Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14201 - 14220 of total 23253 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 29, 2013 - 05:33pm PT

But also notice that NOT once has ANYONE offered any comment about any fundamental limitation to quantifying.

As opposed to the fundamental limitation to 'statelessness'? And isn't this just another rephrasing of your commentary on the limitations of causality chains?


Look at what you have done here, Fruity. You guys are simply incapable of looking at the question that I am asking without trying to toss it back to me while guessing where I am coming from, and pointing out the imagined limitation of "stetelessness." Fine. The fundamental limitation of statelessness is in quantifying or qaualifying and contrasting discrete bits or qualities, because the game here is The Whole.

That much said: Answer the question - what do YOU see as the fundamental limitation of quantifying? Where does it fall short?

Glib defaults such as, "At the juncture of real science and ju ju" will be written off as scientism. We already know all about that. What's left?

JL
splitter

Trad climber
SoCal Hodad, surfing the galactic plane
May 29, 2013 - 06:00pm PT


How far is heaven? Only a breath away!
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
May 29, 2013 - 06:08pm PT
Actually, I'd much rather talk about the limitations of 'statelessness'. I mean, other than simply 'experiencing' 'statelessness' - which has no attributes beyond a perspective not rooted the discursive mind - to 'be' it and practice in order to 'arrive' faster and linger longer, what's your point? It's not like there are any 'answers' there by which one might contrast it with the conclusions of the discursive mind. I suppose we all extrapolate our own conclusions about the experience and our reactions on returning again and again to our discursive minds, but that's simply conjecture.

You seem fixated on pointing out what we don't currently know, what we likely will never know, yet all the while (if not eternally) beating around the bush without ever simply coming out and saying / claiming there are other ways to 'know'. I would very much dispute that there is any unique or universal 'knowing' of any kind to be had from experiencing 'statelessness' or no-thingness - it's just a mirror, not a portal.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
May 29, 2013 - 07:21pm PT
For the record, many of the statements above about the timing of human intelligence are incorrect. Agriculture and denser human habitats did not happen until 8-10,000 years ago and the first urbanized society (more people living in cities than not) wasn't until around 1850 A.D. The human brain size has remained the same for the 190,000 years of Homo sapiens while the brain size of the preceding Neanderthasl was larger than ours. Tooth size has been reduced in the past 10,000 years since the introduction of cooking and agriculture, but it's impossible to measure the actual size of intestines in a fossil. When we lost our hair, is also impossible to say from skeletal remains, but most people think it happened because of the need for cooling on long journeys enabled by upright walking which is at least 4 million years old. That upright walking may have been a response also, to a warm period on earth and drought which made both food gathering and hunting more demanding as the forests became scrub land and then deserts.

The major breakthrough in human behavior happened around 50-60,000 years ago and was probably brought about by the invention of language. Suddenly within a short span of time we see evidence of sophisticated tools, art, religion and so on. Since humans left Africa shortly after, those innovations were then spread around the world. Agriculture enabled a leisure class only 8,000 years ago which then was able to devote more time to the advancement of technology. Humans also invented widespread warfare, prostitution and slavery at that time as land and people became commodities thanks to the new technology. That process has never stopped.
jogill

climber
Colorado
May 29, 2013 - 07:43pm PT
But also notice that NOT once has ANYONE offered any comment about any fundamental limitation to quantifying. Not once. That IS scientism.

How could anyone know if there is a fundamental limitation to quantifying? The process of applying mathematics to nature continues. So this is scientism? Seeing how far the process can go? You've said you are not certain of anything - are you certain quantifying has a "fundamental" limit? Do you choose not to keep an open mind on the subject?
MH2

climber
May 29, 2013 - 08:00pm PT
Agriculture's sudden rise, however, came with a price. It introduced infectious-disease epidemics, social stratification, intermittent famines, and large-scale war. Jared Diamond, the UCLA professor and writer, has called the adoption of agriculture nothing less than "the worst mistake in human history"—a mistake, he suggests, from which we have never recovered.


from

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text/1
skcreidc

Social climber
SD, CA
May 29, 2013 - 08:30pm PT
But also notice that NOT once has ANYONE offered any comment about any fundamental limitation to quantifying.

