Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 12281 - 12300 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Mar 4, 2013 - 12:02am PT
any luck with unconventional religion?
MH2

climber
Mar 4, 2013 - 12:09am PT
Whatever is up with Frank Wilczek, he came across as a very relaxed and happy person. I don't think we should look too far into his personal life, though.

If you watch the hour or so of his talk, you may be put to sleep, but the ending offers an answer to, "Where are they (aliens)?" Actually an optimistic look into the future.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 4, 2013 - 12:19am PT
What's the relevance of meditating, and a Zen-like state?

--


Zazen is normally done eyes open to inhibit "states." It could be argued that ANY consciousness is a state of sorts, but the idea is to leave off trying to achieve anything, especially a "spiritual state." The aim to to hang with the process till you start getting glimpses about what is true, your fundamental nature before thought or theory.

That's why I get a kick out of people comparing Zazen to Buddhism (not the same) or, laughably, to Scientology - which is like comparing creationism to evolution. The hardest part for people to grasp is that Zen has no content, therefore it can't be in contradiction or at odds with anything, a point driven home by Trappist priest Thomas Merton when Catholics complained that the Trappists were practicing Buddhism.

The world comes at us like gangbusters. Some people want to know what is going on, what lingers, what is, what is not. Zazen is the royal road to experiencing and making clear this onslaught, and is the least practiced discipline of them all, for obvious reasons (no states, no hot tubs, no "fun").

JL
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 4, 2013 - 12:25am PT

any luck with unconventional religion?

Every morning between 5:54-6:09 I take a dump. Then I make coffee, and read the news.
I call that religion. But that's the conventional part.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 4, 2013 - 12:41am PT

"but the idea is to leave off trying to achieve anything, especially a "spiritual state.""

I couldn't imagine a "spiritual state" alone. Having what I've experienced..

But the idea of NOT achieving anything for myself was My first step in knowing Jesus.

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 4, 2013 - 12:46am PT
But the idea of NOT achieving anything for myself was My first step in knowing Jesus.


This kind of radical openness - tempered by a radical detachment - is likely the first step in knowing anything at depth.

JL


Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Mar 4, 2013 - 12:47am PT
Sorry blue - my question was directed at MH2 who said he lost faith in the conventional stuff. I thought perhaps it was just the conventional bit that messed it up.

But while i've got you how do you manage your doctrine mandated morality in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 4, 2013 - 12:57am PT
^^^^
How's that? Loving your brother as yourself.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 4, 2013 - 01:01am PT

radical openness < eternal life
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 4, 2013 - 01:12am PT
Boy,,,,, I've really missed all you guys! This is the BEST talk in town!

I don't know how you can up anything you've already done!

But I guess that's evolution.. Keep it up!
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Mar 4, 2013 - 01:31am PT
How's that?

Ah, you must jive to your own tune then. I admit I was just fishing. You know, how many devotee's of christianity think gays are immoral, or women rank inferior. stuff like that. I'm glad you're not lock stepping with that stuff just on account of any club affiliation. I can see how that stuff could be acceptable 50 years ago but these days seem a stretch. Hitting the sack - cheers
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Mar 4, 2013 - 01:34am PT
animals are people


Dances with Lions:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=122715721244326&set=vb.264489303590063&type=2&theater





Gorilla people:

Credit: TomCochrane
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Mar 4, 2013 - 02:19am PT
This sort of thing is the result of setting ourselves apart from and superior to animals.

The hilarious part of that is that we are in fact a composite animal and only 1/10th of the cells in our bodies is 'human'. Do our symbiants go to heaven or reincarnate with us? They seem as deserving as the rest of us.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 4, 2013 - 02:30am PT

Gorilla people:

I wonder if gorillas will ever evolve to think making fire is advantageous?
Seriously, what's the next step out of the jungle?
Perhaps since they are vegetarians they'll never need it?

If we evolved from animals, shouldn't they evolve more, or faster from witnessing us?
At least I have turn on heat, refrigerated meat, and flushing toilets.

This type of thinking really makes me believe animals are stupid!
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 4, 2013 - 03:39am PT
[quotedeserving][/quote]

I don't see animals going around with a "deserving" attitude.

What do you deserve? Just because your here with the ability to see and breathe and sh#t.
So what, you "deserve" air, food, and sOmething to see? NO!

That's the world teaching you. If you work 10hrs you deserve to be paid for
10hrs. What you get in, should be proportional to what you put out.

Somuchas What religions make spirituality to be.

Ying&Yang

But this is disproportional with the teachings of Jesus. He said,"all good works of the flesh are an obomanation to the spirit"". So you can't "DO" anything to be deserving in the Spirit.

He even went one step farther than the Ying&Yang
He offered a hand across the line as a bridge to the reincarnation of a Spirit to another Spirit in the same body. Not the carnation of a spirit into multiple body's.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Mar 4, 2013 - 04:41am PT
Read that again. What I said is the 9/10's of the non-human, symbiant cells which make up your body are deserving of going to heaven or reincarnating with you. You wouldn't be you without them.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Mar 4, 2013 - 10:25am PT
In line with Tom's post up above, I've just reconnected, thanks to the internet, with a woman I did research with in Nepal years ago. She's running a wildlife rescue and rehab on the west side of the Tetons near Driggs, Idaho, that's very thought provoking concerning the capabilities and evolution of animals.

