Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 12901 - 12920 of total 22751 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 28, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
Jstan wrote
Spare us, please.

On the Uses of Subjective Experience

It has none

What makes the words you write more relevant than those of St. John?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 28, 2013 - 01:56pm PT
no, and you keep using "cause" in a way that has no meaning in a physical argument. The Sun does not "cause" the Earth to orbit it... in the manner you mean...

the point of the physical idea of causality is essentially the transfer of "information" which might be a field quanta... and the limiting speed it can travel from point A to point B... you might say that it limits what point A's can effect point B's...
--

My whole point of this Ed was to get you to admit that there is an event, by your definition above, in which information is exchanged, and that there is a CONNECTEDNESS between the units or things that exchange information. You keep trying to slither out of admitting this connectedness of "informational exchanges," or that they proceed in a forward fashion, past to present.

If not, you have information arising out of "no thing." That is, things and eventualities arise and are sourced from nothing at all.

Granted, I am NOT trying to do physics here, and really have little interest in the numbers game. I'm simply approaching this from the position of no-thing, or nothingness.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 28, 2013 - 02:01pm PT

Instruments detect objective functioning, the firing of neurons and so forth. There is noting in that activity that suggests you are smelling a rose or hearing a siren.


What makes you think that? Are you so sure of the validity of Leibniz' thought experiment? If we did fMRI on a person and compared brain activity during smelling a rose versus hearing a siren, are you saying we could not tell the difference?

You could tell the difference, but this does not mean that by merely looking at brain output one might fully grasp subjective experience itself. Just because you can correlate the activity on a qEEG, say, with depression, does not mean that the qEEGH IS depresion, or is anything more than a numerical model of depresion's physical footprint.

Mistaking the map for the territory is a common misperception in this work, and leads to far fetched claims such as objectivity IS subjectivity.

Not so.

JL
WBraun

climber
Mar 28, 2013 - 02:07pm PT
but this does not mean that by merely looking at brain output one might fully grasp subjective experience itself.

Yes

100% spot on.

But that is exactly what all these so called "scientists" want us to "believe" according to their data, observations and theories ....
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 28, 2013 - 02:10pm PT
Blue said:

So forget about Leviticus. Try Romans 1, specifically 25-32. Here he talks about men with men and women. here Paul paints a spiritual picture of why sexual perversion is against
Nature. And how it harms society's.


nice one
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 28, 2013 - 03:58pm PT
Your subjective experience is the result of cells talking to other cells.
-

As mentioned, there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can prove the above statement in a peer reviewed journal. You can certainly prove that information is produced this way, and that objective functioning also follows this model, but there is "nothing whatsoever" according to leading neuroscientists saying mind, self awareness cha cha cha is "the result of cells talking to other cells." This misconception is inevitable so long as people ignore the quantitative difference between subjective and objective reality, and insist that a one-size-fits-all strategy will give divulge the goods.

JL

cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 28, 2013 - 04:16pm PT
Except that no one is insisting that it will, only that it seems very strongly to be heading in that direction. And counter-insistence to the contrary has so far provided no proof to distinguish any particular transcendental claim from another, or from garden-variety schizophrenia for that matter. Cha-cha-cha indeed.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 28, 2013 - 04:22pm PT
And counter-insistence to the contrary has so far provided no proof to distinguish any particular transcendental claim from another, or from garden-variety schizophrenia for that matter. Cha-cha-cha indeed.


I would just point out the knee-jerk comment, itself snide and puerile, that the only other explanation for mind is a "transcendental claim."

Where did Cintune hear as much?

But the larger question is: What are the other options. Numbers, "God," and what else . . .

It is strange and instructive to see how our minds tend to give us two options, as though three or even ten might work.

JL
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 28, 2013 - 05:08pm PT
Gotta love the pompous ad hominem disdain that comes out at the slightest provocation. Thousands of years of tradition sure does have your back there.

Keeping as many options open as possible is good practice. Claiming that one of those options necessarily "insists" on a one-size-fits-all strategy is itself an insecure misrepresentation of what's really going on. Here, for example: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=mindfulness-may-improve-test-scores-13-03-28

Neuroscience doesn't want to steal your satori. It just wants to understand it in terms that do without the medieval power tripping you seem so fond of.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Mar 28, 2013 - 05:58pm PT
One for Largo and WBraun
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:02pm PT
No Cigar, Cintune. You are the specie of dude the Indians refered to as having a "forked tongue."

Of course there's no getting past the fact that you jumped straight to the "God" card once a standard "broadcast" model of consciousness was questioned, insisting, quite incorrectly, that my beliefs on consciousnees we strictly magical, and that neuroscience might "steal my satori," that I'm insecure, and medieval power tripping. These are hardly credible statements, rather glib suet from someone guessing when they should really be asking questions.

