is little activity we recognize as consciousness.
We do experience waking up from both the participant and the observer, and much of this process has to do with being verbal, and the consequent engagement of our thoughts. Part of my waking up process is reading the NYTimes, for instance, picking less subtle articles to read first, then more subtle ones (like starting with the Sports page).
A huge way we understand that each of us is "conscious" is that we communicate verbally with each other and we understand each other through language. This is so obvious that one has to wonder what Largo's been into when he says we can't define "red," that "qualia" are so mysterious as to evade any definition, yet we communicate extremely effectively using these words. When we try to pin down the precise definition we are probably posing the question incorrectly, and thus missing the mark.
As an expression of our behavior and our intent, language works quite well. And it is the primary way we determine what is going on in each other's minds.
"How are you?"
what a simple question to ask, and so full of possibilities. Why would we ask a question like that if we did not empathize with others. You don't ask your computer that question in the morning when you log on, yet.
The Turing Test is an extension of this rather simple idea, that we ask questions, we're verbal, and we establish the level of consciousness based on the responses. Can we know that the person answering our questions on the other side of the terminal is a male or female? There are whole threads in STForum alone devoted to making such determinations where an avatar does not reveal or want to reveal their status.
"On the internet no one knows you're a dog"
And so the Turing Test, a major stumbling block has been the ability of computers to be verbal like humans are, perhaps the first major hurdle, how does a machine handle those slippery concepts like "red" or "love" or anything else...
...that seems to be well in hand, IBM's Watson as an example, competing on Jeopardy against human contestants, and doing quite well.
I can hear Largo say that it is obvious that Watson does not think, and knows nothing about language, and that what Watson does is completely irrelevant. But then, it is entirely possible that Largo could have a conversation with Watson, not knowing it was Watson, and not know it, thus the machine passing the Turing Test... that is, being mistaken for a person.
How could Largo know otherwise? (and here I am supposing that this could happen, not that it has happened). The only tools he has for judging whether someone else is conscious is communicating with them, he doesn't know the details of how they arrive at the answers they do. He can't believe, for instance, that I believe that science is capable of explaining this very thing... how could I possibly arrive at such a ludicrous conclusion that is obviously incorrect?!
Now obviously language is an extremely important part of having large groups of people live together. And the communication of our intent, both before and after the fact become important behavior. And once we're into behavior we open the possibility that this arises out of adaptive processes, physical processes in evolution.
It seems an obvious hypothesis that "consciousness" is tied up with our ability to describe ourselves to others, it is largely a verbal behavior/phenomena. Perhaps it is a short step to the hypothesis that our verbal behavior is responsible for generating consciousness, not the order which we usually think about these ideas.
I'm interested in pursuing the hypothesis, not in making statements about absolutes, truth or otherwise, as Largo, MikeL, Werner, Gobee, and others seem to want. I might be wrong, and might have to change my thinking on this (which has already changed considerably during this long extended discussion) but it is this sort of process by which I learn things, and hopefully new things. Having been through those other ideas, interesting in their own right, I find them lacking any real authority in the face of what we know about animals, humans, evolution, biology, etc... outdated and inflexible, unable to adapt to our increased knowledge. Perhaps they are adaptable, but tradition has a way of rejecting new ideas. I don't find that in science...
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 09:08am PT
|
trying to put it a bit more simply:
officially sanctioned science is doing a fantastic job of entertaining intelligent people with the structure and operations of the physical universe
officially sanctioned science is heavily constraining people from looking at the underlying essence of the universe, as knowledge in this area represents a power that can't be monopolized and is thus extremely inconvenient for the slavemasters
|
|
cintune
climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 09:32am PT
|
officially sanctioned science is heavily constraining people from looking at the underlying essence of the universe, as knowledge in this area represents a power that can't be monopolized and is thus extremely inconvenient for the slavemasters
Oh the irony.
|
|
MikeL
climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 10:10am PT
|
What we can and cannot know is probably the domain of philosophy (and religion) if we seek some absolute notion, MikeL is big on this,
I'm interested in pursuing the hypothesis [that consciousness results from articulations of conceptualizations], not in making statements about absolutes, truth or otherwise, as Largo, MikeL, Werner, Gobee, and others seem to want.
I can understand how I've been put into that box; but I think I should be taken out.
Many of my statements have indeed indicated a personal search for a final understanding about Reality. To call it an orientation towards absolutes connotatively suggests dogma, though.
I don't see it that way. The notions I'm embracing stand in direct contradiction of any system of belief, doctrine, or ideology. All of my concerns, considerations, and thoughts come from my experience--or at least a part of my experience whose existence I cannot possibly deny. My experience and observations have suggested to me that Reality is a singular, infinite, indescribable, ungraspable, empty, groundless, unpredictable, open-ended, spontaneous, unfindable, unrepeating, uncontextualizable event. In the most profound way, I claim (to others, at least) to know nothing about it.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 11:03am PT
|
Jan
I didn't say the earliest church was Roman. I said the Catholic Church was started in Rome in 400 A.D. One of the first true Christian churches. Started by Matthew in Egypt. They were known as the Coptic's. They are still there. They are Islam's main adversary in the war going on right now in Egypt. The Muslims would love to desecrate this lineage.
The Gnostic and Apochryphal books were written in 200 to 400 A.D. By jews as a reaction of the popular growing Christian church. Adding that salvation could be attained without Jesus.
