Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13821 - 13840 of total 22823 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
May 7, 2013 - 10:08am PT
LOL ,,, good one Ed ....

:-)
new world order2

climber
May 7, 2013 - 12:36pm PT
Deleted. Moved to Climate Change.
WBraun

climber
May 7, 2013 - 12:50pm PT
Apparently the squirrels even avoided eating the GMO corn.

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
May 7, 2013 - 02:12pm PT
If I had the choice I would pick organic.

That said, me thinks the corn cob/ squirrel experiment profiled above was rigged.
R-i-g-g-e-d.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
May 7, 2013 - 02:42pm PT
what is the difference?

Organic has better cachet.

It is hip, now , today and happening.

Seriously , I would pick organic because of a few results like this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130326121732.htm

Remember the USDA designation "organic" (OFPA) means more than just genetic origin.
If a plant is GMO then it has been deemed "processed" and consequently falls outside of the
"Organic" designation.
WBraun

climber
May 7, 2013 - 03:00pm PT
what is the difference?

God made it real

and rascals made it GMO

:-)
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 7, 2013 - 09:52pm PT
I agree, the experiment was rigged
Now, unfortunately, we can't believe anything we hear from the media, it all has to be confirmed as true or not before it can be assimilated as fact

Squirrels would not care about if it was GMO or not, unless something was amiss
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 8, 2013 - 08:10pm PT
Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.

Immanuel Kant

Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
May 8, 2013 - 10:38pm PT
philhellness says it well…

Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
May 9, 2013 - 12:36pm PT
This just popped up in my email, an itunes neuroscience course. I have not listened to it yet, but will give me something new to think about at work:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/mapping-manipulating-brain/id529127330
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 9, 2013 - 12:52pm PT
God. Largo is now quoting Kant. What's next? Heidegger?

Look around you and you will see the profits from a lot of hard work using the scientific, or critical, method. Hey, it works. It works so well that it is unsafe to assume that there are things that will never be understood.

There. I said it.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 9, 2013 - 03:45pm PT
God. Largo is now quoting Kant. What's next? Heidegger?
-

That's right, BASE, I'm just some yokel robbing sources that I don't understand. I can't help but notice you cling to that with all your might. And let us know about your Heidegger. This should be rare . . . LOL.

And Ed, you talk as though the empirical method is carried out by us humans in some shape or form that is NOT an experience, that does not transpire inside of our subjective bubble. Where or where, Ed, does it transpire?

This is known as the "myth of pure objectivity," where a data stream can be sourced by and be input by an object and made known through some other avenue beyond subjective experience.

the tougher question is: What we call empiricism is beholden to our human sense organs in what way? If you say "in no way' you don't understand the question.

JL

MH2

climber
May 9, 2013 - 05:15pm PT
Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.

Immanuel Kant




If you say "in no way' you don't understand the question.

Immanuel Koan
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 9, 2013 - 06:30pm PT
people develop a "theory of mind" without any formal training, how do they acquire it? that "theory" is tested against experience... sounds like an empirical process to me...

in the end, we all have workable "theories of mind" each based on our individual experiences...
...for the most part, these make a distinction that the minds are "separate" though these are shaded, the theory of mind helps us populate the other minds as a separate from our minds.

that's based on experience
-

My contention with any form or "pure empiricism" is that some people believe this can somehow exist without us attached, that an "empirical' method has entirely sidesteped the messy and unquantifable subjective quagmire. Fact is, whenever we are attached, we always operate from an experiential POV. There is no other way. Removing the subject from the equation and we are no longer there, and neither is any of our empiricism.

The problem with developing a theory of mind with no formal training is that you have to start from zero, discovering everything for yourself, as opposed to learning what you can from those who came before you and studied the subject ardently. This is how most all knowledge is accrued, in any field, and it is a very empirical process in my experience. With a traditional approach you have standardized protocols that have been time tested and tweaked over a series of centuries and wrangling with these begets the solid stuff of knowledge and not beliefs. Without the formal training people would have every reason to believe otherwise. If you're only drawing on your own experience, then everyone's theory of mind would essentially be no more viable than the next guys, and that is not remotely the case in my experience.

