Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 12961 - 12980 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 29, 2013 - 02:26pm PT
Welcome to the freak show, RR.

Good post.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Mar 29, 2013 - 03:17pm PT
Jesus told the parable of the sower in Mark 4, which tells us how our seed grows is what we become!

He said “My kingdom is not of this world. in John 18

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1

Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” John 6

Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work. John 4

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4

And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. Philippians 1

...where the shoe smear's the edge!
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 29, 2013 - 03:21pm PT
General Presumido,

I have read every one of your posts. It isn't that I don't understand them any less than the rest of us. I decided to refuse to enter your framed debate a while back. That is why you are no longer getting through to me. I still read them, just in case.

You have trolled us from the beginning.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 29, 2013 - 04:25pm PT
what causes the collision between the rock and my head?



Come on, Ed, you've dodged the question by asking another question.

I stated earlier that all of my prying about causation does not reflect my understanding, but is merely an inquiry. A true "cause" might never by nailed by as real or even possible in a zero-balance universe. Nevertheless, any experiment or scientific inquiry will involve a physical subject or thing that is undergoing a process or transformation, or maybe you are simply waiting around for something to decay. But there is a change somewhere, a before and after, and whether there be an exchange of info or a rock impacting Marlow's head, there also is an identifiable sequential progression. Ice thaws. A rock falls. A rock whistles through the air. A rock hit's Marlow's Norwegian bean.

Here, in this simple sequence in space and time, we will never see a progression where the rock is falling before the ice holding it in place has melted, or that the rock hits Marlow's bean before it whistled through the air and caught some speed. Such ideas are preposterous. Ther is a linear sequential connection between the rock whistling through the air and hitting Marlow's head.

In other cases, like the Kreb cycle, between Oxaloacetate acid and Ketoglyceric acid there is a loss of 2 carbon atoms (if I remember correctly, and I might not). This does not happen between Succinate and Fumarate, so there is a sequence. That doesn't imply a cause, only a connectedness in time and space between two acids in the Kreb cycle.

Now if there are instances where things happen in such a process, in any sequence, that are not connected to prior events or things, what does that tell us? A random or chaotic element entering the game is simply something that entered the stream from side, and if studied, it would itself be connected to prior states of informational vectors in it's own stream.

If there is an exception to this connectivity, if in any physical process or thing or force or eventuality, something arises out of nothing at all,
disconnected to any prior thing or event, what does that tell us about reality?

Lastly, back to the question never yet answered, when Ed uses the term "determined," what dose he mean? What is determined, and by what? What, exactly, is the relationship between the connectivity just mentioned, and what is determined, and by what means?

Unless these questions get answered honestly, with no slithering, we can't plow forward to the next stuff.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 29, 2013 - 04:25pm PT
Scientism is very strong and very inflexible and heavily rooted in this day age due to so many cheaters.

This is a very unfortunate perception. As for cheaters, science absolutely relishes exposing them. If you fake your results in an experiment, then it won't be repeatable, then questions start getting asked. In the earlier days, it was more common for this type of skullduggery to happen. These days, with so much study in every conceivable topic, it usually gets shot down. To this day, fancy experiments fail to give expected results, and a person may spend years getting funding to test a hypothesis that works "on paper."

Thou shalt not fake lab results or cherry picking data are the first and second commandments of the critical method. It works with all kinds of arguments, even this one.

All new revolutionary science has to be examined carefully and be revised and tossed if it isn't sound. Werner, one of my paleontology professors did nothing but tear bad papers to shreds. Nothing new. He just tore bad science to shreds. So yes, bad science does happen, but its lifespan is usually not very long.

And time marches on with El Presumido locked in Plato's cave.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 29, 2013 - 04:42pm PT
OK suit yourself. I won't call it the hartouni particle then.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 29, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
Determined means "caused by."

You can examine that rock which is going to fall. That is not luck.

If you stretch determinism to its nth degree, it will fail in most non linear processes. It becomes probabilities that are statistically sound. You can't predict the path of every water molecule in turbulent flow, but you can use statistics to help you narrow down the path.

You can also misuse the term and imply that everything is physically pre-determined out to infinity, but systems with many variables, such as turbulent flow (which I have studied) or weather (which I am a good armchair enthusiast), you can see that these systems are chaotic and can't be projected forward or backwards other than in a statistical sense. You can't take today's weather, run it backwards in a supercomputer, and get an accurate result.