Yea, yea, you all don't know me from...

This whole discussion is a bit unfair and seems purposefully vague, as well as the fact that this is not an easy question to answer anyway. No doubt this is NOT the answer you are looking for.

There are always assumptions associated with any measurement taken. While there are certain basic assumptions made when measuring things such as length, force, and acceleration, quantifying things like a health care experience layers on even more complications (that all human experience can be translated into a basic set of cognitive and linguistic constructs). These quantifications are always interpreted as well. You measure something and it is 12 inches long. It seems obvious; the something, say a stick, is 12 in. The assumptions are in the obviousness of it all. Yet, if you were able to measure that stick while it was moving close to the speed of light while you were not, that 12 inches is only correct in your frame of reference. THIS is an understanding we have now, and hence we could comprehend it if we could manage the measurement. It is the assumptions out of our depth that throw us, because inherently we do not understand them.

I'm going to go back to lurking. But perhaps, Largo might discuss some of his spiritual dealings on New Guinea. Surly these people had at the time some of the least amount of contact with Westerners of nearly anybody. How did you feel about our western ethics and values after dancing their tribal dances? Reconciling western and the range of cultures found on that island has to have been a herculean task....perhaps impossible
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 29, 2013 - 08:47pm PT
I would very much dispute that there is any unique or universal 'knowing' of any kind to be had from experiencing 'statelessness' or no-thingness - it's just a mirror, not a portal.



I would be interested to have you explain your direct experiences with statelessness that led you to believe it is a mirror, not a portal.



And John, I agree that measuring Nature continues, but by Nature I highly suspect that you mean physical or material things. If your experience suggests to you that there is nothing more than physical tings, then quite naturally you will scratch your head at the idea that quantifying should have any limits. But I do think you know that challenging physicalism as an absolute fact, and the suggesting that quantifying might be limited, is enough to be called a heretic amongst most of this crowd.

It's really a mater of perspective. For instance, MH2 challenged me on the idea that there were degrees of presence. Only later did I remember he was a staunch physicalist and so quite natural to that perspective, presence would not be considered in the internal, experiential way, but in terms of brute physicality. And to a physicalist, a thing is either there (present) or not there. Of course I was talking about the degress to which our awareness is unfettered by the intrusions of thoughts, feelings, senstions, and so on, which is MY perspective, no his.

So if you believe that all reality is either physical or can be traced back to physical antecedents, then of course quantifying will be considered to be a boundless tool.

JL
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
May 29, 2013 - 10:25pm PT
Here's some interesting quantifying:

http://www.dirjournal.com/info/dunbar-number-human-relationships/

And that's just one example. Whether or not quantifying has limits, well, I dunno how it could, except in the cases of null and infinite sets. I do know that I personally turn off my discursive mind every night for six or seven hours, interrupted by a few bouts of discursive fantasizing that I hardly remember. So maybe we're already hardwired to shut it all down for reasons that, as they say, are still not understood. As for Largo's persecution complex, as I've said already: maybe there's a good reason why Zen is considered a non-proselytizing belief system?
jogill

climber
Colorado
May 29, 2013 - 11:36pm PT
I agree that measuring Nature continues, but by Nature I highly suspect that you mean physical or material things

Actually, I meant anything we are capable of perceiving or conceiving. Including those areas you consider completely outside science. You may very well be correct, but the notions of "unborn" fields, etc. may one day be analytically describable (if they exist) even though that seems like a hopeless flight of fantasy at present. I am not willing to place speculative boundaries on the quantifiable or analytical.

Neither am I a slave to the discursive.

I bet MikeL might have a few thoughts about these things.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
May 30, 2013 - 09:22am PT
Hebrews 9:24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

...when I go before God at the judgment (gulp) and I am asked why I should be let into Heaven?
I'm going to look over to Jesus and say to God, "I'm with Him"!

I hope YOU are counted with the many!

(jogill I like your dog!)
glanton

Social climber
utopia
May 30, 2013 - 09:34am PT
BRAINS!!!!!!!!

