Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13341 - 13360 of total 22747 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 5, 2013 - 08:16am PT
Their cups are filled and running over the top and can't understand the basic root simple facts and observance anymore.

The Cup is Full analogy is one that I've been wanting to post here for a long time. Some people simply will not learn and think they know everything. Their cup is full.

Go look at the pre-human intelligence of the political thread. Talk about cup is full....
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Mar 5, 2013 - 08:42am PT


Well I'd say thats about the most text I've ever seen you produce. I think you should just take a chill pill and still your mind a bit tho Werner. All you really had to say was this to sum up the net effect of Politics, God, Religion and science:

There's always a certain class of men
MH2

climber
Mar 5, 2013 - 08:47am PT
The intelligent class take to the manufacturer of the machine to understand how it functions and works ......


That's why I didn't leave home for a good year and a half after birth.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 5, 2013 - 01:15pm PT
I have never said that ONLY the experiential is real. This is simply flip-flopping the materialists claim that only the material is real. The circular trap of this argument is that by their own definition, "real" and "material" are the same thing. So there's quite naturally no place to expand or to grow with this view. Just as Ed said about solipism, you end up in the same place if you artificially collapse the objective and subjective into one unwieldly wad. If real and matter are defined as the same thing, there is no refuting materialism, a notion that some have pushed so far as to say that experience (qualia) is not, in fact real, that it does not actually exist - talk about a blind spot.

The wonky thing is that this and every other view ever maintained is known only through experiencing the thought, but notice how the rational mind will immediately go back to considering the thought as an "expression of mind and energy."

It seems dead obvious to anyone who has studied the experiential directly that the rational mind has no ability to wrangle the experiential, even though the "rational mind" as we know it exists ONLY as an experience. Unless you insist that objective brain functioning IS mind - entirely.

so the default is to consider the experiential as solely an extension of the physical, that is, if you can control the physical, you can control and predict the output of the experiential. I remember studying clinical psych in grad school and discovering that psychiatry is almost entirely based on the psychological being entirely bio output. Till you run into raving borderlines and narcissists, which seemingly have no simple or uniform physical footprint but see where it gets you to say "it's only in their mind." As though there is some human rality that is NOT in your mind.

Now I'm not saying that only the mind is real, only that our experience is our fundamental reality, the one that we consciously live with, so if yo have to default back to saying the subjective is merely a product of the objective, at least have the wherewithal to understand that your Aunt in not exactly your Uncle. In reality, Mind and Matter create a perfect feedback loop, each informing the other all day long. You think about Roxanne and draw sudden wood. I get an involuntary impuse and have to eat. Yada yada.

Interestingly, Craig mentioned that mind might not be revere engineerable. I think he better reconsider because a ground up model of reality cannot brook a missing link in the progresion, where one thing becomes something else without a previous factor, cause or impetus. If you get to a certain place where there is a total disconnect between the flow, how was the bridge crossed? Or is it that if we had the right data all would be clear - according to this belief?

JL
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 5, 2013 - 01:58pm PT
The objective is what's real. Go ahead and smash your head against the wall if you need a demonstration. Doesnt matter what your opinion is of the wall or what my perspective is on it, it's going to hurt just the same. So my subjective experience of the same wall is different than yours because both are approximations with no real existence. Look around the room, see all the details? If you leave the room and I ask you about them, you won't know most of them. That's because your brain didn't take a picture of it, just recorded some information that seemed useful at the time. So there is no recording of reality inside your brain, not really a subjective recording either. The internal modeling tricks us, it looks so real. Sort of like people who live vicariously by watching TV shows like "Dancing With the Stars" or read the grocery store mags about Oprah.

Now here is the problem with what JL says about qualia. My brain has some concept for the color red, when I see it, the symbol is invoked, I think red and it looks red to me. Your brain has recorded this concept in some other way, and I have no idea what red looks like to you. It's just a symbol with no actual connection to reality. But we see a painting with shades of red and blue that match pretty well, we both think it looks cool. What does this mean, that our arbitrary, subjective systems for explaining red both agree its a match. So the subjective part and the modeling also corresponds to the objective in some real way.

We live in a world of imperfect replicas, in our own worlds, really, but they all approximate the real one. None of this helps me understand consciousness though. Because that imperfect recording of the world, the model I made of it in my head and constantly change, is really all I am. What else am I except the experiences recorded by my brain?

Analogy: 5 blind men are touching an elephant. This one grabs a leg, an elephant is like a tree. Next one grabs the trunk, an elephant is like a ... you get the picture. Aren't all our experiences like that? Isn't this the moral of the blind men and the elephant story?
jogill

climber
Colorado
Mar 5, 2013 - 04:51pm PT
Investigating the thing that is doing the investigating. Tricky business, there. Like a Klein bottle.


