Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14361 - 14380 of total 22369 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 6, 2013 - 02:25pm PT
MikeL and Largo have, that science is not an appropriate way of discussing them, yet they cannot provide any means, other than direct experience whose interpretation is "guided" by a master... which is another way of saying "revealed truth" another ancient technique.
-


Ed, you know perfectly well that the above is a silly charicature of poor saps Mike and I being "guided by a master," as we lack the empirical wherewithal and required slide rules to make our own mind up and to do the real and true heavy lifting of the modern man amongst men(scientist). And try and imagine what shape this "master" might take as projected from Ed's silly description. He'd be an old fart, possibly an Asian or Indian, with pockets full of wampum and crystals, or maybe a hipflask, is given to runes and incantations, howls at the moon, was abducted by aliens early on, and "knows" things lost of science.

What Ed is really doing here is trying to lump us into some camp with dusty old deluded rubes from the middle ages, meanning what we are really talking about is a kind of witchcraft or white magic, suitable to the Game of Thrones but not viable in these modern times.

Here is where Ed is toally in the dark. What he believes is that what we and our "masters" are really trying to do is the work of science, but we are using outmoded "revealed truth" and "fuzzy feelings" as our guide. Along with some old Japanese dude we run our ideas past. But we are not trying to do science and are not even focused on the objectifying physical reality in that sense. What Ed is "not getting" is the there is another game in town other than objectifying physical reality, or what he considers to be the blowback of emergent functions of physicality. Of course this is not taken seriously because Ed and others have made no effort whatsoever to probe anything beyond their own thoughts and methods, so how woudl they know otherwise. The "dishonest" part that someone mentioned earlier is to make these kinds of sweeping statements and insist they are true, when in fact what is going on is someone is just serving up evaluations based on no first hand experience at all, and they are simply speculating. That's not only dishonest and misleading, it's strictly bullshit by any definition.

Charicterizing all subjecive adventurs as a bunch Burning Man freaks practicing shamanism or "ancient techniques" is like saying all scientists are geeks with ten pens in their pockets, who never got picked for games in school and who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a 1,000 dollar bill.

JL
Da_Dweeb

climber
Jun 6, 2013 - 02:26pm PT
Credit: Da_Dweeb

Bump for a better Supert... oh wait.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Jun 6, 2013 - 02:37pm PT
The "dishonest" part that someone mentioned earlier is to make these kinds of sweeping statements ....

You can't even keep track of all the people you call dishonest.
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Jun 6, 2013 - 02:46pm PT
I avoided it for a while now but this thread has driven me to reading Dawkins book; the God Delusion.

I assumed that he would be preaching to the choir, so to speak, but he includes quite a lot of information about logical arguments. Not just for or against God but in general. I had no idea that some religious philosophers had used Bayesian methodology in this area.

What I am finding is that every argument that I see made here for the supernatural is just a way of saying that "I don't know why therefore it must be magic." In the end, that is the argument that religion and spirituality always make.

I might force myself to read a book by a theologian that tries to convince me of a God. I'm not sure that it is necessary since Dawkins is kind enough to quote most of them in great detail while trying not to quote anything out of context. Checking his references might be a good idea just in case he is fudging things a bit. I somehow doubt it since his goal is comparison, not conversion.

Dave

P.S. The bible is not a book that argues for or against God so it doesn't count. It starts out assuming that the reading believes already. The same is true for the Koran, etc...





High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Jun 6, 2013 - 02:53pm PT
Climbers ought to know this better than most: It pays to have an accurate map or model in your head for how the world works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVZiF0eDSf8

That's why we have an instinct or urge to get it right, to improve upon it where we can, to correct the errors - at the individual, group and species levels.

First pool jumper's performance: Suggests accurate model, also accurate model-muscle action followthrough.

Second pool jumper: Not so much.

From the video, it's easy to imagine the excitation of the slow C fibers (those that tell the brain to perceive pain) traveling the body length to the brain.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 6, 2013 - 03:10pm PT
The "dishonest" part that someone mentioned earlier is to make these kinds of sweeping statements ....

You can't even keep track of all the people you call dishonest.


That's not true, Paul. What I call a bullshit artist is someone who makes sweping statements about something they have no experience with or knowledge about. We have all seen these kinds of people in the climbking world, who talk a big game and diss wall climbing, say, having never actually been on a wall.

What makes this tricky here is that human reality cleraly involves both objective and subjective facets, which are qualitatively quite different. And if you want to know either at depth, you need to deal with each on their own terms. One of the delusions many people have is that the only way to deal with the subjective is to try and objectify it from the outside. Only a bullshit artist would say this because only someone who has never done the inside work would be so deluded.

If yu have the sac to jump into your own process (the deep end) and swim with the sharks, have at it and tell us what you find. But if you never leave the deck, and insist you know about the deep end having never gone swimming, I reserve the right to call bullsh#t.

JL
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 6, 2013 - 05:27pm PT
Fine. My "new" paradigm is just this:

To "know" your own subjective world, which is the world you actually live in, you have to first develop the capacity to separate and detach from your evaluating mind and to spend a good long time simply observing your own process, until you can get below your individual content (thoughts, feelings, etc.) and into universal terrain, which is not different person-to-person because it is not that which shifts (content).

