Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13041 - 13060 of total 22369 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Mar 31, 2013 - 07:52pm PT
The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre."
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 31, 2013 - 08:04pm PT
El Presumido, after about a year of me poking him, finally admits that he has at least one pocket physicist to proofread his posts, or type them for him, for all we know.

Ain't your brain good enough, El Presumido? Isn't this a little like a presidential debate where one of the candidates has a little speaker in his ear, getting coached along?

He has been doing this for a couple of years in one way or another. I'm not even sure what he is trying to say anymore.

This has gotten silly. If El Presumido keeps this up, he should just have his "friends" join supertopo and make their arguments in person. That would be great.

So how did we get from what is mind? to Largo joisting physics with Ed?

You haven't been honest from day one, El Presumido.

Sorry. I just had to get that off of my chest. It has gotten that bad, and it isn't the first time that he's played us like this.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 31, 2013 - 08:20pm PT
Why do you feel played?

MOST of the others' ideas come from wiki or youtube

Except maybe MikeL. Hi MikeL!
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 31, 2013 - 09:28pm PT
we are trying to disabuse ourselves that there is a "physical" explanation for mind...
No way Dude! (I hope I can call you "dude"; Your Honor)?

The mind, the workings of the brain, the brain, is meat!


Some try to give IT to much authority without conversing with the heart.
The mind does what it does from a finite amount of instructions.
But the spirit moves from ominisisence.
MH2

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 09:41pm PT

JL sez:

The notion of no-thing remains totally lost on you lest you'd ask another question.

After no-thing what further question could there be?

I much like the notion of no-thing. As philosophy. One of the philosophical questions is, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" I like the simplicity of the Hindu reply that, "Nothing exists."

Full stop?

No.

Does this mean that no entity has the property of existence or that there are no entities at all?


Philosophy is fun but don't expect it to take you anywhere. Your brain can do better.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 31, 2013 - 09:42pm PT
BB,

This is the original post that started this entire thread over 18 months or so. Perhaps twenty people have followed it and participated in it for the entire time. It has been remarkably civil.

The first thread was called "What is Mind." That thread died and Largo came over to this thread, which had been going on for ages, and re-started the discussion on this thread. The original thread can be found here:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1593650&msg=1593650#msg1593650

Largo's very first post is copied and pasted here. Enjoy:

Scientism ~ the belief that the methods of measuring, or the categories and things described through measuring, form the only real and legitimate elements in any philosophical or other inquiry, and that science alone describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective, with a concomitant elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience.

While no one can argue the immanence of science and the importance of measuring in many aspects of our life, I am not alone in being unsatisfied with the definition above as it relates to consciousness. At the root of this issue are various views concerning how to approach the consciousness question, which perforce imply fundamental beliefs per what consciousness is. If not examined carefully and soberly, and without a sense of humor, said “views” can scuttle any meaningful investigation through stonewalling in principal, absurd simplification and non-sequiturs.

Per approaching consciousness, a fundamental and common pitfall, especially common in AI and computational model camps, is the failure to recognize that consciousness is qualitatively different that what scientists usually measure. Re - the direct, first person experience of hanging 2,500 up the Shield on El Capitan, in boardshorts, in a lightning storm, is a different “thing” than a milk shake or a cockroach. That’s not to say the qualitative differences preclude us from measuring consciousness in various ways, but when the singularity of “mind” is not acknowledged, that experience up on the shield can be so wildly mistaken to be the selfsame thing as cue ball or a Jujube, rendering howlers like: consciousness is what the brain does, ergo the brain is the self-same thing as the experience of hanging on the Captain. This “does” metaphor works well with purely physical things – a new dime shines, that’s what it does. But with consciousness being brain, we are in effect saying our Uncle is our Aunt, and this simply will not do for some of us.

Though I have issues with many of his conclusions, which favor a physicalist light POV, John Searle has done a comprehensive job in elimination some of the common misconceptions about consciousness often made by those who never look past their own discipline. To wit:

The characteristic mistake in the study of consciousness is to ignore its essential subjectivity and to try to treat it as if it were an objective third person phenomenon. Instead of recognizing that consciousness is essentially a subjective, qualitative phenomenon, many people mistakenly suppose that its essence is that of a control mechanism or a certain kind of set of dispositions to behavior or a computer program.