;>\


Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2013 - 05:09pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
MH2

climber
Mar 5, 2013 - 06:31pm PT
Now I'm not saying that only the mind is real, only that our experience is our fundamental reality, the one that we consciously live with, so if yo have to default back to saying the subjective is merely a product of the objective,


I have never said that ONLY the experiential is real.



So let's agree that there is a physical material reality independent of your mind. And then suppose that there is a subjective experiential reality which is to some unknown degree independent of the physical and material.

If you are going to experience the physical world within your subjective first-person reality, there must be some kind of connection.

Can we narrow things down at all? If a person cannot see or hear, for example, does the same objective versus subjective distinction apply to their sense of touch, taste, and smell? If there is still an experiential world for the blind and deaf, how far can we simplify experience without changing its fundamental, possibly non-material nature?

How about a small example to help understand what is meant by subjective experience? Hold your hand under running water. Start with cold water and then try warm. Now go outdoors in winter for a few hours. Come inside and try the cold water again. Does it feel the same temperature as before? Is your experience of temperature objective or subjective?
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 5, 2013 - 06:41pm PT
Subjective, but approximates something real. If it didn't then you would have been run over by a truck by now, or some other calamity. So I think the opposite of solipsism is true. Yes the world is real, but the mental model of it that you live in, isnt.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2013 - 07:05pm PT
The temperature feels the same

and the cactus spines feel almost the same when puncturing your skin if you are asleep or awake

There is so little difference, that it's not even worth considering when it comes to talking about what we experience

I can't believe we are still stuck on the difference between our senses, mind and what is the apparent reality

We all agree, it's what we see, is documented in books and media,
this post is real, it will go on, all will see it, and agree with what it says, and how it looks and smells

To say there is some great difference in what perception and experience, that changes with people and circumstances is irrelevant in the bigger picture, the reality that science can investigate, and us in the reality based world all agree on.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2013 - 07:16pm PT
What if Largo is correct!!
And you can get a really super "real" warm and fuzzy feelings when you become a zen master

What does that bring us?
He won't agree that the Bible is the word of god, that you can talk to God, that you must surrender to Jebus to get to heaven, that you can commune with god

He is a religion of one.
We might agree with him on some things, but he has all his other special ways of believing that no one else can understand or wants to be a part of.

Absolutely zero consensus with any larger group of people that will come out and support his views with him.

Does it help him in any way?
Will he go to heaven or break away from the curse of Karma??
Will he be able to make it rich by guessing the winning numbers to lotto?
Or will he just be exactly like the rest of us, and nothing will come of it more than helping him relax and focus?

So many questions that will never be answered, since it's all based on faith, there Will be no answers.

Kind of like Werner, only he knows.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 5, 2013 - 09:57pm PT
Science Is a Pain in the Butt. Embrace It.
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/science-is-a-pain-in-the-butt-embrace-it

http://bigthink.com/

You know, my favorite Einstein quote is as follows. Einstein once said, "If a theory cannot be explained to a child, then the theory is probably worthless." Meaning that great ideas are pictorial. Great ideas can be explained in the language of pictures. Things that you can see and touch, objects that you can visualize in the mind. That is what science is all about, not memorizing facts and figures.
http://bigthink.com/videos/imagination-the-rocket-fuel-of-science

Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 5, 2013 - 10:43pm PT
Intelligence: How Smart Are You? | BBC Documentary on Intelligence

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 5, 2013 - 10:53pm PT
Because that imperfect recording of the world, the model I made of it in my head and constantly change, is really all I am. What else am I except the experiences recorded by my brain?


This is a common misconception readily remedied by watchnig and realizing that you are watching the every changing qualia in your head. With enough direct experience you come to understand that the watcher is is connected to but is not selfsame with the stream of qualia. Most psychologists will tell you that when a client comes to realize that they are NOT their feelings, huge shifts can start to take place. So long as awareness is fused to qualia, or impulses or feelings or thoughts et al is in place, indeed their is no "I," and you can live entirely on auto pilot. Once you realize that responding to thoughts, feelings and so forth is totally optional, you're on your way to claiming something rare.

So far as there being a fixed objective world out there, do you have any idea to what extent that or brains organize reality into something we can handle? This reality is probably like Hilbert space - a provisional modeling of the undiferentiated flux that works for humans, but if I were a silicon based organism, or had a body composed of cosmic rays, or whatever, my "objective" world would not be the same as ours.

JL

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 5, 2013 - 11:34pm PT
So far as there being a fixed objective world out there, do you have any idea to what extent that or brains organize reality into something we can handle? This reality is probably like Hilbert space - a provisional modeling of the undiferentiated flux that works for humans

Tangentially reminiscent of this thumbnail description of Nietzsche ( and Schopenhauer) :

On a deeper level, the will to power explains the fundamental, changing aspect of reality. According to Nietzsche, everything is in flux, and there is no such thing as fixed being. Matter is always moving and changing, as are ideas, knowledge, truth, and everything else. The will to power is the fundamental engine of this change. For Nietzsche, the universe is primarily made up not of facts or things but rather of wills. The idea of the human soul or ego is just a grammatical fiction, according to Nietzsche. What we call “I” is really a chaotic jumble of competing wills, constantly struggling to overcome one another. Because change is a fundamental aspect of life, Nietzsche considers any point of view that takes reality to be fixed and objective, be it religious, scientific, or philosophical, as life denying. A truly life-affirming philosophy embraces change and recognizes in the will to power that change is the only constant in the world.
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Mar 5, 2013 - 11:48pm PT


AMAZING ! No pictures would do it justice.

