Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13401 - 13420 of total 23214 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jstan

climber
Apr 15, 2013 - 12:50pm PT
I wonder. Did the interest in philosophy in Greece help bring Greece's classic period to its early demise?
MH2

climber
Apr 15, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
The traditional disputes of philosophers are, for the most part, as unwarranted as they are unfruitful. The surest way to end them is to establish beyond question what should be the purpose and method of philosophical inquiry. And this is by no means so difficult a task as the history of philosophy would lead one to suppose. For if there are any questions which science leaves it to philosophy to answer, a straightforward process of elimination must lead to their discovery.


The opening sentence of Language, Truth and Logic by A.J. Ayers (1936)

He should have left it at that.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Apr 15, 2013 - 01:29pm PT
Base:

All beliefs . . . which you (and 99.99999% of the earth's population) hold to be true. Unfortunately, 100% consensus would not make any thing true.

I know this declaration isn't very helpful.

I claim reality is unpatterned, ungraspable, undefinable, infinite, non-repeating, indescribable, etc. That is not saying anything about truth.

Do you think that there is such a thing as truth? It seems to me that truth must be absolute, QED.

What is absolutely, unequivocally, no-fricking-way could it be false, TRUE? You willing to say that about any of the *things* you made reference to?


Ed:

The whole thing about patentable human genes is perhaps absurdity taken to a new level of weirdness for me. Consensually (or by royal fiat), we make laws, and then we use those laws to grant ownership over reality. (Sheesh.)

Hell, I'm arriving at a place where I don't even think"doer'ship" exists. I look in the mirror or watch my behaviors in realtime and can't even say who or what I am anymore, just like in some of the Zen stories we're all heard about: "Who are you?" asked the king of the Zen Master; "I don't know," he responded. (That's not just a clever story; it may well be an indication of some kind of awakening.)






EDIT: Er, . . . I did not just claim I am awakened. I'm just noticing weirdness.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Apr 15, 2013 - 01:49pm PT
Just been reading how Voltaire took the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake and Tsunami
to be the refutation of Leibniz' theory of optimism and how he wrote
Candide to basically establish the French raison d'etre - carpe diem,
baby, cause it's all ya got! ;-)

I tend toward Janis Joplin's view of philosophy:

"People ask a lot of fukking questions."
MH2

climber
Apr 15, 2013 - 03:30pm PT
"People ask a lot of fukking questions."


Guess they are curious about fukking.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Apr 15, 2013 - 03:42pm PT
I hope to take a crack at Ed's interesting questions, which recall echos of said humonculus, "the little man inside the brain" who is watching, and is conscious or itself watching. Not so when Ed sleep walks after too much port or gets brained by rockfall while leading Cream with two cams. However you shake it, that observer is totally ungraspable but the scenarios Ed raised led into some interesting terrain.


BASE wrote: The existence of things is totally independent from the observer. I know that somebody will toss Schrodinger's cat out, but for all practical purposes, if nobody is around when a tree falls, there still IS a lot of noise.

What would "sound" mean if there were no biological things with auditory facilities? You have the whole process reversed. The objective and objective are indivisible. Neither exists without the other.

JL
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Apr 15, 2013 - 05:53pm PT
(MH2, you crack me up.)
jogill

climber
Colorado
Apr 15, 2013 - 06:48pm PT
The objective and objective are indivisible. Neither exists without the other

Profound.

When I reflect upon the experiences I had years ago with the apparent separation of I-consciousness from physical body I can find no conflict. My experiential, mystical, or supernatural adventures did not conflict with any sort of scientific approach I might have made. The science might eventually describe the electrochemical phenomena, but that in no way would diminish my feelings and recollections. Why argue? Two sides of the same coin.

If anything, I believe the soul, if it exists, is the complex interaction that underlies personality, and not simply an excess of physical energy that is to be expended. And I suspect the soul vanishes as does the personality upon death (but hopefully I'm wrong, go-be!)
MH2

climber
Apr 15, 2013 - 09:32pm PT
The science might eventually describe the electrochemical phenomena, but that in no way would diminish my feelings and recollections.


Yes!

Scientific understanding and living life raw is not an either/or choice.

I would add, though, that physics finding out that we can't travel faster than light diminishes my enthusiasm for interstellar travel.
WBraun

climber
Apr 15, 2013 - 09:42pm PT
And I suspect the soul vanishes as does the personality upon death


The soul is eternal and part parcel of God.

It never loses it's individuality.

It has all qualities but not the quantity of God.