The two most common mistakes about consciousness are to suppose that it can be analyzed behavioristically or computationally. The Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test); disposes us to make precisely these two mistakes, the mistake of behaviorism and the mistake of computationalism. It leads us to suppose that for a system to be conscious, it is both necessary and sufficient that it has the right computer program or set of programs with the right inputs and outputs. We need only to state this position clearly to see that it must be mistaken.

A traditional objection to behaviorism was that behaviorism could not be right because a system could behave as if it were conscious without actually being conscious. There is no logical connection, no necessary connection between inner, subjective, qualitative mental states and external, publicly observable behavior. Of course, in actual fact, conscious states characteristically cause behavior. But the behavior that they cause has to be distinguished from the states themselves. The same mistake is repeated by computational accounts of consciousness. Just as behavior by itself is not sufficient for consciousness, so computational models of consciousness are not sufficient by themselves for consciousness. The computational model of consciousness stands to consciousness in the same way the computational model of anything stands to the domain being modeled. Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all soaked. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases, and one common to those using a rigid mechanical or computational model. In fact, the computational theory of the mind does not have a clear sense. Here is why.

The natural sciences describe features of reality that are intrinsic to the world as it exists independently of any observers. Thus, gravitational attraction, photosynthesis, and electromagnetism are all subjects of the natural sciences because they describe intrinsic/material features of reality. But such features such as being a bathtub, being a nice day for a picnic, being a five dollar bill or being a chair, are not subjects of the natural sciences because they are not intrinsic features of reality. All the phenomena I named -- bathtubs, etc. -- are physical objects and as physical objects have features that are intrinsic to reality. But the feature of being a bathtub or a five dollar bill exists only relative to observers and users.

Absolutely essential, then, to understanding the nature of the natural sciences is the distinction between those features of reality that are intrinsic and those that are observer-relative. Gravitational attraction is intrinsic. Being a five dollar bill is observer-relative. Now, the really deep objection to computational theories of the mind can be stated quite clearly. Computation does not name an intrinsic feature of reality but is observer-relative and this is because computation is defined in terms of symbol manipulation, but the notion of a symbol is not a notion of physics or chemistry. Something is a symbol only if it is used, treated or regarded as a symbol. The Chinese room argument showed that semantics is not intrinsic to syntax. But what this argument shows is that syntax is not intrinsic to physics. There are no purely physical properties that zeros and ones or symbols in general have that determine that they are symbols. Something is a symbol only relative to some observer, user or agent who assigns a symbolic interpretation to it. So the question, `Is consciousness a computer program?' lacks a clear sense. If it asks, `Can you assign a computational interpretation to those brain processes which are characteristic of consciousness?' the answer is: you can assign a computational interpretation to anything. But if the question asks, `Is consciousness intrinsically computational?' the answer is: nothing is intrinsically computational. Computation exists only relative to some agent or observer who imposes a computational interpretation on some phenomenon. This is an obvious point.

Going on, Searle adds:

A theory of consciousness needs to explain how a set of neurobiological processes can cause a system to be in a subjective state of sentience or awareness. This phenomenon is unlike anything else in biology, and in a sense it is one of the most amazing features of nature. Science quite naturally resists accepting subjectivity as a ground floor, irreducible phenomenon of nature because, since the seventeenth century, we have come to believe that science must be objective. But this involves a pun on the notion of objectivity. We are confusing the epistemic objectivity of scientific investigation with the ontological objectivity of the typical subject matter in science in disciplines such as physics and chemistry. Since science aims at objectivity in the epistemic sense that we seek truths that are not dependent on the particular point of view of this or that investigator, it has been tempting to conclude that the reality investigated by science must be objective in the sense of existing independently of the experiences in the human individual. But this last feature, ontological objectivity, is not an essential trait of science. If science is supposed to give an account of how the world works and if subjective states of consciousness are part of the world, then we should seek an (epistemically) objective account of an (ontologically) subjective reality, the reality of subjective states of consciousness.


------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since a strict computational model can be summarily ruled out, and a “brain is consciousness” model is insisting that an apple is an orange, and religious explanations are equally unsatisfactory, one wonders what direction is needed to wrestle this one down.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 31, 2013 - 09:49pm PT

Some try to give IT to much authority without conversing with the heart.
The mind does what it does from a finite amount of instructions.
But the spirit moves from ominisisence.

Thanks. You made yourself very clear in three sentences. If you can posit your theory in three sentences then it is a sound hypothesis. It might not be correct, but you framed it in the correct way.