Here's an 8 minute video about her work including walking around freely in a meadow with bears, badgers, wolves and cougers.http://www.heartrising.com/home/2011/7/22/earthfire-institute-template-for-harmony-inspirational-inter.html

And here's my favorite section of her web page - the bios of the individual animals.
http://earthfireinstitute.org/animals/

Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 4, 2013 - 11:56am PT
Ed do you mind if I ask what you do for a living. You sound like you must work at Livermore Labs. I worked at Brookhaven lab in NY in graduate school, but was not destined to be a scientist, and encountered the same problem Base104 had, that if you wanted to do basic research, the only funding was from the military and I didn't have the conscience to do that. Worked on an x-ray beamline there under a contract for NRL until one day we had to calibrate these detectors for use in measuring atomic bomb tests, I said sorry I can't work on this. Also took a complete course in diffusion, similiar to the brownian motion you describe but based on movements of impurities (and vacancies) in crystal lattices of metals. Its true, diffusion and many other thermodynamics effects can be explained just by statistics. In that sense they are only mathematical principles playing themselves out in physical matter. But if you go a couple steps further than you have, beyond protons neutrons and electrons, everything is indistinguishable from a mathematical probability. In fact when we say an electron could be a particle or a wave, the kind of wave it is, is a probability density function of its position, but its equally well described not as something moving, but as the field itself. And then if you want to talk about quarks, it's pure mathematics, everything is a one or a zero. So is everything just reducible to math?

Another point. I'm not entirely following Largo's argument, but it seems axiomatic to me, that the whole is not the sum of its parts, but the sum of the (parts + all of their interrelationships). Maybe more than that, too. Just last week I replaced the hard drive in my laptop and know all about it! By the way, there's no human being on earth who knows all the details of how windows works, and none of the software engineers know how quantum mechanics works in the semiconductor chips in the computer. ie, no one knows how a computer works. Yet, they work.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 4, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
"If I am entirely wrong on this count, kindly offer an example illustrating something greater than it's parts which, if you had sufficient data, you could not, in theory, mechanically reverse engineer back to antecedent parts."

I think the construction of this challenge is misdirected. We do not know a priori if something has an explanation with respect to "antecedent" parts. (I'm also not sure why you have a "mechanical" fixation, perhaps you can provide an example of something physical that is not "mechanical").
-

My question is based on your observations some months back saying that ONLY bottom up causation works in physical theory. And if we know bottom up, we can work from the top backwards and see the sequence, not a priori, or beforehand, but afterwards.

Of course physical reality is mechanical. Where we differ is your insistance that the subjective IS itself physical and objective, exactly, owing to the second law of mind (snuff the brain and local consciousness ends), or the belief that the physical/mechanical created mind, much as falling rock creates gravity via a graviton or whatever.

So let me rephrase the question: Is anything you can think of, real or imagined, physical or psychological, mental, emotional, cognitive, et al, EVER more than a sum of it's atoms. When they talk about "emergent functions," what emerges in your opinion? If something is more than a sum of its parts, what is that which is more?

This is NOT a question about whether you can KNOW what is beforehand.

JL
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 4, 2013 - 04:50pm PT
'I should also start with a cautionary note. In one sense, any quantum theory of general relativity will have “emergent” aspects. All observables (in Dirac’s sense) are necessarily nonlocal [16,17], so locality must be an emergent property.

This is an interesting point insofar as most long term meditators come to see raw awareness as non-local and site-specific (that is you and my individual consciousness) as being local and emergent.

I would also add that a materialists "theory" about emergence would of course look exactly like other physical theory because a materialist is honor bound to only consider matter as "real," forcing them to do slight-of-hand definitions like insisting that non objective things like experience are in fact strictly physical phenomenon - that there is qualatatively NO difference between the experience of tasting a beer after a big wall, and the molecular structure of the London Bridge.

Anyway, any way you shake this, by whatever means you choose, one thing is inescapable to this argument - that is, if you must insist that experience is in and of itself a physical thing, you are left with either one of two conclusions: antecedent physical things created consciousness, whereby it is a kind of bio transmission of the brain, or else consciousness IS the brain, meaning that at least in some cases, consciousness and matter are flip sides of the same coin, that subjectivity does not emerge from matter any more than gravity emerges from a rock slide. Nor is it the case that gravity or subjectivity are inherent qualities OF matter, for this implies that both are secondary to the "real" thing, which is the solid stuff - though even this seems to assume both wave and solid states.

I think a purely material belief system can only circle in the argument that there is no emergent qualities or realities because then we'd have to describe something other than the purely physical, and how would we do so? So we trump that idea by insisting that there is only the physical, and that any emergent function is in fact a physical thing - not that there are physical foot prints involved, but that the experience of hearing a rock concert is in fact entirely unreal. What is real are the sound waves and brain processing that provide the experience, which cannot be reified as "real" as it lacks substance.

And round and round we go...

JL
Messages 12281 - 12300 of total 22344 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