The point is we have at our disposal a vast trove of knowledge based on other people's experiences, so we're not just drawing on our own. Other people's insights must be made our own lest they remain as mere theories, or mental artifacts rather than direct and knowable experiences.

JL
MH2

climber
May 9, 2013 - 10:46pm PT
JL says

Removing the subject from the equation and we are no longer there, and neither is any of our empiricism.


The point is we have at our disposal a vast trove of knowledge based on other people's experiences, so we're not just drawing on our own.




Okay. Statement 2 suggests we can remove one subject and empiricism would remain.

Take one more step, JL. If we remove all subjects, what remains?

Put differently, if we turn back the clock on Earth to when no people were on it, can our empiricism tell us anything about what it was like, then?


If I can summarize the way your point appears to me; you are saying that in order to know something you need a thing which can know. Maybe a few of us don't get your point because it is self-evident and we can't fathom what all the words are trying to tell us.

jogill

climber
Colorado
May 9, 2013 - 11:27pm PT
Maybe a few of us don't get your point because it is self-evident and we can't fathom what all the words are trying to tell us

Nicely put.


JL is going to be featured in Man of the World magazine shortly.

Congratulations, John.


;>)
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 10, 2013 - 12:28am PT
Ed, I take as a starting point what you said, except most people would not consider their unconscious patters as "theories," though it could be considered a working theory. So yes, of course we have ideas and beliefs that operate on a pre-verbal level. The British School of psychology, mostly based on child development models, is huge on this, especially so called "basic trust."

However, once you reach a certain stage of development, some of us start to wonder if our basic suppositions about what's going on are perhaps not as accurate as we'd like to believe. That's when you start looking into the aperatai of mind, from the inside.



MH2, You CAN'T remove all the subjects. Or any of the subjects. That's the whole point of "all those words." I have to throw it at you a hundred different ways hoping one will find traction.

The observation, Sure I can. I can easily imagine a time where there were no people here on earth. What is at play in this mental game? It answers itself.

This harks back to something I have a feeling no one is quite getting hold of - and that is how our own imaginings of prehistoric times - before man as biped - are viable only if there was someone on hand with our brains and sense data to observe the world we imagine or measure in the present. The idea of a self-same world existing out there and we just come along and observe it, and it corresponds exactly to what our sense data is telling us it is, is a total illusion. The only thing that exists "out there" in objective form is the quantum flux. Consciousness does all the rest of what we take for "objective reality."

JL
jstan

climber
May 10, 2013 - 12:48am PT
I put this up as an edit to an old post but it belongs here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8sHMcCk0lU

In the early stages of evolution, brains like our old computers, lacked processing power. So their Hierarchical Temporal memories needed to compare sensory inputs from hundreds of channels on ten millisecond centers. It gains computing power by reaching decisions based on just a few of the channels. If ten out of forty are congruent the events being detected are very similar if not the same. We do only ten compares instead of hundreds.

A "sparse representation" is enough.


Today we are using our brains to figure out how that brain actually works.

I know that sounds a little incestuous but that's the way it is.




Rather than taking presidential polls we could use sparse representations from internet traffic to predict election results or the probability of our getting into a war.

In a sense individuals now assume the role of a neuron.


Ward Trotter

Trad climber
May 10, 2013 - 02:32am PT
Rather than taking presidential polls we could use sparse representations from internet traffic to predict election results or the probability of our getting into a war.

That has been done with mixed results, often absurd and sensational. The ""Web Bot" program is the one example that comes to mind at this moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Bot
slayton

Trad climber
Here and There
May 10, 2013 - 05:40am PT
Again, and still, apples and oranges. Nothing has changed. Science tries to explain how the world works through experience, through observation, through theories, models and tests in their turn, all relegated through the prism of the senses.

Largo and those of his mind state that what is and what is experienced are two different things entirely. The very act of experience with our constraints of senses acts as a wall between what is and and what is experienced.

Where is or can there be common ground here?

Messages 13821 - 13840 of total 22823 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