I wish everyone would strip down naked and jump into the pool like that, instead of creating a meta-language that is slipperier than WD-40 on a marble slab.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 31, 2013 - 10:22pm PT
Wiki is actually a really good source of info. On the geology pages they seem to be fully up to date.

I just read the page on the History of the Universe, which all of you religious guys should read, if for no other reason than you should know thy enemy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Credit: BASE104
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 31, 2013 - 10:35pm PT
Gawd Dern Base i knew i liked you!
That 6:42 post is AMAZING! I LOVE IT!
So much for me to think about. i had to save it!

First thought;
We all know The Nose is 5:13,or C2. THAT'S a conscious fact. The scientific truth is its A-1.

That's mind over matter, spirit rules!
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 31, 2013 - 11:00pm PT
I think the only ones that have a grasp on the concept of nothingness are the scientists
The other side keep trying to make something out of nothing

They think they can fit entire dimensions in it, along with Gods, souls, thoughts, spirits, and demigods

Why?, because it is unexplainable, hence something that can't be understood because it's Nothing!

so therefore it's to be used them in a an unscientifically manner without understanding, it's their last bastion of hope, as they claim that's where God lives, and all our spiritual stuff, there, where no one can fathom what goes on - becuase it's nothingness

Wrong, nothingness means nothing, non existence, no nothing of anything, not something, the opposite of something...

BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:09pm PT
BB,

That is Largo's original post. The post which started this whole discussion. About every concept under the sun has been discussed since.

I'm still upset about Largo having others tell him things to post. Why did he do that? I have been suspecting as much since this whole thing started, and he finally admitted it.

The part about Ed "Not understanding it because he is over forty." is a total stab in the back.

A total stab in the back. It would have been different if she had posted it herself, but Presumido (A name I like), didn't make these posts out of his own mind. He used another person's.

I'm going to look up that transgression. It isn't plagiarism, because I assume she consented. For practical purposes it is a big change in the rules around here. That is quite a bit different from going to wiki. If you post something that you don't understand at all, not good.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
Drf
Yea sure, God started ALL this.. Without Him there would be NOTHING!

THE ONLY thing i preceive as "nothingness" is a newborn's brain
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:13pm PT
See Base you went right back to the meat.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:19pm PT
not something, the opposite of something...

The opposite of something isn't nothing. It's an negative of something.
Thats where ur confused


And your THE materialist?
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:22pm PT
I just got back from hauling goods to a disabled friend of mine, and the whole way there and the whole way back I tried to see how nothingness could exist. Literally nothingness.

It isn't possible. If you live in this universe, you are getting punctured by neutrinos, yanked by gravity, and exist in a fairly strong electromagnetic field.

In its most fundamental sense, there is no such thing as absolute nothingness within the confines of the physical universe.

If there is anything outside of this universe that you have tapped into, then you've made an incredible discovery. Please post details. If you can prove it, even in a theory that holds water, you will be more famous than Newton and Einstein.

edit: Yeah, I was lead to the same notion, an infant's mind.
WBraun

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:25pm PT
Base104 -- "I'm living proof that anyone who can operate a carabiner can climb the Nose."

I said something similar last year, (the nose rappellers), they then fuked up, had to be rescued and were fined.

LOL

Except I had a defined clause in my post.

"Any competent well round climber can do it."

Some stupid fools on this site actually tried to make me responsible for their fate.

So ya gotta be careful what we say here.

There's too many stupid fools out there who have no brain and try to throw blame ......



BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:26pm PT
Base
Well, is largo posting it as a - toward Ed, or
Is it a + from his point of view?

That's all that matters. IMO
WBraun

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:31pm PT
If there is anything outside of this universe that you have tapped into, then you've made an incredible discovery.

Not really.

Every living entity is tapped into (the anything) outside of the universe 24 hours 7 days of the week all year round forever always.

Even you!

Even your so called science.

Nothing can move without IT.

You're just oblivious to the fact.

The 6 billion dollar smash tube is useless against it ......
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 31, 2013 - 11:31pm PT
NO, I'm not confused about nothing

But some people believe God made everything out of nothing,
and he does nothing that can be detected by man, yet does everything

now that is confusing, and impossible
WBraun

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:40pm PT
he does nothing that can be detected by man,

Then you are DEAD .....
Messages 13041 - 13060 of total 22369 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