In those cases you are better served by probability which comes from statistics. It gets cold in the winter in N Dakota is an easy one.

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 29, 2013 - 05:04pm 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?


Lunch break. I'll take a shot at this.

I approach this a little different because my training is based on a few fundamental/universal truths, one of which concerns the utter impermanence of all things, states, feelings, thoughts, experiences, and so forth. They all just come and go, like clouds through the sky.

So the content or qualia or experiences within the subjective bubble, whether they be objectifications and numerical evaluations served up to me by my discursive mind, or feelings, or memories, or aromas, or fill in the blank - these are all ephemera, and therefore can never be the focus of subjective inquiry because like us, thy all are born in time and die the same way.

That means that a kind of mechanical evaluation based on the idea that my experience is the result of either internal or external stimulai, is not essential to understanding mind, and is in fact a distraction. That is why the focus or non-focus (open focus) of eyes open meditation is to move neither towards or away from the flow of experiences, and to merely watch them arise and fall away. If you are interested in seeing how virtually all of your ideas are sourced by stimulai - at the ground level by body sensations - you go the route of Vapassana or "insight" meditation, and see it for yourself. Some never see it. Others see it rather quickly.

But returning to the question, because one's experience is so colored by our conditioning, it seems unlikely that two people's experience or thoughts will ever be selfsame even with the exact same stimulai. That's a virtual certainty. Ask any cop who debriefs witnesses of crimes. People who saw the very same event will provide vastly different versions, all certain they are correct.

The mistake here is that given all of this, the impermanence and volibility, a shallow view will consider the subjective realm as unreliable. This is a mistake because you have not yet accepted that different approaches are required for subjective and objective adventures. Objective observations are all about quantifying the physical content of our senses, believing that the content of our senses is "reality" owing to our numbers and predictions. This never works as advertised in the subjective realm. Rather than spin on content, or discrete things within mind, you settle into the unborn vastness in which experience arises. All the other stuff just comes and goes, and in many traditions is considered, metaphorically, as so many dreams, and entirely unreal.

JL
jstan

climber
Mar 29, 2013 - 06:03pm PT
Objective observations are all about quantifying the physical content of our senses, believing that the content of our senses is "reality" owing to our numbers and predictions. This never works as advertised in the subjective realm.

Good.
This says what I have expressed many times. Something goes on in the environment around us and perhaps we happen to have an "experience". Humans act as a "black box". Were we to be stimulated by an external event the black box does not permit the experience that is undergone to be predicted based upon the properties of the event.

Indeed this black box also allows "experiences" when there has been no event external to the organism. And in those cases where the organism undertakes actions entirely unlike those undertaken by peers, we say the organism is "mad".

So I now have to ask. Do you think there is an environment/places/things that exist outside of 'experience'? Or is "experience" the only thing?
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 29, 2013 - 09:47pm PT
I approach this a little different because my training is based on a few fundamental/universal truths, one of which concerns the utter impermanence of all things, states, feelings, thoughts, experiences, and so forth. They all just come and go, like clouds through the sky.
All things?
How about memories?
If memories are transient, your loved ones will be strangers in any afterlife.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 29, 2013 - 09:49pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 29, 2013 - 10:02pm PT
we define the collision when these four conditions are met:

xR(tR)=xE(tE)
yR(tR)=yE(tE)
zR(tR)=zE(tE)
tR=tE
-


Question, Ed. In what manner are the above conditions related to one another in space and time? Or are you saying there is no relationship there, no connectedness, influence or exchange between things and events as the rocks speeds towards Marlow's brainpan.

What's more, this from my friend, if your four conditions are met, how does the term "determined" apply to the (sequence of) conditions as they are met through time?

I'm not fishing around for a "cause," Ed. I never have been. Remember, I'm the one who is always preaching about the "unborn," or the uncaused. I think you're dodging the questions believing I'm going to smuggle in a "God" cause somewhere. Not so - just so you know.

JL
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 29, 2013 - 10:09pm PT
Malamute wrote: How about memories? If memories are transient, your loved ones will be strangers in any afterlife.


Does this alarm you?

Some would say that a slipstream lingers, like perfume on a pillow.

In my tradition they'd tell you that the idea of any of us having a
permanent "I" was itself an illusion. "We" never existed in anything but a mutable form.