Although the mayavadi impersonalist school of Sankaracarya will say the soul merges back into impersonal brahmajyoti and loses it's individuality and personality.

But we see even here in gross materialism complete individuality is maintained.

But even Sankaracarya in the end proclaimed this as false and he was forced to mislead the impersonalists because they so desired such nonsense.

Whatever one desires must ultimately be awarded even if if it causes pain.

For without pain one will never come to truth ......
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 15, 2013 - 10:17pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 15, 2013 - 10:23pm PT
Jogill, Nice post.

The science might eventually describe the electrochemical phenomena, but that in no way would diminish my feelings and recollections. Why argue?

I thought that was the arguement of this thread? I for one am a poor excuse for a arguementor. But I have tried to express with my logical mind. What I believe to be my
ONLY true "TRUTHS" are in fact my recolected emotions from prior experience.
My memory of climbing The Nose is True. But having to use aid techniques makes it
contrived and wishy-washy to the touron bystander. But the plethora of arising emotions
constituted from my physical prowess were epitomized by reaching the summit.
(I'm stretch'in it using all those big words). Truth? I could say Stoveleggs is a good handcrack! But its my greedy smile that makes it MY truth <(underlined).
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Apr 15, 2013 - 11:01pm PT
Credit: TomCochrane
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Apr 15, 2013 - 11:04pm PT
My experiential, mystical, or supernatural adventures did not conflict with any sort of scientific approach I might have made. The science might eventually describe the electrochemical phenomena, but that in no way would diminish my feelings and recollections.


This is where I have arrived also.

Beyond that, I think it is the beginning of a new paradigm.

Ironic isn't it, that the physics and chemistry oriented industrial age finished up with a greater sense of naturalism and man's place in the biosphere, including his mystical experiences?
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Apr 16, 2013 - 12:17am PT
Credit: TomCochrane
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Apr 16, 2013 - 11:42am PT
The sound of the tree falling is independent of everything except for a medium for sound to travel through.

Sound is just pressure waves passing through a medium. It travels through rock, it travels through water, and it travels through air.

Solid, liquid, gas.

Sound does not propagate through a vacuum. It pisses me off to no end when watching a science fiction movie where the space ships make noise.

This is independent of any observer. If the tree falls, it still makes a sound. Having an observer around is not necessary.

I have never heard of any exception to this.

With Earthquakes or sound waves in any solid, you can have not only pressure waves, but also shear waves. We study this with seismic data and we study this in seismology. In an earthquake, the shear waves near the epicenter are the most damaging. There are a number of different waves which travel at differing velocities, and by measuring the distance between these wave arrivals, you can determine the epicenter, including depth, with a high degree of precision.

Shear waves will not propagate through a fluid or gas because those mediums have no shear strength.

So how do we know that the earth has a liquid outer core?

There are seismographs all over the world. They travel through the entire planet. You can derive a lot about deep structure from the behavior of those waves, but on the opposite side of the earth, there is a sudden circular area where there are no shear waves, only pressure waves. For that to happen, you need a fluid that lacks shear strength. We can tell how big it is from studying seismographs around the world. The shear waves go away, but the pressure waves continue.

This happens all over the universe and is very simple.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Apr 16, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
Tom: I like the cartoon.



At a recent meeting with my teacher and some other folks, we got to talking about how none of the great spiritualists left any of their own writings behind them. They wrote nothing down at least that has survived to this day. What we learn of them we've learned through their disciples, most of who made records many years after the demise of their the teachers. Almost all of these disciples were not fully awakened or realized.

Most all of what we have today in scriptures is somber and parental. My teacher said that surely people of those times took various drugs just like we do today--and had a good time with themselves. Humor, joking, and merriment were surely common among spiritually enlightened masters as much as they are today. He said there must have been times when Buddha or Christ caroused with disciples with wine or other substances. "Dude, you were so wasted last night, heh heh." And if you know anything at all about what is to be realized spiritually, Why Not? "So, try not to be so serious about any of this stuff," said my teacher. "Relax. Enjoy your life. It's no big deal."

He must be right. Now that I think about it, almost all scriptures (and philosophy, science, and other "rigorous disciplines") present us with views of being and doing that are dull, dull, dull. Even in a state of samadhi, where bliss shows up, people come out with a deep sense of awe and solemnity.

Where are the scriptures that crack us up? Where is the joy? When or where do we see religions, philosophy, or science dancing? Humor and joy are found in regular doses of skepticism and irreverance.