Credit: glanton


NEED FRESH BRAINS!!!!!
splitter

Trad climber
SoCal Hodad, surfing the galactic plane
May 30, 2013 - 09:37am PT
who's that ^ glanton? yer ex boyfriend, or current lover, significant other (or maybe ya live in one of 13 or so states and ya got married, eh)? yer, daddy? yer, brother? ya seem to fond of him, or at least post his (i think it's a dude, maybe not) pic every so often. don't recognize the dude, and i was just wondering...
glanton

Social climber
utopia
May 30, 2013 - 09:48am PT
He's the guy in the middle of this dining scene.

Credit: glanton

FRESH BRAINS!!!!!!!
dirtbag

climber
May 30, 2013 - 10:21am PT
Jesus rose from the dead. He must've been a zombie.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 30, 2013 - 11:37am PT
Cintuine wrote: . . . except in the cases of null and infinite sets.

Math is not my strong suite - I know enough to be dangerous and wrong, but my sense of it is that you're using it in the sense of axiomatic set theory,
i.e. the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, with the focus on content (real numbers, etc.) Also, yo don't "turn off " your discursive mind at night. Your brain stem shuts you down for some sleep. Try doing so without going to sleep and report back here. Note that not a single person on this list has ever done anything but argue and supply reasons to avoid stepping out of the discursive mind, even for a moment. Does that not strike you as strange.

And persecution complex? Smoke another bowl, dood. You be on the wrong planet lol.

If you want to get a feel for the terrain, listen to this and sense into it. From 007, Skyfall. Thomans Newman is a genius IMO.

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

JL
MH2

climber
May 30, 2013 - 11:56am PT

Of course I was talking about the degress to which our awareness is unfettered by the intrusions of thoughts, feelings, senstions, and so on, which is MY perspective, no his.


My concern is that you talk about awareness in a way that makes it sound like a measurable quantity. Same goes for consciousness, presence, and mindfulness. It looks like the fetters of scientism.




So I was trying to find out if the Pacific Northwest Native Americans swam. There are a lot of islands in these parts and modern swimmers go from island to island. The Coast Salish went places by canoe, but did they swim? I don't know, yet, but I found that South American natives did and that they showed Europeans the front crawl.

I also found that Brazil has passed New Guinea in having the most uncontacted tribes.

cliffhanger

Trad climber
California
May 30, 2013 - 12:54pm PT


http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130529.html
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 30, 2013 - 08:16pm PT
My concern is that you talk about awareness in a way that makes it sound like a measurable quantity. Same goes for consciousness, presence, and mindfulness. It looks like the fetters of scientism.


I feel a little guilty about just lobbing thoughts out there about this stuff but I just don't have the time now to do anything but hit and miss.

Talking about consciousness in the round is tricky. It is basically a boundless field that is nothing at all, meaning it is "empty," devoid of content. (http://www.thelawofphysics.com/table-of-contents/infinity);

The moment our consciousness, or more accurately, our awareness, narrow focuses on ANYTHING, meaning when our minds get hold of some thing, big or small, our mental field tends to take the shape and dimensions of that "person, place or thing." Our awareness is the most powerful aspect of consciousness and some would say source all forms, since the emptiness of mind is the emptiness of infinity itself.

What that means - and no one is saying these are easy concepts for the rational mind to wrangle - is that consciousness, presence, and mindfulness are measurable or have somewhat appreciable contours and limits according to what's on our minds. Meaning our awareness somewhat collapses to the relative size of the content. Relative meaning we still see and hear and smell things beyond our immediate focus, but they are background or "field," not figure.

When we start quieting down and detaching from the people, places and things in our mind, and are consciously present with that experience, consciousness starts to stretch out toward the infinite or toward its true nature of being infinite/no thing/empty, even of mirrors.

So you see, the consciousness process is not a matter of gaining some huge cognitive piece of enlightenment, some last great nugget of God energy, rather it is cutting our ties to the content of consciousness, and returning to our native state of illumination, which is not achieved, but is there all along, but tends to be buried under the white noise of 10,000 things, especially the discursive mind.

JL
WBraun

climber
May 30, 2013 - 08:30pm PT
MH2

These are the real deal in Brazil.

No white man is allowed there.

We paid the Brazilian govt. $25,000 to go there when I worked on IMAX "AMAZON"


Messages 14201 - 14220 of total 23253 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