But there is the "unborn" which is our true nature. Aka, emptiness. Proceed at your own risk.

JL
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 29, 2013 - 10:12pm PT
Does this alarm you?

Not in the least.
My goal after death is to feed the worms & flowers. No more, no less.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 29, 2013 - 11:09pm PT
Ed
i being an idiot in your lingo can only try and keep up.

I would have thought there were a couple of causes;

Temperature change causes ice to melt allowing unbalanced rock to move.
The motion of rock caused by gravity?
The cause of Marlows knock on the noggin would be (as Werner might put it), bad karma.
_
My question from this:

I approach this a little different because my training is based on a few fundamental/universal truths, one of which concerns the utter impermanence of all things, states, feelings, thoughts, experiences, and so forth. They all just come and go, like clouds through the sky.
I heard sound travels forever? Do sound waves last indefinitely?

Someone here posted a link to a scientific research of rocks absorbing and retaining
sound waves. Maybe someday we could extract all the words that were said by climbers
on ElCap. That would be entertainment!

If I'm way off I'm not surprised. I appreciate your patience.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 29, 2013 - 11:31pm PT
I didn't suspect you were... I am trying to disabuse you of a false notion you have, that of your definition of "cause" which you see in my alleged (and admitted) reductionism.


Gez, Ed, you're bungling this handsomely. You're attempting to disabuse me of something I am not saying, then dishing out a string of equations to sidestep the simple questions I - and my friend - keep asking you till we're blue in the face.

What is determinism, and what is determined? Reductionism commonly means one can "reduce" an event to a sequence of events in time and space, implying a connectedness, or in your language, an "exchange of information" at the cross roads. Forget "causes," philosophical or otherwise. To quote Turner's famous paper, "What went bang."

And yes, I secretly read much of that stuff. It gets jammed down my throat by "friends."

JL

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 29, 2013 - 11:58pm PT
Do you think there is an environment/places/things that exist outside of 'experience'? Or is "experience" the only thing?
--


Experience is not a "thing," it's a process. The CONTENT or qualia of experience can be objectified by our evaluating minds as having quantifiable values, or at any rate, is approachable to some extent in symbolic form, like language. The tricky part here is that our evaluating minds do not serve us up a perfect facsimile of "reality," but which nevertheless let us proceed through time and space in this experiment of life with some modicum of predictability. Meaning that the environment/places/things your evaluating mind say exist, independentally "out there," because we have cognitive models and numerical evaluations that exhibit predictable outcomes, is of a totally different order than what are brains and numbers tell us. The illusion is, as mentioned, that the universe is like a vast and complex movie set with some very quirky and counterintuitive features, but which nevertheless exists as a real "thing" out there in a form that remains selfsame regardless of whatever life form might be there - or not - to be aware of it. We call this the "motion picture" illusion. Meaning the illusion is that the universe - with all of it's quirky and non-linear, chaotic, random features co-staring - is simply what it is, as described by our numbers, et al. Whatever life forms might stumble into the theater of time to "screen" said movie will of course witness things differently, according to their sense apperati and the way their consciousness processes data. But the film itself remains what it is.

In fact, this is the opposite of what happens. Reality does exist whether we as individuals are here to witness it nor not, but our interpretations of reality have more to do with the way we evolved and how our brains process and quantify "stuff" than with reality itself. This is why an obsession with the stuff, the things, the movable feast of life will never get at the deeper issues of the unborn.

JL
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 30, 2013 - 12:19am PT
^^^^^BRAVO! That was REAL,(LY) GOOD!!!!





Edit: this feels like a high volley ping-pong match.
Ed - 16
Largo - 17

Your serve Ed
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:51am PT
This is why an obsession with the stuff, the things, the movable feast of life will never get at the deeper issues of the unborn.

This is a consistent finale to a lot of Largo's posts, phrased in varying ways. It's intriguing, suggesting that this sea-change in perspective holds the key to all sorts of qualitative breakthroughs, but it's also become a cliffhanger that never gets resolved. What are these deeper issues, and to whose benefit is their resolution? Is there a map for that, or is it by definition something that can be hinted at but never explained in terms of conventional modes of reality?
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Mar 30, 2013 - 11:03am PT
it doesn't have to be about reducing...

Nor does "determinism" have to be about predicting.
Messages 12961 - 12980 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