Prejudice and judgemental the way you describe sounds hateful. Most of the early American settlers were Protestants. Fleeing the stranglehold from Catholics in Europe. Most of our founding fathers were protestant. They wouldn't allow Catholics into America for a long time.
Being judgmental means choosing a side and declaring a sentence. I am not doing that I love all Catholics. I am discerning the facts of the Bible. I also believe Islam to be a religion of hate but I still love them. I think in any conversation, if the name of Jesus can be brought up there's opportunity for salvation.
Remember; enter by the narrow gate;for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life. And there are few who find it.
I am sorry if I sound blunt but I'm trying to keep the word count to a minimum.
Jus Discern'in
BB
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 11:28am PT
|
Largo likes to punch at the strawman that some how I am advocating science as a philosophy which he calls scientism. He has broad hyperbolic statements, bombastic as is his style, which have little substance.
Now Ed, you know that is not true. Scientism is by my definition the belief that:
A: There is no phenomenon that is not measurable.
B: True knowledge is arrived at by way of induction, working from the specific to the general.
C: Any phenomenon that is not open to the inductive method is "imagined."
D: Since every phenomenon is material or material output, open to quantification, induction, at least in theory, has no limitations per application.
E: Because induction has no limits - in theory - all of reality can - in theory - be induced and understood.
F: Infinite, inherent qualities do not exist. Everything is "created" from antecedent mechanical causes.
G: The whole is merely the sum total of the parts.
I punch at this because in my experience it is not true, and is based on induction alone. Deduction reveals another point of view.
JL
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 11:38am PT
|
This is so obvious that one has to wonder what Largo's been into when he says we can't define "red," that "qualia" are so mysterious as to evade any definition, yet we communicate extremely effectively using these words.
I think I'm beginning to see where you're getting hung up here.
If you actually read my earlier post, I did say you can freeze frame the flow or qualia and assign symbolic representions to it, such as words, and so fort. These words point to the experience, but are NOT the experience itself. They are once-removed from the direct experience, which is knowable, directly, only to the subject.
This is surly an easy thing to grasp. There is nothing remotely "mysterious" about qualia, which forms the basis of our existence: subjective experience. But this experience is itself not the words we use to describe it nor the brain activity that some believe "creates" it.
What is remotely difficult about understanding this? It seems the most obvious thing.
Next thing:
How could Largo know otherwise? (and here I am supposing that this could happen, not that it has happened). The only tools he has for judging whether someone else is conscious is communicating with them, he doesn't know the details of how they arrive at the answers they do. He can't believe, for instance, that I believe that science is capable of explaining this very thing... how could I possibly arrive at such a ludicrous conclusion that is obviously incorrect?!
Actually Ed, I totally believe that science can explain how the machine can process information. What I don't expect science to explain is the nature and essence of self-awareness, which is not a thing or a function in the normal sense of the word.
I understand that you solidly believe that awareness is a thing, a digital and replicatable kind of self-mirroring, a function, an emergent property of brain. If you've had no experiences (hardly mysterious) otherwise, why would you think differently.
JL
|
|
BES1'st
climber
USA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 12:38pm PT
|
BLUEBLOCR, Jesus is not correct with the parable of the mustard seed.
|
|
BES1'st
climber
USA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 01:17pm PT
|
"
Actually Ed, I totally believe that science can explain how the machine can process information. What I don't expect science to explain is the nature and essence of self-awareness, which is not a thing or a function in the normal sense of the word.
"
I agree and I don't care for stem cell research.
There is also political science. Attorney qualifications are under
BPC 6069, death penalty qualification for attorneys are found within
CRC CA Rules of Court. Im glad this upcoming election dealing with
doing away with the death penalty does so by reduction of paper (unlike
the CRC) via line item stricking out.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 01:24pm PT
|
ED
You're a clever man! Please bear with me a moment while I agree from a religious standpoint. You said;
"It seems an obvious hypothesis that "consciousness" is tied up with our ability to describe ourselves to others, it is largely a verbal behavior/phenomena. Perhaps it is a short step to the hypothesis that our verbal behavior is responsible for generating consciousness, not the order which we usually think about these ideas."
Which took me to Genesis. Where it says "god created the heavens and the earth". The earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. Then God "said"let there be light. Then God "said"let the waters under the heavens be Gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear and it was so.and God "called"the dryland earth.
Just as your talk has drawn me into your conscience. God created the matter for earth. But he spoke it into form,( consciousness?) then God "said"let there be light. on the first day. But it wasn't until 4th day that he actually created the sun. Then God said let the waters abound with living creatures and let birds fly above the earth. So He then created them.
I thought about this, and what you said. And wondered the possibility that through Gods "living Word", and my knowledge of it. My conscience could be drawn to His?
Jus Talk'in
BB
Does this go along in any way with your idea of talk creating conscience?
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 10, 2012 - 05:53pm PT
|
You will never know if you don't question everything
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 10, 2012 - 05:54pm PT
|
I store water for the dry season!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 06:24pm PT
|
Talk to it.
It will tell you "I have a soul and I'm a conscious living entity" .......
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 10, 2012 - 07:40pm PT
|
It's not telling me that
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2012 - 09:45pm PT
|
Dr. F,
Ask it, "Comment caleçons?" Be sure to use cajun pronunciation.
edit:
That should probably be,
Comment les caleçons?
from
Comment les canes sont?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!