Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13321 - 13340 of total 22772 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 4, 2013 - 12:39am 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 - 01:41am 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 - 07:25am 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 - 08:56am 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 - 09:27am 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 - 01:50pm 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
jogill

climber
Colorado
Mar 4, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
It appears that scientists are more interested in "weak" emergence, and have their doubts about "strong" emergence which would I suppose appeal to JL and his colleagues

Bears repeating, although at this stage it's pretty obvious.


;>)
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 4, 2013 - 04:20pm PT
JL, That's the best one yet!!!

That ping-pong match resonates back to the Big Bang/ Creationism debate. Maybe the "BigBang" theory is right in that it could have been a loud noise that first started all matter to move?

Jus Listen'in
BB
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 4, 2013 - 04:27pm PT
The big bang theory seems like bullsh#t. The real orgin of it is that people need to have a scientific substitute for genesis. Its too easy to say that the universe always was like this and there was no beginning. But how could there be a beginning, it makes no sense. Only with this asinine theory.

What's the evidence for the big bang theory? The only real evidence are frequency shifts towards longer wavelengths for more distant stars. This is attributed to the doppler effect, which I admit is the most obvious explanation, but its not necessarily the only one. I would challenge that before I accepted a theory that ends up with really absurd conclusions. The universe started as a singular point that contained everything then exploded and all matter was created, etc. Oh really? What other evidence is there for the big bang? These guys with a radio telescope can't explain the background noise any other way. It must be leftover sound from the big bang. The big bang theory was a huge setback for science, but it will be disproven eventually.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 4, 2013 - 04:28pm PT
that is, if you must insist that experience is in and of itself a physical thing,

No one claimed this

It's a expression of energy and matter, and it may possible that it can't be reverse engineered.
It all disappears the second after it happened
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Mar 4, 2013 - 04:32pm PT
And round and round we go...

I am wondering how the argument that consciousness, reality, etc., are all part of some spiritual existence are any different? Those arguments go round and round equal to the way the physical arguments go round and round. The only difference is that the spiritualists promote their agenda by saying that something is because it is while the martialists promote their agenda by arguing that something cannot be just because you say so.

We take what we know and we don't make up sh#t to add to it just to fill in the blanks.

So to somehow insult the arguments on one side by saying they go round and round without seeing the "round and round"-ness of the other side is a bit close minded for someone so spiritual.

Open your mind to the possibility that the body and stuff in it might be all that you are.

Dave

WBraun

climber
Mar 4, 2013 - 04:38pm PT
Open your mind to the possibility that the body and stuff in it might not be all that you are.

Actually it is a bonafide fact we are not the body ......
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 4, 2013 - 04:41pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 4, 2013 - 04:42pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Total fail on the flower color
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 4, 2013 - 04:45pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
My wife calls this plant "Dolly Parton"
I call it the "double headed bird's nest show plant"
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 4, 2013 - 04:55pm PT
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 4, 2013 - 05:50pm PT
anyone know what these are?
anyone know what these are?
Credit: Dr. F.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Mar 5, 2013 - 12:26am PT
How the Brain Loses and Regains Consciousness: Brain Patterns Produced by General Anesthesia Revealed

Which takes us back to the Grandin question of "but where do they go?". Well, punk, where do they?
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Mar 5, 2013 - 06:03am PT
There's an interesting article on the behind the scenes, human interest aspects of the search for the Higgs boson on the front page of the New York Times for March 5. Beautiful photos of the equipment involved also.
WBraun

climber
Mar 5, 2013 - 07:43am PT
When you apply anesthesia you disable the the brain.

The soul now does not feel pain anymore due to being separated from the identification of the body.

A crude layman example you disable the car computer and it will still run but but barely as there is no feedback from all the sensors.

Limp home mode.

In more modern vehicle computers it will not run at all but you the driver is still operating but can not use the vehicle except to sit in it and go nowhere with the car.

But of course the modern materialists completely reject this due to their stubbornness even though they can observe this.

They are continually stuck that we are the body.

Modern man is not simple. modern man is over complicated mess with all their machines and data.

Their cups are filled and running over the top and can't understand the basic root simple facts and observance anymore.

They start with machines and more machines and their heads filled to over following.

Modern materialistic man is a mess that's run amok over thinking, speculating, theorizing.

Instead of calling the manufacturer of the machine they start guessing how it works.

There's always a certain class of men who reject the manufacturer of the machine because we're professionals, "we don't need no stinkin manual".

The intelligent class take to the manufacturer of the machine to understand how it functions and works ......



Messages 13321 - 13340 of total 22772 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