Sunday, March 3, 2013


We were sitting in the cockpit well after dark, looking for satellites and spotting an occasional meteor.


We saw Mars (we thought. Turns out it was Betelgeuse) and lots of stars, then I happened to look over the side of Senta. The surface was twinkling as far as we could see. It was a beautiful bioluminescence display.


I looked for something to throw in the water to see if it would light up and when I tried the fishing lure we saw something spectacular ... an absolute light show around the lure at the surface and the fishing line. Next Brian pulled out the canvas bucket and threw it in the water. The splash was beautiful and the splash when he poured the water back into the ocean was unbelievable !


Brian said that the only thing it reminded him of was the Disney “Sorcerer's Apprentice” clip from Fantasia where the water from the buckets comes alive. The splash would light up like a living camera flash and the splash would trigger a secondary splash which also lit up and a tertiary ring of splashes which also lit up.


It was absolutely unbelievable !


We must have spent hours pouring buckets of water back into the water and pulling lines and fishing lures through the water and seeing explosions of lights where fish jumped or birds took off or landed. It made the starlit sky seem mundane.


We tried taking pictures of it but I didn’t have the manual handy to figure out how to crank the ISO up to several 1000’s. If you want to share some of the magic the best I have to offer is a link that Diane Richards shared with us on FaceBook http://www.ted.com/talks/edith_widder_glowing_life_in_an_underwater_world.html .


The next morning we saw a huge brown algae bloom spread all over the bay but we’ll never forget what it looked like that magical night.

http://www.grenander.com/Senta_II/Blog/Entries/2013/3/3_AMAZING_!_No_pictures_would_do_it_justice..html
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Mar 6, 2013 - 02:09am PT
Yes, trying to capture that kind of iridescence is why I gave up photography.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Mar 6, 2013 - 03:06am PT
Largo: Once you realize that responding to thoughts, feelings and so forth is totally optional, you're on your way to claiming something rare.

Exactly. In borrowed terms, a supervisory attentional system, executive functions, essential container, or main stage which for practical purposes is the 'you' within which our "human reality" plays out. That space, however, is not without it's own supervisory content and 'processes'. As you say above - monitoring, judgment and will all exist within, and are the content and processes of, that [executive] state of consciousness. If they didn't, you wouldn't be able to exercise the will to meditate or ever get to where you can let go of the your 'attachment to the content stream therein.

It is not possible, at any level of mediation, to let go of all vestiges of that [supervisory] content or process or you'd possess no self control at all and likely wouldn't ever find your way back. You can attempt to strip even them away, but - experientially, and as Largo keeps emphasizing, no-thingness is just that. And, the executive functions or supervisory attentional system aren't 'designed' to easily relinquish control because they are after all, you. If we could detach from all supervisory content and process, then we certainly wouldn't need anesthesiologists to force unconsciousness. You can certainly slow and calm them down, but that's pretty much it.

For instance, faced with an unpleasant medical or dental procedure - if I go in within a half hour of waking up and get a blanket and the lights turned down - I can put myself in a state where, after checking my vitals, more than one doctor has chided the nurses for giving me a sedative without his order. In that state I'm not asleep, but am very detached from the content stream such that, when I do bother to pay attention to what's going on, it's like watching it on a small TV screen. But wrestling with our autonomic nervous system has near and clear limits as well.

And all this keeps getting back to various brain / mind pathologies, anesthesiology, and the limits on the control of consciousness.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 6, 2013 - 05:25am PT
do you have any idea to what extent that or brains organize reality into something we can handle?

Not really, but it reminds me of a news storyyesterday. The story itself doesnt have much substance to it and make extravagant claims, but they're calling the brain a "connectome" - someone did a TED talk about this. I think the concept they're trying to convey is that although the brain has billion of neurons, that number pales when you compare it to the total number of connections between neurons. So all your memories and everything about 'you' isnt stored in the neurons, its in the pattern of their connections. So this project is to try to map the connections in the brain, they've done 60 brains now and are making a database and see if they can correllate any brain structures to traits and behaviors. Obviously people have been studying the brain a long time, I think this is more like a wiring diagram than looking at it like an organ.
WBraun

climber
Mar 6, 2013 - 07:51am PT
The scientist is always more important than the science.

Which is the true reality in eKat's magnificent photo below?

Messages 13341 - 13360 of total 22747 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