There is an old story of two enlightened Chinese masters who ran into each other for a few hours at the same monastery in their travels. The monks at the monastery emptied the courtyard for them and watched from afar wondering just what two fully realized beings would talk about or do with each other. The two masters sat on a bench under a large tree and said nothing for an hour or more. Finally, one looked up at the tree the two were sitting under and said: "And they call this a tree!" Both broke into great laughter with each other. They then stood up and went on their way.
WBraun

climber
Apr 16, 2013 - 12:09pm PT
we got to talking about how none of the great spiritualists left any of their own writings behind them.

They wrote nothing down at least that has survived to this day.

Completely untrue and completely defective ......
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Apr 16, 2013 - 12:17pm PT
Base:

Sound, tree, pressure, rock, water, air, earthquakes, waves, data, velocities, epicenter, fluids, gas, core, area, world, universe . . . these are labels that you've applied to experience. . . when you have direct experience. But in fact, you have experiences of none of those things directly. What you have are perceptions, and you have assumed that your perceptions indicate those things which you have defined into existence. Sure, labeling is useful and can even help you make predictions, but all those things are concepts, theories, frameworks. Like Ed says: "provisional."

Proof? Well, there is no proof for just about anything, but what I suggest is that anytime science changes its collective mind (via consensus) about the universe, the definitions of those "things" that you refer to, shift.

Now, be honest, if any of those things truly existed as you believe, how is it possible that they could change? Reality doesn't change. How could it?

What changes are your beliefs about it.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Apr 16, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
I felt two small earthquakes last night. We do get a fair amount of mag 4+ earthquakes in Oklahoma.

I felt much larger ones when living in Bishop.

Look. These things are real, and of so simple description that denying their physical existence is just whacky.

If you are religious, don't get mad. Just admit that God made it that way.

I agree that experiencing is much cooler, but I have no doubt that earthquakes are recorded by sensitive instruments around the world. The instruments are simple. They are just anchored in bedrock, hopefully away from a lot of surface noise, and earthquake waves hit the block which moves a pen on a scrolling sheet of paper. Many of them have no computers at all. They just squiggle when earthquake motion hits them.

We use this all of the time in oil and gas exploration. We send down sound and shear waves, listen with a massive array of little microphones called geophones, and when you work the data you will see buried rivers, deltas, buried faults and folds, you name it. There are even a few that directly indicate hydrocarbons.

So if you tell me that sound doesn't exist without an observer, I say you are full of it. In 3D seismic in the oil and gas industry, you can't feel the sound source a mile away, but the geophones can. The frequencies and signal to noise strength has to be filtered. You can't feel them, but they exist.

Take lightning. You see a lightning bolt in the distance, but it might take 7 seconds for the thunder to reach you. If you know the speed of sound at that altitude, you can tell how far the lightning is in your head with simple multiplication.

So what are you saying? That sound waves don't occur without an ear to hear?

Man, you hear everything around the world if it is strong enough. You feel close earthquakes even if weak.

This is like saying that there is no air unless there are a pair of lungs around to breathe it.

Any sane person would draw the line at that one. It is just nature, and we are a part of nature.

Now, be honest, if any of those things truly existed as you believe, how is it possible that they could change? Reality doesn't change. How could it?

It doesn't. This is a simple matter of natural events, and even the Dalai Lama himself wouldn't argue that.

Now HOW you experience them depends on the observer. A dog can hear different frequencies than humans, for instance.

An instrument can measure the entire spectrum. It isn't any big deal and it isn't anything new. Nature ticked along quite well before humans, and it will tick along just fine after we are gone.

You are really freaking me out here with your statements.

What I think you are getting at, is that with careful meditation, these things either go away or they are felt as raw awareness. The observer can be quite wrong in his interpretation. We already have conspiracy theories going on with the bombings yesterday. They eye witness testimony was all over the place.

So an observer can be incorrect. Certainly different observers have differing experiences over the same thing. That is why our brains are not like computers. We are analogue, and a strange analogue at that.

As for beliefs changing, that doesn't change the actual event. It is because the brain is lousy at quantitative work. We design and use instruments as proxies for our senses. They are quite accurate and real. Even the creationists don't argue with things as simple as this.

Do you meditate while in a seat at a Metallica concert or do you meditate in a quiet location? Your own perspective can easily be wrong despite your absolute conviction. You have to interpret experiences in order to understand them. We can get into a real ass biting session over this.

All it is is nature. We are as much a part of nature as a banana slug.
Messages 13401 - 13420 of total 23214 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