One wonders where you got the crazy notion that anything from the experiential realm, from meditation on down, is perforce soft, wu wu, sketchy, based on beliefs, faith, flies in the face of the facts, and is a flight of fancy. None of these are remotely true, of course, but it remains a fallback position for those who simply don't know any better. like I said, clarity on these issues is unlikely to come to you through rash and reckless means. Try asking a few questions, instead, and maybe we can start to get you sorted out.

JL
WBraun

climber
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:06pm PT
cintune

I'll give you some ad hominem sh!t aszhole and it has nothing to do with this thread at all.

I'll give it to you since I have no reputation to protect.

Largo most likely does.

You're a fuking retarded dipshit moron period along with being a constant whiny crying little girl ......

cintune = DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender
jstan

climber
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:14pm PT
To get back onto a little firmer ground, I need to ask you a question John.

When you and individual X are exposed to the same stimuli how do you quantify and show that the two of you had exactly the same experience?

I am led to this question by everyone's reluctance to describe in great detail their experiential travels.

For example if a father of eight young children were to fall and have to have his leg amputated, his experience would not be anywhere near the same as that of a young unmarried guy who suffered exactly the same fate.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:34pm PT
cintune

I'll give you some ad hominem sh!t aszhole and it has nothing to do with this thread at all.

I'll give it to you since I have no reputation to protect.

Largo most likely does.

You're a fuking retarded dipshit moron period along with being a constant whiny crying little girl ......

Let's not get all emotional now Werner, I already know what you think about me, and you know I don't give a f*#k. Largo's a big alpha-dog, he can handle this. He wants me to ask questions, but we've already tried that and gotten nowhere, just more condescending more-enlightened-than-thou crap. Maybe jstan will have better luck, peer-to-peer so to speak.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:43pm PT
cintune

I don't think Largo's a big alpha-dog. He doesn't sound like one. My hypothesis is that Largo to a great extent is one of the jokes of John Long. Because often when Largo's no longer able to argue, he declares that what he wrote was a joke.
WBraun

climber
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:48pm PT
cintune = totally clueless projectionist
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:55pm PT
And WBraun says:

"cintune = totally clueless projectionist"

and:

"I'll give you some ad hominem sh!t aszhole and it has nothing to do with this thread at all.
I'll give it to you since I have no reputation to protect.
Largo most likely does.
You're a fuking retarded dipshit moron period along with being a constant whiny crying little girl ......
cintune = DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender"

Comment:

That was some pretty impressive whining from WBraun. So projection - I guess that's one of WBraun's skills.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 28, 2013 - 06:57pm PT
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 28, 2013 - 07:09pm PT
Because often when Largo's no longer able to argue, he declares that what he wrote was a joke.


Anytime I'm active on this thread it's because work is boring me or is real hard and I need constant breaks.

Marlow, you tøysete lisensdirektør, since when am I "no longer able to argue?"

My best fun here is to lampoon scientism, which fuels the whole thread as a favored-nation mode of inquiry, and to dethrone people who assume a "Top Fog" mentality by which they are going to inform the rest of us rubes the way things are. Such people should invariably be asking questions instead, and because they don't, they are the easiest marks for chiding. It's all fun.

Another fun pastime is to check the jackass notions people have about the experiential arts. If you ever meet someone who actually knows me, wu wu, fuzzy, belief driven, faith blinded, and navel staring are not things generally associated with my person. These persist because few have any formal exposure to long term esoteric studies, and can only assume they are hooked up with stardust and horsefeathers.

Again, none of these ideas come from people's experience, but if you're guarding the top dog position, it precludes you from asking a question ergo you can't learn anything.

Of course a top dog like Dawkins does not show up to learn or ask questions, he shows up to preach and lecture. Brilliant as Freyman was, even he couldn't see the borders of his own expertise, and tended to lampoon any information that lay outside of his own proscribed circle, often with inacurate caricatures.

When the tables are reversed, as I sometimes manage here, and the top dog is positioned as a yokel who is guessing, notice the guff. And yet people carry on with the most irrational and wonky notions, like DNA inventing itself, but over a long ass time, or self awareness jumping off the meat brain like a mirage off a hot desert.

It's been a wild ride.

JL
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 28, 2013 - 07:41pm PT
Time to take some shots at that easy target to ridicule, SCIENCE

NEW YORK — A huge international effort involving more than 100 institutions and genetic tests on 200,000 people has uncovered dozens of signposts in DNA that can help reveal further a person's risk for breast, ovarian or prostate cancer, scientists reported Wednesday.

It's the latest mega-collaboration to learn more about the intricate mechanisms that lead to cancer. And while the headway seems significant in many ways, the potential payoff for ordinary people is mostly this: Someday there may be genetic tests that help identify women with the most to gain from mammograms, and men who could benefit most from PSA tests and prostate biopsies.

And perhaps farther in the future these genetic clues might lead to new treatments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/genetic-markers-cancer-risk_n_2964287.html
Messages 12901 - 12920 of total 22751 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