If you never do the hard work of detaching from your discursive mind, what you will know will be your evaluations, NOT your own process. These are fundamentally differnt, different, say, from what you might think and believe about Paris from being chained in a Parisian dungeon, as opposed to going out and living in the city for a number of years.

The evaluating or discursive part comes AFTER you do the detaching and settling and have spent all those years listening, which is the subjctive version of gathering your basic data.

What Ed is saying is that subjective experience is radically different person to person, and in the sense he is saying so he is correct. But he is basing "subjective experience" on content, qualia, the stuff and things of experience, the geyser that never stops blowing. But this is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the unborn, the unchanging, the "face you had before you were ever born." NOT the so-called 10,000 things (content). Quite naturally this sounds like jibberish to the evaluating mind that hasn't done the subjective work.

So the paradigm is: Develop some steady awareness that can observe your discursive mind. See what happens. Then over the long term, relate your thoughts associated with no-mind. Objectify all you want. But make these evaluations and comments grpounded in direct experience, and NEVER try and guess what that is till you go there and really settle for a good long time.

Quantifying pyhsicality from the outside is NOT what we are doing. This is not at all playing the same game, no matter how much you insist that it is. When you insist that it is, that is when I call bullsh#t, just as you would call bullshit on me if I said I was doing science when meditating.

JL
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 6, 2013 - 08:11pm PT
Ed, you know perfectly well that the above is a silly charicature of poor saps Mike and I being "guided by a master," as we lack the empirical wherewithal and required slide rules to make our own mind up and to do the real and true heavy lifting of the modern man amongst men(scientist). And try and imagine what shape this "master" might take as projected from Ed's silly description. He'd be an old fart, possibly an Asian or Indian, with pockets full of wampum and crystals, or maybe a hipflask, is given to runes and incantations, howls at the moon, was abducted by aliens early on, and "knows" things lost of science.

This is very entertaining, John. Part of the reason I still come back to ths thread.


;>)
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Jun 6, 2013 - 08:48pm PT
Easy there, Werner.

.....

This might be too specialized otherwise "elitist" for a climbing site, but... hope springs eternal:

http://www.edge.org/conversation/napoleon-chagnon-blood-is-their-argument
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2013 - 08:56pm PT
I hope someone is saving some of this thread.
I will never delete it, but you never know what the admin may forget to back up
Credit: Dr. F.
So Much Great Stuff!
goatboy smellz

climber
Nederland-GulfBreeze
Jun 6, 2013 - 09:04pm PT
Nobody is saving any of this.
You are a blowhard and the kids are not interested in what you have to say,
because they make the new rules and you come across as another just another old fart obnoxious as#@&%e.
okay thanks bye.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2013 - 09:16pm PT
Ok then
I guess goatboy has some problems
There were rules???
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 6, 2013 - 09:38pm PT
until you can get below your individual content (thoughts, feelings, etc.) and into universal terrain

and what is the basis of this "universal terrain"?
what is it that is "universal" among many different individuals?
-


It is interesting to consier how Ed is asking this question because it shoes, I believe, how he expects the subjective to conform to the same rules and criteria of the objective.

For instance, the word "basis" usually means, the bottom of something, considered as its foundation; the principal component of something; some thing on which something else is established or based.

So if I said that consciousness was the "basis," he could then insist as any good physicalist would that the true basis of what I was saying all along is that physical stuff is the basis, since that is what (they believe) "causes," give rise to, underscores or otherwise creates consciousness.

So before I take a crack at this, can you tell me, Ed: Do you already have an idea in your head about this question, and the "right" answer, or the answer you believe to be correct with all your heart and soul. And would that answer be "physicality" is the universal basis for all subjective experience. Then the question becomes, what would it take to convince you otherwise, short of physical evidence?

JL

MH2

climber
Jun 6, 2013 - 09:54pm PT
Just take a crack at it, JL. Forget about Ed, and everyone else.


What do you have?
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2013 - 10:01pm PT
Well if everyone wants me to delete it
and no one will support me in not deleting it?

weird
another paradox in humans

I guess I will choose to never delete, just to piss them off.
WBraun

climber
Jun 6, 2013 - 10:09pm PT
Delete it.

Goatboy doesn't know that "Truth" can never ever be deleted, burned, destroyed, cut, etc etc etc.

You can't even make "New" rules.

Rules are set in stone forever.

They can only be adjusted according to time and circumstance by good intelligence.

If one artificially makes "New" rules they will in time crumble just as a bad foundation never holds up .......
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2013 - 10:17pm PT
No, there were no rules except to try and keep it civil
I think some of us learned to debate the issue, rather than attack the person presenting the issue better over the years
WBraun

climber
Jun 6, 2013 - 10:25pm PT
Empirical evidence is always imperfect ......
WBraun

climber
Jun 6, 2013 - 10:31pm PT
Dr F -- "No, there were no rules ..."

I wasn't talking about this thread.

Probably went over your head again ......
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2013 - 10:36pm PT
I wasn't talking to you werner

We can be assured that werner hasn't learned anything from this thread
He already knows everything he needs to know
Messages 14361 - 14380 of total 22369 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews